While prosecuting his philosophical researches, Baader had continued to apply himself diligently to his profession of engineer. He gained a prize of 12,000 gulden (about £1000) for his new method of employing Glauber’s salts instead of potash in the making of glass. From 1817 to 1820 he held the post of superintendent of mines, and was raised to the rank of nobility for his services. He retired from business in 1820, and soon after published one of the best of his works, Fermenta Cognitionis, 6 pts., 1822-25, in which he combats modern philosophy, and recommends the study of J. Böhme. In 1826, when the new university was opened at Munich, he was appointed professor of philosophy and speculative theology. Some of the lectures delivered there he published under the title, Spekulative Dogmatik, 4 pts., 1827-1836. In 1838 he opposed the interference in civil matters of the Roman Catholic Church, to which he belonged, and in consequence was, during the last three years of his life, interdicted from lecturing on the philosophy of religion. He died 23d May 1841.

It is extremely difficult to give in moderate compass an adequate view of Baader’s philosophy; for he himself generally either gave expression to his deepest thoughts in brief, obscure aphorisms, or veiled them under mystical symbols and analogies. In this respect his style of exposition is not undeserving of Zeller’s strictures (Ges. d. deut. Phil., 732, 736). Further, he has no systematic works; his doctrines were for the most part thrown out in short detached essays, in comments on the writings of Böhme and St Martin, or in his extensive correspondence and journals. For his own part, he was distinctly of opinion that philosophy is not as yet capable of reduction to scientific form, and it would consequently be an error to demand from him a rigidly coherent body of truth. At the same time, the general tendency of his thought is very apparent, and there are some salient points which stand out with a clearness sufficient to render possible an outline of his whole course of speculation. In the mode in which he approaches the problems of philosophy, Baader is entirely opposed to the modern speculative spirit, which, beginning with Descartes, has endeavoured to erect a rational or coherent system on the basis of self-consciousness alone, and has protested against the presupposition of anything which can fetter reason, and against the acceptation of any truth which cannot be rationally construed. He starts from the position that human reason is in a corrupt condition, and by itself can never reach the end it aims at, and maintains that we cannot throw aside the presuppositions of faith, church, and tradition. His point of view may, with some truth, be described as Scholasticism; for, like the great scholastic doctors, he believes that theology and philosophy are not opposed sciences, but that reason has to make clear the truths given by authority and revelation. But in his attempt to draw still closer the realms of nature and of grace, of faith and knowledge, of human thought and divine reason, he approaches more nearly to the mysticism of Eckhart, Paracelsus, and Böhme. All self-consciousness, he thinks, is at the same time God-consciousness; our knowledge is never mere sdentia, it is invariably con-sdentia— a knowing with, consciousness of, or participation in God. Of this knowledge, as of knowledge in general, there are three grades :—(1.) Where the thing known impresses itself upon us without or against the will, where the knowledge is necessary,—such, e.g., is the knowledge that God is; (2.) Where the thing known is cognised by an act on our part, where knowledge is free,—such, e.g., is the voluntary belief or trust in God; (3.) Where the thing known enters into, and forms part of, the very process of knowing,—such is the speculative knowledge of God, wherein we recognise that without God we are not, and that we know Him only in and through His knowledge of us. The notion of God is thus the fundamental thought of Baader; his philosophy is in all essentials a theosophy, and its first great problem is to determine accurately the nature of the divine Being. Now God, who is, according to Baader, the primary will which lies at the basis of all things, is not to be conceived as mere abstract Being, substantia, but as everlasting process, activity, actus. Of this everlasting process, this self-generation of God, we may distinguish two aspects—the immanent or esoteric, and the emanent or exoteric. God has reality only in so far as He is absolute spirit, and only in so far as the primitive will cognises or is conscious of itself can it become spirit at all. But, in this very cognition of self is involved the distinction of knower and known, producer and produced, from which proceeds the power to become spirit. This immanent process of self-consciousness, wherein indeed a trinity of persons is not given but only rendered possible, is mirrored in, and takes place through, the eternal and impersonal idea or wisdom of God, which exists beside, though not distinct from, the primitive will. Concrete reality or personality is given to this divine Temar, as Baader calls it, through nature, the principle of self-hood, of individual being, which is eternally and necessarily produced by God. Only in nature is the trinity of persons attained. These processes, it must be noticed, are not to be conceived as successive, or as taking place in time; they are to be looked at sub specie aeternitatis, as the necessary elements or moments in the self-evolution of the divine Being. Nor is nature to be confounded with created substance, or with matter as it exists in space and time; it is pure non-being, the mere otherness, alteritas, of God—his shadow, desire, want, or desiderium sui, as it is called by mystical writers. Creation is itself a free and non-temporal act of God’s love and will, and on this account its reality cannot be speculatively deduced, but must be accepted as an historic fact. Created beings were originally of three orders — the intelligent, or angels; the non-intelligent natural existences; and man, who mediated between these two orders. Intelligent beings are endowed with freedom; it is possible, but not necessary, that they should fall. Hence the fact of the fall is not a speculative, but an historic truth. The angels fell through pride—through desire to raise themselves to equality with God; man fell by lowering himself to the level of nature. Only after the fall of man begins the creation of space, time, and matter, or of the world as we now know it; and the motive of this creation was the desire to afford man an opportunity for taking advantage of the scheme of redemption, for bringing forth in purity the image of God according to which he has been fashioned. The physical philosophy and anthropology which Baader, in connection with this, unfolds in various works, is but little instructive, and coincides in the main with the semi-intelligible utterances of Böhme. In nature and in man he finds traces of the dire effects of sin, which has corrupted both, and has destroyed their natural harmony. As regards ethics, it has been already pointed out that Baader rejects the Kantian or any autonomic system of morals. Not obedience to a moral law, but realisation in ourselves of the divine life, through and in which we have our being, is the true ethical end. But man has lost the power to effect this by himself; he has alienated himself from God, and therefore no ethical theory which neglects the facts of sin and redemption is satisfactory or even possible. The history of man and of humanity is the history of the redeeming love of God. The means whereby we put ourselves so in relation with Christ as to receive from Him his healing virtue, are chiefly prayer and the sacraments of the church, though it must be noted that mere works are never sufficient. With regard to man in his social relations there are two great institutions or systems of rules under which, or in connection with which, he stands. One is temporal, natural, and limited—the state; the other is eternal, cosmopolitan, and universal— the church. In the state two things are requisite: first, common submission to the ruler, which can only be secured or given when the state is Christian, for God alone is the true ruler of men; and, secondly, inequality of rank, without which there can be no organisation. A despotism of mere power, and liberalism, which naturally produces socialism, are equally objectionable. The ideal state is a perfectly organised church society, a civil community ruled by a universal or Catholic church, and the principles of this church are equally distinct from mere passive pietism, or faith which will know nothing, and from the Protestant doctrine, which is the very radicalism of reason.

Baader is, without doubt, the greatest speculative theologian of modern Catholicism, and his influence has extended itself even beyond the precincts of his own church. The great work of Rothe, Theologische Ethik, is thoroughly impregnated with his spirit; and, not to mention others, J. Müller, Christ. Lehre v. der Sünde, and Martensen, Christ. Dogmatik, show evident marks of his influence.

His works have been collected and published by a number of his adherents—Hoffmann, Hamberger, E. v. Schaden, Lutterbeck, Von Osten-Sacken, and Schlüter— Baader's Sämmtliche Werke, 16 vols., 1851-60. Valuable introductions by the editors are prefixed to the several volumes. Vol. xv. contains a full biography; vol. xvi., an index, and an able sketch of the whole system by Lutterbeck. Among the most valuable works in elucidation or development of Baader’s philosophy may be named :—Hoffmann, Vorhalle zur Spekulativen Lehre Baader's, 1836; Grundzüge der Socictäts-Philosophie Franz Baader's, 1837; Philosophische Schriften, 3 vols., 1868-72; Die Weltalter, 1868; Hamberger, Cardinalpunkte der Baader sehen Philosophie, 1855; Fundamentalbegriffe von F. B.’s Ethik, Politik, u. Religions-Philosophie, 1858; Lutterbeck, Philosophische Standpunkte Baader''s, 1854; Baader's Lehre vom Weltgebäude, 1866. The only satisfactory survey in any history of philosophy is that given by Erdmann, Versuch einer Gesch. d. neuem Phil., iii. 2, pp. 583- 636.

The great difficulty which has been felt by investigators in determining the character and attributes of the god Baal mainly arises from the originally appellative sense of the word, and many obscure points become clear if we remember that when the title became a proper name it might be appropriated by different nations to quite distinct deities, while traces of the wider use of the word as a title for any god, might very well survive even after one god had come to be known as Baal par excellence. That Baal is not always one and the same god was known even to the ancient mythologists, who were very much disposed to fuse together distinct deities; for they distinguish an “old” Baal or Belitan (Bel êthan) from a younger Baal, who is sometimes viewed as the son of the other. The “old” Baal has sometimes been identified with the planet Saturn, but it is more likely that he is the Baal (in Assyrian pronunciation Bil) of the first triad of the Babylonian Pantheon, that is the Bel, as distinct from the Baal, of the Old Testament. This Assyrian and Babylonian Bel is no mere solar or planetary god, but is represented in Chaldean cosmogony as the shaper of heaven and earth, the creator of men and beasts, and of the luminaries of heaven [Berosus, ed. Richter, p. 50). At the same time, we find that the inscriptions give the title of Bel to other and inferior gods, especially to Merodach or the planet Jupiter. This planet was, we know, the Baal (Bâl, Bil) of the heathen Mesopotamians (Sabians) of later times, and of the Babylonian Mendeans.

The Baal of the Syrians, Phoenicians, and heathen Hebrews is a much less elevated conception than the Babylonian BeL He is properly the sun-god, Baal Shamem, Baal (lord) of the heavens, the highest of the heavenly bodies, but still a mere power of nature, born like the other luminaries from the primitive chaos (San-chσniathon, ed. Orelli, pp. 10, 14). As the sun-god he is conceived as the male principle of life and reproduction in nature, and thus in some forms of his worship is the patron of the grossest sensuality, and even of systematic prostitution. An example of this is found in the worship of Baal-Peor (Num. xxv.), and in general in the Canaanitish high places, where Baal, the male principle, was worshipped in association with the unchaste goddess Ashera, the female principle of nature. The frequent references to this form of religion in the Old Testament are obscured in the English version by the rendering “grove” for the word Ashera, which sometimes denotes the goddess, sometimes the tree or post which was her symbol. Baal himself was represented on the high places not by an image, but by obelisks or pillars (Maççeboth, E. V. wrongly “images sometimes called chammanim or sun-pillars, a name which is to be compared with the title Baal-chamman, frequently given to the god on Phoenician inscriptions. There is reason to believe that these symbols, in their earliest form of the sacred tree and the sacred stone, were not specially appropriated to Baal worship, but were the mark of any sanctuary, memorials of a place where the worshipper had found God (see, for example, Gen. xxi. 33, where for grove read tamarisk, Gen. xxviii. 18), while the stone pillar was also a primitive altar. Gradually, however, they came to be looked upon as phallic symbols, appropriate only to sensual nature worship, and as such were attacked by the prophets (Micah v. 13, 14; Isa. xvii. 8, xxvii. 9, <fcc.), and destroyed by such orthodox kings as Josiah. The worship of Baal among the Hebrews has two distinct periods—one before the time of Samuel, and a second from the introduction of the Tyrian worship of Baal by Ahab, who married a Phoenician princess. The ritual of this new Baal, with his long train of priests and prophets, his temple and sacred vestments (2 Kings x.), was plainly much more splendid than the older Canaanitish worship. Of the worship of the Tyrian Baal, who is also called Melkart (king of the city), and is often identified with the Greek Heracles, but sometimes with the Olympian Zeus, we have many accounts in ancient writers, from Herodotus downwards. He had a magnificent temple in insular Tyre, founded by Hiram, to which gifts streamed from all countries, especially at the great feasts. The solar character of this deity appears especially in the annual feast of his awakening shortly after the winter solstice (Joseph., Ant., viii. 5). At Tyre, as among the Hebrews, Baal had his symbolical pillars, one of gold and one of smaragdus, which, transported by phantasy to the Farthest West, are still familiar to us as the pillars of Hercules. The worship of the Tyrian Baal was carried to all the Phoenician colonies. His name occurs as an element in Carthaginian proper names (Hanni6αZ, Asdruδα∕, &c.), and a tablet found at Marseilles still remains to inform us of the charges made by the priests of the temple of Baal for offering sacrifices.

A much-disputed question is the relation of the sun-god Baal to Moloch-Saturn. Moloch is certainly called Baal in Jer. xix. 5, xxxii 35, but the word may here retain its appellative force. It is, however, the theory of many scholars, especially worked out by Movers, that Moloch is only a special development of Baal, representing the destructive heat instead of the life-giving power of the sun. Another question of some nicety concerns the precise character and mutual relations of the female deities associated with Baal. In the Old Testament, as we have seen, Baal is generally associated with Ashera, but sometimes with Ashtoreth or Astarte (in the plural Ashtaroth, associated with the plural Baalim, I Sam. vii. 4, &c.) As Ashtoreth is constantly associated with the Phoenician Baal, it was long customary to identify Ashera with her, a theory opposed to the fact that Ashtoreth is represented as a chaste goddess. The key to the difficulty is probably to be sought in the Assyrian mythology, where we find that the planet Venus was worshipped as the chaste goddess Istar, when she appeared as a morning star, and as the impure Bilit or Beltis, the Mylitta of Herod, (i. 199), when she was an evening star. These two goddesses, associated yet contrasted, seem to correspond respectively to the chaste Ashtoreth and the foul Ashera, though the distinction between the rising and setting planet was not kept up among the Western Semites, and the nobler deity came at length to be viewed as the goddess of the moon.

Finally, we may mention as a special form of Baal the Philistine Baal-zebub, or “Baal of flies,” a conception which has more than one analogy in Greek religion, especially the Zeυs ’ Από/mos at Olympia. The use of the word Beelzebub, or rather, with a slight change, Beelzebul, by the later Jews, to denote the prince of the devils (Mat. xii. 24), is easily understood on the principle laid down in 1 Cor. X. 20.

For further information as to Baal, the reader may consult works on Syrian and Phoenician religion. Of older books, the most celebrated is Selden’s De diis Syris ; of recent books, Movers’s Die Phönizier, i., a work full of learning, but deficient in method and logic. The valuable contributions to the subject from Assyrian research are partly brought together by Schrader in the Stud, und Krit. for 1874, pp. 335, sqq. (w. r. s.)

BERITH, the god of the Shechemites, Judges viii, 33; ix, 4, 46.

PEOR. Peor is supposed to have been a part of Mount Abarim; and Baal was the great idol or chief god of the Phœnicians, and was known and worshipped under a similar name, with tumultuous and obscene rites, all over Asia. He is the same as the Bel of the Babylonians. Baal, by itself, signifies _lord_, and was a name of the solar or principal god. But it was also variously compounded, in allusion to the different characters and attributes of the particular or local deities who were known by it, as Baal Peor, Baal Zebub, Baal Zephon, &c. Baal Peor, then, was probably the temple of an idol belonging to the Moabites, on Mount Abarim, which the Israelites worshipped when encamped at Shittim; this brought a plague upon them, of which twenty-four thousand died, Num. xxxv. Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, to whom Solomon erected an altar, 1 Kings xi, 7, is supposed to have been the same deity. Baal Peor has been farther supposed by some to have been Priapus; by others, Saturn; by others, Pluto; and by others again, Adonis. Mr. Faber agrees with Calmet in making Baal Peor the same with Adonis; a part of whose worship consisted in bewailing him with funeral rites, as one lost or dead, and afterward welcoming, with extravagant joy, his fictitious return to life. He was in an eminent degree the god of impurity. Hosea, speaking of the worship of this idol, emphatically calls it “that shame,” Hos. ix, 10. Yet in the rites of this deity the Moabite and Midianite women seduced the Israelites to join.

ZEBUB, BEELZEBUB, or BEL-ZEBUB, signifies the _god of flies_, and was an idol of the Ekronites. It is not easy to discover how this false deity obtained its name. Some commentators think that he was called Baal Samin, or the lord of heaven; but that the Jews, from contempt, gave him the name of Baal-zebub. Others with greater reason believe that he was denominated “the god of flies” by his votaries, because he defended them from flies, which are extremely troublesome in hot countries; in the same manner as the Eleans worshipped Hercules under the appellation of Ἀπόμυιος, _the fly chaser_. Pliny is of opinion, that the name of Achor, the god invoked at Cyrene against flies, is derived from Accaron, or Ekron, where Baal-zebub was worshipped, and where he had a famous temple and oracle. Winkelman has given the figures of two heads, “both of them images of Jupiter, called by the Greeks Ἀπόμυιος, and by the Romans _Muscarius_; that is to say, _fly driver_; for to this Jupiter was attributed the function of driving away flies.” It is evident that Beelzebub was considered as the patron deity of medicine; for this is plainly implied in the conduct of Ahaziah, 2 Kings i. The Greek mythology considered Apollo as the god of medicine, and attributed also to him those possessions by a pythonic spirit which occasionally perplexed spectators, and of which we have an instance in Acts xvi, 19. Apollo, too, was the sun. Hence we probably see the reason why Ahaziah sent to Beelzebub to inquire the issue of his accident; since Beelzebub was Apollo, and Apollo was the god of physic. The Jews, who changed _Beelzebub_ into _Beelzebul_, “god of a dunghill,” perhaps had a reference to the Greek of _pytho_, which signifies _putrefied_. In Scripture Beelzebub is called “the prince of devils,” Matt. xii, 24; Luke xi, 15; merely, it would seem, through the application of the name of the chief idol of the Heathen world to the prince of evil spirits. This was natural, since the Jews were taught in their own Scriptures to consider all the idols of the Heathens “devils.” Those commentators who think that the idol of Ekron himself is intended, have indulged in an improbable fancy. See HORNET.

ZEPHON, or _the god of the watch tower_, was probably the temple of some idol, which served at the same time for a place of observation for the neighbouring sea and country, and a beacon to the travellers by either. It was situated on a cape or promontory on the eastern side of the western or Heroopolitan branch of the Red Sea, near its northern extremity, over against Pihahiroth, or the opening in the mountains which led from the desert, on the side of Egypt, to the Red Sea.

The origin of Baalbec is lost in remote antiquity, and the historical notices of it are very scanty. The silence of the classical writers respecting it would seem to imply that previously it had existed under another name, and various attempts have been made to identify it with certain places mentioned in the Bible, as with Baalgad, “in the valley of Lebanon” (Josh. xi. 17); Baalath, one of Solomon’s cities (1 Kings ix. 18); Baal-hamon, where Solomon had a vineyard (Cant, viii. 11.); and “the plain of Aven” (Bikath-Aven, Amos i. 5), referred to by Amos; but none of these identifications seem to rest on any very solid support, though they have each in turn met the approval of some writer of authority. In the absence of more positive information, we can only conjecture that its situation on the high road of commerce between Tyre and Palmyra and the farther East rendered it at an early period a seat of wealth and splendour. It is not at all improbable that the statement of Macrobius in his Saturnalia may be founded on the tradition of a real and potent connection between Heliopolis and its Egyptian namesake. It is mentioned by Josephus (Ant., xiv. 3, 4), Pliny (Nat. Hist., v. 22), and Ptolemy, and coins of the city have been found belonging to the reigns of almost all the emperors from Nerva to GalEenus. John Malala of Antioch ascribes the erection of a great temple to Jupiter (vax>v τω ∆d μlγav) at Heliopolis to Antoninus Pius; and two votive inscriptions still exist on the bases of columns in the Greater Temple, belonging to the age of Septimius Severus. From the civic coins of the reigns of Nerva and Hadrian we learn that the city had been constituted a colony by Julius Caesar, and that it was the seat of a Roman garrison in the time of Augustus, and obtained the Jus Italicum from Septimius Severus (Ulpian, De Censibus, lib. i.) Some of the coins of this last emperor bear the figure of a temple and the legend col.hel.i.o.m.h., Colonia Heliopolis Jovi Optimo Maximo Heliopolitano; while one of the reign of Valerian has the representation of two temples.

It is evident that in the early Christian centuries Heliopolis was one of the most flourishing seats of Pagan worship, and the Christian writers draw strange pictures of the morality of the place. In 297 it became the scene of the martyrdom of Gelasinus. The Emperor Constantine, according to Sozomen, issued a rescript against the licentious rites of the people, and founded a basilica among them; but, on the accession of Julian, the Pagan population broke out into violent persecution, and the city became so notorious for its hostility to Christianity, that Christians were banished thither from Alexandria as a special punishment. Theodosius the Great is said to have turned “the temple of Balanius, the Trilithon,” into a Christian church, and the city seems to have been the seat of a bishop.

From the accounts of Oriental writers, Baalbec seems to have continued a place of importance down to the time of the Moslem invasion of Syria. They describe it as one of the most splendid of Syrian cities, enriched with stately palaces, adorned with monuments of ancient times, and abounding with trees, fountains, and whatever contributes to luxurious enjoyment. After the capture of Damascus it was regularly invested by the Moslems, and after a courageous defence, at length capitulated. The ransom exacted by the conquerors was 2000 ounces of gold, 4000 ounces of silver, 2000 silk vests, and 1000 swords, together with the arms of the garrison. The city afterwards became the mart for the rich pillage of Syria; but its prosperity scon received a fatal blow from the caliph of Damascus, by whom it was sacked and dismantled, and the principal inhabitants put to the sword (748 a.d.). It continued, however, to be a place of military importance, and was frequently an object of contest between the caliphs of Egypt and the various Syrian dynasties. In 1090 it passed into the hands of the Seljuk princes of Aleppo and Damascus, who in 1134 were disputing its possession among themselves, and had to yield in 1139 to the power of Genghis Khan. He held the city till 1145, when it reverted to Damascus, and continued mostly, from that time, to follow the fortunes of that city. During the course of the century it suffered severely from one or more of the earthquakes that visited the district in 1139, 1157, 1170. In 1260 it was taken by the forces of Hulagu, who destroyed the fortifications; but, in the 14th century, it is again described by Abulfeda as enclosed by a wall with a large and strong fortress. Whether it was Baalbec, or, as others say, Cairo, that was, in 1367, the birthplace of Takkieddin Ahmed, the Arabic historian, he appears to have derived the name by which he is best known, El-Makrizi, from one of the quarters of the city. In 1400 it was pillaged by Timur in his progress to Damascus; and afterwards it fell into the hands of the Metaweli, a barbarous predatory tribe, who were nearly exterminated when Djezzar Pacha permanently subjected the whole district to Turkish supremacy.

The ancient walls of the city are about 4 miles in compass; but the present town is, with the exception of some portions of its Saracenic fortifications and its two mosques, a cluster of mean-looking buildings, which serve only to bring out into greater prominence the grandeur of the neighbouring ruins. These consist of three temples, usually known as the Great Temple (and it well deserves the name), the Temple of Jupiter, Apollo, or the Sun, and the Circular Temple. The Great Temple (vide Plan), which would seem at one period to have been a kind of pantheon, is situated on a magnificent platform, which raises it high above the level of the ground, and extends from east to west a distance of about 1100 feet. The portico is at the eastern end, and must have been reached by a grand flight of steps. It is 180, or, including the exedrae or pavilions, 260 feet from north to south. A threefold entrance leads into the first court, which is hexagonal in shape, and measures about 250 feet from corner to corner. A portal 50 feet wide, flanked on each side by a smaller aperture of 10 feet, gives admittance to the great quadrangle, which extends from east to west for 440 feet, and has a breadth of 370, thus including an area of between 3 and 4 acres. On all sides, except the eastern, where the “stately stairs” led up to the temple front, this court was surrounded with exedrae of various dimensions, enclosed by costly pillars, and adorned with numerous statues; but statues and pillars and steps are now all involved in a common confusion. The peristyle of the temple proper was composed of fifty-four columns, the front line consisting of ten and the side line of nineteen each. The height of the shafts was about 62 feet, and their diameter 7 feet at the base and about 5 feet at the top. They were crowned with rich Corinthian capitals, and supported an entablature of 14 feet in height (Col. Chesney says 11 feet 9 inches). Most of them were formed of three blocks, united without cement by strong iron dowels. Only six of these columns still stand at the western end of the southern side—three having fallen since the visit of Wood and Dawkins in 1750. That part of the great platform on which the peristyle rests consists of immense walls built up about 50 feet from the ground, and formed, as may be easily seen on the northern side, of thirteen courses of bevelled stones in alternate layers of longer and shorter blocks. Outside these walls, at a distance of 291 feet, is another (so-called substruction) wall on the north, west, and probably, though concealed by rubbish, also on the east side. This is built of large stones, and contains three blocks of such extraordinary proportions that the temple acquired from them its ancient name of Trilithon, or “Three-Stone-Temple.” These measure respectively 64 feet, 63 feet 8 inches, and 63 feet in length, are 13 feet in height, and have been raised 20 feet from the ground in the western wall. Two underground passages, 17 feet wide and 30 feet high, run from east to west along the sides of the platform of the great quadrangle, and are connected by a transverse tunnel of similar description. They seem, from inscriptions on the walls, to have been tenanted at some time by Roman soldiery.

Slightly to the north of the Great Temple, and agreeing with it in its orientation, is the Temple of the Sun, which is in much better preservation than its neighbour, and, though small in comparison with it, is larger than the Parthenon at Athens. It likewise is built on a plat form, and was reached by a flight of steps at the eastern end, which, it would seem, were still standing in 1688. The arrangement of its peristyle may be seen from the plan. The height of the columns is 45 feet, including the Corinthian capitals, and the circumference of each 19 feet. They supported an entablature of 7 feet in height, from which a ceiling was carried back to the wall of the cella, consisting of slabs enriched with sculpture of great beauty. The principal ornament of each slab is a hexagonal moulding enclosing the figure of some god or hero; but the profusion and elegance of the fretwork can only be rendered by the artist. After passing the vestibule, which was partly freed from its barbarous screen by Mr Burton in 1870, we reach “an exquisitely-carved doorway, having a staircase on each side leading to the top of the building,” which gives entrance to the interior of the temple. On the soffit is the figure of the eagle referred to by so many of the travellers, and regarded by Volney and others as the emblem of the sun-god. This part of the building was greatly damaged in the earthquake of 1759, and if measures are not taken to support the lintel, it must soon fall to the ground. The cella seems to have been hypaethral; and, like the rest of the building, it was richly ornamented, the floor now presenting a mass of broken sculpture and pillars. A spiral staircase, in the interior of a massive column, leads to the roof on each side of the portal.

Further east stands the Circular Temple, which is of very small dimensions, but of beautiful workmanship and design. It consists of a semicircular cella surrounded on the outside by eight Corinthian columns, while within there is a double tier of smaller pillars, the lower row being Ionic and the upper Corinthian. Down to the last century it was used as a Greek church; but it is now in a very ruinous condition, and “choked with wretched hovels.” It is known to the people of Baalbec as Barbàrat-el Atikah (Zα Sainte Barbe).

The remains of the military works of the Saracens and their successors are only too numerous about Baalbec; but they have left no buildings of greater interest than the mosques already mentioned, the larger of which was built by Melek el As’ad, and the smaller by his father, Melek el Zahir (670 a.h.) Several interesting excursions maybe made in the neighbourhood, in regard to which the reader may consult Murray’s Handbook, Joanne and Isambert’s Itinéraire, and a letter of Mrs Burton’s in Unexplored Syria.

The ruins of Baalbec have awakened the admiration of European travellers from the 16th century down to the present day. Baumgarten visited them in 1507, Belon in 1548, Thevet in 1550, Melchior von Seydlitz in 1557, Radzivil in 1583, Quaresmius in 1620, Monconys in 1647, De la Roque in 1688, and Maundrell in 1699. In the 18th century Pococke gave a sketch of the ruins, which was followed up by the magnificent work of Wood and Dawkins (1751), to this day one of our principal authorities, and Volney, in 1784, supplied a graphic description. During the present century the number of travellers who have visited Baalbec has enormously increased; it may be sufficient to mention Richardson, Addison, Lindsay, Wilson, the Duke of Ragusa, Lamartine, De Saulcy, Chesney, and Robinson. Of the chapters of the last writer, in his Biblical Researches, vol. iii., especial use has been made in the present article. In spite, however, of such a series of investigators, much might· still be done to extend our knowledge of those wonderful remains. A few superficial excavations have been made from time to time; but the ruins of Baalbec still wait for their Layard or their Schliemann.