Читать книгу Ruins of Ancient Cities (Vol. 2 of 2) - Charles Bucke - Страница 14

This city is supposed to have been founded by the famous Jemsheed, from whom it is to this day called Tuklit-e-Jemsheed; – the throne of Jemsheed; a prince, to whom Persian authors attribute the invention of many useful arts80; and to whom they refer the first great reform in the manners and usages of their countrymen. He, also, introduced the solar year; and ordered the first day of it, when the sun entered Aries, to be celebrated as a festival81.

An old Persian author has left the following description of Persepolis: – “Jemsheed built a fortified palace at the foot of a hill, which bounds the fine plain of Murdasht to the north-west. The platform, on which it was built, has three faces to the plain, and one to the mountain. It is formed of hard, black granite. The elevation from the plain is ninety feet; and every stone, used in this building, is from nine to twelve feet long, and broad in proportion. There are two great flights of stairs to this palace, so easy of ascent, that a man can ride up on horseback; and on the platform a palace has been erected, part of which still remains in its original state, and part is in ruins. The palace of Jemsheed is that, now called the Chesel-Setoon, or Forty Pillars. Each pillar is formed of a carved stone, is sixty feet high, and is ornamented in a manner so delicate, that it would seem to rival upon hard granite the sculpture of a carving upon the softest wood. There is no granite like that, of which these pillars are made, to be now found in Persia: and it is unknown from whence it is brought. Some most beautiful and extraordinary figures ornament this palace; and all the pillars, which once supported the roof (for that has fallen) are composed of three pieces of stone, joined in so exquisite a manner, as to make the beholder believe, that the whole shaft is one piece. There are several figures of Jemsheed in the sculpture; in one he has an urn in his hand, in which he burns benjamin, while he stands adoring the sun; in another, he is represented as seizing the mane of a lion with one hand, while he stabs him with another.”

The remains of this city stands in one of the finest plains of Persia; being eighteen or nineteen leagues in length, and in some places two, in some four, and in others six leagues in breadth. It is watered by the great river Araxes, and by a multitude of rivers beside. Within the compass of this plain there are between one thousand and one thousand five hundred villages, without reckoning those in the mountains, all adorned with pleasant gardens, and planted with trees. The entrance of this plain, on the west side, has received as much grandeur from nature, as the city it covered could do from industry or art.

Some authors say, that to attempt any guess of the period when the city first rose from the plain, would be useless, and that the only means, now remaining, of forming any satisfactory conjectures, in regard to its origin, can only reach to the probable era of the different remaining ruins. When in Persia, however, Mr. Francklin met with a short account of the building this palace, in MS., being part of a work, called Rouzut al Sefa, or the Garden of Purity; of which he gives this as a translation: – “It is related by historians, that King Jemsheed removed the seat of government, which was formerly in the province of Sejestaun, to Fars; and that in the neighbourhood of Shirauz, having taken in a spot of ground, of twelve furlongs in length (forty-eight English miles), he there erected such a palace, that in the seven kingdoms of the world there was nothing that could equal it. The remains of that palace, and many of the pillars of it, are visible to this day; and he caused the palace to be called Chehul Minar, or Forty Pillars. Moreover, when the sun, quitting the sign Pisces in the heavens, had entered Aries, Jemsheed, having assembled all the princes, nobles, and great men of his empire, at the foot of his imperial throne, did on that day institute a grand and solemn festival; and this day was henceforth called Noo Roze, or first day of the new year (when the foundation of Persepolis was laid), at which period he commanded, from all parts of the empire, the attendance of the peasants, husbandmen, soldiers, and others, in order to prosecute the design; requesting that all, with joyful hearts and willing hands, should lend their assistance in completing the work. This numerous assembly obeyed the command of their monarch, and the building was finished with all signs of mirth and festivity.”

To this account the Persians add, that Queen Homaie, who flourished about eight hundred years after Jemsheed, added a thousand columns.

Diodorus gives some account of the workmen, that were employed in building this palace. “Cambyses, the son of Cyrus,” says he, “conquered Egypt in the third year of the seventy-third olympiad, when he pillaged the country and burnt the temples, the treasures of which the Persians carried off into Asia; and they, also, led away with them the workmen and architects of Egypt, whom they caused to build the famous palace of Persepolis, and of several other cities.” This account appears the more probable, since, as M. le Comte de Caylus is justly of opinion, they cannot be attributed to the Persians before Cyrus; since Herodotus describes the Persians of that age as a people of great simplicity; having neither temples nor altars, but worshipping Jupiter on the summits of mountains. The account, here given, is sufficient to account for the Egyptian appearance of Persepolis. There are appearances of five different buildings united in one; and each, apparently, of a different age, after the manner of the Egyptians.

Though there are doubts as to the origin of Persepolis, there are none as to the circumstance of its being destroyed by Alexander.

As the conqueror drew near the city82, he perceived a large body of men, who presented a most lamentable picture. These were about four thousand Greeks, greatly advanced in years, who, having been taken prisoners of war, had suffered all the torments which Persian tyranny could invent. The hands of some had been cut off, the feet of others; and others again had lost their noses and ears; after which, having impressed by fire barbarous characters on their faces, the Persians had the inhumanity to keep them as so many laughing-stocks, with which they sported perpetually. They appeared like so many shadows rather than men. Alexander could not refrain from tears at this sight; and as they unanimously besought him to commiserate their condition, he bade them, with the utmost tenderness, not to despond, and assured them that they should again see their country. This, however, the Greeks did not desire; being unwilling to be seen by their former companions in the dreadful state in which they were. They prayed the king, therefore, to let them remain where they were, but to relieve their awful condition. This Alexander did; but he was so enraged at what he had seen, that he set the city on fire soon after. The other account is, that the conqueror called his generals together, and represented to them that no city in the world had been more fatal to the Greeks than Persepolis, the ancient residence of the Persian monarchs, and capital of their empire. For that it was from thence all those mighty armies poured, which had overflowed Greece; and whence Darius, and afterwards Xerxes, had carried the fire-brand of the most accursed war which had laid waste the best part of Europe; and therefore it was incumbent on them to revenge the manes of their ancestors.

Animated by this, the soldiers force their way into the city, put all the men to the sword, and rifle and carry away every man’s goods and estate; amongst which was abundance of rich and costly furniture and ornaments of all sorts. There were hurried away, here and there, vast quantities of silver, and no less of gold, great numbers of rich garments, some of purple, and others embroidered with gold; all of which, says Diodorus, became a plentiful prey to the ravenous soldiers. For though every place was full of rich spoil, yet the covetousness of the Macedonians was insatiable. They were even so eager in plundering, that they fought one another with drawn swords; and many, who were conceived to have got a larger share than the rest, were killed in the quarrel. Some things, which were of extraordinary value, they divided with their swords, and each took a share. Others, in a rage, cut off the hands of such as laid hold of a thing that was in dispute. They first ravished the women as they were in their jewels and rich attire, and then sold them for slaves. The riches are said to have amounted to no less than eighteen millions sterling!

Such is the account left us by Diodorus. He then goes on to describe the destruction of the temple or palace, burned down by Alexander. “Alexander,” says he, “made a great feast for the entertainment of his friends in commemoration of his victory, and offered magnificent sacrifices to the gods. At this feast were entertained women, who prostituted their bodies for hire; when the cups went so high to drunkenness and debauchery, that many were drunk and mad. Among the rest there was a courtesan, named Thais, an Athenian, then mistress to Ptolemy, afterwards king of Egypt, who said in a gay tone of voice, ‘That it would be a matter of inexpressible joy to her, were she permitted, masked as she then was, and in order to end the festival nobly, to burn the magnificent palace of Xerxes, who had burned Athens; and so set it on fire with her own hand, in order that it might be said in all parts of the world, that the women, who had followed Alexander in his expedition to Asia, had taken much better revenge on the Persians, for the many calamities they had brought upon the Grecians, than all the generals who had fought for them both by sea and land.’

“This spreading abroad, and coming to the ears of the young men, presently one cries out, ‘Come on; bring firebrands!’ and so incites the rest to fire the citadel, to revenge that impiety the Persians had committed in destroying the temples of the Grecians. At this, others with joy set up a shout; but said that so brave an exploit belonged only to Alexander himself to perform. The king, stirred up at these words, embraced the proposition; upon which, as many as were present left their cups and leaped upon the table, and said that they would now celebrate a victorious festival to Bacchus. Thereupon, multitudes of firebrands were presently got together; and all the women that played on musical instruments, which were at the feast, were called for; and then the king, with songs, pipes, and flutes, led the way to this expedition, contrived and managed by this courtesan, Thais, who, next after the king, threw the first firebrand into the palace. This precedent was presently followed by the rest. The fire once raised, there was no stopping it; but Alexander soon repented what was doing, and gave orders for extinguishing it; but this being too late, the palace was burned, and remains now nearly in the same state it was left at the conclusion of the fire.”

According to Arrian, Alexander burned the palace of the Persian king much against the will of Parmenio, who exhorted him to leave it untouched. To which Alexander answered, that he was resolved to revenge the ancient injuries, Greece had received from the Persians; who, when they marched into Greece, burned its temples, and committed many other barbarous devastations.

This, we think, is one reason why the building burned must have been a temple, and not a palace. The Persians had burned the temples of Greece, therefore Alexander burned the temple of the Persians. Besides, as the feast was held in the palace, it is not very likely that the master of the feast should have burned the place, in which he was not only then feasting, but in which he was to sleep on the very night of the conflagration; and that it was not destroyed is evident from the circumstance, recorded by Strabo and Arrian – that Alexander inhabited the royal palace at Persepolis after his return from India. Added to which, it is certain that there is, at this time, no appearance or marks of fire on any part of the ruins.

In respect to these ruins, it has been well observed, that magnificent columns, portals, and other architectural decorations, mark this spot as the site of a splendid “palace;” while the style of the sculptures and the inscriptions, many of them in the single-headed character, found only at this place, Nineveh, Babylon, Susa, and Ván, proves them to be of a very high antiquity. Mr. Kinneir, however, says they are generally admitted to be the remains of the “palace,” destroyed by Alexander; and the striking resemblance of the building, as it exists, to the account given of Persepolis by Diodorus, is, in his opinion, sufficient to remove any doubt, that may exist upon the subject. We confess that such is not our impression.

Those who regard the ruins as being the remains of a Persian temple, insist that the sculptured subjects, as well as the style of architecture, resemble, in many particulars, those of Egypt: among which may be mentioned the figures, divided by trees, the sphinxes, the vases and chains, the domes and architraves, the subterranean passages in the tombs, the sarcophagi and urns, and the well, twenty-five feet deep and fifteen square. The sculpture at Persepolis was also painted mostly in blue, a favourite colour in Egypt; but sometimes in black and in yellow. For these remarks we are indebted to Mr. Buckingham.

According to Arrian, it was the castle of Persepolis which Alexander burned. In Mr. Buckingham’s opinion, however, the ruins now seen correspond neither with those of a palace, nor of a castle; they were, therefore, according to him, not those of the edifice burned by Alexander at all; for on all these remains, as we have before stated, no mark of fire is to be traced, which could not be the case if this had been the principal agent used in its destruction.

The opinion, that these ruins are the remains of the palace, is not on the authority of all history, but on the assertion merely of Quintus, Curtius and Diodorus. The whole story as to the burning, is said to have been copied from a Greek writer, named Clitarchus83.

Though there are no remains of a city now at Persepolis, nor in any part of the plain in which it is situated; certain it is, that the city was not destroyed by Alexander; for it was a very important place for many centuries after.

Curtius, therefore, is guilty of an error in saying that the city was so far from being rebuilt, that unless the river Araxes ran near it, there are no signs to guess where it stood; for neither Arrian nor Strabo, nor even Diodorus, whom Curtius commonly copies, acquaint us with any thing but the burning of the palace.

The first book of Maccabees says that there was a rich temple at Persepolis; and, the second, that Antiochus Epiphanes determined to pillage it. Alexander, therefore, could not have destroyed it; for it is highly improbable, from the history of those times, that so laboured and magnificent a work should have been rebuilt and restored in the short period between Alexander and the Syrian king; viz. – 160 years. That prince formed the design of pillaging both “a temple,” and the city.

Though Persepolis long survived the palace of Jemsheed, its inhabitants are said to have regarded with unextinguishable hatred the people by whom they were conquered; and, as if inspired by those fragments of former glory, with which they were surrounded, they maintained a character for pride and courage, that was not entirely subdued, till several centuries after the Arabians first overran Persia.

Its subsequent history has been summed up by Mr. Fraser. “It was among the earliest conquests of Ardeshir Babegan; Shepoor II. made it his residence; Yesdigird I. held his court there; and Hoormuz II., who reigned at the close of the sixth century, passed two months every year in it. In the succeeding age, however, it ceased to be a royal residence; for Khoosroo Purveez bestowed the government on one of his favourites; and it was here that the last of the Sassanian kings lay concealed, when called to the throne, A. D. 632. Twelve years afterwards, it capitulated to the Mohammedans; but the people, having slain their foreign governor, were all put to the sword. The city was ultimately destroyed by Sumcaneah-u-Dowlan, and the fanatical Arabs, A. D. 982. Such,” concludes Mr. Fraser, “is the sketch of the latter days of Istakhar84, (the only name by which the city is recognised by the native Persian historians); but the question, who was its founder? and who raised the mighty fabrics, of which the ruins still astonish the traveller? yet remain unanswered.”

The authors who have described these ruins are, Garcias de Silva Figueroa, Pietra de la Valle, Sir John Chardin, Le Brun, Francklin, Niebuhr, Morier, Buckingham, Porter, Ouseley, and Fraser.

It has been truly said, that we cannot proceed a step in Persia, without encountering some monument of the cruelty of conquerors and of human vicissitudes. These ruins have been variously described; insomuch that, had travellers not agreed in respect to the latitude and longitude, one would be tempted to suspect, that they had visited different ruins. Our account will therefore be desultory: for to give a full and regular one would, without drawings, be of little available use.

“It is very difficult to give any detailed account of the ruins of this celebrated place,” says Mr. Buckingham. “There is no temple, as at Thebes, at Palmyra, or at Balbec, sufficiently predominant over all other surrounding objects to attract the chief attention, and furnish of itself sufficient matter for description and observation. Here, all is broken and detached fragments, extremely numerous, and each worthy of attention; but so scattered and disjointed, as to give no perfect idea of the whole. Its principal feature is, that it presents an assemblage of tall, slender, and isolated pillars, and separate door-ways and sanctuaries, spread over a large platform, elevated, like a fortification, from the level of the surrounding plain.”

“The works of different travellers, describing these ruins,” says Sir William Ouseley, “furnish many instances of extraordinary variation. But this discordance is not peculiar to those, who have written accounts of Persepolis. We find that, concerning the same visible and tangible objects, two, three, and even four, travellers in other countries have disagreed; – all men of considerable ingenuity, and none intending to deceive.” Sir William then refers to a passage in Sir Thomas Herbert’s Travels. “Forasmuch as the remaining figures, or images, are many and different, and so many, as in two days I was there it was impossible I could take the full of what I am assured an expert limner may very well spend twice two months in, ere he can make a fancy draught; for, to say the truth, this is a work much fitter for the pencil than the pen; the rather for that I observe how that travellers, taking a view of some rare piece together, from the variety of their fancy, they usually differ in those observations: so that when they think their notes are exact, they shall pretermit something that a third will light upon.” These observations were made by Sir Thomas among the ruins of the city, of which we now are treating.

“Nothing,” says Mr. Fraser, “can be more striking, than the appearance of those ruins on approaching them from the south-west. Placed at the base of a rugged mountain, on a terrace of mason-work that might vie with the structures of Egypt, it overlooks an immense plain, inclosed on all sides by distant but dark cliffs, and watered by the Kour Ab, which once supplied a thousand aqueducts. But the water-courses are dried up; the plain is a morass or a wilderness; for the great city, which once poured its population over the wide expanse of Merdusht, has disappeared, and the grey columns rise in solitary grandeur, to remind us, that mighty deeds were done in the days of old.”

The last account of this place we have by an Eastern writer, is that given by Mirza Jan, in the account he gives of a journey he made from Shirauz to Isfahan. “Beyond the village of Kenarch, about half a parasang, is a mountain, and at the foot of it an extraordinary place, wherein are columns and marbles, sculptured with strange devices and inscriptions, so that most persons imagine this edifice to have been constructed before the creation of man.” This is very curious; since the sculptures themselves give positive evidence of his existence.

The following account of these ruins is taken from Mr. Francklin. “They are about two days’ journey from Shiraz, on a rising ground, in a plain, surrounded by an amphitheatre of mountains. They occupy a circumference of one thousand four hundred square yards. The front is six hundred paces from north to south, and three hundred and ninety from east to west, and the height of the foundation from forty to fifty feet.

“The columns are ascended by a grand staircase of blue stone, about fifty feet high, the sides embellished with two immense sphinxes, dressed out with bead-work. At a small distance from these portals you ascend another flight of steps leading to the grand hall of columns. The sides of these stairs are charged with reliefs of figures holding vessels in their hands, camels, triumphal cars, horses, oxen, and rams. At the head of the stair is a relief of a lion seizing a bull. This stair leads to the great hall of forty or fifty pillars, in nine rows, of six each; of which fifteen remain entire, from seventy to eighty feet high; the diameter at the base twelve feet, and distance between the columns twenty-two. Their pedestals are curiously wrought, and little injured, the shafts fluted to the top, and the capitals adorned with a profusion of fret-work. East of this, are remains of a square building, entered by a door of granite; most of the doors and windows standing of black marble, highly polished. On the sides of the doors, at entering, are bas-reliefs of two figures, representing a man stabbing a goat; a common device all over the palace. Over another door of the same apartment are two men, and a domestic behind them, with an umbrella. At the south-west entrance of this apartment are two large stone pillars, carved with four figures in long garments, holding spears ten feet long. Exclusive of the ancient inscriptions, in unknown characters, interspersed over these ruins, there are others, accurately described by Niebuhr. Behind the hall of the pillars, and close under the mountains, are remains of a very large building, with two principal entrances from north-east, and south-west; the wall divided into several partitions, ornamented with sculpture, and over its twelve doors the relief of the lion and bull, as before: and besides the usual figures, one of a man in long garments, with a cap turret-formed, seated on a pillar, holding in his hand a small vessel, and wearing a girdle round his waist, projecting beyond his clothes, and under him several lions. Behind this ruin, a considerable way to the north, up the mountain Rehumut, are remains of two buildings, of three sides, cut out of the rock, forty feet high, ascended to by steps, now destroyed. Two of the sides are loaded with carvings, as of some religious ceremony, including the figure last mentioned. Former travellers have supposed these tombs to be of the kings of Persia; the natives call it Mujilis Jemsheed, or the Assembly of king Jemsheed, who resorted hither with his nobles. Under these reliefs several openings lead to a dark subterranean passage, of six feet by four, into the rock. At the foot of this mountain, to the south, are the remains of windows, like those in other parts of the palace; and, a little westward from it, a stone staircase, leading to a magnificent square court, with pediments, and corners of pillars, and on those ancient inscriptions. In several parts of the palace are stone aqueducts. These venerable ruins have suffered from time, weather, and earthquakes; and are half buried in sand, washed down from the mountains. Persian writers ascribe it to King Jemsheed; and the addition of one thousand columns more, to Queen Homaie, eight hundred years after; but there is no epoch assigned.”

This account is from Mr. Francklin; we now turn to Mr. Morier. “Tavernier and Des Ferrières-Sauvebœuf, are the only persons who have spoken slightingly of these ruins; but there is no small reason to believe, that the latter never saw the ruins he speaks of; and that the former merely wrote from the dubious information of a capuchin, who resided for some years at Isfahan.”

Besides the inscriptions, above alluded to, there are others in Arabic, Persian, and Greek. Dr. Hyde observes, that the inscriptions are very rude and clumsy; and that some, if not all, are in praise of Alexander; and therefore, they must be later than that conqueror.

The Persepolitan capitals convey the idea of rich silks and feathers having been tied round the upper part of tall wooden posts; and rich silks, feathers, and precious stones, have always been the materials with which Eastern monarchs form their most gorgeous decorations.

These ruins bear incontrovertible evidence of antiquity; and although in some things they resemble Egyptian, and in others Indian edifices, they, especially in the palace, possess leading features, sufficiently distinct to entitle them to be considered as of a separate school. Yet, being, amongst numerous palaces, the only vestiges of lofty stone columns and numerous sculptures, and being traced immediately subsequent to the Egyptian expedition under Cambyses, they afford strong grounds for believing, that Thebaid influence, by example, or workmen, or both, led to these works, so unlike what had formerly been practised in Persia. That the style was not spread over the empire, may be accounted for from its immediate subjugation by the Greeks. In latter times the use of the Gothic arches, and Turkish domes, highly ornamented, have been, throughout all Persia, extensively introduced in their palaces, mosques, and tombs. The hand of the Musselman has likewise reached the remotest quarters of India85.

The materials, of which the palace is composed, are chiefly hard blue stone; but the doors and windows are of black marble, and so beautifully polished, that they reflect objects like a mirror. This high polish is agreeably alluded to in the account, given by Mr. Murray, in his historical account of travels in Asia, where he mentions that those ruins were visited by Garcias de Sylva in 1621. “The ambassador came to the spot called Cilminar, celebrated for the mighty ruins which cover its site – the remains of the ancient Persepolis. They were diligently surveyed by our author, who describes them with an enthusiasm, which perhaps betrays him into some degree of exaggeration. He dwells on the superb range of columns, particularly those called the Forty Minarets; the magnificent stairs by which they are ascended; the vast interior square, four hundred and thirty feet by three hundred and ten, and the huge pieces of marble, without any apparent juncture. The sculptures were innumerable, and are conceived by him to represent the actions of a race of men prior to any now known, even to the ancient Babylonians and Persians. Yet, though ascending to this vast antiquity, they are so entire, that, with the exception of a few fragments broken off, they might seem to have been recently finished. In comparing these with the monuments of other nations, he observes, that the pyramids are mere artificial mountains; while the temples of Greece are in ruins; here only art and grandeur are united in pristine perfection. The high polish of the marble was amusingly shown by a mastiff, who, seeing his own figure reflected on the walls, was worked up to fury, which was always increased by the view of the corresponding gestures in the reflected image; till the scene being repeated whenever they came, they were at length obliged to chain and send him off.”

“In some places,” says Mr. Fraser, “the number of sculptures is so great, that they bewilder the eye. Those figures, which are disposed in groups to suit the compartments, are variously habited and employed. Some resemble royal guards and attendants, clothed in long robes, with brogue-like buskins, and fluted flat-topped caps, bearing bows and quivers, shields and spears. Others are placed in long rows, and appear to represent a procession of many nations, being differently dressed and appointed. They bear gifts and offerings, and lead animals of various sorts. Animals stand on a pedestal, which elevates them five feet. Their heads are so mutilated, that it is impossible to say what they were meant to represent; their necks are decorated with collars of roses; short curled hair covers the chest, back, and ribs; and the workmanship is singularly correct and delicate.

“Almost every one in this procession holds in his hand a figure like the lotos; a flower full of meaning to the ancients. That the Persians offered horses to the sun, and oxen to the moon, is fully shown by this procession.”

“Though, at first sight,” says Sir Robert Porter, “I acknowledge that a general similitude to the Egyptian contour strikes the mind; yet the impression gradually wears away when the details are examined; the finishing of the parts, and the grace and truth of the bas-reliefs, every where proclaiming the refined taste and master chisels of Greece. When comparing the colossal proportions of the structure, and its gigantic sculptures, with the delicacy, beauty, and perfection of the execution of its ornaments, I might say, with the poet, ‘Here the Loves play on the bosom of Hercules.’”

Sir Robert Porter supposes that these works of art were designed to perpetuate the memory of the grand religious procession of Cyrus the Great, described by Xenophon; or, probably, that of Darius, at the festival of the Noo Roz, or vernal equinox, receiving presents from the numerous nations of his vast empire.

“The numerous basso-relievos,” says a celebrated French geographer, “are highly valuable, as illustrating the ancient costumes and manners of the Persians. Those carved on the walls of the staircase are numerous, exhibiting trains of Persian subjects from the different parts of the kingdom, bringing presents to the sovereign, led forward in small parties by officers of the court, acting as masters of the ceremonies. In other parts are figures of the king on his throne; and over him a symbolical representation of him in the form of a genius, or celestial type of the earthly potentate; conformable to the views inculcated by the ancient Persian religion. Guards of different descriptions are also delineated; and animals, partly exaggerated and symbolical, and partly fair representations of nature, contribute to the effect of lively and extended ornament. Battles, single combats, and other incidents in the Persian history, are here, as well as in the other Persian relics of antiquity, represented sometimes by symbols, and sometimes according to nature.”

Mr. Morier says, that though Le Brun and Chardin have given only one line of figures on the right of the staircase, he thought it was evident that there must have been the same number on the left as there are on the right. He, therefore, hired some labourers from the surrounding villages to dig; when, to his great delight, a second row of figures was discovered, highly preserved, the details of whose faces, hair, dresses, arms, and general character, seemed but as the work of yesterday. There is this distinction, however, between the two rows: – the faces of all the figures to the right of the staircase are mutilated; those of the newly-discovered ones are quite perfect; and this shows that they must have been covered before the invasion of the Saracens: for to that people is attributed the mutilation of all the figures.

Le Brun counted one thousand three hundred figures of men and animals, the half of which were as large as life, without including those on the tombs; and he counted the fragments of no less than two hundred and five columns. Destruction, however, is going on very rapidly. In one part of the remains there were twenty-five pillars standing, where now there are only thirteen. Thus,

Примечание 186

Mr. Morier says, that on comparing Le Brun’s, Chardin’s, and Niebuhr’s drawings with the sculptures, he found them in general correct in outline, but imperfect in details of dress, arms, &c.; and that although the figures are in themselves ill-proportioned, inelegant, and deficient in anatomical drawing, they are exceedingly interesting in general character, and have not been done justice to in the works of these travellers. They, moreover, furnish the best models of what were the nations, that invaded Greece with Xerxes, and that were subdued by Alexander.

The Hall of Pillars appears to have been detached from the rest of the palace, and to have had a communication with the other parts by hollow galleries of stone. It is situated on an eminence, commanding an extensive view of the plain of Merdusht. It is strikingly grand, and conveys to the beholder the idea of a hall of audience of a powerful and warlike monarch.

The Palace of Forty Pillars (called Shehel Setoon) was the favourite residence of the latter Sophi kings. The front is entirely open to the garden, and it is sustained by a double range of columns, upwards of forty feet high, each column shooting up from the united backs of four lions of white marble. The exhaustless profusion of the splendid materials, of which this palace is internally formed, which reflect their own golden or crystal lights on each other, along with all the variegated colours of the garden, give the appearance of an entire surface, formed of polished silver and mother-of-pearl set with precious stones; a scene well fitted for an Eastern poet’s dream, or some magic vision in the tales of an Arabian Night.

This hall, travellers suppose to be the precise part, which formed the banqueting-hall where Alexander displayed his triumph; the place where the kings of Persia received the homage of their subjects, displayed their magnificence, and issued their beneficent orders; also the private palace which was appropriated to the domestic intercourse of the members of the royal family.

Sir Robert Porter says that he gazed at the ruins with wonder and delight. “Besides the admiration which the general elegance of their form, and the exquisite workmanship of their parts excited,” says he, “I never was made so sensible of the impression of perfect symmetry, comprising also in itself that of perfect beauty.”

Mr. Morier says, that on one of the highest columns is the remains of the sphinx, so common in all the ornaments of Persepolis; that he could distinguish on the summit of every one a something quite unconnected with the capitals; so that the high columns have, strictly speaking, no capitals whatever, being each a long shaft to the very summit on which the sphinx rests. The capitals, he continues, of the lower columns are of a complicated order, composed of many pieces. There are also three distinct species of base.

Deslandes imagined, that these columns never supported a roof, but idols: on which Porter says, “I am not aware of a precedent in any idolatrous country, for such a wilderness of gods as we should have found assembled here in effigy; and, least of all, could we expect to find such extravagant proofs of polytheism in a palace, that appears to have owed its origin to the immediate ancestors of Cyrus, the simple worshippers of Mithra, or the sun; and the proudest decorations of which may be dated from Darius, the follower of the philosophic Zoroaster, whose image, the god of his idolatry, is nothing grosser than the element of fire. To suppose these pillars to have been the supports of commemorating statues to the honour of the heroes of Persia, seems equally untenable; for it is not in absolute monarchies, as in republics, or in commonwealths, where kings form only one great member of the body politic, that the eminent warriors and worthies of the land have such monuments erected to them. In Persia we find the bas-reliefs of its kings and their attendants on the walls of its palaces; in Rome we find the statues of Brutus, and Cato, and Cicero, under the ruins of the forum.”

In regard to the magnificent colonnade, which occupies the terrace, “the imagination,” says Mr. Fraser, “cannot picture a sight more imposing than those vast, solitary, mutilated pillars, which, founded in an age beyond the reach of tradition, have witnessed the lapse of countless generations, and seen dynasties and empires rise, flourish, and decay, while they still rear their grey heads unchanged.”

“On ascending the platform, on which the palace of Chehelminar once stood,” says Porter, “nothing can be more striking than the view of its ruins: so vast and magnificent, so fallen, mutilated and silent; the court of Cyrus, and the scene of his bounties; the pavilion of Alexander’s triumph, and, alas! the awful memorial of the wantonness of his power. But every object, when I saw it, was beautiful as desolate; amidst the pleasing memories of the past, awakening poignant regret, that such noble works of ingenuity should be left to the desert alone; that the pile of indefatigable labour should be destined, from the vicissitudes of revolution, and the caprice, ignorance, or fanaticism of succeeding times, to be left in total neglect; or, when noticed, doomed to the predatory mallet, and every other attack of unreflecting destruction.”

One of the most remarkable features of these ruins are the beds of aqueducts which are cut into the solid rock. The great aqueduct is discovered among a confused heap of stones, almost adjoining to the ruined staircase. In some places it is so narrow, that a man is obliged to crawl through; in others it enlarges, so that he can stand upright in it.

Sir William Ouseley says, that he did not perceive among these monuments of antiquity, which the Takht exhibits: 1, any object appearing to be a vestige of the Arsacidan kings; 2, nor any vestige of the Sassanian dynasty, except two inscriptions; 3, nor any representation of a crooked sword; 4, nor any human figure with a full face; 5, nor any human figure mounted on horseback; 6, nor any figure of a woman; 7, nor any sculpture representing ships, or alluding to naval or marine affairs; 8, nor any arches; 9, nor any human figure sitting cross-legged, or resting on the knees and heels, according to modern usage in Persia; 10, nor any human figure in a state of nudity; 11, nor any vestiges either of wood or of brick; 12, nor any remains of gilding; 13, nor any insulated statue, or sculptured figure, separated from the general mass of marble, and showing in full relief the entire form of any object. Nor did he see any figure, that has ever actually been an object of idolatrous veneration. “The reader will easily believe,” says Sir William, “this catalogue of negative remarks might have been considerably augmented, when he considers the great extent of these stupendous ruins; the seeming anomalies of their plan; the extraordinary style of their architecture; the labyrinths or narrow passages, which have been excavated with much art in the adjacent mountains, and of which no traveller has yet ascertained either the termination or the mysterious design; the multiplicity of ornamental devices in the ruins; and, above all, of the human figures which their sculptures exhibit.

“That I have not exaggerated the wonders of Jemsheed’s throne,” continues this accomplished traveller and scholar, “will be evident, on a reference to the accounts, given by most respectable persons of various countries, who, in different ages, have visited its ruins. Not only youthful travellers, glowing with lively imaginations; but those of sober judgment, matured by the experience of many years, seem, as they approach the venerable monuments, to be inspired by the genius of Eastern romance; and their respective languages scarcely furnish epithets capable of expressing with adequate energy the astonishment and admiration, excited by such a stupendous object.” The learning, which Sir William has expended upon Persepolis and other cities of the East, is astonishing.

In regard to a portion of a platform, another traveller says: – “To me it seemed to tell its own story; lying like the buried body of the last Darius under the ruins of his capital, and speaking with a voice from the grave; crying, in the words of Euripides over the like desolation; ‘Oh woe, woe, woe! my country lost! and thou, boast of my noble ancestors, how art thou shrunk; – how art thou vanished!’”

There are no appearances now either of a city, or a citadel, in any direction, about Persepolis. Three quarters of a mile from Persepolis is the tomb of the Persian hero, Rustum; – four chambers hollowed out in the rock, adorned with the altar of fire, the sun, and a mystic figure. Under the sculpture of the second chamber is a gigantic equestrian figure, very perfect, with others kneeling before him, and seeming to seize his hand. On one side of this is an inscription in ancient characters, different from those at Persepolis.

A little to the north, at the foot of the rock, are two more figures of horsemen contending for a ring, and under the horses’ feet two human heads, besides other attendants. Both these horses are called Rustum, whose tomb is shown near the foot of the rock, – a square building, of blue stone, twenty feet high, with windows and niches.

In part of the rock to the east is a mutilated equestrian figure, with a horn on the left side of his forehead, called Iskunder zu el Kemeen, or Alexander, Lord of horns87.

In regard to the excavations, Mr. Kinneir is disposed to believe, that they could have been applied to no other use than as receptacles for the dead. The city continued to rank among the first cities of the empire, until the Mahomedan conquest, and was the burial place of many of the Sassanian kings.

The body of Yesdigird, the last of that powerful race, was transported from the distant province of Khorassan, to be interred at Persepolis, or rather, perhaps, in the cavities of Nuckshi Rustum.

“Our first, and, indeed, lasting impressions,” says Mr. Morier, “were astonishment at the immensity, and admiration at the beauties, of the ruins. Although there was nothing in the architecture of the buildings, or in the sculptures and reliefs on the rocks, which could bear a critical comparison with the delicate proportions and perfect statuary of the Greeks; yet, without trying Persepolis by a standard to which it never was amenable, we yielded at once to emotions the most lively and the most enraptured88