building this palace. “Cambyses, the son of Cyrus,” says he, “conquered
Egypt in the third year of the seventy-third olympiad, when he pillaged
the country and burnt the temples, the treasures of which the Persians
carried off into Asia; and they, also, led away with them the workmen
and architects of Egypt, whom they caused to build the famous palace of
Persepolis, and of several other cities.” This account appears the more
probable, since, as M. le Comte de Caylus is justly of opinion, they
cannot be attributed to the Persians before Cyrus; since Herodotus
describes the Persians of that age as a people of great simplicity;
having neither temples nor altars, but worshipping Jupiter on the
summits of mountains. The account, here given, is sufficient to account
for the Egyptian appearance of Persepolis. There are appearances of five
different buildings united in one; and each, apparently, of a different
age, after the manner of the Egyptians.
Though there are doubts as to the origin of Persepolis, there are none
as to the circumstance of its being destroyed by Alexander.
As the conqueror drew near the city[82], he perceived a large body of
men, who presented a most lamentable picture. These were about four
thousand Greeks, greatly advanced in years, who, having been taken
prisoners of war, had suffered all the torments which Persian tyranny
could invent. The hands of some had been cut off, the feet of others;
and others again had lost their noses and ears; after which, having
impressed by fire barbarous characters on their faces, the Persians had
the inhumanity to keep them as so many laughing-stocks, with which they
sported perpetually. They appeared like so many shadows rather than men.
Alexander could not refrain from tears at this sight; and as they
unanimously besought him to commiserate their condition, he bade them,
with the utmost tenderness, not to despond, and assured them that they
should again see their country. This, however, the Greeks did not
desire; being unwilling to be seen by their former companions in the
dreadful state in which they were. They prayed the king, therefore, to
let them remain where they were, but to relieve their awful condition.
This Alexander did; but he was so enraged at what he had seen, that he
set the city on fire soon after. The other account is, that the
conqueror called his generals together, and represented to them that no
city in the world had been more fatal to the Greeks than Persepolis, the
ancient residence of the Persian monarchs, and capital of their empire.
For that it was from thence all those mighty armies poured, which had
overflowed Greece; and whence Darius, and afterwards Xerxes, had carried
the fire-brand of the most accursed war which had laid waste the best
part of Europe; and therefore it was incumbent on them to revenge the
manes of their ancestors.
Animated by this, the soldiers force their way into the city, put all
the men to the sword, and rifle and carry away every man’s goods and
estate; amongst which was abundance of rich and costly furniture and
ornaments of all sorts. There were hurried away, here and there, vast
quantities of silver, and no less of gold, great numbers of rich
garments, some of purple, and others embroidered with gold; all of
which, says Diodorus, became a plentiful prey to the ravenous soldiers.
For though every place was full of rich spoil, yet the covetousness of
the Macedonians was insatiable. They were even so eager in plundering,
that they fought one another with drawn swords; and many, who were
conceived to have got a larger share than the rest, were killed in the
quarrel. Some things, which were of extraordinary value, they divided
with their swords, and each took a share. Others, in a rage, cut off the
hands of such as laid hold of a thing that was in dispute. They first
ravished the women as they were in their jewels and rich attire, and
then sold them for slaves. The riches are said to have amounted to no
less than eighteen millions sterling!
Such is the account left us by Diodorus. He then goes on to describe the
destruction of the temple or palace, burned down by Alexander.
“Alexander,” says he, “made a great feast for the entertainment of his
friends in commemoration of his victory, and offered magnificent
sacrifices to the gods. At this feast were entertained women, who
prostituted their bodies for hire; when the cups went so high to
drunkenness and debauchery, that many were drunk and mad. Among the rest
there was a courtesan, named Thais, an Athenian, then mistress to
Ptolemy, afterwards king of Egypt, who said in a gay tone of voice,
‘That it would be a matter of inexpressible joy to her, were she
permitted, masked as she then was, and in order to end the festival
nobly, to burn the magnificent palace of Xerxes, who had burned Athens;
and so set it on fire with her own hand, in order that it might be said
in all parts of the world, that the women, who had followed Alexander in
his expedition to Asia, had taken much better revenge on the Persians,
for the many calamities they had brought upon the Grecians, than all
the generals who had fought for them both by sea and land.’
“This spreading abroad, and coming to the ears of the young men,
presently one cries out, ‘Come on; bring firebrands!’ and so incites the
rest to fire the citadel, to revenge that impiety the Persians had
committed in destroying the temples of the Grecians. At this, others
with joy set up a shout; but said that so brave an exploit belonged only
to Alexander himself to perform. The king, stirred up at these words,
embraced the proposition; upon which, as many as were present left their
cups and leaped upon the table, and said that they would now celebrate a
victorious festival to Bacchus. Thereupon, multitudes of firebrands were
presently got together; and all the women that played on musical
instruments, which were at the feast, were called for; and then the
king, with songs, pipes, and flutes, led the way to this expedition,
contrived and managed by this courtesan, Thais, who, next after the
king, threw the first fire-brand into the palace. This precedent was
presently followed by the rest. The fire once raised, there was no
stopping it; but Alexander soon repented what was doing, and gave orders
for extinguishing it; but this being too late, the palace was burned,
and remains now nearly in the same state it was left at the conclusion
of the fire.”
According to Arrian, Alexander burned the palace of the Persian king
much against the will of Parmenio, who exhorted him to leave it
untouched. To which Alexander answered, that he was resolved to revenge
the ancient injuries, Greece had received from the Persians; who, when
they marched into Greece, burned its _temples_, and committed many other
barbarous devastations.
This, we think, is one reason why the building burned must have been a
temple, and not a palace. The Persians had burned the _temples_ of
Greece, therefore Alexander burned the _temple_ of the Persians.
Besides, as the feast was held in the palace, it is not very likely that
the master of the feast should have burned the place, in which he was
not only then feasting, but in which he was to sleep on the very night
of the conflagration; and that it was not destroyed is evident from the
circumstance, recorded by Strabo and Arrian—that Alexander inhabited
the royal palace at Persepolis after his return from India. Added to
which, it is certain that there is, at this time, no appearance or marks
of fire on any part of the ruins.
In respect to these ruins, it has been well observed, that magnificent
columns, portals, and other architectural decorations, mark this spot as
the site of a splendid “palace;” while the style of the sculptures and
the inscriptions, many of them in the single-headed character, found
only at this place, Nineveh, Babylon, Susa, and Ván, proves them to be
of a very high antiquity. Mr. Kinneir, however, says they are generally
admitted to be the remains of the “palace,” destroyed by Alexander; and
the striking resemblance of the building, as it exists, to the account
given of Persepolis by Diodorus, is, in his opinion, sufficient to
remove any doubt, that may exist upon the subject. We confess that such
is not our impression.
Those who regard the ruins as being the remains of a Persian temple,
insist that the sculptured subjects, as well as the style of
architecture, resemble, in many particulars, those of Egypt: among which
may be mentioned the figures, divided by trees, the sphinxes, the vases
and chains, the domes and architraves, the subterranean passages in the
tombs, the sarcophagi and urns, and the well, twenty-five feet deep and
fifteen square. The sculpture at Persepolis was also painted mostly in
blue, a favourite colour in Egypt; but sometimes in black and in yellow.
For these remarks we are indebted to Mr. Buckingham.
According to Arrian, it was the _castle_ of Persepolis which Alexander
burned. In Mr. Buckingham’s opinion, however, the ruins now seen
correspond neither with those of a palace, nor of a castle; they were,
therefore, according to him, not those of the edifice burned by
Alexander at all; for on all these remains, as we have before stated, no
mark of fire is to be traced, which could not be the case if this had
been the principal agent used in its destruction.
The opinion, that these ruins are the remains of the palace, is not on
the authority of all history, but on the assertion merely of Quintus,
Curtius and Diodorus. The whole story as to the burning, is said to have
been copied from a Greek writer, named Clitarchus[83].
Though there are no remains of a city now at Persepolis, nor in any part
of the plain in which it is situated; certain it is, that the city was
not destroyed by Alexander; for it was a very important place for many
centuries after.
Curtius, therefore, is guilty of an error in saying that the city was so
far from being rebuilt, that unless the river Araxes ran near it, there
are no signs to guess where it stood; for neither Arrian nor Strabo, nor
even Diodorus, whom Curtius commonly copies, acquaint us with any thing
but the burning of the palace.
The first book of Maccabees says that there was a rich temple at
Persepolis; and, the second, that Antiochus Epiphanes determined to
pillage it. Alexander, therefore, could not have destroyed it; for it
is highly improbable, from the history of those times, that so laboured
and magnificent a work should have been rebuilt and restored in the
short period between Alexander and the Syrian king; viz.—160 years.
That prince formed the design of pillaging both “a temple,” and the
city.
Though Persepolis long survived the palace of Jemsheed, its inhabitants
are said to have regarded with unextinguishable hatred the people by
whom they were conquered; and, as if inspired by those fragments of
former glory, with which they were surrounded, they maintained a
character for pride and courage, that was not entirely subdued, till
several centuries after the Arabians first overran Persia.
Its subsequent history has been summed up by Mr. Fraser. “It was among
the earliest conquests of Ardeshir Babegan; Shepoor II. made it his
residence; Yesdigird I. held his court there; and Hoormuz II., who
reigned at the close of the sixth century, passed two months every year
in it. In the succeeding age, however, it ceased to be a royal
residence; for Khoosroo Purveez bestowed the government on one of his
favourites; and it was here that the last of the Sassanian kings lay
concealed, when called to the throne, A. D. 632. Twelve years
afterwards, it capitulated to the Mohammedans; but the people, having
slain their foreign governor, were all put to the sword. The city was
ultimately destroyed by Sumcaneah-u-Dowlan, and the fanatical Arabs, A.
D. 982. Such,” concludes Mr. Fraser, “is the sketch of the latter days
of Istakhar[84], (the only name by which the city is recognised by the
native Persian historians); but the question, who was its founder? and
who raised the mighty fabrics, of which the ruins still astonish the
traveller? yet remain unanswered.”
The authors who have described these ruins are, Garcias de Silva
Figueroa, Pietra de la Valle, Sir John Chardin, Le Brun, Francklin,
Niebuhr, Morier, Buckingham, Porter, Ouseley, and Fraser.
It has been truly said, that we cannot proceed a step in Persia, without
encountering some monument of the cruelty of conquerors and of human
vicissitudes. These ruins have been variously described; insomuch that,
had travellers not agreed in respect to the latitude and longitude, one
would be tempted to suspect, that they had visited different ruins. Our
account will therefore be desultory: for to give a full and regular one
would, without drawings, be of little available use.
“It is very difficult to give any detailed account of the ruins of this
celebrated place,” says Mr. Buckingham. “There is no temple, as at
Thebes, at Palmyra, or at Balbec, sufficiently predominant over all
other surrounding objects to attract the chief attention, and furnish of
itself sufficient matter for description and observation. Here, all is
broken and detached fragments, extremely numerous, and each worthy of
attention; but so scattered and disjointed, as to give no perfect idea
of the whole. Its principal feature is, that it presents an assemblage
of tall, slender, and isolated pillars, and separate door-ways and
sanctuaries, spread over a large platform, elevated, like a
fortification, from the level of the surrounding plain.”
“The works of different travellers, describing these ruins,” says Sir
William Ouseley, “furnish many instances of extraordinary variation. But
this discordance is not peculiar to those, who have written accounts of
Persepolis. We find that, concerning the same visible and tangible
objects, two, three, and even four, travellers in other countries have
disagreed;—all men of considerable ingenuity, and none intending to
deceive.” Sir William then refers to a passage in Sir Thomas Herbert’s
Travels. “Forasmuch as the remaining figures, or images, are many and
different, and so many, as in two days I was there it was impossible I
could take the full of what I am assured an expert limner may very well
spend twice two months in, ere he can make a fancy draught; for, to say
the truth, this is a work much fitter for the pencil than the pen; the
rather for that I observe how that travellers, taking a view of some
rare piece together, from the variety of their fancy, they usually
differ in those observations: so that when they think their notes are
exact, they shall pretermit something that a third will light upon.”
These observations were made by Sir Thomas among the ruins of the city,
of which we now are treating.
“Nothing,” says Mr. Fraser, “can be more striking, than the appearance
of those ruins on approaching them from the south-west. Placed at the
base of a rugged mountain, on a terrace of mason-work that might vie
with the structures of Egypt, it overlooks an immense plain, inclosed on
all sides by distant but dark cliffs, and watered by the Kour Ab, which
once supplied a thousand aqueducts. But the water-courses are dried up;
the plain is a morass or a wilderness; for the great city, which once
poured its population over the wide expanse of Merdusht, has
disappeared, and the grey columns rise in solitary grandeur, to remind
us, that mighty deeds were done in the days of old.”
The last account of this place we have by an Eastern writer, is that
given by Mirza Jan, in the account he gives of a journey he made from
Shirauz to Isfahan. “Beyond the village of Kenarch, about half a
parasang, is a mountain, and at the foot of it an extraordinary place,
wherein are columns and marbles, sculptured with strange devices and
inscriptions, so that most persons imagine this edifice to have been
constructed before the creation of man.” This is very curious; since the
sculptures themselves give positive evidence of his existence.
The following account of these ruins is taken from Mr. Francklin. “They
are about two days’ journey from Shiraz, on a rising ground, in a plain,
surrounded by an amphitheatre of mountains. They occupy a circumference
of one thousand four hundred square yards. The front is six hundred
paces from north to south, and three hundred and ninety from east to
west, and the height of the foundation from forty to fifty feet.
“The columns are ascended by a grand staircase of blue stone, about
fifty feet high, the sides embellished with two immense sphinxes,
dressed out with bead-work. At a small distance from these portals you
ascend another flight of steps leading to the grand hall of columns. The
sides of these stairs are charged with reliefs of figures holding
vessels in their hands, camels, triumphal cars, horses, oxen, and rams.
At the head of the stair is a relief of a lion seizing a bull. This
stair leads to the great hall of forty or fifty pillars, in nine rows,
of six each; of which fifteen remain entire, from seventy to eighty feet
high; the diameter at the base twelve feet, and distance between the
columns twenty-two. Their pedestals are curiously wrought, and little
injured, the shafts fluted to the top, and the capitals adorned with a
profusion of fret-work. East of this, are remains of a square building,
entered by a door of granite; most of the doors and windows standing of
black marble, highly polished. On the sides of the doors, at entering,
are bas-reliefs of two figures, representing a man stabbing a goat; a
common device all over the palace. Over another door of the same
apartment are two men, and a domestic behind them, with an umbrella. At
the south-west entrance of this apartment are two large stone pillars,
carved with four figures in long garments, holding spears ten feet long.
Exclusive of the ancient inscriptions, in unknown characters,
interspersed over these ruins, there are others, accurately described by
Niebuhr. Behind the hall of the pillars, and close under the mountains,
are remains of a very large building, with two principal entrances from
north-east, and south-west; the wall divided into several partitions,
ornamented with sculpture, and over its twelve doors the relief of the
lion and bull, as before: and besides the usual figures, one of a man in
long garments, with a cap turret-formed, seated on a pillar, holding in
his hand a small vessel, and wearing a girdle round his waist,
projecting beyond his clothes, and under him several lions. Behind this
ruin, a considerable way to the north, up the mountain Rehumut, are
remains of two buildings, of three sides, cut out of the rock, forty
feet high, ascended to by steps, now destroyed. Two of the sides are
loaded with carvings, as of some religious ceremony, including the
figure last mentioned. Former travellers have supposed these tombs to be
of the kings of Persia; the natives call it Mujilis Jemsheed, or the
Assembly of king Gemsheed, who resorted hither with his nobles. Under
these reliefs several openings lead to a dark subterranean passage, of
six feet by four, into the rock. At the foot of this mountain, to the
south, are the remains of windows, like those in other parts of the
palace; and, a little westward from it, a stone staircase, leading to a
magnificent square court, with pediments, and corners of pillars, and on
those ancient inscriptions. In several parts of the palace are stone
aqueducts. These venerable ruins have suffered from time, weather, and
earthquakes; and are half buried in sand, washed down from the
mountains. Persian writers ascribe it to King Gemsheed; and the addition
of one thousand columns more, to Queen Homaie, eight hundred years
after; but there is no epoch assigned.”
This account is from Mr. Francklin; we now turn to Mr. Morier.
“Tavernier and Des Ferrières-Sauvebœuf, are the only persons who have
spoken slightingly of these ruins; but there is no small reason to
believe, that the latter never saw the ruins he speaks of; and that the
former merely wrote from the dubious information of a capuchin, who
resided for some years at Isfahan.”
Besides the inscriptions, above alluded to, there are others in Arabic,
Persian, and Greek. Dr. Hyde observes, that the inscriptions are very
rude and clumsy; and that some, if not all, are in praise of Alexander;
and therefore, they must be later than that conqueror.
The Persepolitan capitals convey the idea of rich silks and feathers
having been tied round the upper part of tall wooden posts; and rich
silks, feathers, and precious stones, have always been the materials
with which Eastern monarchs form their most gorgeous decorations.
These ruins bear incontrovertible evidence of antiquity; and although in
some things they resemble Egyptian, and in others Indian edifices, they,
especially in the palace, possess leading features, sufficiently
distinct to entitle them to be considered as of a separate school. Yet,
being, amongst numerous palaces, the only vestiges of lofty stone
columns and numerous sculptures, and being traced immediately subsequent
to the Egyptian expedition under Cambyses, they afford strong grounds
for believing, that Thebaid influence, by example, or workmen, or both,
led to these works, so unlike what had formerly been practised in
Persia. That the style was not spread over the empire, may be accounted
for from its immediate subjugation by the Greeks. In latter times the
use of the Gothic arches, and Turkish domes, highly ornamented, have
been, throughout all Persia, extensively introduced in their palaces,
mosques, and tombs. The hand of the Musselman has likewise reached the
remotest quarters of India[85].
The materials, of which the palace is composed, are chiefly hard blue
stone; but the doors and windows are of black marble, and so beautifully
polished, that they reflect objects like a mirror. This high polish is
agreeably alluded to in the account, given by Mr. Murray, in his
historical account of travels in Asia, where he mentions that those
ruins were visited by Garcias de Sylva in 1621. “The ambassador came to
the spot called Cilminar, celebrated for the mighty ruins which cover
its site—the remains of the ancient Persepolis. They were diligently
surveyed by our author, who describes them with an enthusiasm, which
perhaps betrays him into some degree of exaggeration. He dwells on the
superb range of columns, particularly those called the Forty Minarets;
the magnificent stairs by which they are ascended; the vast interior
square, four hundred and thirty feet by three hundred and ten, and the
huge pieces of marble, without any apparent juncture. The sculptures
were innumerable, and are conceived by him to represent the actions of a
race of men prior to any now known, even to the ancient Babylonians and
Persians. Yet, though ascending to this vast antiquity, they are so
entire, that, with the exception of a few fragments broken off, they
might seem to have been recently finished. In comparing these with the
monuments of other nations, he observes, that the pyramids are mere
artificial mountains; while the temples of Greece are in ruins; here
only art and grandeur are united in pristine perfection. The high polish
of the marble was amusingly shown by a mastiff, who, seeing his own
figure reflected on the walls, was worked up to fury, which was always
increased by the view of the corresponding gestures in the reflected
image; till the scene being repeated whenever they came, they were at
length obliged to chain and send him off.”