Apart from their sacred books the Persians have left us no great

literature, yet they had the signal distinction to invent an alphabet

which they used in all their later writings. This alphabet was founded

upon or adapted from the syllabary of the Babylonians. That system,

as we have seen, is an elaborated and complicated system requiring

several hundred characters. The Persians, it would appear, like the

Phœnicians, made an analysis of human speech, which shows it to be

composed of comparatively few fundamental sounds, and adopted a

relatively simple cuneiform character to represent each one of these

sounds. In this script the inscriptions of the Persian kings--in

particular of Darius and his immediate successors--were written. There

was another modification made by the Persians, as witnessed by these

inscriptions, which, if not so important, had considerable practical

value; namely, the use of a uniform oblique line to separate different

words in an inscription. To the modern reader it seems strange that the

ancient nations, with the exception of the Persians, should have had

the uniform custom of writing their letters or syllabic characters in

an unbroken series with no space or sign to indicate the division into

words. This was as true of the ancient Greek inscriptions as of those

of Egypt and Mesopotamia. It was left to the Persians to discover the

practical value or convenience of indicating the separation between

words. That such a custom came into vogue in Persia was perhaps due to

the fact that the people there were widely educated, it being customary

to teach all children of the better classes to read, as was probably

never the case with any other of the oriental nations.

We have already seen how valuable this custom of separating the

words in their inscriptions has been to the modern investigator of

the cuneiform writing. But for the fact of the Persian alphabet and

the added fact of division of sentences into words in writing, the

cuneiform script, on which the modern science of Assyriology is

founded, might much longer have defied attempts to decipher it.

In the field of art, it has been said, with probable justice, the

Persians were not originators, though they showed themselves actively

receptive of the inventions of others. The relics of their art that

have been preserved are very palpably based on Assyrian models. It is

believed to have been chiefly through the Persians that Assyrian art

was transmitted to Greece. In the following account we aim to give

the reader a comprehensive view of Persian culture in all branches of

civilisation.[a]

RELIGION AND SOCIAL ORDERS

Zoroaster made his appearance in the heart of Asia, among a people

whose constitution, religion, and manners are completely different

from our own. His doctrines, however, like those of every reformer,

were occasioned by present circumstances, and adapted to the times in

which he flourished; and consequently we form a just estimate of his

character only by contemplating him with a reference to his age. We

must forget that we are Europeans, and together with our more advanced

knowledge, lay aside our prejudices also. It is no objection to his

laws that they contain much that is strange, or even absurd; nay, this

very circumstance rather confirms their authenticity, being precisely

what was to be expected in a legislative system belonging to so remote

an age and country.

In several parts of his writings, Zoroaster speaks of himself as a

subject of one of those great despotic governments, which have always

abounded in Asia, and consequently was more sensible than a European

can be, of the advantages and evils which attend such a form of

government in a civilised country.

He could not be blind to the beneficial effects of agriculture,

and the other peaceful arts, which flourish only under the shelter

of civil society, and his sense of these advantages must have been

heightened by the contrast of the lawless and wandering hordes by

which his country was overrun. The evils, also, which generally attend

despotic governments, must have been no less strikingly presented

to his observation: the intolerable oppression of satraps and their

subalterns; luxury and debauchery, with the maladies and physical

afflictions of another kind, which he himself enumerates and bewails,

had so generally crept in, as to excite in him the desire to restore by

his religious reform more fortunate and better days.

The picture which an Asiatic forms to himself of such happier days,

is different from that which a European would conceive. Bowed down

from his youth beneath the yoke of absolute authority, he does not

presume to emancipate himself, even in idea; but takes another way

of compensating his present grievances. He pictures to himself a

despotic government in the hands, not of a tyrant, but a father of

his people; under which every class of men and every individual might

have his appropriate sphere of action, to which he confined himself,

and the duties of which he fulfilled; under whom the peaceful arts

of agriculture, tending of flocks, and commerce, were supposed to

flourish, riches to increase and abound, as if the hands of the

monarch, like those of a divinity, showered blessings on his people.

Such a government and such a sovereign are recorded in the _Cyropædia_

itself; and their image has survived through all the periods of Asiatic

history, still continuing to form, as it were, the central point of

oriental tradition, and vividly impressed on the code of Zoroaster.

According to that sage, the era of Jemshid, the ancient sovereign of

Iran, was the golden age of his country. “Jemshid, the father of his

people, the most glorious of mortals whom the sun ever beheld. In his

days animals perished not: there was no want either of water, or of

fruit-bearing trees, or of animals fit for the food of mankind. During

the light of his reign there was neither frost nor burning heat, nor

death, nor unbridled passions, the work of the Devs. Man appeared to

retain the age of fifteen; the children grew up in safety, as long as

Jemshid reigned, the father of his people.”

The restoration of such a golden age was the end of the legislation

of Zoroaster, who, however, built his code on a religious foundation,

agreeably to the practice of the East; and the multifarious ceremonies

he prescribed had all reference to certain doctrines intimately

associated with his political dogmata; and it is absolutely necessary

to bear in mind this alliance, if we would not do injustice to one part

or other of his system.

The philosophical system of Zoroaster set out with those speculations

with which philosophy, in the infancy of nations, is apt to commence

her career, being impelled thereto in the most lively and powerful

manner, namely, with discussions respecting the origin of evil,

which in so many forms oppresses human nature. It is indifferent to

us, whether he was himself the first propounder of the doctrines he

maintained on this subject, or whether he borrowed them from more

ancient traditions of the East. It is sufficient that in this respect

he assumed such high ground that all obscurity which involved the

subject seemed to disappear, as long as no clouds of metaphysics

obscured the horizon. The doctrine of a good and evil principle, the

sources of all good and ill, is the foundation-stone of the whole

structure, both of his religious and political philosophy.

This leading idea was, however, modified by the character of a

legislator which its author assumed. He asserted the existence of

a kingdom of light and a kingdom of darkness: in the former reigns

Ormuzd, the author and giver of all good; in the latter, Ahriman, the

source of all evil, moral as well as physical. The throne of Ormuzd

is surrounded by the seven Amshaspands, the princes of light, of whom

the sage himself was the first. Subordinate to these are the Izeds,

the genii of good, of whatever kind. The kingdom of darkness subject

to Ahriman, contains the same sort of hierarchy; his throne being

surrounded by the seven superior Devs, the princes of evil, while an

infinite number of inferior Devs are subordinate to the former, as

the Izeds to the Amshaspands. The kingdoms of Ormuzd and Ahriman are

eternally opposed to each other, but at a future period Ahriman shall

be overthrown, and the powers of darkness destroyed; the dominion of

Ormuzd shall become universal, and the kingdom of light alone shall

subsist and embrace the universe.

It is apparent that this ideal system was copied from the constitutions

of the oriental monarchies, and conversely, the forms of the first

were applied to the latter: the whole being obviously adapted to the

place and circumstances of time in which the legislator appeared. He

lived in a country situated on the borders of the nomad tribes, where

he had opportunities of comparing the advantages of civil society with

the striking contrast presented by the wandering and lawless hordes,

which incessantly laid waste his native land. He beheld, as it were,

his kingdoms of light and of darkness realised on the earth: Iran,

the Medo-Bactrian kingdom, subject to Gustasp, being the image of the

kingdom of Ormuzd, and the monarch, of Ormuzd himself; while Turan, the

land of the nomad nations to the north, of which Afrasiab was king,

was the picture of the kingdom of darkness under the rule of Ahriman.

The leading ideas, originally distinct, have been so intimately mixed

up together, that if not absolutely confounded, at all events many of

the subordinate images have been transferred from one to the other. For

instance, as Turan lay to the north of Iran, the kingdom of Ahriman

is made to occupy the same relative position; thence descend the

Devs, which at all times inflict infinite mischiefs on Iran. As the

inhabitants of Turan led a lawless, unsettled life, causing continual

mischief by their incursions, so the Devs wander in all directions from

their abodes in the north, and seek occasions of inflicting mischief

everywhere. Nevertheless, as Ahriman shall eventually be overcome,

and his kingdom annihilated, so shall the power of the chiefs of the

Turanians be broken; the laws of Zoroaster prevail, and the golden age

of Jemshid return.

Such are the principal ideas on which the system of Zoroaster turns.

He did not, however, confine himself to generalities, but applied his

principles to the different species of created beings. All that exists

appertains either to the kingdom of Ormuzd or to that of Ahriman,

whether rational or irrational, animate or inanimate. There are pure

men, pure animals, pure vegetables (all these the creation of Ormuzd);

and again, there are impure men, impure animals, impure vegetables,

subject to the dominion of the Devs, and appertaining to the kingdom of

Ahriman.

All men are accounted impure (_kharfasters_), who by thought, word,

or deed despise the laws of Zoroaster; all poisonous and pernicious

animals or reptiles (which in the countries bordering on Media are

much more abundant and formidable than in Europe), with all plants and

vegetables possessing the same qualities. On the other hand, in the

country where the law of Zoroaster is revered, everything is pure,

everything is holy: so that his precepts extend their influence not

only over the human race, but even to the brute and inanimate creation.

It is the duty of the servant of Ormuzd (_mazdryesnan_) to foster

everything in nature which is pure and holy, as all such things are

the creations of Ormuzd, at the same time that the enmity he has vowed

against Ahriman and his creation make it incumbent on him to attack

and destroy all impure animals. On these principles Zoroaster built

his laws for the improvement of the soil by means of agriculture, by

tending of cattle, and gardening, which he perpetually inculcates, as

if he could not sufficiently impress his disciples with a sense of

their importance.

In the internal organisation of his kingdom, Zoroaster continued

faithfully to copy the character peculiar to the despotic governments

of the East. The whole system reposed on a four-fold division of

castes: that of the priests, the warriors, the agriculturists, and the

artificers of whatever denomination. This is the order in which they

are enumerated, but the legislator omits no opportunity of elevating

and dignifying that of the agriculturists. These extract plenty from

the earth; their hands wield the blade of Jemshid with which he clove

the ground, and drew forth the treasures of abundance. It is to be

observed, however, that this division into castes is not described as

an institution of Zoroaster, but as having existed from the era of

Jemshid; an institution which the legislator did not originate, but

merely maintained.

The gradation of ranks is conformable to the hierarchy of the kingdom

of Ormuzd. We hear of rulers of petty towns, rulers of streets (or

portions of cities), rulers of cities, and rulers of provinces; the

head of all these potentates being the king. All, as subjects of

Ormuzd, are supposed good and upright, especially the highest of all,

the monarch. He is the soul of all, on whom all depend, and around whom

the whole system revolves. His commands are absolute and irrevocable,

but the religion of Ormuzd forbids him to ordain anything but what is

just and good.

These are the principal characteristics of the kingdom sketched by

Zoroaster; the picture of a despotic government on the principles

of the customs of the East. To this he added precepts calculated to

advance the moral improvement of his people; nor did it escape his

observation, that on the habits of the nation, and in particular on

their domestic virtues, must be founded its public constitution. Hence

his laws for the furtherance of marriage, his praises of fruitfulness

in women, and his condemnation of the unnatural vices which abounded

in the countries where he dwelt. He did not, however, venture to

proclaim himself a patron of monogamy, either because he himself had

not been convinced of its expediency, or because his countrymen were

too firmly attached to their existing practices.

The conservation of his ordinances was entrusted to the priestly caste,

the Magians, who, under the Medes, formed one of their original tribes,

to whom was committed the preservation of such sciences as were known

among them, and the performance of the offices of public devotion.

Herodotus expressly names them as a distinct tribe of the Medes, and

this arrangement, peculiar to the East, with which the Jewish annals

have made us familiar, is further illustrated by the observations

already offered respecting the priest-caste of the Egyptians. The

reform of Zoroaster also addressed itself to these. According to

his own professions, he was only the restorer of the doctrine which

Ormuzd himself had promulgated in the days of Jemshid: this doctrine,

however, had been misrepresented, a false and delusive Magia, the work

of Devs, had crept in, which was first to be extinguished in order to

restore the pure laws of Ormuzd. He composed the first and best of his

treatises, the Vendidad, at a period when his doctrines had only begun

to obtain the ascendency, and when the false Magians, the worshippers

of the Devs, withstood him; hence the maledictions which he continually

heaps upon them. We know from history that in the end his reformation

triumphed, though we are not enabled to trace its progress in detail.

Zoroaster, therefore, must not be considered as the founder, but only

the reformer of the caste of Magians, and to him must, therefore, be

ascribed the internal constitution of this caste, though it may have

subsequently received some further development. The three orders of

Herbeds (disciples), Mobeds (masters), and Destur Mobeds (complete

masters), into which they were divided, occur in his works. They

alone were entitled to perform the offices of religion, they alone

possessed the sacred formularies or liturgies by which Ormuzd was to

be addressed, and were acquainted with the ceremonies by which the

offering of prayers and sacrifice was to be accompanied. This was

their peculiar knowledge and their study, and it was only by them that

prayers and sacrifice could be presented to the deity. In this manner

they came to be considered the only interlocutors between God and

man; it was to them alone that Ormuzd revealed his will, they alone

contemplated the future, and had the power of revealing it to such as

inquired into it through them.

On these foundations was reared, both among the Persians and the Medes,

the dignity of the priestly caste. The general belief in predictions,

especially as derived from observation of the heavenly bodies, and the

custom of undertaking no enterprise of moment without consulting those

who were supposed acquainted with such oracles, as well as the blind

confidence reposed in such pretenders, all conspired to give this class

of men the highest influence, not only in the relations of private

life, but also over public undertakings. In the days of Zoroaster, as

at present, it was esteemed necessary to the dignity as well as the

exigencies of an Asiatic court, that the person of the king should be

surrounded by a multitude of soothsayers, wise men, and priests, who

formed a part of his council. The origin of this persuasion, which

has so universally and invariably prevailed in the East, may be left

for others to discuss; but the extraordinary influence which it has

exercised over the manners of private life and the constitution of

the state at large, deserves the closest attention of every one who

interests himself in the history of nations and their manners.

If we take these things into the account, and assume it as proved

that Zoroaster flourished under the Median dynasty, we cannot be

surprised by the fact, that on the downfall of that monarchy its

hereditary religion was adopted by the conquerors. Supposing (what

we are not prepared either to assert or deny) that up to that period

these doctrines were unknown to the Persians, yet from the nature

of things, their reception was an almost necessary consequence of a

fact which is indisputable, the adoption by the Persian monarchs of

the court-ceremonial of the Medes. The latter had been defined and

prescribed by the mixed political and religious code of that nation,

and was inseparable from the authority on which it rested. The

Magians and wise men formed the most dignified portion of the court;

they surrounded the king’s person, and were indispensable to him as

soothsayers and diviners. They were distinguished also by their dress;

their girdle (_costi_), which was not passed over the shoulder like the

cord of the Brahmans in the manner of a scarf; the sacred cup _havan_,

used for libations; and the _barsom_, a bundle of twigs held together

by a band. Besides, the question was not whether a new religion should

be adopted by the mass of the people (the doctrines of Zoroaster being

the exclusive inheritance and science of the priest-caste), but only

respecting the observance of certain religious forms and modes of

worship which were left for the priests to administer.

[Illustration: COSTUME OF A PERSIAN PRIEST

(After Du Sommerard)]

It is certain from history that the Median priest-caste became

established among the Persians as early as the foundation of their

monarchy by Cyrus. Not only do Herodotus and Ctesias describe them as

an order of priests under the first Persian princes, but the express

testimony of Xenophon in the _Cyropædia_ leaves no further question,

possessing as it does an historical value from an observation appended

by the author. Having described the etiquette of the Persian court as

copied from that of the Medes, he adds: “Cyrus also first appointed the

Magi to chant sacred hymns at the rising of the sun, and to offer daily

sacrifices to the deities, to whom it was enjoined by their law. This

state of things continues to be maintained by each successive monarch;

and the rest of the Persian nation followed the example of their

prince, conceiving that they should in the same way be more likely to

prosper, if they worshipped the gods as their monarch did.”

Thus the first consequence of their appointment was the introduction of

a certain religious ceremonial in the court of Persia. It by no means,

however, follows from this that the Persians at once laid aside the

manners and customs of their forefathers, and, as it were, suddenly

became converted into Medes; but rather, that a mixture and union of

their ancient and newly-adopted opinions and customs took place. The

laws of the Persians, in consequence, came to be cited in connection

with those of the Medes; their national deities were still reverenced

as before; and in his time Herodotus remarks certain diversities

observable in the ceremonies of the Persians as compared with those

of the Magians. We must not therefore be surprised at not finding a

complete correspondence between the precepts of the Zendavesta and the

customs of the Persians; on the contrary, this very diversity is one

mark of the genuineness of that composition.

Nor are we authorised to conclude from the expressions of Xenophon

that the whole Persian nation at once adopted the Magian religion.

This appears to be sufficiently contradicted by the totally different

way of life of the various Persian tribes; besides, as we have already

had occasion to remark, and shall presently see confirmed, by the

Persians Xenophon means the nobler tribes, and possibly only that of

the Pasargadæ. Far less are we entitled to suppose that the creed of

Zoroaster was at once introduced in the conquered countries as the

universal religion of the state; for although strongly marked by the

character of intolerance, this religion appears never, like that of

Mohammed, to have been propagated by fire and sword: its author was

himself neither a conqueror nor a warrior, nor did the princes who

embraced it esteem it a duty to provide for its dissemination by the

power of the sword.

It is much nearer to the truth to suppose that the reception of this

religion was at first confined to the court, of which the caste of

Magi, as priests, as soothsayers, and as councillors of the king,

formed an important part, and next to the wives and eunuchs of the

monarch, had nearest access to his person. It was a principal part

of the education of the monarch to be instructed in the lore of the

Magi, a privilege communicated to very few personages besides, and

those highly favoured. This doctrine of the Magi, mixed up with the

hereditary opinions of the Persians, was designated as the law of

the Medes and Persians, and embraced a knowledge of all these sacred

customs, precepts, and usages which concerned, not only the worship of

the deity, but the whole private life of every worshipper of Ormuzd,

respecting the duties which he was bound to perform, and the penalties

which he would incur by transgressing them. In proportion as the ritual

prescribed was extensive and multifarious, so was it open to cases of

doubtful interpretation, when the counsel of the Magi was needed, and

consequently was not neglected. From a comparison of several passages,

it appears probable that they composed the council of the king’s

judges, of which mention is made as early as the time of Cambyses. The

very notion of a religious legislation, such as we have described,

implies that the priests should be also judges, and the individual

cases which have been recorded as brought before this tribunal appear

to fortify such a conjecture. This court of judicature consisted of men

distinguished for their wisdom no less than their justice, possessing

their places for life, unless proved guilty of some act of injustice.

When this happened, they were punished with strictness, and cruelty.

Examples, however, are not wanting to prove that although it was

esteemed a duty by the monarch to take the opinion of this council,

yet he was by no means necessarily bound to abide by their sentence.

Cambyses demanded whether it was lawful for him to marry his sister,

and the council, knowing that it was his purpose to do so, replied that

there was no law which permitted it, but that there did exist a law

which made it allowable for the king of the Persians to do what seemed

to him good. Notwithstanding, therefore, the apparent limitation set to

the royal authority by the separation of the judicial power from the

administrative, the answer of this high tribunal makes it plain that

the authority of the kings of Persia was as unlimited as that of any

other oriental despot at any period.

In like manner, the idea which has been adopted by several eminent

modern authors, that the Persian constitution was modelled after the

hierarchy of the kingdom of Ormuzd, appears, at all events, to require

strong limitations. Appeal is continually made to the seven princes who

stood about the throne of the king, in like manner as the Amshaspands

surrounded the throne of Ormuzd; as well as to other less striking

analogies. But, at the most, this analogy applied only to the economy

of the court and did not extend to the kingdom at large: of the former

the Magi composed an important part, and it is very possible that

this may have influenced the character of the whole. When, however,

we come to compare the picture which Zoroaster has sketched of the

constitution of the kingdom in which he lived with that of Persia, we

remark similarities which exist in all great despotic governments: a

prince, whose mandates are irrevocable, a division of the empire into

provinces, and a departmental administration by satraps; while we

discover at the same time some striking dissimilitudes. The general

distinction of castes, on which the legislative system of Zoroaster

is founded, was never completely established among the Persians,

although the foundation of such a system was laid in the diversity of

occupations and modes of life pursued by the different tribes. We find

among them the tribes of nobles or warriors, and of agriculturists,

but none of artisans, which indeed could hardly exist among a race of

conquerors; nor is it certain that in the cases of the former their

occupations were necessarily restricted to individuals of that tribe.

ORGANISATION OF THE PERSIAN COURT

Agreeably to the customs of all the great despotic princes of the East,

the court consisted not only of the king’s servants, but also of a

numerous army, principally cavalry, which surrounded the person of the

king, and formed part of his retinue. This body of cavalry was divided

into corps of ten-thousands, according to the nations of which it was

composed. The most distinguished were the Persians; the rest succeeded

in a fixed gradation. To these were attached the numerous bodyguards

posted at the gates of the palace, of whom we have already had occasion

to speak in the description of Persepolis. If we compare with these the

descriptions of the household troops of the kings of modern Persia, or

the Mongol princes in Hindustan and China, we shall perceive that the

court establishment of the monarchs of the East is precisely what it

was in the days of Cyrus.

It was a natural consequence of the increasing luxury of the Persians

that the number of courtiers should be augmented, when the rule had

once been established, that for all, even the most trivial duties,

special officers were necessary.

As all these officers were supported free of expense, there were

daily fed at the king’s table, according to Ctesias, fifteen thousand

persons, and Xenophon assures us that a considerable body of men was

required only to make the king’s bed. These inferior attendants on

the court were marshalled in the same manner as the army, and divided

into tens and hundreds. Courtiers, however, of a superior rank were

also very numerous, distinguished by the general appellations of the

friends, the kinsmen, or the servants of the king, titles which under

every despotic government are understood to confer a high degree of

importance.

Not only from the analogy which prevails in other courts of the East,

but from a comparison of different passages in ancient writers, it

appears probable that the household of the Persian monarch was

originally composed of the ruling tribe or horde, namely, that of the

Pasargadæ, and especially of the family of the Achæmenidæ. For this

reason the courtiers of superior rank bore the appellation of the

king’s kinsmen, and almost every page of Persian history proves that

every trust of importance was confided, if not to this family, at all

events to this tribe. The great body of the inferior attendants of the

court was, as Xenophon expressly informs us, gradually filled up with

the warlike followers of the king.

The very name Pasargadæ, as we have had occasion to remark, betokens

that the household of the court was made up of this race, and though

it cannot be ascertained to what extent in the end the other noble

tribes were gradually admitted to the same privileges, it is certain

that the majority of the court at all times was taken from this. The

student of Persian antiquity will, accordingly, find reason to adopt

the conjecture that the Grecian authors in general meant by “the

Persians,” not the entire nation, but only, or principally, the tribe

of the Pasargadæ; and this hypothesis applies with especial propriety

to the _Cyropædia_ of Xenophon. The details which he affords us, in the

commencement of his work, respecting the education and institutions of

the Persians, cannot be referred to the whole nation, but only to the

ruling tribe, or the king’s household, as is proved by the notices of

place which he adjoins. If we adopt this principle of interpretation,

the whole picture presents itself under a totally different aspect,

and it is no longer necessary to consider it as a romance. It is a

description of the education and habits of life which, in compliance

with custom, the noblesse of the nation, or the portion of it which

composed the household of the king, were obliged to observe; and the

very strictness of the discipline prescribed is perfectly in harmony

with the customs of oriental courts, where everything is regulated by

an exact ceremonial. Accordingly, it must not be looked upon as an

account of the national system of education, nor of the manners of the

people at large, but the court-education, and court-ceremonial; and in

proportion as these are strict under all despotic and especially under

all oriental governments, it becomes necessary to accustom to them from

their very youth such as are destined to observe them.

The economy of the harem of the Persian monarchs appears to have been

precisely the same with the present customs, in that respect, of the

Asiatic nations. It was peopled from the different provinces of the

empire, and the surveillance of the whole committed to eunuchs, of whom

we find traces, long before the Persian monarchy, in the courts of the

Median kings, a consequence of the practice of polygamy. His eunuchs

and his wives encircled the person of the monarch, and thus easily

attained an influence which, under a weak monarch who felt himself

unable to shake off the yoke, often became a species of protectorship

by which they were enabled to sway the helm of state, and, in the end,

to exercise dominion over the throne itself.

The interior of these gynæcea is best described in the narrative of the

book of Esther, while the account of a court intrigue in the reign of

Xerxes, recorded in the last book of Herodotus, throws great additional

light on their history. The harem was divided into two sets of

apartments, and the new-comers were transferred from the first to the

second on having been admitted to the king’s chamber. Unbounded luxury,

which in the end degenerates into wearisome etiquette, imposes of

itself a restraint on the passions of arbitrary despots. It is far from

being the case that, at the present day, the sultan of Constantinople

can select the object of his desire according to his own pleasure;

and Persian etiquette demanded that a whole year should be spent in

purification by means of aromatics and costly perfumes before the

novitiate beauty was thought worthy of approaching the presence of the

despot. The number of concubines must therefore have been sufficiently

great to present a new victim for every day. The passions of hatred and

jealousy, which are apt to become intense in proportion as their sphere

is limited, attained in the harem of Persia a degree of rancour which

our imaginations can hardly picture. When Amestris, the wife of Xerxes,

succeeded at last in getting into her power her sister-in-law, whom she

suspected as her rival, she caused her to be mutilated in a manner too

horrible for recital.

The legitimate wives of the king stood, however, on a totally different

footing from his concubines; a distinction which prevailed also in the

inferior conditions of life. As everything in the constitution of the

country depended on the distinctions of tribe, the consort was chosen

from the family of Cyrus, or that of the Achæmenidæ; though the example

of Esther appears to prove that occasionally concubines were elevated

to the same rank. In that case they were invested with the insignia of

royalty, the diadem and the other regalia. The mode of life, however,

of the queen-consort was no less rigidly prescribed and limited than

that of the concubines; and it is mentioned as a remarkable instance,

that Statira so far overstepped that burdensome system of etiquette as

to appear in public without a veil.

Uncertainty of succession is an inseparable consequence of a harem

administration. It is true that illegitimate children were altogether

excluded from inheriting by the customs of Persia; but the intrigues of

their mothers and the treachery of eunuchs, with the help of poison,

often prepared the way for them to the throne. Of legitimate sons the

rule was, that the eldest should inherit, especially if he was born

when his father was king. The selection was, however, left to the

monarch; and as his decisions were commonly influenced by his queen,

the power of the queen-mother became still more considerable among the

Persians than among the Turks. As the education of the heir to the

crown was mainly entrusted to his mother, she did not fail early to

instil a spirit of dependence on her wishes, from which the future king

was rarely able to emancipate himself. The narratives of Herodotus and

Ctesias, respecting the tyrannical influence exercised by Parysatis,

Amestris, and others, bear ample testimony to the fact.

Another necessary consequence of such a system is the insignificance of

anything which could be properly called a council of state. Affairs of

public importance are discussed in the interior of the seraglio, under

the influence of the queen-mother, the favourite wife, and the eunuchs.

It was only on occasions of some great expeditions being meditated, or

the like, that councils were held for any length of time, to which the

satraps, the tributary princes, and the commanders of the forces were

invited. The principal question was, however, for the most part already

settled, and the debate respected only the means of carrying it into

execution. Even in this point, however, the despotic character of the

government manifested itself; since he who gave any advice was obliged

to answer for its issue; and in case of ill success the penalty fell on

his own head.

All the other circumstances of the king’s private life bore traces

of the original condition of the race, and presented the picture of

a nomad state of existence carried to the highest excess of luxury.

Even after these monarchs had occupied permanent residences, the signs

of this did not altogether disappear, especially in their annual

migrations from one abode to another, at fixed seasons of the year.

Like the chiefs of nomad hordes, the kings of Persia removed with

their household at certain seasons, from one chief city of their empire

to another. The three capitals, of Susa, Babylon, and Ecbatana, each

enjoyed every year the privilege of being for a certain period the

residence of the monarch. The spring was spent at Ecbatana, the three

summer months at Susa, the autumn and winter in Babylon. The great

diversity of climate in so extensive an empire (a diversity which for

several reasons is still more perceptible in Asia than in Europe) was

the source of enjoyments, which, in our quarter of the globe, we can

scarcely appreciate. These removals took place with such a multitude

of followers, that the suite of the court resembled an army, and for

this reason the poorer provinces were spared a visitation, which would

have exposed them to the horrors of famine. A numerous attendance of

armed followers constitutes at the present day a permanent part of

the household of the great men of the East; and in the cases of their

kings these amounted to the numbers of a regular army. The same system

is retained unaltered by the rulers of modern Asia, and the accounts

of travellers respecting this particular can hardly be read without

astonishment.

The traces of the same nomad mode of life may also be detected in

the arrangement of the king’s palaces and pleasure-houses. These

were universally surrounded with spacious parks, or, as the Persians

denominated them, paradises, forming domains sufficiently extensive to

allow armies to be reviewed in them, or to assemble for the pursuit

of game, of which great numbers and in every variety were collected.

Such establishments existed, not only in the three capitals already

named, but in several other countries of Asia, in which the king was

accustomed to spend a part of his time, or in which his satraps resided.

The king’s palace was styled among the ancient Persians also, as in

modern Constantinople, the Porte. Agreeably to the customs of other

despots of the East, the kings of Persia resided in the interior of

their palaces, seldom appearing in public, and guarding all means

of access to their persons. The crowd of ministers and courtiers

were consequently obliged to take their stations, according to their

degrees of rank, in the court without, or before the gate or porte of

the palace; and respect for the monarch prescribed, especially in his

actual presence, a rigid system of etiquette, the discipline of which

commenced with the early youth of those who were compelled to observe

it. The number of courtiers, masters of ceremonies, guards, and others

was endless. It was through them alone that access could be gained to

the monarch; and they were consequently invested with titles which

betokened their relation to him, being styled the king’s ears, the

king’s eyes, etc., because no one without permission, or without their

intervention, could approach his presence.

The king’s table also was regulated by a system of etiquette no less

absolute, which, while it aimed at securing the highest enjoyment,

necessarily became in the end more burdensome to the despot himself

than to his guests.

As lord and owner of the whole empire, it was thought unworthy of him

to taste any but the best and most costly productions of his dominions;

no water was fit to be drunk by him but that of the Choaspes, which

accordingly was conveyed in silver vessels on a multitude of wagons

wherever he might journey. His very salt was brought from the

neighbourhood of the temple of Jupiter Ammon in the centre of the

African desert; his wine from Chalybon in Syria; the wheat, of which

his bread was made, from Æolia, and so forth. Hence arose the custom,

that on his journeys the best of the fruits of each country should be

presented to the monarch; and according to the testimony of Xenophon

there were bodies of men destined to the sole purpose of searching

through his spacious dominions for whatever might add to the luxury of

the royal table.

Among the pleasures of the court was accounted the chase, which was not

only esteemed the highest of all amusements, but a suitable preparation

for the toils of war. In the end whole armies were devoted to the

pursuit, and such expeditions resembled those occasionally adopted by

the monarchs of continental Europe. The Persians were originally a

race of hunters as well as shepherds, and one entire tribe among them,

the Sagartians, who adhered to their pastoral habits in the time of

Herodotus, practised in war the arts of hunting, casting a lasso round

the neck of a flying enemy, as of an animal of the chase. In their more

advanced stage of civilisation the Persians are still characterised by

their fondness for the same pursuits, and the manner in which of old

they prosecuted this amusement precisely resembled that adopted by the

Mongol princes. A distinction was made between the chase as carried

on in the park, and which constituted the favourite recreation of the

monarchs and grandees of Persia, and in the open country, which was

a nobler species of amusement, and usually pursued in the districts

abounding with game of northern Media and Hyrcania.

ADMINISTRATION OF THE PROVINCES; FINANCIAL SYSTEM; SATRAPS

If we reflect upon the original circumstances of the Persians, we

must acknowledge that their ideas on the subjects of administration

and finance could not have been very refined; and the primitive

condition of the race continued to give a tinge to their institutions,

notwithstanding their gradual refinement and the development of their

first constitution. The forms of European government and finance could

have no place in an empire founded by a nomad people; notwithstanding

the difficulty which many authors, of great pretensions to an intimate

knowledge of the East, have shown in liberating themselves from their

European preconceptions.

“The Persians,” says Herodotus, “look upon all Asia as theirs, and

as the property of each successive king of Persia.” These few words

contain the leading idea, on which all the following discussion must be

grounded.

A rude people of conquerors naturally look upon the conquered

countries, with all they contain, as their own; and Asiatic history

presents several instances of such nations, in order to their

own peaceable occupation, entirely depopulating their conquered

possessions. The Persians did not fail to adopt the same plan, when

no other appeared likely to answer the purpose of repressing their

vassals; but when their conquests became very extensive, this was

impracticable, and they were compelled to devise other means of

securing their dominion.

We have already explained how and when these institutions were first

adopted. The conquered nations were compelled to pay a tribute, at

first arbitrarily imposed, but under Darius reduced to an annual and

regular tax, of which Herodotus has given us a full statement.

Important as this document is, it has nevertheless given occasion

to many misapprehensions. The tribute in money has been treated as

the only, or, at all events, the principal revenue which the monarch

derived from his empire; and, with the customs of Europe before their

eyes, authors have imagined the existence of a public exchequer, out

of which the expenses of the state were paid, the armies maintained,

and the public officers remunerated, etc. Such a mode of proceeding

was, however, utterly unknown in the East. The Persian public officers

received no appointments in the European sense of the word; the tribute

in question furnished nothing more than the private revenue of the

king, and, besides his own expenses, was applied to no public purposes

whatever, unless, perhaps, to that of conferring presents.

As the end of a financial system adopted by a nation of conquerors

must be different from that of all others, so also must the internal

regulations belonging to such a system.

The end in question is no other than that of obliging the conquered

nations, whose land is esteemed the property of the conquerors, to pay

for everything, and provide for the maintenance of the king, the court,

and, in some sense, of all the nation.

Herodotus tells us that, independently of the tribute, the whole

Persian empire was divided into portions for the support of the king

and his army, or his suite, each district being obliged to provide

for a certain period. In consequence of this arrangement the payments

from the provinces were principally made in the fruits and natural

productions of the earth, exacted with a reference to the fertility of

each soil and its natural advantages. The best of every country was

considered as the property of the king, and was delivered to him by

the rulers of the provinces; and as by these means provisions of all

sorts were accumulated at the royal residence from every quarter of the

empire, there necessarily reigned there an abundance and luxury which

corrupted the morals of the court, and introduced those habits of waste

and sensuality for which the Persians were so notorious.

Not only, however, was the king’s court to be maintained, but also

those of the satraps of each province, which were modelled on that of

their master; their suite was often no less numerous, and they kept

up a state which often exceeded their income; and as the wants of the

monarch were supplied from all parts of his empire, so were theirs

from every part of each department. Particular spots were appointed to

provide particular necessaries or luxuries, and Herodotus tells us that

Masistius, satrap of Babylon, reserved no less than four considerable

villages of Babylonia for the support of his Indian hounds.

To these burdens was added the maintenance of the king’s troops, which

were quartered in large corps through all the provinces, and which

were paid, not out of the king’s private chest, or from the provincial

tribute, but by the provinces they occupied.

With these contributions in kind were reckoned the payments in specie,

or rather the tributes in uncoined gold and silver, of which Herodotus

has afforded us his well-known statement. Whether these were collected

by way of a poll-tax, or an income-tax, or in whatever other way, the

historian does not inform us; but he assures us that they amounted

annually to fourteen thousand five hundred talents. The gold and silver

thus collected--the Indians alone paying their tribute in gold--was

stored up in ingots, of which the king made use as he found occasion.

We may, however, readily suppose that the sums set down by Herodotus

did not always continue the same. The mighty armaments undertaken

by the Persian government, especially under Xerxes, called for

extraordinary expenses, and necessitated an augmentation of the

imposts, as is expressly mentioned. When mercenary troops came to be a

part of the Persian establishment, an augmentation of the tribute was a

necessary consequence.

Nor were the sums of which the satraps drained the provinces

comprehended in those already enumerated. The satrap of Babylon alone

received every day more than an Attic medimnus full of silver, which

on a moderate computation made up a revenue of more than £100,000

sterling, and the sum paid to the king from the same province amounted

to about twice as much.

The conclusion deducible from all this is, that the sums enumerated

by Herodotus by no means comprehended all that the provinces had to

furnish, but only what the satraps paid over to the king’s exchequer.

These imposts were extended over the whole empire, Persis alone

excepted, immunity from tribute being a natural privilege of the

victorious nation.

To these principal sources of public revenue were added others, founded

partly in the peculiar character of the country, partly in the nature

of its constitution.

To the first class belongs the revenue derived from the rights of

irrigation. Persia is a very arid country, and, with the finest

climate, its fertility depends in consequence on the supply of water.

In ancient, as well as modern times, this has furnished its rulers

with a pretext for exacting contributions from their subjects, of

which Herodotus records a remarkable example. One of the most fertile

portions of the country was divided by the river Aces into five

distinct branches or arms, which extended up into the mountains;

among these mountains the kings of Persia caused to be erected mighty

embankments, in order to keep in their own power the water of the

river, and employed this power to extract from their subjects an

additional tribute.

Another source of revenue to the royal treasury was the right of

fishing in the canal which connects the lake Mœris with the Nile.

During the six months that the water flowed into the lake, the revenue

amounted to a talent each day; during the remaining six, to twenty minæ.

In addition to these, the confiscations of the property of satraps

and other grandees was a considerable source of revenue; in Persia,

as in all despotic states, the loss of life being accompanied by the

forfeiture of property.

The free-will offerings, however, as they were styled, which were

presented to the king, were probably still more considerable. It was

the universal custom of the East for none to present himself before a

superior, more especially the king, without a present. The grandees of

the court, the satraps for instance, sought in this manner to purchase

or retain the king’s favour, but on certain solemnities, particularly

on the king’s birthday, such offerings flowed in from all parts of

the empire. These consisted not so much in money, as in rarities and

valuables of every description, such as are delineated on the ruins

of Persepolis. What treasures must on such an occasion have been

accumulated out of the immense empire of Persia!

Such an arrangement with respect to the public revenue shows at the

outset that the expenditure also must have been no less peculiar.

We have already remarked, that we must dismiss the idea of anything

like a public treasury, out of which the servants of the state were

regularly paid, an arrangement equally unknown in ancient as in modern

Persia.

All the expenses which could be characterized as public, such as the

maintenance of armies, etc., are not met by the resources of the king’s

exchequer, but previously provided for in the provinces. The king’s

treasure remains a private chest for his personal use, from which he

takes what he wants for the purpose of making presents, not in coin,

but in ingots, or in vessels of gold, even the expenses of the court

and household not being provided for out of it, but defrayed in the two

following ways.

All the inferior attendants in the court, including the bodyguard,

which in Europe would receive pay, were not paid in specie at the

court of Persia, but in produce; and to this purpose were devoted the

provisions of which such abundance was transmitted from the different

provinces, and which more than sufficed for the consumption of the

court.

On the other hand, all of a more elevated rank, the great officers

of the court, the friends or kinsmen of the king, who on account of

their birth or offices might aspire to favours or pensions, did not

receive anything in money, but were rather in assignments of towns or

cities, which the king disposed of at his pleasure, in virtue of his

title as sole proprietor of the chattels and lives of his subjects; as

the autocrat of all the Russias was in the habit of making a present

of some thousands of serfs. The individual to whom such an assignment

was made received the revenue of the place in question, and the king

possessed accurate accounts of their value, so as to regulate the

distribution of his favours. Nevertheless the person thus favoured

appears to have been obliged to make over a part of his income to the

king in the way of tribute. With individuals of the highest rank, the

mother or consort of the monarch, luxury had attained such an excess,

that a variety of places were assigned them to provide severally for

even the most insignificant of their wants. In this manner a fruitful

district, a day’s journey in length, was allotted to furnish the

queen’s zone; and thus Themistocles received the city of Magnesia,

producing a revenue of fifty talents, to supply him with bread,

Lampsacus to furnish wine, and Myus the side dishes of his table.

Besides these allotments of villages and cities, it was usual also

to assign, in like manner, houses and lands in the provinces; and

donations of this kind were usually coupled with offices at the court,

an institution ascribed to Cyrus himself, and which descended to after

ages.

Those possessed of such assignments enjoyed them for their lives; on

their decease their places and possessions reverted to the king, to

dispose of according to his pleasure. Without such an arrangement it

would have been impossible for the boundless empire of Persia itself

to have sufficed to supply the liberality of the monarch, exercised

as it was towards so large a number, and compelled also to provide

for many expenses. Nevertheless the possessions attached to places at

court became, according to Xenophon, hereditary, and constituted the

patrimony of those whose ancestors had been first appointed to the

same by Cyrus. Among a people whose constitution, like that of the

Persians, was entirely dependent on descent and distinctions of tribe,

it was natural that offices should become hereditary, and an immediate

consequence that the revenues attached to them should follow the same

rule.

These preliminary observations will help us to comprehend the internal

administration of the provinces. As the very division into provinces

was for the purpose of collecting with greater accuracy the tribute,

the political administration of the satrapies connected therewith was

not matured at once, but gradually developed. As the age of Xenophon

may be considered on the whole the most flourishing period of Persian

history, we shall be less likely to err if we confine ourselves to the

evidence which he has afforded.

The government by satraps, which was then complete, was common to

Persia with other despotic empires; but as it entailed a multitude of

abuses, attempts were made as much as possible to mitigate them.

The advantage which, in this particular, the Persian system of

administration possessed over all others of the same kind, was the

careful separation made between the civil and military powers; the

exceptions which occurred in the latter ages of the empire having

grown out of abuses. According to Persian ideas the king had a twofold

duty to perform, of providing for the security and also for the good

government and cultivation, of his empire: to secure the former object,

garrisons were established throughout its whole extent; and the civil

authorities were appointed to provide for the latter.

The foundation of this beneficial arrangement was laid at the very

commencement of the empire, by the appointment of receivers of the

royal treasury, together with that of commanders of the forces, and the

same continued after the provinces came to be more accurately divided,

and satraps to be created. Xenophon gives us the most satisfactory

proof of this, when he records the first nomination and appointment of

satraps, which, as he tells us, were first made by Cyrus.

“You know,” he is introduced saying to his friends, “that I have left

garrisons and their commandants in the conquered countries and cities,

to whom I have given in charge to attend to nothing else but their

security. Together with these I shall also appoint satraps who may

govern the inhabitants, receive the tribute, pay the garrisons, and

attend to all other necessary points of business.” This institution

continued uninterrupted for a long period, and the satraps are

repeatedly mentioned in history together with the commandants of

troops. However, in the later ages of the Persian monarchy, it became

the custom to appoint the satraps to the command also of the king’s

troops, more especially when they happened to be individuals of the

royal family. In this manner the younger Cyrus was satrap of Mysia,

Phrygia, and Lydia, and at the same time generalissimo of all the

forces assembled in the plain of Castolus. The same we find to have

been the case with Pharnabazus and others, so much so, that even in the

time of Xenophon it had become customary for the satrap of a province

to be also commander of the forces there; more especially in the

frontier provinces, where such a union of powers was more especially

necessary. The pernicious effects of this practice, and its tendency

to promote revolt among the satraps, and to prepare the way for the

internal dissolution of the empire, are sufficiently proved by the

single example of the younger Cyrus. Notwithstanding, however, this

abuse, it is not true that a military government was introduced in the

provinces, for the other civil officers continued to be independent

of the commanders of the forces, and the latter were not allowed to

take any part in the civil administration. Xenophon tells us that the

satraps were entrusted with the surveillance of the commanders of

the troops as well as over the civil magistrates; the king of Persia

appointing persons of both descriptions commanders of the forces, and

also magistrates to govern the country, the one class being bound to

pay deference to the other.

The first duty of the satraps and their deputies (ὕπαρχοι) undoubtedly

was the collection of the revenue, whether in kind or in money; their

office, however, was not limited to this, but they were at the same

time commissioned to promote agriculture and the improvement of the

soil; and the remarkable attention which was devoted to these objects

constitutes the chief merit of the Persian administration. The code

of Zoroaster, as has been already remarked, insisted upon the duty of

cultivating the soil, by gardening, rearing of cattle, and tillage, as

one of the most sacred duties of his disciples, everything impure being

banished from the land where his law was received, and nothing allowed

there but pure men, pure animals, and pure vegetables. This idea of

the legislator, when applied to a whole empire, presents, doubtless, a

magnificent picture, which, though it must needs remain for the most

part an ideal picture, was nevertheless, to a great extent, realised

under the Persian monarchy. Those parks or paradises, which surrounded

not only the palaces of the monarch, but those of his satraps, were so

many lively images of the pure kingdom of Ormuzd, realised as far as

was possible by the most illustrious of his servants. When the younger

Cyrus led the admiring Lysander through his pleasure grounds, and

displayed their regularity and beauty, “All these,” he informed him,

“I have myself planned, and even planted many of the trees with my own

hands;” and when the Spartan general replied by an incredulous glance

at his splendid robes, and chains, and armlets of gold, he sware to him

by Mithras, as a good servant of Ormuzd, that he never tasted food till

he had fatigued himself by labour.

These precepts, therefore, of their religion, made it the sacred duty

of the rulers of the provinces to further the cultivation of their

several districts; and as the military establishment underwent a

review every year, so also did the civil department. Xenophon tells

us, that “The king visited every year some part of his empire, and

wheresoever he was not able to proceed himself he sent a delegate for

the same purpose. Those magistrates in whose territory the ground was

found to be well cultivated, and covered with trees or crops, had

an augmentation of territory allotted to them by the king, and were

rewarded with presents; and those whose provinces were found to be ill

cultivated and depopulated, whether through neglect or in consequence

of oppression, were rebuked and deprived of their command, and others

appointed in their place.”

If these institutions had not been broken down by the abuses which

hastened the fall of the Persian monarchy, they would have formed a

considerable set-off against all the inevitable evils which accompany

despotic governments. However considerable might be the expense

occasioned by the maintenance of the king, his satraps, and forces, it

cannot have been oppressive in countries blessed with such singular

fertility, where the imposts were chiefly paid in kind, so long as

wise enactments for the cultivation of the soil tended to lighten

these burdens; but the extravagance and luxury of the great, and their

frequent revolts and intestine wars, caused these sage laws to fall

into disuse, and frustrated the benevolent intentions of the Median

legislator.

The disposal of the government of provinces rested with the king, who

usually appointed kinsmen of his own, his brothers, or his sons-in-law.

The court of the satrap was formed on that of the monarch, and all its

ceremonial the same, only less magnificent. The satraps also had their

harems, entrusted, like that of the monarch, to eunuchs, and a numerous

attendance of household troops, distinct from the king’s soldiers, and

consisting in part or altogether of Persians: their residences, like

those of the monarch, were surrounded by parks; and occasionally, in

the finer months of the year, they (like the monarch) migrated from one

place to another, attended by their courts, and spent the summer under

tents.

History has afforded us a remarkable instance of the manner in which

the imposts were collected by these officers. When the Persians had

subdued Ionia the second time, the whole territory was measured out by

parasangs, and the tribute apportioned accordingly. In this case it was

evidently a land tax, which, however, was paid, it is probable, for

the most part in produce. The satrap received these imposts, whether

in kind or in money, and after providing for his own expenditure,

the support of the king’s troops, and the maintenance of the civil

magistrates, the remainder was handed over to the king. The personal

interest of the satrap, if he wished to retain the king’s favour,

prompted him to make this return as considerable as possible, even if

no precise amount was fixed.

To take care of the king’s interests there were also attached to the

court of each satrap royal scribes, to whom were issued the king’s

commands, and by whom they were communicated to the satrap. The

commands thus conveyed required the most prompt obedience, and the

smallest resistance was accounted rebellion. Even the suspicion of

anything of the kind was sufficient to cause their ruin, and, as in the

Turkish empire, their punishment was unaccompanied by any formality

whatever. The sovereign despatched an emissary, who delivered the order

for the execution of a satrap to his guards, who put it in execution by

hewing him down upon the spot with their sabres.

To further the speedy communication with the provinces, a system was

adopted which has been compared, but very improperly, with the European

institution of posts. Messengers were appointed at different stations,

distant from each other a day’s journey, for the purpose of conveying

the king’s mandates to the satraps, and the despatches of the latter to

the court.

Institutions of this kind are peculiarly essential to despotic

governments, in which it is excessively difficult to maintain the

dependence of the prefects or governors, and occur in almost every

one which possesses anything like an internal organization. The same

existed under the Roman monarchy, and was established, at still

greater expense, in the empire of the Mongols, by the successors of

Jenghiz-Khan.

Another plan was also adopted by the Persian monarchs for securing the

allegiance of their satraps. A commissioner at the head of an army was

sent every year, with authority, according to circumstances, to uphold

or chastise those officers; and Xenophon assures us that this custom,

which dated from the commencement of the empire, subsisted in his time.

The design at first undoubtedly was, as in other kingdoms similarly

governed, to collect the outstanding tribute; but when we consider

the power and arrogance of the satraps during the latter half of the

Persian monarchy, we may well believe that the custom may have died

away.

We have already described in general the causes of the presumption

of the satraps and the revolts to which it led. Besides the union in

their persons of the civil and military powers, one main cause was the

greatness of the command entrusted to some by joining together two or

more satrapies. An example of this, and of the arrogance to which it

gave rise, occurs as early as the reign of Darius Hystaspes in the

person of Orœtes, who was at the same time satrap of Phrygia and Lydia;

and in succeeding reigns this practice became still more frequent,

especially in the case of the satrapies of Asia Minor. Cyrus the

younger was governor of the greater part of that peninsula, and, after

his death, Tissaphernes was allowed to hold the governments possessed

by him in addition to those which had been all along his own.

From this period Persian history continues to present a constant

picture of the perpetually increasing arrogance of these viceroys, who

sometimes openly revolted, and sometimes, with the title of satrap, set

themselves up as independent sovereigns. Several of them were, in fact,

the founders of monarchies, which, like those of Cappadocia, Pontus,

and others, gradually became more or less independent. The combinations

and dissensions of these governors among themselves contributed to keep

alive a spirit of insubordination, which was promoted by the effeminacy

and corruption of the court. They began to treat their provinces, not

as districts committed to their care, but as territories, the revenues

of which they were to enjoy; and as early as the time of Xenophon, we

find a satrap of Mysia arbitrarily nominating a vice-satrap, to whom,

on payment of a tribute, he committed the management of his province,

and after his death continued the same to his widow on security being

given of the payment of his revenues. Such arbitrary measures must

have gradually destroyed the internal structure of the empire, and the

slightness of the adherence of its several parts is effectually proved

by the history of its fall.

MILITARY METHODS

The military expeditions undertaken by a nomad nation, such as the

Persians once were, are, in their origin, migrations, for the purpose

of occupying better and more fruitful spots. Hence the custom of

removing at the same time their wives and children and all their

movable possessions, which invariably encumbered the march of such

armaments. Xenophon expressly tells us that this was the practice of

most Asiatic nations, and that it was an old Persian custom would

appear from the sequel of their history.

In like manner the habits of nomad nations necessarily causes such

armaments to consist altogether or principally of cavalry. The first

was the case with the Mongols; the last with the Persians. As the

first-mentioned practice retards, so does this greatly accelerate the

march of their armies. The limited nature of their wants enables them,

when occasion requires, to dispense with any baggage, and the history

of the Mongols affords examples of the inconceivable speed with which

such armies have accomplished lengthened marches which would have

driven a European army to despair.

[Illustration: COSTUME OF A PERSIAN KING

(After Du Sommerard)]

These are the fundamental points to be observed with regard to the

military system of nomad nations in general and the Persians in

particular; but as their civil constitution became gradually developed,

so did their military institutions undergo at all events considerable

modifications, although they never attained the perfection which marks

those of Europe. The example of the Turkish empire continues to show

with what difficulty an Asiatic, who is always half a nomad, can be

inured to discipline. As this is the offspring of a sense of honour

and love of country, so, on the other hand, despotism is the parent

of license and brutality, which may indeed display their energies

in furious onsets, but not in deeds of cool daring like those of

Europeans.

A dominion acquired by conquest can only be maintained by standing

armies, and we cannot, therefore, be surprised to find the provinces

of Persia constantly occupied by great masses of men, destined to

keep them in subjection, as well as to defend them against a foreign

invader. Immediately upon the completion of their conquests such

forces were suffered to remain in the provinces, supported not by the

king but by the conquered. Examples especially occur in the frontier

states, in Asia Minor, Egypt, and others, which were especially exposed

to assaults from without, or where an insurrection was most to be

apprehended. Asia Minor, however, from the commencement of the wars

with Greece, became the principal depot for the forces of Persia; it

was filled with considerable bodies of men which could be readily drawn

together when occasion required, and thus Alexander, on invading it,

found there troops drawn together to oppose him on the banks of the

Granicus.

In the most flourishing epoch of their history the military system

of the Persians was as follows. In every province were kept up two

descriptions of forces, those which occupied the open country, and

those which kept possession of the cities, as garrisons. These were

distinct, and commanded by different generals. Of the first description

of forces it was clearly defined how many, and of what class, were

to be maintained in each province. The principal strength consisted

in cavalry, but there were also bowmen, slingers, and heavy-armed

infantry. The care of keeping up the full numbers of these forces was

committed to their successive commanders, and they were supported,

both as respected food and money, by the revenues of the provinces,

and as these were paid into the treasury of the satrap, the latter

had to provide for the pay of the soldiery. The commanders, however,

of the forces were not subject to the governors, unless by special

appointment. On the other hand, they appear to have been immediately

dependent on the king, having been appointed by him and deposed at

his pleasure, and a catalogue of such offices remaining in his hands.

The annual reviews of the forces also, which were extended to all the

empire, were not usually held by the satraps, but in the neighbourhood

of the capitals, by the king himself, and in remote provinces by

persons deputed by him to hold them in his name. Great exactness

was exercised on these occasions, and according to the good or bad

condition of the forces their commanders were applauded and rewarded

with presents, or deprived of their rank, or visited with arbitrary

punishments.

To these arrangements was added another, the subdivision of the empire

into certain military cantons, independent of the civil administration;

formed with a reference to the muster-places of the troops. In this

manner the forces stationed in a particular province were always

collected at one point, from which the canton derived its appellation.

Mention occurs of those in Asia Minor, and as the above institutions

extended to the whole of the empire, and reviews were held in every

province, it is to be supposed that this custom also was universal.

Herodotus expressly mentions the cantons on this side the Halys, and

consequently we must conclude the same to have prevailed on the other

side. Of the cantons in Asia Minor, Xenophon particularises that of

which the muster-place was the plain of Castolus, as that of Thymbra

was for the army of Syria; Herodotus also mentions the Aleius Campus in

Cilicia.

These troops were distributed through the provinces by thousands, and

their commanders consequently denominated Chiliarchs; and not only were

they generally dispersed over the country, but bodies of them were

posted on the boundaries, where, if the nature of the ground permitted

it, the passage from one province to another was strongly fortified.

It certainly remains a question what was the strength of these forces

in the provinces, but the great facility with which armies were got

together proves them to have been very considerable. In Asia Minor

alone Cyrus assembled above one hundred thousand men; Abrocomas, who

was opposed to him on his march, had three hundred thousand; and the

Persian army on the Granicus was forty thousand strong.

From these troops the garrisons in the cities were kept entirely

distinct, and the importance attached by the Persians to places of

strength was in proportion to the difficulty which (like all other

nomad nations, who know nothing about the conduct of sieges) they had

experienced in subduing them. They were looked upon as the keys of the

provinces in which they were situated, and accordingly provided with

ample garrisons. The troops in question were completely different from

those mentioned above, not being comprehended in the military divisions

alluded to, but being under commanders of their own, and not bound to

appear at the general muster.

Both descriptions of forces were, however, comprehended under the title

of the king’s army, and were distinct from the household troops of the

satraps and grandees, which often amounted to several thousands. By the

customs of the East every great man is attended by an armed retinue,

proportioned to his rank and wealth, and as the viceregal courts were

formed upon the model of the king’s, this became necessarily a part of

their establishments, and the more readily as corps of troops were a

no less customary present from the monarch to his favourites than were

cities.

Originally, it is probable that all these troops may have been

Persians, but as these gradually withdrew themselves from martial

duties, their places were supplied by mercenaries, Greeks or Asiatics.

As cavalry, the nomad nations to the south and east of the Caspian were

preferred, the Hyrcanians, Parthians, and Sacæ. The first, especially,

had a high character with the Persians for courage, and on this account

the latter kept up a good understanding with the wandering hordes

of Great Bucharia, though no longer their tributaries. The Greeks,

however, were preferred to all the rest, and as early as the time of

the younger Cyrus, not only did the flower of the army always consist

of them, but towards the end of the Persian monarchy they constituted

the garrisons of all the cities of Asia Minor. Before the time of the

younger Cyrus their pay amounted to a daric per month (about 1_l._

0_s._ 4_d._ sterling), which was augmented by Cyrus to a daric and a

half. We have already remarked the fatal consequences which this custom

had on the warlike temper of the Persians.

In a nation of conquerors every individual is expected to be a soldier,

and among the Persians all, especially those in possession of lands,

were required to be able to serve on horseback. This necessitated an

internal constitution of the whole empire, having for its object the

military equipment of the population; and the arrangement adopted has

usually been the same in all Asiatic nations, and is the simplest

that could have been devised. A decimal system runs through the whole

empire, and serves at the same time to mark the rank of the commander.

The common people are divided into bodies of ten, having a captain of

that number, after whom come the commanders of hundreds, thousands,

and tens of thousands. Officers of a higher rank are not apportioned

to particular bodies of men, but form the general staff. This has been

equally the case among the Mongols and the Persians, and this simple

arrangement made it possible for both races to assemble large armies

with incredible rapidity. All that was required was a mandate from the

commander of ten thousand, which was transmitted to the commanders of

thousands, and hundreds, and tens, till the forces, already organised,

assembled in martial array. In this manner the Mongol princes often got

together, in a few days, armies of cavalry to the number of several

hundreds of thousands, and we cannot, therefore, be astonished to see

the same thing take place among the Persians.

The great multitude of nomad tribes which wandered on the borders

of the Persian empire greatly facilitated the assembling of mighty

armaments. These tribes readily engaged in such enterprises, either

for pay or allured by the hope of plunder. As the Baskirs and Calmucks

follow the Russian armies, so did the Mardi, Pericanii, and others,

those of Cyrus; and the more widely the dominion of the Persians was

extended, the greater became the number of such auxiliaries. The

Persians stood the more in need of their aid as their own cavalry was

always heavy-armed. With them, as with the Parthians, both man and

horse were armed in mail, though, strictly speaking, this appears to

have been a distinction confined to a certain number, and the greater

part seem to have had no defensive armour, and thus served to swell the

carnage which the Greeks wrought among them after the victory of Platæa.

The foregoing sections must have served to explain the way in which

these forces subsisted in the provinces. Each province was obliged to

furnish to the governor what was necessary to their maintenance, in

kind, and the governor caused what was so collected to be distributed

among the soldiers. Payment in money was made only to the Grecian

auxiliaries, who could not otherwise have been kept together, having

been accustomed to the same in their own country; the Persians were

bound to serve without pay, and the nomad races of Central Asia, many

of whom had never even seen coined money, were as little disposed to

require remuneration in that shape as are at the present day many of

the auxiliaries of the Russian armies.

In a warlike nation, a military command always confers great

distinction, being often regarded as more honourable than the civil

magistracies; and this was the case among the Persians. The Myriarchs

(commanders of tens of thousands) and Chiliarchs (commanders of

thousands) enjoyed a distinguished rank, and the officers above them,

the generals, were among the most illustrious of the nation. Of the

generality of these we are expressly told that they belonged to

the family of the Achæmenidæ, or at all events to the tribe of the

Pasargadæ, or were connected by marriage with the royal house, and

consequently the officers of rank consisted principally of the king’s

kinsmen. Among these generals themselves, however (of whom there were

usually several in an army), there existed gradations of rank; and

if a king’s son was appointed generalissimo, this was understood as

equivalent to his nomination as successor.

Hitherto we have confined our remarks to the troops which were

regularly maintained by the Persians to defend the conquered provinces.

With the exception of those raised among the Persians themselves, these

appear, from what has been stated, to have consisted of mercenary

troops, to the exclusion of the natives of the provinces themselves;

nevertheless, the latter were by no means free from all military

service, but were summoned on occasions of extraordinary expeditions

undertaken for the extension of the empire. On such emergencies general

mandates were issued throughout all the vast dominion of Persia, the

nations of the East and West were gathered together in herds, and one

of the most extraordinary spectacles ensued which the history of

the world has recorded, and the more deserving of our regard for the

accuracy with which Herodotus has described the armament of Darius, and

still more that of Xerxes.

When the Persians began their career as conquerors they adopted, and

always maintained, the custom that the conquered nations should swell

the numbers of their host, and accompany them in their more remote

expeditions. When, however, their empire had become consolidated and

organised, and stretched from the Indus to the Mediterranean, the

drawing together of forces so widely disseminated must have become

burdened with endless difficulties, and would consequently, on

occasions of minor importance (such as slight internal disturbances,

or trifling wars,) have been as futile as impossible. On extraordinary

occasions, however, whether of great national undertakings for the

aggrandisement of the empire, or of formidable invasions from without,

the custom was revived of mustering the whole force of the empire, as

is proved by the mighty expeditions of Darius Hystaspes, of Xerxes, and

the last Darius.

Even the preliminary steps to such armaments were of vast magnitude.

The king’s mandate was addressed to all nations, and specified the

number of men, horses, and ships, or the amount of provisions to be

furnished by each. The commotion which was excited in all Asia by

the preparations made for the expedition of Xerxes, lasted for four

years. Time was necessary to enable the remote nations to send in their

contingent.

A general rendezvous was then appointed, which, in the case of the

armament just mentioned, was Cappadocia in Asia Minor. Hither all the

contingents of the different provinces resorted, conducted by leaders

of their own race. These, however, were allowed no authority in actual

war, the officers being taken exclusively from among the Persians. This

was a privilege reserved for the conquering nation, as was the case,

also, among the Mongols and Tatars. The subject nations, on the other

hand, were treated as bondsmen, and termed slaves, in contradistinction

to the Persians, who were denominated freemen. These terms, however,

only marked the comparative freedom of the nations to whom they were

applied, for with reference to the king, the Persians were as little

free as the other subject nations.

The order of the march, as long as the army continued to traverse the

dominions of the empire, was remarkable; or rather, it might almost be

called an absence of all order. The men were not arranged according to

the nations to which they belonged, but formed one vast chaotic mass.

In the centre was the king, among his Persians, and the baggage was

sent on before. As the troops advanced on their march, the inhabitants

of the country were driven on before them, and augmented the numbers of

the host, which thus perpetually accumulated; and as most nations took

their wives and children with them to war, the baggage must have been

immense. Undoubtedly the most inexplicable part of this account, is the

way in which the army was supplied with provisions. In the countries

through which they had to pass, magazines of corn were necessarily

prepared, long before, and further supplies of the same followed the

army by sea. The rest of their food the forces were left to find for

themselves. For the king and his suite banquets were provided long

before, and with such an unbounded expense that this alone sufficed

to ruin the cities which furnished them. This also was a consequence

of the idea that a monarch was the sole proprietor of all that his

provinces contained, and the Persians understood this so literally

as to carry away with them the costly utensils of plate which were

displayed on these occasions. It is needless to say that the idea of

a regular encampment could not be entertained in the case of such

enormous hosts; the king and his great men had indeed their tents, but

the army at large bivouacked under the open heavens, the necessary

consequence being a multitude of diseases.

It was only on their approaching the enemy’s borders that the army was

classed according to the nations of which it was composed; and at the

same time the host was reviewed at the king’s command. To this custom

we are indebted for that precious document, the catalogue of the host

of Xerxes, which the Father of History has preserved for us. This

review took place just within the confines of Europe, and little as the

scene may instruct the soldier, this is one of the most interesting

of all the records of history to the philosophical historian. On no

occasion have so many and such various races of men been gathered

together as were here assembled in one spot, in their appropriate

dresses and armour, on the plain of Doriscus. Herodotus has enumerated

and described fifty-six, which served some on foot, some on horseback,

and others on board the fleet. Here were to be seen the cotton garments

of the Indians, and the Ethiopians from above Egypt habited in lions’

hides, the swarthy Baluchis from Gedrosia, and the nomad hordes from

the steppes of Mongolia and Great Bucharia; wild races of huntsmen like

the Sagartians, who, destitute of weapons of brass or iron, caught

their enemies, like animals of the chase, in leathern lassos; and

besides these, the rich dresses of the Medes and Bactrians, the Libyans

drawn in war chariots of four horses, and the Arabs mounted on camels.

Here also were to be seen the fleets of the Phœnicians and the Greeks

of Asia Minor, compelled to serve against their kindred. Never did

despotic power create a spectacle more glorious at its commencement or

more lamentable in its issue. The straits of Thermopylæ first presented

to the astonished Asiatics a sight completely novel to them; it was

to no purpose that their countless hordes were driven by the scourge

against a handful of Spartans; and although treachery at last conducted

them over the lifeless bodies of those heroes, the names of Salamis and

Platæa remained behind, everlasting monuments of Grecian valour.

THE FINE ARTS

Rude nations which suddenly pass to the condition of conquerors from

that of wandering shepherds and herdsmen are not capable of erecting

for themselves cities and palaces. For this purpose they are obliged

to enlist the services of the conquered, among whom the arts of

architecture and sculpture may have already attained some degree of

perfection. This was the case with the Mongol tribes in China, the

Chaldeans in Babylon, as well as other nations; and it is expressly

related of Cambyses, that he transported from Egypt a large number of

builders to erect his palaces at Susa and Persepolis. It is certain,

however, that we discover at the latter place no traces of Egyptian

art, either as regards the general character of the ruins or their

details; nor can we reasonably suppose an Egyptian architect to have

conceived the plan of structures so completely different from any to

be found in his native country, any more than we can suppose that

masons accustomed to what we call the Gothic style, if transported

into another country, would at once be able to construct buildings in

the Grecian taste. The prevailing character of Persian architecture,

a fondness for terrace works, a style totally unknown to the ancient

Egyptians, was considerably more ancient than the reign of Cambyses,

and altogether of Asiatic origin, as is proved by the hanging gardens

of Babylon, constructed by Semiramis. Allowing the utmost that in

fairness we can to the account of the Egyptian workmen imported by

Cambyses, we cannot suppose them to have achieved more than the

mechanical parts of the structures erected. The architectural remains

of Egypt prove that the Egyptians were very capable of elevating

and working large masses of stone, and possibly also of carving

relievos after a given design or copy. The question, therefore, may be

considered as still unanswered: What was the original country whence

this style of architecture was derived? Who were the masters of the

Persians in this art, and whence did they borrow their models?

The simple answer is undoubtedly this: from the same quarter that they

derived the other rudiments of their civilisation, in short, from Media.

[Illustration: PERSIAN BAS-RELIEF AT PASARGADA]

From all that we know of the Medes, and the splendour of the Median

court and their principal city Ecbatana (a city which appears

originally to have been constructed on terraces elevated successively

one above the other), we may conclude that the science of architecture

had attained among them a certain degree of perfection--a conjecture

which appears carried to certainty by the accounts of recent

travellers. The traces of the ancient royal seat Ecbatana, of which

we shall have occasion to speak hereafter, presented, according to

Morier and Porter, the same characteristic style of architecture

with which those travellers had become familiar at Chehl-Menar, the

fashion of the columns and even the characters of the inscriptions

being the same. We cannot avoid inferring that it was from the Medes

that the Persians derived, with the rest of their civilisation, the

art of architecture also. It must be added, that the sculptures in

these ruins are so obviously derived from the Magian religion, which

prevailed among the Medes, that we can hardly doubt that the buildings

in question were erected under the influence and according to the ideas

of that caste, since the figures in question must not be mistaken for

mere idle decorations, but had an intimate relation to the purposes

for which the buildings themselves were severally designed. But the

Magian religion and the Magian priesthood were not confined to Media,

but extended over the countries to the East, especially those upon the

Oxus, as far as the mountains bordering on India, the parent country of

those fabulous monsters of which, as we have observed, traces are to be

seen. Here lay Bactriana, at all times one of the richest countries of

the world, in consequence of its position between the Indus and Oxus,

and its connection with India, as well as the fertility of its soil,

forming an important part of the empire of the Medes, whose monarchs

appear to have resided at Bactra long before they occupied Ecbatana.

This also was the country where the religion of Zoroaster first took

root and flourished, and thus it became the parent land of the civil

institutions of the Medes. When, therefore, the Persians are said to

have derived their architecture originally from thence, it must be

understood that they did so as the disciples of the Medes.

It is true that the ancients ascribe in part the erection of Pasargada

and Persepolis to the two earliest monarchs of the old Persian

race--Cyrus and Cambyses; but this is easily reconcilable with the

supposition that Darius and Xerxes were their principal founders.

Niebuhr has already remarked, that the buildings of Persepolis do not

appear all to belong to the same period, nor to have been constructed

on one uniform plan, and this is especially true of those situated

on the third terrace. It is certain that most of the considerable

remains of remote antiquity (as was particularly the case with Egyptian

edifices) were much more slowly erected than we might be inclined to

suppose; and it is extremely probable that successive kings of Persia

may have taken part in the erection of Persepolis, especially as the

undertaking assumed the character of a religious duty; not to mention

that continual additions must, from time to time, have been found

necessary.

[Illustration: PERSIAN MONUMENT AT PASARGADA]

We may now pronounce with certainty (what before must have been mere

conjecture) that the arts of architecture and sculpture must, long

before the dynasty of the Persians, have attained a much higher degree

of perfection than men have been generally disposed to admit. If this

be doubted, we must be prepared to show that such efforts of art as the

edifices of Chehl-Menar could have started at once into existence, as

if by enchantment. In these structures we see proofs that architecture

must have attained, when they were erected, a wonderful degree of

excellence in its mechanical department. No spot on the globe (Egypt

perhaps excepted) displays such masonry as the walls of Persepolis. It

was unquestionably a prodigious advantage to the architect that the

neighbouring mountains afforded him materials on the very spot; but

no other nation has left examples of an equally skilful combination

of such enormous blocks of marble. The character and style of the

building is, however, perhaps still more remarkable, being directly

opposed to that of the Egyptians, with which it has been injudiciously

compared; if we are not mistaken, the original modes of life of the two

races may be traced even in the several styles of their architecture.

The observer of Egyptian antiquities can hardly fail to remark the

grotto-style of building there prevalent, bespeaking a nation long

accustomed to a sort of Troglodyte life, in caverns and hollows of the

rock. The gigantic temples of Thebes and Philæ are obviously imitations

of excavated rocks; the short and massive pillars representing the

props, left to uphold the roof of such excavations, and the whole

structure conveying the impression of enormous incumbent weight, and

proportionate resistance: on the other hand, the remains of Persepolis

indicate a nation not in the habit of occupying the bosoms of their

hills, but accustomed to wander free and unconstrained over their

heights and among their forests, and who, when they forsook this nomad

life, sought to retain in their new habitations as much as possible of

their original liberty. Those terrace foundations, which appear like a

continuation of the mountain, those groves of columns, those basins,

once, no doubt, sparkling with refreshing fountains, those flights of

steps, which the loaded camel of the Arab ascends with the same ease as

his conductor, forming a sort of highway for the nations whose images

are sculptured there--all these particulars are as much in unison with

the character of that joyous land which the industry of the Persians

converted into an earthly paradise as the gigantic temples of Egypt are

appropriate memorials of their old grottos in the rocks. The columns of

Persepolis shoot upwards with a slender yet firm elevation, conveying

a fit image of the stems of the lotus and palm, from which they were

probably copied. As in Egypt everything is closely covered, and, as it

were, oppressed by a roof, so here is everything free and unconfined,

in admirable harmony with the religion of the nation, whose sole

objects of worship were the sun, the elements, and the open vault of

heaven.

[Illustration: BAS-RELIEF IN DOOR FRAME OF PALACE, PERSEPOLIS]

The art of design also preserves in the ruins of Persepolis a character

peculiar to itself, a character of sobriety and dignity. Sculpture here

appears formed on the habits of a court, and of an oriental court. No

female or naked figure is to be traced, the seclusion of the harem

being religiously respected. Of the male figures, none are portrayed

in any violent or constrained attitude, not even when the monarch is

represented destroying a monster; and it is only in the conflicts of

animals with one another that the artist has displayed his power of

expressing strong excitement. Where everything had reference to a

court, no attitude was admissible which was not sanctioned by court

etiquette. At the same time, this air of composure and dignity does

not degenerate into stiffness; the design of the artist appears to

have been, not to excite an impression of the beautiful, but a feeling

of veneration--an end which has been fully attained. It is to be

observed that no statue, nor any vestige of one, appears to have been

discovered, and Persian sculpture seems to have been confined to the

carving of reliefs, more or less prominent; and in the case of the

monstrous figures which guard the entrance, amounting to half-relievos.

How different are these historical relievos of Persia from those of

the Egyptians, the favourite themes of which are battles and triumphal

processions! There the object of the artist has been to exhibit

the characters of action and energy; here, those of repose. In its

subjects, also, the Persian sculpture is distinguished from that of

the Egyptians, as well as that of the Indians. While it occasionally

delineated superhuman beings, such as feroohers and izeds, it abstained

from the deities themselves. On the other hand, it is in close and

perfect harmony with the architecture it accompanies. As the latter

was lofty and grand, but not colossal, so was the former, and both

characterised by a high degree of simplicity. It was the most obvious

and natural idea with which the ancient artist could set about his

work, to make the one the handmaid of the other, and the sculptor

may be said to have given animation to the labours of the architect,

by representing under emblematical figures the design of his works.

Accordingly, as the different parts of the edifice combined to form a

whole, so the various groups of sculpture composed one general design,

and all, down to the most minute decorations, were in strict unison

with one leading idea, associated with the religious opinions of the

nation. With the exception of the fabulous animals, everything was

copied from nature; and from the parts of these monsters were borrowed

nearly all the ornaments, consisting for the most part of the heads

of unicorns and claws of griffins; and chimerical as these fabulous

creations may at first sight appear, they are all capable of being

reduced to four or five elementary forms of real animals--the horse,

the lion, the onager or wild ass, the eagle, and the scorpion, to which

we may perhaps add the rhinoceros.

In proportion, however, as the mythology at the command of the sculptor

were limited, so his circle of observation, as applied to real nature,

was extensive. He appears to have been familiar with the nations of

more than one quarter of the globe, and to have distinguished with

exactness their features and profiles, the thick lips and woolly

hair of the negro being no less accurately marked than the limbs of

the half-naked Indian. The same mechanical accuracy also and perfect

finish, which distinguishes the architectural details, is observable

in the labours of the sculptor. We may still count the nails in the

wheels of the chariot in the great relievo; and the hair of the negro

is so carefully wrought, that it is impossible to confound it with

that of the Asiatics. This sort of scrupulous care, which marks also

the inscriptions, appears in all countries to have distinguished the

infancy of the art.[b]

BRIEF REFERENCE-LIST OF AUTHORITIES BY CHAPTERS

[The letter [a] is reserved for Editorial Matter.]

CHAPTER I. LAND AND PEOPLE

[b] EDUARD MEYER, _Geschichte des Alterthums_.

[c] MAX DUNCKER, _Geschichte des Alterthums_.

[d] The Holy Bible.

[e] HERODOTUS, _The History of Herodotus_ (translated from the Greek by

William Beloe).

[f] XENOPHON, _The Cyropædia_ (translated from the Greek by J.S. Watson

and Henry Dale).

CHAPTER II. THE MEDIAN OR SCYTHIAN EMPIRE

[b] HERODOTUS, _op. cit._

[c] THEODORE NÖLDEKE, article “Persia,” in the _Encyclopædia

Britannica_.

[d] A. H. SAYCE, _The Higher Criticism and the Monuments_.

[e] The Holy Bible.

[f] R. W. ROGERS, _History of Babylonia and Assyria_.

[g] CTESIAS, _Persica_.

[h] BEROSUS, _Βαβυλωνικά_.

[i] STRABO, _Γεωγραφικά_.

CHAPTER III. THE EARLY ACHÆMENIANS AND THE ELAMITES, CYRUS AND CAMBYSES

[b] THEODORE NÖLDEKE, _op. cit._

[c] HERODOTUS, _op. cit._

[d] XENOPHON, _op. cit._

[e] CTESIAS, _op. cit._

[f] VICTOR FLOIGL, _Cyrus und Herodot nach den neugefundenen

Keilinschriften_.

[g] G.MASPERO, _Histoire ancienne des peuples de l’Orient_.

[h] A. H. SAYCE, _op. cit._

[i] H. C. RAWLINSON, “Outline of the History of Assyria.”

[j] POLYÆNUS, _Στρατηγήματα_.

[k] XANTHUS, _Lydiaca_.

[l] EDUARD MEYER, _op. cit._

[m] BEROSUS, _op. cit._

[n] J. V. PRÁŠEK, _Kambyses und die Ueberlieferung des Altertums_.

CHAPTER IV. THE PERSIAN DYNASTY: DARIUS I TO DARIUS III

[b] EDUARD MEYER, _op. cit._

[c] HERODOTUS, _op. cit._

[d] H. C. RAWLINSON, _The Persian Cuneiform Inscription at Behistun_.

[e] G. MASPERO, _op. cit._

[f] DIODORUS, _Historical Library_.

[g] XENOPHON, _op. cit._

CHAPTER V. PERSIAN CIVILISATION

[b] A. H. L. HEEREN, _Historical Researches into the Politics,

Intercourse, and Trade of the Principal Nations of Antiquity_ (Asiatic

Nations).

[c] H. C. RAWLINSON, _op. cit._

[d] XENOPHON, _op. cit._

[e] The Holy Bible.

[f] HERODOTUS, _op. cit._

[g] JAS. MORIER, _Journey through Persia, etc._

[h] R. K. PORTER, _Travels in Georgia, Persia, etc._

A GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY OF PERSIAN HISTORY

BASED ON THE WORKS QUOTED, CITED, OR EDITORIALLY CONSULTED IN THE

PREPARATION OF THE PRESENT HISTORY.

=Ælianus=, Claudius, Ηοικίλη Ἱστορία, Rome, 1545.--=Æschylus=, Persæ,

Tragedies of Æschylos. Literally translated by Th. A. Buckley, London,

1663.--=Alcock=, Th., Travels in Russia, Persia, Turkey, and Greece in

1828-1829, London, 1831.--=Ali Riza= of Shiraz (Ibn Abd al-Karim), Das

tarikh i-Zendije (herausg. von Ernst Beer). History of the Zend-Dynasty

in Persia, Leyden, 1888.--=Anacleri=, G., La Persia deseritta,

relazione di un viaggio, Napoli, 1868.--=Arbuthnot=, Persian Portraits,

London, 1887.--=Augur=, T., Tratado de la conquista de las islas de la

Persia y Arabia de la muchas tierras, Salamanca, 1512.

* * * * *

=Babelon=, E., Catalogue des monnaies grecques de la Bibliot.

Nationale: Les perses, achémenides, les satrapes et les dynastes

tributaires de leur empire, Cypre et Phénicie, Paris, 1894.--=Backer=,

L. de, La Perse et la question d’orient, Saint Omer, 1867.--=Bang=,

W., Zur Erklärung der altpersischen Keilinschriften (in Mélanges

de Charles de Harlez), Leyden, 1896.--=Barbier de Meynard=, C. A.,

Dictionnaire géographique, historique et littéraire de la Perse et des

contrées adjacentes, Paris, 1861.--=Bassett=, J., Persia and the Land

of the Imans, London, 1887.--=Bauer=, A., Die Kyrossage und Verwandtes

(in Wiener Acad. d. Wiss. Bd. 100, 1882, Wien, 1882).--=Benjamin=,

S. G. W., Persia and the Persians, London-Boston, 1887; The Story of

Persia, New York, 1891.--=Berchet=, G., La Repubblica di Venezia e

la Persia, Torino, 1865.--=Bezold=, C., Die Achämenideninschriften,

Leipsic, 1882.--=Bible, The Holy= (“authorised version”), London,

1611; (“revised version”) London, 1884.--=Bird=, I., Journeys in

Persia and Kurdestan, London, 1893.--=Boettger=, B., Persische

Heldensagen, Eppendorf, 1900.--=Bonvalot=, Revolutions de la Perse

ancienne et moderne, Paris, 1833.--=Booth=, A. J., The Discovery and

Decipherment of the Trilingual Cuneiform Inscriptions, New York,

1902.--=Borrichius=, A., De Persico Imperio, Hafn, 1688.--=Brodbeck=,

A. Zoroaster, ein Beitrag zur vergleichenden Geschichte der Religionen

und philosophischen Systeme des Morgen- und Abendlandes, Leipsic,

1893.--=Brugsch=, H., Reise der k. preussischen Gesandtschaft

nach Persien, Berlin, 1860-1861.--=Brun-Renaud=, C. G. N., La

Perse politique et militaire au XIX siècle, Paris, 1894.--=Bruyn=,

Le, Reysen over Moscovien door Persien en Oost-Indien, Delft,

1711.--=Buchholz=, A., Quæstiones de Persarum Satrapis Satrapusque,

Leipsic, 1895.--=Buckingham=, J. S., Travels in Assyria, Media, and

Persia, London, 1828.--=Burnouf=, E., Mémoire sur deux inscriptions

cunéiformes, Paris, 1836; Études sur la langue et les textes Zendes,

Paris, 1840-1850; Science of Religions, London, 1888.

* * * * *

=Casartelli=, L. C., The Philosophy of the Mazdayasnian Religion

under the Sassanides, Bombay, 1889; La religion des rois achéménides

d’après leurs inscriptions, Brussels, 1895.--=Castonnet des

Fosses=, H., Les Relations de la France avec la Perse, Angers,

1889.--=Champollion-Figeac=, J. F., Histoire des peuples anciens

et modernes, Asie orientale, la Perse, Lagny, 1857.--=Chardin=,

F., Voyages en Perse et autres lieux de l’orient, Paris, 1811,

10 vols.; Travels into Persia and the East Indies, London,

1836.--=Clermont-Ganneau=, C. S., Études d’archéologie orientale,

Paris, 1895.--=Cloquet=, L., L’art monumental des Indous et des Perses,

Brussels, 1896.--=Collins=, E. T., In the Kingdom of the Shah, London,

1896.--=Ctesias=, Persica.--=Curzon=, G. V., Persia and the Persian

Question, London, 1892, 2 vols.

* * * * *

=Darmesteter=, J., Haurvatat et Ameretat, essai sur la mythologie

de l’Avesta, Paris, 1875; Essais orientaux, Paris, 1883; Ormuzd,

et Ahriman, Paris, 1877; Études iraniennes, Paris. 1883, 2

vols.; “the Zend-Avesta” in “Sacred Books of the East,” London,

1880-1883.--=Delattre=, A. L., Le peuple et l’empire des mèdes,

Brussels, 1883.--=Della Valle=, P., Viaggi in la Turchia, la Persia

et l’India, Brighton, 1843, 2 vols.--=Desai=, P. B., History of

the Kings of Persia, Bombay, 1895, 2 vols.--=Dieulafoy=, J., L’art

antique de la Perse, Paris, 1882-1889, 5 parts; La Perse, la Chaldée

et la Susiane, Paris, 1887; L’acropole de Suse, d’après les fouilles

de 1884-1886, Paris, 1887.--=Dorn=, B., Collection des monnaies

Sassanides, St. Petersburg, 1873; Muhammedanische Quellen zur

Geschichte, St. Petersburg, 1850-1858.--=Dubeux=, L., La Perse, Paris,

1841.--=Duncker=, M., Geschichte des Alterthums, 5th edition, Leipsic,

1878-1883, 7 vols.

* * * * *

=Ehrenstein=, A., Persien, Leipsic, 1829, 3 vols.--=Evers=, E., Das

Emporkommen der persischen Macht unter Cyrus, Berlin, 1884; Der

historische Wert der griechischen Berichte über Cyrus und Cambyses,

Berlin, 1888.

* * * * *

=Fava-Parvis=, G., A bordo della Persia: impressioni e recordi, Torino,

1900.--=Feis=, L. de, La Battaglia di Cunassa in un Mosaico pompiano,

Florence, 1893.--=Fergusson=, J., The Palaces of Nineveh and Persepolis

Restored. An Essay on Ancient Assyrian and Persian Architecture,

London, 1851.--=Ferrier=, J. I., Voyages en Perse, dans l’Afghanistan,

le Bélouchistan et le Turkestan, Paris, 1860, 2 vols.--=Feuvrier=, Dr.,

Trois ans à la cour de Perse, Paris, 1899.--=Flandin=, E. et =Coste=,

P., Voyage en Perse, Paris, 1844-1854, 6 vols. (Vol. I contains Perse

Ancienne, 245 plates).--=Floigl=, Victor, Cyrus und Herodot nach den

vorgefundenen Keilinschriften, Leipsic, 1881.--=Fontane=, M., Histoire

Universelle, Paris, 1881.--=Francklin=, W., Observations made on a Tour

from Bengal to Persia in the Years 1786-1787, with a Short Account of

the Remains of Persepolis, London, 1790.--=Fraser=, J., Travels and

Adventures in the Persian Provinces, London, 1826; A Winter’s Journey

from Constantinople to Teheran, with Travels through Various Parts of

Persia, London, 1838.--=Fryer=, J., A New Account of East India and

Persia, London, 1698.

* * * * *

=Galetti=, Geschichte von Persien, Gotha, 1832.--=Gayet=, A., L’art

Persan, Paris, 1895.--=Geiger=, Ostiranische Cultur im Altherthum,

Berlin, 1882.--=Geiger=, W., and =Windischmann=, Zarathustra in den

Gathas, 1899; and =Kuhn=, E., Grundriss der iranischen Philologie,

Strassburg, 1895.--=Gobineau=, J. A., Histoire des Perses d’après

les auteurs orientaux, grecs et latins, Paris, 1869.--=Gobineau=,

J. de, Les Religions et les Philosophies de l’Asie Centrale,

Paris, 1865.--=Gordon=, Sir T. E., Persia Revisited, London,

1895.--=Grotefend=, G. F., in Heeren’s Historical Researches,

Oxford, 1838-1846, 5 vols.--=Grundy=, The Great Persian War and its

Preliminaries. A Study of the Evidence, Literary and Topographical,

New York, 1902.--=Guenot=, L., La Perse ancienne et nouvelle, Paris,

1862.--=Gutschmid=, A. von, Geschichte Irans von Alexander dem Grossen

bis zum Untergang der Arsakiden, Tübingen, 1888.

* * * * *

=Hammer-Purgstall=, J., Geschichte der schönen Redekünste

Persiens, mit einer Blütenlese aus persischen Dichtern, Wien,

1818; Geschichte der Ilchane, d. i. der Mongolen in Persien,

Darmstadt, 1842-1843.--=Harris=, W. R., From Batoum to Bagdad,

London, 1896.--=Heeren=, A. H. L., Historical Researches,

Oxford, 1833.--=Hegel=, G. W. F., Lectures on the Philosophy of

History, London, 1857.--=Herodotus=, Historiæ, Strasburg, 1816,

5 vols.--=Hoeck=, C. F. C., Veteris mediæ et Persiæ monumenta,

Göttingen, 1818.--=Hommaire de Hell=, Adèle, Voyage en Turquie et en

Perse, Paris, 1854-1856, 3 vols.--=Hommel=, F., Neubabylonien, Elam

und Persien (in Handbuch der class. Altertumswissenschaft, Vol. 3),

Nördlingen, 1889.--=Hoonacker=, A. V., Néhémie en l’an 20 d’Artaxerxes

I. Gand, 1892.--=Horn=, P., Geschichte der persischen Literatur,

Leipsic, 1901.--=Houtoum-Schindler=, Eastern Persian Irak, London,

1897.--=Hovelacque=, Abel, L’Avesta, Zoroastre et le Mazdéisme, Paris,

1880.--=Hunt=, Outram and Havelock’s Persian Campaign, to which

is prefixed a Summary of Persian History by G. Townsend, London,

1858.--=Husain=, Mirza, History of the Bab, Cambridge, 1893.

* * * * *

=Jackson=, A. V. W., Avesta (in Library of the World’s Best Literature,

Vol. 2); Ancient India and Persia; their Literature and Civilisation.

Syllabus printed by Rutgers College (January, 1898).--=Judeich=, W.,

Untersuchungen zur griechisch-persischen Geschichte des IV. Jahrh,

Marburg, 1892.--=Justi=, F., Geschichte des alten Persiens, Berlin,

1879; Iranisches Namenbuch, Marburg, 1895.--=Justinus=, Historiarum

Philippicarum Libri XLIV, Venice, 1470.

* * * * *

=Kaufman=, M., Some Modern Views of Zoroastrianism, London,

1897.--=Kendall=, The Cradle of the Aryans, 1891.--=Kenrick=,

John, Ancient Egypt under the Pharaohs, London, 1850, 2

vols.--=Kiesenwetter=, K., Der Occultismus des Alterthums, Leipsic, 3

vols.--=Kinneir=, J. M., A Geographical Memoir of the Persian Empire,

London, 1813.--=Kossowicz=, C., Inscriptiones palæo-persicæ, Petropoli,

1872.--=Krusinski=, P., History of the Revolution of Persia from His

Memoirs, translated into English, Dublin, 1729.

* * * * *

=Laet=, T. de, Persia, Lugd. Bat., 1633.--=Langlés=, L., Voyages

de la Perse dans l’Inde et du Bengal en Perse, avec une notice sur

les révolutions de la Perse, un mémoire historique sur Persepolis

et des notes, Paris, 1798.--=Laurent=, F., Études sur l’histoire de

l’humanité, Paris, 1800.--=Layard=, Sir A. H., Early Adventures in

Persia, London, 1887.--=Lenormant=, F., Sur la Monarchie des Mèdes,

Paris, 1871.--=Lichtenstein=, A. A. H., Tentamen Palæographiae

Assyrico-Persicæ, Helmstädt, 1803.--=Lincke=, A., Forschungen zur alten

Geschichte. I. Zur Lösung der Kambyses-Frage, Leipsic.

* * * * *

=Malcolm=, Sir J., History of Persia, London, 1829; Sketches of Persian

Life and Manners, London, 1828.--=Mano=, R. du, État de la Perse en

1660, Paris, 1890.--=Markham=, C. R., General Sketch of the History of

Persia, London, 1874.--=Marquardt=, P., Untersuchungen zur Geschichte

von Eran, Göttingen, 1897.--=Maspero=, G. H., Histoire ancienne des

peuples de l’orient, Paris, 1886.--=Ménant=, J., Les langues perdues de

la Perse et de l’Assyrie-Perse, Paris, 1885; Les écritures cunéiformes,

Paris, 1860; Les Achéménides et les inscriptions de la Perse, Paris,

1872.--=Meyer=, Eduard, Geschichte des Alterthums, Stuttgart,

1884-1902, 5 vols.--=Mir-Davoud=, Davoud zadour de Melik Schauazar,

Notices sur l’état actuel de la Perse, Paris, 1818.--=Mirkhond=, M.,

The History of Atabegs of Syria and Persia (edited by Morley), London,

1848.--=Mitford=, G. N., The Chronicles of a Traveller, or a History

of the Afghan Wars with Persia, London, 1800.--=Montagne=, E., Les

Légendes de la Perse, Paris, 1890.--=Montclius=, O., Der Orient und

Europa, Berlin, 1900.--=Morier=, J., A Journey through Persia, Armenia,

and Asia Minor to Constantinople, London, 1812; A Second Journey

through Persia, Armenia, and Asia Minor, London, 1818.--=Mounsey=, A.

H., A Journey through the Caucasus and the Interior of Persia, London,

1872.

* * * * *

=Niebuhr=, C., Lectures on Ancient History, London, 1852.--=Nolde=,

Ed., Reise nach Innerarabien, Kurdistan und Armenien, Braunschweig,

1895.--=Nöldeke=, Th., Oriental Sketches, London; Persia (article in

the Ninth Edition of the _Encyclopædia Britannica_); Geschichte des

Korans, 1860; Tabaris Geschichte der Perser und Araber zur Zeit der

Sassaniden, 1879; Aufsätze zur persischen Geschichte, Leipsic, 1887;

Persische Studien, 1888; Orientalische Skizzen, 1892; Das iranische

Nationalepos, Strassburg, 1896.

* * * * *

=Oppert=, J., Le peuple et la langue des mèdes, Paris, 1871;

Inscriptions des achéménides, Paris, 1852; et =Ménant=, J., Documents

juridiques de l’Assyrie et de la Chaldée, Paris, 1877.--=Ouseley=, W.,

Travels in various Countries of the East, more particularly Persia,

London, 1819-1823.--=Osculati=, G., Note d’un viaggio nella Persia e

nelle Indie orientali negli anni 1841-1842, Milano, 1844.

* * * * *

=Perrot=, G., and =Chipiez=, C., History of Art in Persia, London,

1892.--=Picault=, C., Histoire des Révolutions de Perse pendant

la durée du 18. siècle, Paris, 1810, 2 vols.--=Pinches=, Th.,

Inscriptions (in Transactions of the Soc. of Bibl. Arch., Vols.

VI and VII).--=Pizzi=, I., Storia della poesia persiana, Torino,

1894.--=Polak=, T. E., Persien, das Land und seine Bewohner, Leipsic,

1865, 2 vols.--=Poole=, S. L., The Mohammedan Dynasties, London,

1894.--=Prasek=, J. V., Forschungen zur Geschichte des Alterthums (3

parts), Leipsic, 1898; Die ersten Jahre Dareios des Hystaspiden und der

altpersische Kalender, Leipsic, 1901.--=Prellberg=, V., Persien, eine

historische Landschaft, Leipsic, 1901.--=Prévost-Paradol=, L. A., Essai

sur l’histoire universelle, Paris, 1890.--=Price=, W., Journal of the

British Embassy to Persia, London, 1832.

* * * * *

=Ragozin=, Z. A., The Story of Media, Babylon, and Persia, New York,

1888. (Story of the Nations.)--=Rassam=, Hormuzd, Excavations and

Discoveries in Assyria (Persia) (in Transactions of Soc. of Bibl.

Archæol., Vol. VII, London, 1880).--=Rawlinson=, G., A Manual of

Ancient History, Oxford, 1869; The Five Great Monarchies, London, 1871,

3 vols.; The Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy, London, 1876; Parthia,

London, 1893.--=Rawlinson=, H. C., Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western

Asia, 1861-1870; The Persian Cuneiform Inscription at Behistun, London,

1846.--=Reed=, E. A., Persian Literature, ancient and modern, Chicago,

1893.--=Renan=, J. E., Histoire du peuple d’Israël, Paris, 1887-1893,

4 vols.--=Rennell=, J., Illustrations of the Expedition of Cyrus the

Great, London, 1816.--=Reynier=, J. L. E., De l’économie politique

et rurale des perses et des phéniciens, Genève, 1819.--=Rich=, C.,

Narrative of a Journey to the Site of Babylon in 1811, with Narrative

of a Journey to Persepolis, London, 1839.--=Rothstein=, J. W., Die

Dynastie der Lachmiden in al-Hira. Ein Beitrag zur arab.-pers.

Geschichte zur Zeit der Sassaniden, Berlin, 1899.--=Roux=, M., Mémoire

sur Midia, Paris, 1822.

* * * * *

=Sacy=, Silvestre de, A. T., Mémoires sur diverses antiquitées de

la Perse, Paris, 1793.--=Sarre=, Denkmäler persischer Baukunst,

Berlin, 1901; Transkaukasien, Persien, Mesopotamien, Transkaspien,

Berlin, 1899.--=Sauvebeuf=, Comte Ferrières de, Mémoires historiques,

politiques et géographiques de voyages faits en Turquie, en Perse et en

Arabie 1782-1789, Paris, 1790.--=Sayce=, A. H., The Higher Criticism

and the Verdict of the Monuments, London, 1894.--=Schlosser=, F. C.,

Weltgeschichte, Frankfurt, 1844.--=Schwab=, B., Les Coupes magiques et

l’hydromancie dans l’Antiquité orientale, Paris, 1891.--=Schwab=, M.,

Bibliographie de la Perse, Paris, 1875.--=Schwarz=, J. v., Alexanders

des Grossen Feldzüge in Turkestan, München.--=Shepherd=, W. A., From

Bombay to Bushire and Bassora, including an Account of the Present

State of Persia and Notes on the Persian War, London, 1857.--=Sherley=,

A. R. and F., The Three Brothers, or the Travels and Adventures of

the Three Sherleys, London, 1825.--=Solinus=, Caius Julius. “The

excellent and pleasant Worke of Julius Solinus Polyhistor, containing

the noble Actions of humaine creatures, the Secrets and Providence

of Nature, the description of Countries, the manners of the People,

&c., &c., translated out of the Latin by Arthur Golding, Gent.”

London, 1587.--=Southgate=, H., Narrative of a Tour through Armenia,

Kurdistan, Persia, and Mesopotamia, with Observations on the Condition

of Mohammedanism in those Countries, London, 1840.--=Spiegel=,

F. von, Eran, das Land zwischen Indus u. Tigris, Berlin, 1868;

Eranische Alterthumskunde, Leipsic, 1873, 3 vols.; Einleitung in

die traditionellen Schriften der Parsen, Wien, 1856; Iranian Art

(translated by Darab Sanjana), London, 1886; Anecdota Palica, Leipsic,

1845; Die traditionelle Litteratur der Parsen in ihrem Zusammenhang

mit den angrenzenden Litteraturen, Wien, 1860; Die Alexandersage

bei den Orientalen, Leipsic, 1851; =Stack=, E., Six Months in

Persia, London, 1882.--=Stackelburg=, Bemerkungen zur persischen

Sagengeschichte (in Wiener Zeitschr. für d. Kunde des Morgenlandes,

Vol. 12, p. 230).--=Stahl=, A. F., Reise in Nord- and Central-Persien,

Gotha, 1896.--=Stevens=, J., The History of Persia, London,

1815.--=Stockeler=, J. H., Fifteen Months’ Pilgrimage through Untrodden

Tracts of Khuzistan and Persia, through Parts of Arabia, Persia,

Armenia, 1831-1832.--=Stolze=, F., Persepolis, Die achæmenidischen

und sassanidischen Denkmäler und Inschriften von Persepolis, Istakhr,

Pasargadæ, Shahpur, Berlin, 1882.

* * * * *

=Tabari=, Abu Jaafar-Mohammed, Geschichte der Perser und Araber

zur Zeit der Sassaniden (übersetzt von Th. Nöldeke), Leyden,

1879.--=Tassy=, Garcin de, La poésie philos. et religieuse chez les

persans, Paris, 1864.--=Taylor=, J., The Origins of the Aryans, London,

1890.--=Terrien de Lacouperie=, A. E. T. B., L’ère des arsacides en

248 avant J. C., Louvain, 1891.--=Texier=, Ch., L’Arménie, la Perse,

etc., Paris, 1843.--=Thomas=, E., Early Sassanian Inscriptions, London,

1868.--=Tiele=, C. P., Cyrus de Groote en de godsdienst van Babel (in

Mélanges de Harlez), Leyden.

* * * * *

=Vaux=, W. S. W., Ancient History from the Monuments; Persia from the

Earliest Period to the Arab Conquest, London, 1894.--=Viaggi=, fatti da

Venetia alla Tana in Persia, Venetia, 1543.

* * * * *

=Wagner=, M., Reise nach Persien und dem Lande der Kurden, Leipsic,

1852, 2 vols.--=Wahl=, S. F. G., Allgemeine Geschichte der morgenländ.

Sprachen und Litteraturen, Leipsic. 1784.--=Wallis=, H., Typical

examples of Persian and Oriental Ceramic Art, London, 1891-1893, 2

vols.--=Waring=, E. S., Tour to Shiraz, by Kazroon and Feerozabad,

London, 1809.--=Watson=, C. F., Darius, the Median; Chronologies of

Ancient Monarchies, London, 1885.--=Watson=, R. G., A History of Persia

from Beginning of XIXth Century, etc., London, 1873.--=Weber=, G.,

Allgemeine Weltgeschichte, Leipsic, 1857-1880.--=Weeks=, E. L., From

the Black Sea through Persia and India, London, 1896.--=Weissbach=,

F. H., Die Achämeniden-Inschriften zweiter Gattung, Leipsic,

1890.--=Weissbach=, F. H., and =Bang=, W., Die altpersischen

Keilinschriften, Leipsic, 1893.--=Wills=, Dr. C. J., In the Land

of the Lion and the Sun, London, 1883; Persia as it is, London,

1886.--=Wilson=, Sir C., Handbook of Asia Minor, Transcaucasia, Persia,

etc., London, 1895.--=Wilson=, S. G., Persian Life and Customs, New

York and Chicago, 1895.--=Wolffgarten=, De Ephori et Dinonis historiis

a Trogo Pompeio expressis, Bonn, 1868.

* * * * *

=Xenophon=, Κυροπαιδεία, Florence, 1516; Ξενοφῶντος Κύρον Ἀναβάσις,

Oxford, 1735.

* * * * *

=Yate=, Charles Edward, Khorassan and Sistan, Edinburgh,

1900.--=Yonan=, J. M., Persian Women, Nashville, 1898.

[Illustration: MAP OF ANCIENT INDIA.

BORMAY & CO.]

[Illustration: MINOR NATIONS OF WESTERN ASIA.

BORMAY & CO.]