of the same sculptor as the last, record the events of an earlier
date; and delineate in different views the contest for the crown of
Persia, which was waged between the last of the Parthian monarchs and
ARTAXERXES, the founder of the house of SASSAN. Of this history, as
it is connected with the sculptures at _Shapour_ and _Nakshi Rustam_,
it is sufficient to observe that, according to an inscription on the
spot, explained and confirmed by DE SACY,[84] ARTAXERXES was the son
of BABEC, the _Satrap_, or perhaps the hereditary Prince of _Persis_
Proper, under the empire of the ARSACES.--ARTAXERXES was the grandson
of SASSAN;[85] from whom, rather than from himself, his dynasty, like
that of the _Seljukians_ from the grandfather of their founder,[86]
has been denominated. Others on the contrary, as the _Lubb al Tarikh_
in DE SACY,[87] and the authorities on which Sir WM. JONES relied,[88]
assume SASSAN a shepherd, to be his father by the daughter of BABEC:
and others again expand the whole genealogy into romance.[89]
VAILLANT[90] lavishes on ARTAXERXES and his birth, all the bitterness
of reproach; “infimæ sortis vir, sordidissimo loco natus, sceleratus,
injustissimus.” So regularly however has this reproach followed
success, that half the Eastern conquerors, as the _Bouide_ sultans, the
house of TOGRUL SHAH, GENGHIZ, TIMUR, the _Othman_ race, &c. have in
their turns been represented as springing from the lowest origin; and a
story, almost the same indeed as that attached to the birth of CYRUS,
has been recorded of ARTAXERXES, and forms a new point of resemblance
in their history.[91]
That, however, the father of SAPOR was not a man of very obscure
descent, may be inferred from the silence of _Moses_ of _Chorona_, who
in the ninth or tenth century appears as the partizan of the ARSACIDES;
as well as from the positive assertion in the inscription[92] at
_Nakshi Rustam_, that he was the son of a king; an assertion which
might have been safely made in his name in a distant age, but which
would hardly have been hazarded by himself in a public and triumphal
record, if its fallacy had been familiar to all his contemporaries.
He assumed also in his own name, and that of his father, the divinity
which had been attached to their Kings by the ancient Persians, and
which was continued by the Parthian monarchs. The royalty however
claimed by ARTAXERXES in the inscription, was certainly limited to his
own native Persis, which in fact was always included in the dominions
of the Parthian Kings; though the immediate rule may have been resigned
to a descendant of the _Caianian_ family. The provinces of the monarchy
were administered by eighteen Satraps, to whom the Parthian Kings, like
the Moguls, had gradually resigned almost all the power of the empire;
and who, to justify in their nominal superior, the title of the King of
Kings, severally assumed the regal dignity themselves: as in the polity
of modern Persia, according to NIEBUHR,[93] inferior officers are
called _Khans_ and _Sultans_, titles of Majesty in other countries,
to exalt the predominant power of their universal ruler, the _Padishah
Buzurk_.
ARTAXERXES, like many other founders of Eastern dynasties GENGHIZ,[94]
TIMUR,[95] NADIR SHAH,[96] might ground his rebellion on the plausible
pretext of the ingratitude of his sovereign; but while he supplanted
the ARSACIDES in the empire, he recognised their superior interest in
the affections of the people; and assumed their epoch, their language,
and their name;[97] that his subjects might regard themselves rather
as transferred to a different heir, than as subjugated to a new
and unconnected race of conquerors. He accordingly styles himself
ARSACES, in the coin preserved by VAILLANT, and destined probably
for the Western and Mesopotamian provinces: and SAPOR continued the
designation, though in the coins circulated in the Eastern Persia,
which DE SACY[98] has decyphered, both Princes confirm to the
corresponding genius of the country, relinquish the Greek and restore
the native language, revive the symbols of the worship of fire, and
connect themselves there also with the original prejudices of the
people.
Possibly the title thus adopted by the first Princes of the
SASSANIDES, was retained even to the middle of the fourth century; for
AMMIANUS MARCELLINUS describes the family on the throne of Persia as
ARSACIDES;[99] an assertion which GIBBON seems to contradict as very
careless and inaccurate, but which may perhaps be reconciled with the
truth of history, by supposing, that even when the ancient line of the
Parthian Kings had ceased to reign for more than one hundred years, the
house of SASSAN retained their title of ARSACES, which still favoured
the national pride of a great part of their people, and which was
connected so long and so gloriously with the general history of the
empire.
All the details of these sculptures confirm their history, but it is
scarcely necessary to do more than allude to them. The lion held by
a chain in one of the scenes at _Shapour_, may be emblematical of a
conquered nation; or perhaps the literal historical representation of a
real auxiliary in the warfare of the Parthians:[100]
“Et validos Parthi præ se misere liones,
Cum ductoribus armatis, sœvisque magistris.”
BRISSONIUS however adds to this quotation the question, “Sed quis
veritatem à poeta ut ab historico exigit?”[101] Notwithstanding however
the incredulity thus implied, and the ridicule of LUCIAN, who describes
the Parthians as using dragons for the same purpose;[102] it is
possible that this sculpture may be admitted as evidence of the fact.
The dress of the royal characters may be similarly illustrated; the
turreted tiara of ARTABANUS, is perhaps the πλημα πιυργωτον described
by STRABO[103]; the tiara of ARTAXERXES, which extends over the cheeks,
is thus mentioned by JUVENAL,[104] and thus represented in the medals
of VAILLANT and DE SACY. The exuberant hair of SAPOR is likewise an
historical fact: it was indeed the costume of the house of ARSACES as
well as of SAPOR. This might be learnt from their coins, but it is more
familiar from the allusion of VESPASIAN, when he replied that the
comet was not ominous to _him_, but regarded rather the King of the
Persians, “cui capillus effusior.”[105]
The diadem of Persia was distinct from the tiara, and was itself “quod
omnibus notum non est,” said BRISSONIUS, p. 68, “nihil aliud quam
candida fascia, qua Regum frons precingebatur.” This he proves from
LUCIAN; but more decisively by the story of FAVORINUS, who, when POMPEY
bound his leg up with a fillet, said, “it mattered not on which part
of the body he bore the diadem.” Many of the royal customs of ancient
Persia are still observed in Abyssinia, as BRUCE has collected them;
and the fillet is still worn as the diadem. The ring then to which
the text alludes, and which is described as such by NIEBUHR,[106]
is certainly as DE SACY observed,[107] the diadem of the disputed
empire. In the coins of the ARSACIDES, this diadem,[108] with flowing
redimicula, recurs frequently as presented to the sovereign by the
genius of a city,[109] a _Pallas_,[110] or a _Victoriola_;[111] and
in the Greek coins which the two first Princes of the SASSANIDES
struck for their _Mesopotamian_ provinces, the same diadem is offered
to them.[112] It is probable therefore that the object extended over
SAPOR, by the figure in the air, is the same wreath or diadem, which in
his coins he is receiving; a Grecian image, which was perhaps adopted
by the Parthian monarchs from the SELEUCIDÆ, whom they succeeded, and
descended through the ARSACIDÆ to ARTAXERXES and his son.
This image is therefore not sufficient to assign the work to Grecian
hands: the classical merit however of the whole sculptures renders it
probable that they were executed by European artists, whom SAPOR may
have taken in the train of VALERIAN, or those whom in his invasion of
Asia Minor, he may have carried off into the heart of his own empire.
Possibly by a refinement of cruelty he may have consigned the erection
of this memorial of their warfare, to his captive VALERIAN; for a
tradition at _Shooster_ attributes to that monarch the superintendance
of SAPOR’S other works at that city, and the construction of the
edifice there, which was destined for his own prison.
GIBBON,[113] as MILNER has observed,[114] is perhaps the only author
who ever doubted the nature of the treatment which VALERIAN experienced
from SAPOR. Less prejudiced minds might have drawn from the fact, that
these cruelties are noticed in a speech of the Emperor GALERIUS, to
the Persian Embassadors,[115] the better inference, that almost in the
very days of their execution, the perpetration of these indignities was
known to all the Roman world; and those who recollect the opportunities
of knowing the Christian character which VALERIAN enjoyed, and the
disgraces which crowded round him, when against that knowledge he
persecuted the Christians, may admit the providential interposition of
the Almighty in thus vindicating his own cause on the oppressor, and in
reversing a light and a prosperity so abused.
SAPOR is said to have placed his foot on the neck of VALERIAN when he
mounted his horse, and after a long captivity to have flayed him alive.
This treatment, however it may differ from the conduct which a European
conqueror might display to his captive, is not sufficient to discredit
the story; and might be paralleled, in ignominy at least, by many
instances in the East. GENGHIZ KHAN threw the victuals from his table
even to a woman, a captive queen, the proudest monarch whom he had
conquered.[116] The _Carmathian_ Prince who advanced against _Bagdad_,
tied the Lieutenant of the _Caliph_ MOCTADI with his dogs:[117] and the
iron cage of TIMOUR, (which is doubted, only because TIMOUR does not
himself record it) is a familiar illustration; of which the idea was
not confined to that instance, for BADUR, King of _Cambay_, prepared a
cage to convey one of the Portuguese heroes to the Great Turk.[118] But
there is a nearer precedent: the Persian monarchs have the unrivalled
honour of alone taking two Roman Emperors; and ALP ARSLAN, who enjoyed
the fortune of SAPOR, remembered perhaps his treatment of his prisoner;
and though in his subsequent conduct he resembles our own Black Prince,
and forms a striking contrast to the sequel of SAPOR’S conduct, yet,
when his captive first appeared before him, he is said to have planted
his foot on the neck of the Emperor.[119]
The dynasty of the SASSANIDES, though the commencement of the
historical age of Persia;[120] and as such comparatively less obscure
in Oriental writers, than the preceding period,[121] is yet, as
D’HERBELOT remarked,[122] involved in great difficulties. The darkness
of the intermediate age from the death of ALEXANDER to the accession
of the house of ARSACES, and through the greatness of the Parthian
empire, is confined principally to the East; and from the hereditary
connection of the SELEUCIDÆ, and their successors with the Greeks of
Asia, is relieved by the Western authorities, whose testimonies have
been collected with so much research by VAILLANT, and confirmed by the
medals of the ARSACIDÆ. But this light is lost in the middle of the
third century; nor perhaps could a more difficult portion of ancient
history be selected than the succeeding dynasty, a period nevertheless
probably the most brilliant, in the foreign relations of Persia, of
any since the extinction of the sovereignty of DARIUS, and at the same
time the most fortunate in the internal prosperity and resources of
the empire. The task was suggested to VAILLANT,[123] who had so ably
executed the Parthian annals, but he resigned it to the adviser, and it
was left undone.
The deficiencies of European materials are not supplied by Oriental
authorities. The value of the Mahomedan accounts of ancient Persia,
may be estimated by their omission of the success of SAPOR, the most
splendid in the whole period of which they treat. GIBBON[124] has
already remarked from D’HERBELOT, that the modern Persians know nothing
of the capture of a Roman Emperor; and it may be added, that though
it appears from Mr. MORIER, p. 201, that a Persian of the present
day was acquainted with the event, yet neither MIRKHOND,[125] nor
KHONDEMIR,[126] nor the _Tarikh_ published by Sir WM. OUSELEY, allude
to it. Whatever then may be the deficiencies or even the contradictions
of the Greek historians in writing on the affairs of Persia, they
are still probably the best authorities on which we can rely. The
contemporary classics possess no one disadvantage, which is not shared
by the later _Mahomedans_; they are alike writing on the history of a
people, whom the Greeks hated as enemies, and whom the _Mussulmans_
despised as infidels, and whose language was probably equally unknown
to both; but to the Greek authors these defects were in a certain
degree qualified by their comparative nearness to the events which
they recorded; while the _Mussulmans_, in treating of the history
before the time of MAHOMED, were writing the annals of a conquered and
contemned race, in an age when its language, polity, and religion were
alike forgotten. It is therefore astonishing that DE SACY should have
selected MIRKHOND, an author of this class, to accompany his own able
memoirs on the antiquities of Persia. Whatever may be the relative
superiority of MIRKHOND to other Oriental annalists, the value of his
authority is in itself very low, and is sufficiently depreciated by
the internal evidence of his own work. He begins his account of the
_Sassanian_ kings by saying that the MESSIAH was born in the reign of
ARDESHIR or ARTAXERXES, the first Prince of that house, whose reign
which did not commence till the two hundred and twenty-sixth year
after CHRIST.[127] He continues, that ARDESHIR received a message from
the MESSIAH, and secretly professed his religion. Independently of
the gross fabulousness of the chronology, the story itself is totally
abhorrent to every other evidence, by which it is clear that ARDESHIR,
so far from professing or favouring a foreign religion, regarded the
revival of the native worship as the glory of his reign; and combined
in one re-establishment the religion and the empire of ancient
Persia.[128]
The idle tale of the birth of his son SAPOR,[129] is another proof
of the manner in which the imagination of an Eastern historian has
supplied the defects of his materials; if indeed it be not derived from
the story of ASTYAGES in HERODOTUS. Without discussing the probability
of the fact or the accuracy of the chronology, it is impossible to
conceive that an author could learn so much without knowing more;
and that at the interval of one thousand two hundred years he could
have ascertained the most private history of an Eastern Prince, when
he is ignorant of his public exploits; or that he could have given a
genuine account of SAPOR from his birth to his death, when he never
once alludes to the Romans, or notices, however transiently, the most
celebrated event in the life of his hero, and in the history of his
country.
SECOND VISIT TO SHAPOUR,
_APRIL, 1811._
“We proceeded over the plain to the Southward and Westward, to see what
a peasant called the _Kaleh_ or Castle, and the _Mesjed_ or Mosque,
which are large conspicuous buildings seen from almost all parts of the
plain. These we found to be Mohammedan structures, excepting part of an
ancient wall or buttress, and a column, with a square fallen capital,
that are to be seen in the former, and of the same age as the edifices
at _Shapour_. In the square of this ruined castle we found some little
black tents of the wandering tribes; from the good folks of which we
got some _dong_ or butter-milk, of which they drink large quantities
at this season. We surprised them by asking them if they had any _Poul
Kadeim_ or ancient money; to which they answered, very ingenuously,
that they had neither new nor old. The fact is, that old coins are more
frequently found amongst these sort of people than amongst any other;
for if they find any, the favourite wife generally has them suspended
with her other trinkets, in a necklace around her neck. When old coins
or money out of use fall into the hands of town’s people, traders,
shopkeepers, or such like, they generally melt it down immediately,
and get it recoined. In all our researches for old coins, we have been
unsuccessful, and it has only been by the greatest chance that we have
now and then got a _Sassanian_ or an _Arsacian_ medal. A man brought
what he called a collection of old coins to the Embassador: they
consisted of a _Reaal_ of the age of SHAH ABBAS, a _Cuffic_ piece of
money, a gold coin of the worst time of the middle ages, and an English
halfpenny.”
NOTES.
_Chatters, p. 37._]--The _Shotters_ of FRYER; the _Shatirs_ of HANWAY.
CHARDIN gives a long and curious account of a display, which he calls
“la fête du _Chater_, on valet du pied au Roi.” Voyages, tom. ii. 46,
edit. 1711. The King’s _Chaters_ dressed richly but differently, (car
en Perse on ne sait ce que c’est de Livrée,) were the masters of the
feast. Those who are superior in their profession can dance well; an
occupation indeed which, in the East, is considered so little suitable
to persons of a higher rank and character, that a Persian who was in
Paris in the minority of LOUIS XIV. and saw the young King dancing,
exclaimed, “c’est un excellent _Chater_.” The prize of the exploit
recorded by CHARDIN, was the honour of being admitted the chief of
the _Chaters_ of the royal household; and the effort was, between the
rising and the setting of the sun, to take up twelve arrows singly from
a tower at the distance of a league and a half (French), and return
with each to the place of starting: in this manner the _Chater_ run
thirty-six leagues in fourteen hours. Nevertheless, says CHARDIN, this
was not equal to a feat still remembered, in which the twelve arrows
were taken up in twelve hours. TAVERNIER was present at the greater
performance to which CHARDIN alludes. See his voyages, tom. i. p.
438-40.
_Geography of Persia, p. 48._]--OLIVIER (tom. v. c. vii.) describes
Persia as a great table-land, supported on every side by high
mountains. The space thus enclosed is a depressed level, as the
courses of the rivers prove; which, according to a former remark of
of D’ANVILLE, never penetrate through the mountains to the sea, but
stagnate or evaporate in deserts of sand. (VINCENT’S Nearchus.) Still
its absolute elevation is very great: at _Shiraz_, in 29° 36´, there
is much snow in January and February, though it is half a degree more
to the south than _Cairo_; and _Ispahan_ is too cold for the orange
tree, though it grows well at _Mossul_, four degrees more to the north,
and twice as far from the sea: and in _Mazanderan_, which is in a much
higher latitude, but on a level considerably below the table land of
Persia, the sugar cane, which will not grow at _Shiraz_, comes to
maturity four months sooner than in the West Indies, OLIVIER, tom. v.
p. 218, 233. On the capability of Persia to supply Russia with sugar
and cotton, see OLIVIER, p. 336.
_Grampus, possibly the whale of ARRIAN, p. 50._]--The whales in the
Indian ocean have been celebrated from the time of PLINY; and Sir
HARFORD JONES, in a note to VINCENT’S Nearchus, mentions them high up
in the Persian Gulph: it is probable therefore that the bones, of which
the houses on the coast were constructed, were those of real whales.
_Kharrack, p. 52._]--The island of _Kharrack_ at one time excited
considerable interest; when it was seized and fortified by the Baron
KNIPHAUSEN. The motives of his enterprise are very unimportant,
although it may be added, that the heroical character in which he
appears in IVES, as the founder of a new settlement, is somewhat
reduced in the “Free Merchants’ Letters,” of JOSEPH PRICE, p. 172. It
is sufficient that even in its first days this colony was dependant
on a neighbouring island (_Corgo_), and the main land of Persia
for its provisions. NIEBUHR indeed relates the singular and fatal
stratagem connected with this supply. The _Sheik_ of _Bushire_,
who furnished these necessaries to _Kharrack_, was at war with the
_Sheik_ of _Bunder-righ_, and as the Dutch were alike involved in
the hostilities, the communications between the island and _Bushire_
were often carried on by night. The _Sheik_ of _Bushire_ profited by
this circumstance; and putting poultry into two armed ships, sent
them against two galvettes, laid up under the walls of the citadel:
“A l’approche de l’isle on secuoit les cages pour faire crier les
poules, et la sentinelle Hollandoise entandant ces cris de la volaille
crut que c’etoit les vaisseaux _d’Abu schähr_ (_Bushire_), and qu’il
etoit inutile d’eveiller les autres matelots.” Descr. del Arabia, p.
280. This success was soon followed up, and the Dutch were expelled
from the island. IVES recommended to our government the possession of
_Kharrack_. Voyage, p. 226: but independently of the precariousness
of its supplies, NIEBUHR mentions the mortality among the Europeans
there, though he adds indeed, that they died “moins pas l’air mal
sain de l’isle, que pas leur maniere de vivre,” p. 281. It was an
early object of the French government. By a treaty signed at Paris,
and negociated by M. PYRAULT at _Bassora_, KERIM KHAN, the Regent of
Persia, engaged to cede _Kharrack_; but, the suppression of the French
East India Company intervened, and the object was neglected. It was
again surrendered by the treaty of 1808, and in the intermediate time,
when he was himself sent by the Directory as a secret agent, OLIVIER
observes, that the Persian government would have repeated the cession.
His conclusion is remarkable; the object would have been advantageous
to us, says he, “si nous avions voulu serieusement nous etablir en
Egypte; si de la nous avions voulu porter nos vues de commerce sur
le golfe Persique, sur _Bassora_, sur _Bagdad_; si nous avions voulu
reprendre un commerce actif avec l’Inde; si nous avions voulu ouvrir
des communications entre l’isle de France, Mascate, and Bassora.” Tom.
v. p. 157.
_Ormuz, p. 52._]--When OLIVIER, was in Persia, the _Imaum_ of _Muscat_
was negotiating with the Persian government the cession of _Ormuz_ to
him. Tom. v. p. 157. That island as well as _Gombroon_, is now in his
possession; though he accounts for the customs to the King of Persia.
_Pearls, p. 55._]--A belief in the influence of the rain on the
formation of pearls, which NIEBUHR mentions as prevalent among the
Arabs in his own days, (Descr. de l’Arabie) and among their ancestors
in the time of BENJAMIN of _Tudela_, six hundred years ago, may be
traced up clearly to the time of PLINY, if not much earlier. (Lib. ix.
c. xxxv. see c. li. and the note from ARISTOTLE.) The Apologue of SADI
is a beautiful illustration of the Eastern opinion. BRUCE says, “it is
observed that pearls are always the most beautiful in those places of
the sea, where a quantity of fresh water falls. Thus in the Red Sea,”
&c. (vol. v. p. 226, app.) and it may be added, though the facts prove
little without knowing the relative positions, that _Bahrein_, one
of the most fertile pearl banks in the world, is likewise celebrated
for the most extensive submarine springs of fresh water. See on those
springs, IVES’S Voyage. NIEBUHR, p. 286. See also TEIXEIRA, in Mod.
Univ. Hist. vi. 80. HOLE in his curious illustration of SINDBAD,
regards these springs as the origin of “the river of fresh water that
issued from the sea.” Sixth Voyage.
_Horses, &c. p. 63._]--The custom of tying horses by the leg in the
stable, is traced in Persia even to the time of XENOPHON. Anab. lib.
iii. c. 245. At the introduction of the Russian Embassador to SHAH
HUSSEIN, the horses of the King of Persia were displayed in state as
the procession passed: “they were all tied to a rope fixed to the
ground at the extremities by a stake of gold, near which lay a mallet
of the same metal for driving it. According to the custom of Persia the
hind feet also were fastened to a rope, to prevent kicking.” BELL, vol.
i. p. 100.