CHAPTER V. ARCHITECTURE AND OTHER ARTS.

If in the old world the fame of the Persians, as builders and artists,

fell on the whole below that of the Assyrians and Babylonians--their

instructors in art, no less than in letters and science--it was not so

much that they had not produced works worthy of comparison with those

which adorned Babylon and Nineveh, as that, boasting less antiquity and

less originality than those primitive races, they did not strike in the

same way the imagination of the lively Greeks, who moreover could not

but feel a certain jealousy of artistic successes, which had rewarded

the efforts of a living and rival people. It happened, moreover, that

the Persian masterpieces were less accessible to the Greeks than the

Babylonian, and hence there was actually less knowledge of their real

character in the time when Greek literature was at its best. Herodotus

and Xenophon, who impressed on their countrymen true ideas of the

grandeur and magnificence of the Mesopotamian structures, never

penetrated to Persia Proper, and perhaps never beheld a real Persian

building. Ctesias, it is true, as a resident at the Achaemenian Court

for seventeen years, must certainly have seen Susa and Ecbatana, if not

even Persepolis, and he therefore must have been well acquainted with

the character of Persian palaces; but, so far as appears from the

fragments of his work which have come down to us, he said but little

on the subject of these edifices. It was not until Alexander led his

cohorts across the chain of Zagros to the high plateau beyond, that a

proper estimate of the great Persian buildings could be made; and then

the most magnificent of them all was scarcely seen before it was laid

in ruins. The barbarous act of the great Macedonian conqueror, in

committing the palace of Persepolis to the flames, tended to prevent

a full recognition of the real greatness of Persian art even after the

Greeks had occupied the country; but we find from this time a certain

amount of acknowledgment of its merits--a certain number of passages,

which, like that which forms the heading to this chapter, admit alike

its grandeur and its magnificence.

If, however, the ancients did less than justice to the efforts of the

Persians in architecture, sculpture, and the kindred arts, moderns have,

on the contrary, given them rather an undue prominence. From the

middle of the seventeenth century, when Europeans first began freely to

penetrate the East, the Persian ruins, especially those of Persepolis,

drew the marked attention of travellers; and in times when the site of

Babylon had attracted but scanty notice, and that of Nineveh and the

other great Assyrian cities was almost unknown, English, French, and

German savans measured, described, and figured the Persian remains with

a copiousness and exactness that left little to desire. Chardin, the

elder Mebuhr, Le Brun, Ouseley, Ker Porter, exerted themselves with the

most praiseworthy zeal to represent fully and faithfully the marvels of

the Chehl Minar; and these persevering efforts were followed within no

very lengthy period by the splendid and exhaustive works of the Baron

Texier and of MM. Flandin and Coste. Persepolis rose again from its

ashes in the superb and costly volumes of these latter writers, who

represented on the grandest scale, and in the most finished way,

not only the actual but the ideal--not only the present but the

past--placing before our eyes at once the fullest and completest views

of the existing ruins, and also restorations of the ancient structures,

some of them warm with color and gilding, which, though to a certain

extent imaginary, probably give to a modern the best notion that it is

now possible to form of an old Persian edifice.

It is impossible within the limits of the present work, and with the

resources at the author’s command, to attempt a complete description of

the Persian remains, or to vie with writers who had at their disposal

all the modern means of illustration. By the liberality of a well-known

authority on architecture, he is able to present his readers with

certain general views of the most important structures; and he also

enjoys the advantage of illustrating some of the most curious of the

details with engravings from a set of photographs recently taken. These

last have, it is believed, an accuracy beyond that of any drawings

hitherto made, and will give a better idea than words could possibly do

of the merit of the sculptures. With these helps, and with the addition

of reduced copies from some of MM. Flandin and Coste’s plates, the

author hopes to be able to make his account fairly intelligible, and to

give his readers the opportunity of forming a tolerably correct judgment

on the merit of the Persian art in comparison with that of Babylon and

Assyria.

Persian architectural art displayed itself especially in two forms of

building--the palace and the tomb. Temples were not perhaps unknown in

Persia, though much of the worship may always have been in the open

air; but temples, at least until the time of Artaxerxes Mnemon, were

insignificant, and neither attracted the attention of contemporaries,

nor were of such a character as to leave traces of themselves to after

times. The palaces of the Persian kings, on the other hand, and the

sepulchres which they prepared for themselves, are noticed by many

ancient writers as objects of interest; and, notwithstanding certain

doubts which have been raised in recent years, it seems tolerably

certain that they are to be recognized in the two chief classes of

ancient ruins which still exist in the country.

The Persian palatial buildings, of which traces remain, are four in

number. One was situated at Ecbatana, the Median capital, and was a sort

of adjunct to the old residence of the Median kings. Of this only a very

few vestiges have been hitherto found; and we can merely say that it

appears to have been of the same general character with the edifices

which will be hereafter described. Another was built by Darius and

his son Xerxes on the great mound of Susa; and of this we have the

ground-plan, in a great measure, and various interesting details. A

third stood within the walls of the city of Persepolis, but of this not

much more is left than of the construction at Ecbatana. Finally, there

was in the neighborhood of Persepolis, but completely distinct from the

town, the Great Palace, which, as the chief residence, at any rate of

the later kings, Alexander burnt, and of which the remains still to

be seen are ample, constituting by far the most remarkable group of

buildings now existing in this part of Asia.

It is to this last edifice, or group of edifices, that the reader’s

attention will be specially directed in the following pages. Here the

greatest of the Persian monarchs seem to have built the greatest of

their works. Here the ravages of time and barbarism, sadly injurious

as they may have been, have had least effect. Here, moreover, modern

research has spent its chief efforts, excavations having been made,

measurements effected, and ground-plans laid down with accuracy. In

describing the Persepolitan buildings we have aids which mostly fail us

elsewhere--charts, plans, drawings in extraordinary abundance and often

of high artistic value, elaborate descriptions, even photographs. [PLATE

XXXVIII., Fig. 3.] If the describer has still a task of some difficulty

to perform, it is because an overplus of material is apt to cause almost

as much embarrassment as too poor and scanty a supply.

[Illustration: PLATE XXVIII.]

The buildings at Persepolis are placed upon a vast platform. It was

the practice of the Persians, as of the Assyrians and Babylonians, to

elevate their palaces in this way. They thus made them at once more

striking to the eye, more dignified, and more easy to guard. In

Babylonia an elevated habitation was also more healthy and more

pleasant, being raised above the reach of many insects, and laid open to

the winds of heaven, never too boisterous in that climate. Perhaps the

Assyrians and Persians in their continued use of the custom, to some

extent followed a fashion, elevating their royal residences, not so much

for security or comfort, as because it had come to be considered that a

palace ought to have a lofty site, and to look down on the habitations

of meaner men; but, however this may have been, the custom certainly

prevailed, and at Persepolis we have, in an almost perfect condition,

this first element of a Persian palace. [PLATE XXXIX.]

[Illustration: PLATE XXXIX.]

The platform at Persepolis is built at the foot of a high range of

rocky hills, on which it abuts towards the east. It is composed of solid

masses of hewn stone, which were united by metal clamps, probably of

iron or lead. The masses were not cut to a uniform size, nor even always

to a right angle, but were fitted together with a certain amount

of irregularity, which will be the best understood from the woodcut

overleaf. Many of the blocks were of enormous size; and their

quarrying, transport, and elevation to their present places, imply very

considerable mechanical skill. They were laid so as to form a perfectly

smooth perpendicular wall, the least height of which above the

plain below is twenty feet. The outline of the platform was somewhat

irregular. Speaking roughly, we may call it an oblong square, with a

breadth about two thirds of its length; but this description, unless

qualified, will give an idea of far greater uniformity than actually

prevails. [PLATE XL., Fig. 1.] The most serious irregularity is on the

north side, the general line of which is not parallel to the south side,

nor at right angles with the western one, but forms with the general

line of the western an angle of about eighty degrees. The cause of this

deviation lay probably in the fact that, on this side, a low rocky

spur ran out from the mountain-range in this direction, and that it

was thought desirable to accommodate the line of the structure to the

natural irregularities of the ground. In addition to the irregularity

of general outline thus produced, there is another of such perpetual

occurrence that it must be regarded as an essential element of the

original design, and therefore probably as approving itself to the

artistic notions of the builder. This is the occurrence of frequent

angular projections and indentations, which we remark on all three sides

of the platform equally, and which would therefore seem to have been

regarded in Persia, no less than in Assyria, as ornamental.

[Illustration: PLATE XL.]

The whole of the platform is not of a uniform height. On the contrary,

it seems to have been composed, as originally built, of several quite

distinct terraces. Three of these still remain, exhibiting towards the

west a very marked difference of elevation. The lowest of the three is

on the south side, and it may therefore be termed the Southern Terrace.

It extends from east to west a distance of about 800 feet, with a width

of about 170 or 180, and has an elevation above the plain of from twenty

to twenty-three feet. Opposite to this, on the northern side of the

platform, is a second terrace, more than three times the breadth of the

southern one, which may be called, by way of distinction, the Northern

Terrace. This has an elevation above the plain of thirty-five feet.

Intermediate between these two is the great Central or Upper Terrace,

standing forty-five feet above the plain, having a length of 770 feet

along the west face of the platform, and a width of about 400. Upon

this Upper Terrace were situated almost all the great and important

buildings.

The erection of a royal residence on a platform composed of several

terraces involved the necessity of artificial ascents, which the

Persian architects managed by means of broad and solid staircases. These

staircases constitute one of the most remarkable features of the place,

and seem to deserve careful and exact description. [PLATE XLI., Fig. 2.]

[Illustration: PLATE XLI.]

The first, and grandest in respect of scale, is on the west front of the

platform towards its northern end, and leads up from the plain to the

summit of the northern terrace, furnishing the only means by which the

platform can even now be ascended. It consists of two distinct sets of

steps, each composed of two flights, with a broad landing-place between

them, the steps themselves running at right angles to the platform wall,

and the two lower flights diverging, while the two upper ones converge

to a common landing-place on the top. The slope of the stairs is so

gentle that, though each step has a convenient width, the height of a

step is in no case more than from three to four inches. It is thus

easy to ride horses both up and down the staircase, and travellers are

constantly in the habit of ascending and descending it in this way.

The width of the staircase is twenty-two feet--space sufficient to allow

of ten horsemen ascending each flight of steps abreast. Altogether this

ascent, which is on a plan unknown elsewhere, is pronounced to be the

noblest example of a flight of stairs to be found in any part of the

world. It does not project beyond the line of the platform whereto it

leads, but is, as it were, taken out of it. [PLATE XLII.]

[[Illustration: PLATE XLII.]

The next, and in some respects the most remarkable of all the

staircases, conducts from the level of the northern platform to that of

the central or upper terrace. This staircase fronts northward, and opens

on the view as soon as the first staircase (A on the plan) has been

ascended, lying to the right of the spectator at the distance of about

fifty or sixty yards. It consists of four single flights of steps, two

of which are central, facing one another, and leading to a projecting

landing-place (B), about twenty feet in width; while the two others

are on either side of the central flights, distant from them about

twenty-one yards. The entire length of this staircase is 212 feet;

its greatest projection in front of the line of the terrace whereon it

abuts, is thirty-six feet. The steps, which are sixteen feet wide, rise

in the same gentle way as those of the lower or platform staircase. The

height of each is under four inches; and thus there are thirty-one steps

in an ascent of ten feet.

The feature which specially distinguishes this staircase from the lower

one already described is its elaborate ornamentation. The platform

staircase is perfectly plain. The entire face which this staircase

presents to the spectator is covered with sculptures. In the first

place, on the central projection, which is divided perpendicularly into

three compartments, are represented, in the spandrels on either side,

a lion devouring a bull, and in the compartment between the spandrels

eight colossal Persian guardsmen, armed with spears and either with

sword or shield. Further, above the lion and bull, towards the edge of

the spandrel where it slopes, forming a parapet to the steps, [PLATE

XLIII., Fig. 1.] there was a row of cypress trees, while at the end of

the parapet and along the whole of its inner face were a set of small

figures, guardsmen habited like those in the central compartment, but

carrying mostly a bow and quiver instead of a shield. Along the extreme

edge of the parapet externally was a narrow border thickly set with

rosettes. [PLATE XLIII., Fig. 2.] Next, in the long spaces between the

central stairs and those on either side of them, the spandrels contain

repetitions of the lion and bull sculpture, while between them and the

central stairs the face of the wall is divided horizontally into three

bands, each of which has been ornamented with a continuous row of

figures. The highest row of the three is unfortunately mutilated, the

upper portion of all the bodies being lost in consequence of their

having been sculptured upon a parapet wall built originally to protect

the edge of the terrace, but now fallen away. The middle and lowest rows

are tolerably perfect, and possess considerable interest, as well as

some artistic merit. The entire scene represented on the right side

seems to be the bringing of tribute or presents to the monarch by the

various nations under his sway. On the left-hand side this subject was

continued to a certain extent; but the greater part of the space was

occupied by representations of guards and officers of the court, the

guards being placed towards the centre, and, as it were, keeping the

main stairs, while the officers were at a greater distance. The three

rows of figures were separated from one another by narrow bands, thickly

set with rosettes.

[Illustration: PLATE XLIII.]

The builder of this magnificent work was not content to leave it to

history or tradition to connect his name with his construction, but

determined to make the work itself the means of perpetuating his memory.

In three conspicuous parts of the staircase, slabs were left clear of

sculpture, undoubtedly to receive inscriptions commemorative of the

founder. The places selected were the front of the middle staircase, the

exact centre of the whole work, and the space adjoining the spandrels to

the extreme right and the extreme left. In one instance alone, however,

was this part of the work completed. On the right hand, or western

extremity of the staircase, an inscription of thirty lines in the old

Persian language informs us that the constructor was “Xerxes, the Great

King, the King of Kings, the son of King Darius, the Achaemenian.” The

central and left-hand tablets, intended probably for Babylonian and

Scythic translations of the Persian legend, were never inscribed, and

remain blank to the present day.

The remaining staircases will not require very lengthy or elaborate

descriptions. They are six in number, and consist, in most instances,

of a double flight of steps, similar to the central portion of the

staircase which has been just described. Two of them (e and f) belonged

to the building marked as the “Palace of Darius” on the plan, and gave

entrance to it from the central platform above which it is elevated

about fourteen or fifteen feet. Two others (c and d) belonged to the

“Palace of Xerxes.” These led up to a broad paved space in front of

that building, which formed a terrace, elevated about ten feet above

the general level of the central platform. Their position was at the two

ends of the terrace, opposite to one another; but in other respects

they cannot be said to have matched. The eastern, which consisted of two

double flights, was similar in general arrangement to the staircase by

which the platform was mounted from the plain, excepting that it was not

recessed, but projected its full breadth beyond the line of the terrace.

It was decidedly the more elegant of the two, and evidently formed the

main approach. It was adorned with the usual bull and lion combats, with

figures of guardsmen, and with attendants carrying articles needed for

the table or the toilet. The inscriptions upon it declare it to be

the work of Xerxes. [PLATE XLIV.] The western staircase was composed

merely of two single flights, facing one another, with a narrow

landing-place between them. It was ornamented like the eastern, but

somewhat less elaborately.

[Illustration: PLATE XLIV.]

A staircase, very similar to this last, but still one with certain

peculiarities, was built by Artaxerxes Ochus, at the west side of the

Palace of Darius, in order to give it a second entrance. [PLATE XLV.,

Fig. 1.] There the spandrels have the usual figures of the lion and

bull; but the intermediate space is somewhat unusually arranged. It is

divided vertically and horizontally into eight squared compartments,

three on either side, and two in the middle. The upper of these two

contains nothing but a winged circle, the emblem of Divinity being thus

placed reverently by itself. Below, in a compartment of double size, is

an inscription of Ochus, barbarous in language, but very religious in

tone. The six remaining compartments had each four figures, representing

tribute-bearers introduced to the royal presence by a court officer.

[Illustration: PLATE XLV.]

The other, and original, staircase to this palace (f on the plan) was

towards the north, and led up to the great portico, which was anciently

its sole entrance. Two flights of steps, facing each other, conducted to

a paved space of equal extent with the portico and projecting in front

of it about five feet. On the base of the staircase were sculptures in

a single line--the lion and bull in either spandrel--and between the

spandrels eighteen colossal guardsmen, nine facing either way towards

a central inscription, which was repeated in other languages on slabs

placed between the guardsmen and the bulls. Above the spandrels, on

the parapet which fenced the stairs, was a line of figures representing

attendants bringing into the palace materials for the banquet. A similar

line adorned the inner wall of the staircase.

Opposite to this, at the distance of about thirty-two yards, was another

very similar staircase, leading up to the portico of another

building, erected (apparently) by Artaxerxes Ochus, which occupied the

south-western corner of the upper platform. The sculptures here seem to

have been of the usual character but they are so mutilated that no very

decided opinion can be passed upon them.

Last of all, a staircase of a very peculiar character, (h on the plan)

requires notice. This is a flight of steps cut in the solid rock,

which leads up from the southern terrace to the upper one, at a point

intervening between the south-western edifice, or palace of Artaxerxes,

and the palace of Xerxes, or central southern edifice. These steps are

singular in facing the terrace to which they lead, instead of being

placed sideways to it. They are of rude construction, being without a

parapet, and wholly devoid of sculpture or other ornamentation.

They furnish the only communication between the southern and central

terraces.

It is a peculiarity of the Persepolitan ruins that they are not

continuous, but present to the modern inquirer the appearance, at

any rate, of a number of distinct buildings. Of these the platform

altogether contains ten, five of which are of large size, while the

remainder are comparatively insignificant.

Of the five large buildings four stand upon the central or upper

terrace, while one lies east of that terrace, between it and the

mountains. The four upon the central terrace comprise three buildings

made up of several sets of chambers, together with one great open

pillared hall, to which are attached no subordinate apartments. The

three complex edifices will be here termed “palaces,” and will take

the names of their respective founders, Darius, Xerxes, and Artaxerxes

Ochus: the fourth will be called the “Great Hall of Audience.” The

building between the upper terrace and the mountains will be termed the

“Great Eastern Edifice.”

The “Palace of Darius,” which is one of the most interesting of the

Persepolitan buildings, stands near the western edge of the platform,

midway between the “Great Hall of Audience” and the “Palace of

Artaxerxes Ochus.” [PLATE XLVI., Fig. 1.] It is a building about one

hundred and thirty five feet in length, and in breadth a little short of

a hundred. Of all the existing buildings on the platform it occupies

the most exalted position, being elevated from fourteen to fifteen feet

above the general level of the central terrace, and being thus four or

five feet higher than the “Palace of Xerxes.” It fronted towards the

south, where it was approached by a double staircase of the usual

character, which led up to a deep portico of eight pillars arranged in

two rows. On either side of the portico were guard-rooms, which opened

upon it, in length twenty-three feet, and in breadth thirteen. Behind

the portico lay the main chamber, which was a square of fifty feet,

having a roof supported by sixteen pillars, arranged in four rows of

four, in line with the pillars of the portico. [PLATE XLV., Fig. 2.]

The bases for the pillars alone remain; and it is thus uncertain whether

their material was stone or wood. They were probably light and slender,

not greatly interrupting the view. The hall was surrounded on all sides

by walls from four to five feet in thickness, in which were doors,

windows, and recesses, symmetrically arranged. The entrance from the

portico was by a door in the exact centre of the front wall, on either

side of which were two windows, looking into the portico. The

opposite, or back, wall was pierced by two doors, which faced the

intercolumniations of the side rows of pillars, as the front door faced

the intercolumniation of the central rows. Between the two doors

which pierced the back wall was a squared recess, and similar recesses

ornamented the same wall on either side of the doors. The side walls

were each pierced originally by a single doorway, between which and the

front wall was a squared recess, while beyond, between the doorways

and the back wall, were two recesses of the same character. Curiously

enough, these side doorways and recesses fronted the pillars, not the

intercolumniations.

[Illustration: PLATE XLVI.]

No sculpture, so far as appears, adorned this apartment, excepting

in the doorways, which however had in every case this kind of

ornamentation. The doorways in the back wall exhibited on their jambs

figures of the king followed by two attendants, one holding a cloth, and

the other a fly-chaser. [PLATE XLV., Fig. 3.] These figures had in every

case their faces turned towards the apartment. The front doorway showed

on its jambs the monarch followed by the parasol-bearer and the bearer

of the fly-chaser, with his back turned to the apartment, issuing forth,

as it were, from it. On the jambs of the doors of the side apartments

was represented the king in combat with a lion or a monster, the king

here in every case facing outwards, and seeming to guard the entrances

to the side chambers.

At the back of the hall, and at either side, were chambers of very

moderate dimensions. The largest were to the rear of the building,

where there seems to have been one about forty feet by twenty-three, and

another twenty-eight feet by twenty. The doorways here had sculptures,

representing attendants bearing napkins and perfumes. The side chambers,

five in number, were considerably smaller than those behind the great

hall, the largest not exceeding thirty-four feet by thirteen.

It seems probable that this palace was without any second story. There

is no vestige in any part of it of a staircase--no indication of its

height having ever exceeded from twenty-two to twenty-five feet. It was

a modest building, simple and regular, covering less than half the space

of an ordinary palace in Assyria. [PLATE XLV., Fig. 2.] Externally,

it must have presented an appearance not very dissimilar to that of

the simpler Greek temples; distinguished from them by peculiarities of

ornamentation, but by no striking or important feature, excepting

the grand and elaborately sculptured staircase. Internally, it was

remarkable for the small number of its apartments, which seem not to

have been more than twelve or thirteen, and for the moderate size of

most of them. Even the grand central hall covered a less area than three

out of the five halls in the country palace of Sargon. The effect

of this room was probably fine, though it must have been somewhat

over-crowded with pillars. If these were, however (as is probable),

light wooden posts, plated with silver or with gold, and if the ceiling

consisted (as it most likely did) of beams, crossing each other at right

angles, with square spaces between them, all likewise coated with the

precious metals; if moreover the cold stone walls, excepting where

they were broken by a doorway, or a window, were similarly decked; if

curtains of brilliant hues hung across the entrances; if the pavement

was of many-colored stones, and in places covered with magnificent

carpets; if an elevated golden throne, under a canopy of purple, adorned

the upper end of the room, standing against the wall midway between the

two doors--if this were in truth the arrangement and ornamentation of

the apartment, we can well understand that the _coup d’oeil_ must

have been effective, and the impression made on the spectator highly

pleasing. A room fifty feet square, and not much more than twenty high,

could not be very grand; but elegance of form, combined with richness

of material and splendor of coloring, may have more than compensated for

the want of that grandeur which results from mere size.

If it be inquired how a palace of the dimensions described can have

sufficed even for one of the early Persian kings, the reply must

seemingly be that the building in question can only have contained

the public apartments of the royal residence--the throne-room,

banqueting-rooms, guard-rooms, etc.,--and that it must have been

supplemented by at least one other edifice of a considerable size, the

Gynaeceum or “House of the Women.” There is ample room on the platform

for such a building, either towards the east, where the ground is now

occupied by a high mound of rubbish, or on the west, towards the edge of

the platform, where traces of a large edifice were noted by Niebuhr. On

the whole, this latter situation seems to be the more probable; and the

position of the Gynaeceum in this quarter may account for the alteration

made by Artaxerxes Ochus in the palace of Darius, which now seriously

interferes with its symmetry. Artaxerxes cut a doorway in the outer

western wall, and another opposite to it in the western wall of the

great hall, adding at the same time a second staircase to the building,

which thus became accessible from the west no less than from the south.

It has puzzled the learned in architecture to assign a motive for this

alteration. May we not find an adequate one in the desire to obtain a

ready and comparatively private access to the Gynaeceum, which must have

been somewhere on the platform, and which may well have lain in this

direction?

The minute account which has been now given of this palace will render

unnecessary a very elaborate description of the remainder. Two grand

palatial edifices seem to have been erected on the platform by later

kings--one by Xerxes and the other by Artaxerxes Ochus; but the latter

of these is in so ruined a condition, and the former is so like the

palace of Darius, that but few remarks need be made upon either. The

palace of Xerxes is simply that of Darius on a larger scale, the pillars

in the portico being increased from two rows of four to two rows of six,

and the great hall behind being a square of eighty instead of a square

of fifty feet, with thirty-six instead of sixteen pillars to support

its roof. On either side of the hall, and on either side of the portico,

were apartments like those already described as abutting on the same

portions of the older palace, differing from them chiefly in being

larger and more numerous. The two largest, which were thirty-one feet

square, had roofs supported on pillars, the numbers of such supports

being in each case four. The only striking difference in the plans of

the two buildings consisted in the absence from the palace of Xerxes of

any apartments to the rear of the great hall. In order to allow space

for an ample terrace in front, the whole edifice was thrown back so

close to the edge of the upper platform that no room was left for any

chambers at the back, since the hall itself was here brought almost to

the very verge of the sheer descent from the central to the low southern

terrace. In ornamentation the palaces also very closely resembled each

other, the chief difference being that the combats of the king with

lions and mythological monsters, which form the regular ornamentation

of the side-chambers in the palace of Darius, occur nowhere in the

residence of his son, where they are replaced by figures of attendants

bringing articles for the toilet or the table, like those which adorn

the main staircase of the older edifice. Figures of the same kind also

ornament all the windows in the palace of Xerxes. A tone of mere sensual

enjoyment is thus given to the later edifice, which is very far from

characterizing the earlier; and the decline of morals at the Court,

which history indicates as rapid about this period, is seen to

have stamped itself, as such changes usually do, upon the national

architecture.

A small building, at the distance of about twenty or twenty-five yards

from the eastern wall of the palace of Xerxes, possesses a peculiar

interest, in consequence of its having some claims to be considered

the most ancient structure upon the platform. It consists of a hall and

portico, in size, proportions, and decoration almost exactly resembling

the corresponding parts of Darius’s palace, but unaccompanied by any

trace of circumjacent chambers, and totally devoid of inscriptions. The

building is low, on the level of the northern, rather than on that of

the central terrace, and is indeed half buried in the rubbish which has

accumulated at its base. Its fragments are peculiarly grand and massive,

while its sculptures are in strong and bold relief. There can be little

doubt but that it was originally, like the hall and portico of Darius,

surrounded on three sides by chambers. These, however, have entirely

disappeared, having probably been pulled down to furnish materials for

more recent edifices. Like the palaces of Xerxes and Artaxerxes Ochus,

and unlike the palace of Darius, the building faces to the north, which

is the direction naturally preferred in such a climate. We may suppose

it to have been the royal residence of the earlier times, the erection

of Cyrus or Cambyses, and to have been intended especially for summer

use, for which its position well fitted it. Darius, wishing for a winter

palace at Persepolis, as well as a summer one, took probably this early

palace for his model, and built one as nearly as possible resembling it,

except that, for the sake of greater warmth, he made his new erection

face southwards. Xerxes, dissatisfied with the size of the old summer

palace, built a new one at its side of considerably larger dimensions,

using perhaps some of the materials of the old palace in his new

building. Finally, Artaxerxes Ochus made certain additions to the palace

of Xerxes on its western side, and at the same time added a staircase

and a doorway to the winter residence of Darius. Thus the Persepolitan

palace, using the word in its proper sense of royal residence, attained

its full dimensions, occupying the southern half of the great central

platform, and covering with its various courts and buildings a space

500 feet long by 375 feet wide, or nearly the space covered by the less

ambitious of the palaces of Assyria.

Besides edifices adapted for habitation, the Persepolitan platform

sustained two other classes of buildings. These were propylaea, or

gateways--places commanding the approach to great buildings, where a

guard might be stationed to stop and examine all comers--and halls of a

vast size, which were probably throne-rooms, where the monarch held

his court on grand occasions, to exhibit himself in full state to his

subjects. The propylaea upon the platform appear to have been four

in number. One, the largest, was directly opposite the centre of the

landing-place at the top of the great stairs which gave access to the

platform from the plain. This consisted of a noble apartment, eighty-two

feet square, with a roof supported by four magnificent columns, each

between fifty and sixty feet high. The walls of the apartment were from

sixteen to seventeen feet thick. Two grand portals, each twelve feet

wide by thirty-six feet high, led into this apartment, one directly

facing the head of the stairs, and the other opposite to it, towards the

east. Both were flanked with colossal bulls, those towards the staircase

being conventional representations of the real animal, while the

opposite pair are almost exact reproductions of the winged and

human-headed bulls, with which the Assyrian discoveries have made us so

familiar. The accompanying illustration [PLATE XLVII., Fig. 1.], which

is taken from a photograph, exhibits this inner pair in their present

condition. The back of one of the other pair is also visible. Two of

the pillars--which alone are still standings appear in their places,

intervening between the front and the back gateway.

[Illustration: PLATE XLVII.]

The walls which enclosed this chamber, notwithstanding their immense

thickness, have almost entirely disappeared. On the southern side alone,

where there seems to have been a third doorway, unornamented, are there

any traces of them. We must conclude that they were either of burnt

brick or of small blocks of stone, which the natives of the country

in later times found it convenient to use as material for their own

buildings.

An edifice, almost exactly similar to this, but of very inferior

dimensions, occupied a position due east of the palace of Darius, and

a little to the north of the main staircase leading to the terrace in

front of the palace of Xerxes. The bases of two pillars and the jambs

of three doorways remain, from which it is easy to reconstruct the main

building. Its position seems to mark it as designed to give entrance

to the structure, whatever it was, which occupied the site of the great

mound (M on the Plan) east of Darius’s palace, and north of the palace

of his son. The ornamentation, however, would rather connect it with

the more eastern of the two great pillared halls, which will have to be

described presently.

A third edifice of the same kind stood in front of the great eastern

hall, at the distance of about seventy yards from its portico. This

building is more utterly ruined than either of the preceding, and its

dimensions are open to some doubt. On the whole, it seems probable that

it resembled the great propylaea at the head of the stairs leading from

the plain rather than the central propylaea just described. Part of its

ornamentation was certainly a colossal bull, though whether human-headed

or not cannot be determined.

The fourth of the propylaea was on the terrace whereon stood the palace

of Xerxes, and directly fronting the landing-place at the head of its

principal stairs, just as the propylaea first described fronted the

great stairs leading up from the plain. Its dimensions were suited to

those of the staircase which led to it, and of the terrace on which it

was placed. It was less than one fourth the size of the great propylaea,

and about half that of the propylaea which stood the nearest to it.

The bases of the four pillars alone remain in situ; but, from the

proportions thus obtained, the position of the walls and doorways is

tolerably certain.

We have now to pass to the most magnificent of the Perse-politan

buildings--the Great Pillared Halls--which constitute the glory of Arian

architecture, and which, even in their ruins, provoke the wonder and

admiration of modern Europeans, familiar with all the triumphs of

Western art, with Grecian temples, Roman baths and amphitheatres,

Moorish palaces, Turkish mosques, and Christian cathedrals. Of these

pillared halls, the Persepolitan platform supports two, slightly

differing in their design, but presenting many points of agreement. They

bear the character of an earlier and a later building--a first effort

in the direction which circumstances compelled the architecture of the

Persians to take, and the final achievement of their best artists in

this kind of building.

Nearly midway in the platform between its northern and its southern

edges, and not very far from the boundary of rocky mountain on which

the platform abuts towards the east, is the vast edifice which has been

called with good reason the “Hall of a Hundred Columns,” since its

roof was in all probability supported by that number of pillars. This

building consisted of a single magnificent chamber, with a portico, and

probably guard-rooms, in front, of dimensions quite unequalled upon

the platform. The portico was 183 feet long by 52 feet deep, and was

sustained by sixteen pillars, about 33 feet high, arranged in two rows

of eight. The great chamber behind was a square of 227 feet, and had

therefore an area of about 51,000 feet. Over this vast space were

distributed, at equal distances from one another, one hundred columns,

each 35 feet high, arranged in ten rows of ten each, every pillar thus

standing at a distance of nearly 20 feet from any other. The four walls

which enclosed this great hall had a uniform thickness of 10 1/2 feet,

and were each pierced at equal intervals by two doorways, the doorways

being thus exactly opposite to one another, and each looking down an

avenue of columns. In the spaces of wall on either side of the doorways,

eastward, westward, and southward, were three niches, all square-topped,

and bearing the ornamentation which is universal in the case of all

niches, windows, and doorways in the Persepolitan ruins. [PLATE XLVII.,

Fig. 2.] In the northern, or front, wall, the niches were replaced by

windows looking upon the portico, excepting towards the angles of the

building, where niches were retained, owing to a peculiarity in the

plan of the edifice which has now to be noticed. The portico, instead

of being, as in every other Persian instance, of the same width with the

building which it fronted, was 44 feet narrower, its antce projecting

from the front wall, not at either extremity, but at the distance of 11

feet from the corner. While the porch was thus contracted, so that the

pillars had to be eight in each row instead of ten, space was left on

either side for a narrow guard-room opening on to the porch, indications

of which are seen in the doorways placed at right angles to the front

wall, which are ornamented with the usual figures of soldiers armed

with spear and shield. It has been suggested that the hall was, like the

smaller pillared chambers upon the platform, originally surrounded on

three sides by a number of lesser apartments; and this is certainly

possible: but no trace remains of any such buildings. The ornamentation

which exists seems to show that the building was altogether of a public

character. Instead of exhibiting attendants bringing articles for the

toilet or the banquet, it shows on its doors the monarch, either engaged

in the art of destroying symbolical monsters, or seated on his throne

under a canopy, with the tiara on his head, and the golden sceptre in

his right hand. The throne representations are of two kinds. On the

jambs of the great doors leading out upon the porch, we see in the top

compartment the monarch seated under the canopy, accompanied by five

attendants, while below him are his guards, arranged in five rows of

ten each, some armed with spears and shields, others with spears, short

swords, bows and quivers. Thus the two portals together exhibit the

figures of 200 Persian guardsmen in attendance on the person of the

king. The doors at the back of the building present us with a still

more curious sculpture. On these the throne appears elevated on a lofty

platform, the stages of which, three in number, are upheld by figures

in different costumes, representing apparently the natives of all the

different provinces of the Empire. It is a reasonable conjecture that

this great hall was intended especially for a throne-room, and that in

the representations on these doorways we have figured a structure which

actually existed under its roof (probably at t in the plan)--a platform

reached by steps, whereon, in the great ceremonies of state, the royal

throne was placed, in order that the monarch might be distinctly seen at

one and the same time by the whole Court.

[Illustration: PLATE XLVIII.]

The question of the lighting of this huge apartment presents some

difficulties. On three sides, as already observed, the hall had (so

far as appears) no windows--the places where windows might have been

expected to occur being occupied by niches. The apparent openings are

consequently reduced to some fifteen, viz., the eight doorways, and

seven windows, which looked out upon the portico, and were therefore

overhung and had a north aspect. It is clear that sufficient light could

not have entered the apartment from these--the only visible--apertures.

We must therefore suppose either that the walls above the niches were

pierced with windows, which is quite possible, or else that light was in

some way or other admitted from the roof. The latter is the supposition

of those most competent to decide. M. Flandin conjectures that the roof

had four apertures, placed at the points where the lines drawn from

the northern to the southern, and those drawn from the eastern to the

western, doors would intersect one another. He seems to suppose that

these openings were wholly unprotected, in which case they would have

admitted, in a very inconvenient way, both the sun and the rain. May we

not presume that, if such openings existed, they were guarded by louvres

such as have been regarded as probably lighting the Assyrian halls, and

of which a representation has already been given?

The portico of the Hall of a Hundred Columns was flanked on either side

by a colossal bull, standing at the inner angle of the antes, and thus

in some degree narrowing the entrance. Its columns were fluted, and

had in every case the complex capital, which occurs also in the great

propylaea and in the Hall of Xerxes. It was built of the same sort of

massive blocks as the south-eastern edifice, or Ancient Palace--blocks

often ten feet square by seven feet thick, and may be ascribed probably

to the same age as that structure. Like that edifice, it is situated

somewhat low; it has no staircase, and no inscription. We may fairly

suppose it to have been the throne-room or great hall of audience of the

early king who built the South-eastern Palace.

We have now to describe the most remarkable of all the Persepolitan

edifices--a building the remains of which stretch nearly 350 feet in one

direction, while in the other they extend 246 feet. Its ruins consist

almost entirely of pillars, which are divided into four groups. The

largest of these was a square of thirty-six pillars, arranged in six

rows of six, all exactly equidistant from one another, and covering

an area of above 20,000 square feet. On three sides of this square,

eastward, northward, and westward, were magnificent porches, each

consisting of twelve columns, arranged in two rows, in line with the

pillars of the central cluster. These porches stood at the distance of

seventy feet from the main building, and have the appearance of having

been entirely separate from it. They are 143 feet long, by thirty broad,

and thus cover each an area of 4260 feet. The most astonishing feature

in the whole building is the height of the pillars. These, according to

the measurements of M. Flandin, had a uniform altitude throughout the

building of sixty-four feet. Even in their ruin, they tower over every

other erection upon the platform, retaining often, in spite of the

effects of time, an elevation of sixty feet.

The capitals of the pillars were of three kinds. Those of the side

colonnades were comparatively simple: they consisted, in each case, of

a single member, formed, in the eastern colonnade, of two half-griffins,

with their heads looking in opposite directions [PLATE XLVII, Fig. 2];

and, in the western colonnade, of two half-bulls, arranged in the

same manner [PLATE XLVII., Fig. 3]. The capitals of the pillars in the

northern colonnade, which faced the great sculptured staircase, and

constituted the true front of the building, were of a very complex

character. They may be best viewed as composed of three distinct

members--first, a sort of lotos-bud, accompanied by pendent leaves;

then, above that, a member, composed of volutes like those of the Ionic

order, but placed in a perpendicular instead of a horizontal direction;

and at the top, a member composed of two half-bulls, exactly similar to

that which forms the complete capital of the western group of pillars.

The pillars of the groat central cluster had capitals exactly like those

of the northern colonnade.

The bases of the colonnade pillars are of singular beauty. Bell-shaped,

and ornamented with a double or triple row of pendent lotus-leaves, some

rounded, some narrowed to a point; they are as graceful as they are rare

in their forms, and attract the admiration of all beholders. Above them

rise the columns, tapering gently as they ascend, but without any swell

or entasis. They consist of several masses of stone, carefully joined

together, and secured at the joints by an iron cramp in the direction of

the column’s axis. All are beautifully fluted along their entire length,

the number of the incisions or flutings being from forty-eight to

fifty-two in each pillar. They are arcs of circles smaller than

semicircles, thus resembling those of the Doric, rather than those of

the Ionic or Corinthian order. The cutting of all is very exact and

regular.

There can be little doubt but that both the porches, and the

great central pillar-cluster, were roofed in. The double-bull and

double-griffin capital are exactly suited to receive the ends of beams,

which would stretch from pillar to pillar, and support a roof and an

entablature. [PLATE L., Fig.1.] We may see in the entrances to the royal

tombs the true use of pillars in a Persian building, and the character

of the entablature which, they were intended to sustain, Assuming,

then, that both the great central pillar phalanx and the three detached

colonnades supported a roof, the question arises, were the colonnades

in any way united with the main building, or did they stand completely

detached from it? It has been supposed that they were all porticos _in

antis_, connected with the main building by solid walls--that the great

central column-cluster was surrounded on all sides by a wall of a very

massive description, from the four corners of which similar barriers

were carried down to the edge of the terrace, abutting in front upon

the steps of the great sculptured staircase, and extending eastward and

westward, so as to form the antce of an eastern and a western portico.

In the two corners between the northern in _antae_ of the side porticos

and the _antae_ of the portico in front are supposed to have been large

guard-rooms, entirely filling up the two angles. The whole building is

thus brought into close conformity with the “Palace of Xerxes,” from

which it is distinguished only by its superior size, its use of stone

pillars, and the elongation of the tetrastyle chambers at the sides of

that edifice into porticos of twelve pillars each.

[Illustration: PLATE L.]

The ingenuity of this conception is unquestionable; and one is tempted

at first sight to accept a solution which removes so much that is

puzzling, and establishes so remarkable a harmony between works whose

outward aspect is so dissimilar. It seems like the inspiration of genius

to discern so clearly the like in the unlike, and one inclines at first

to believe that what is so clever cannot but be true. But a rigorous

examination of the evidence leads to an opposite conclusion, and if it

does not absolutely disprove Mr. Fergusson’s theory, at any rate shows

it to be in the highest degree doubtful. Such walls as he describes,

with their _antae_ and their many doors and windows, should have left

very marked traces of their existence in great squared pillars at the

sides of porticos, in huge door-frames and window-frames, or at least

in the foundations of walls, or, the marks of them, on some part of the

paved terrace. Now the entire absence of squared pillars for the ends

of antce, of door-frames, and window-frames, or even of such sculptured

fragments as might indicate their former existence, is palpable and is

admitted; nor is there any even supposed trace of the walls, excepting

in one of the lines which by the hypothesis they would occupy. In front

of the building, midway between the great pillar-cluster and the north

colonnade, are the remains of four stone bases, parallel to one another,

each seventeen feet long by five feet six inches wide. Mr. Fergusson

regards these bases as marking the position of the doors in his front

wall; and they are certainly in places where doors might have been

looked for, if the building had a front wall, since the openings are

exactly opposite the inter-columniations of the pillars, both in the

portico and in the main cluster. But there are several objections to the

notion of these bases being the foundations of the jambs of doors. In

the first place, they are too wide apart, being at the distance from one

another of seventeen feet, whereas no doorway on the platform exceeds a

width of twelve or thirteen feet. In the second place, if these massive

stone bases were prepared for the jambs of doors, it could only have

been for massive stone jambs like those of the other palaces; but

in that case, the jambs could not have disappeared. Thirdly, if the

doorways on this side were thus marked, why were they not similarly

marked on the other sides of the building? On the whole, the supposition

of M. Flandin, that the bases were pedestals for ornamental statues,

perhaps of bulls, seems more probable than that of Mr. Fergusson;

though, no doubt, there are objections also to M. Flandin’s hypothesis,

and it would be perhaps best to confess that we do not know the use of

these strange foundations, which have nothing that at all resembles them

upon the rest of the platform.

Another strong objection to Mr. Fergusson’s theory, and one of which

he, to a certain extent, admits the force, is the existence of drains,

running exactly in the line of his side walls, which, if such walls

existed, would be a curious provision on the part of the architect for

undermining his own work. Mr. Fergusson supposes that they might be

intended to drain the walls themselves and keep them dry. But as it is

clear that they must have carried off the whole surplus water from

the roof of the building, and as there is often much rain and snow

at Persepolis, their effect on the foundations of such a wall as Mr.

Fergusson imagines would evidently be disastrous in the extreme.

To these minute and somewhat technical objections may be added the

main one, whereof all alike can feel the force--namely, the entire

disappearance of such a vast mass of building as Mr. Fergusson’s

hypothesis supposes. To account for this, Mr. Fergusson is obliged to

lay it down, that in this magnificent structure, with its solid

stone staircase, its massive pavement of the same material, and its

seventy-two stone pillars, each sixty-four feet high, the walls were of

mud. Can we believe in this incongruity? Can we imagine that a prince,

who possessed an unbounded command of human labor, and an inexhaustible

supply of stone in the rocky mountains close at hand, would have had

recourse to the meanest of materials for the walls of an edifice which

he evidently intended to eclipse all others upon the platform. And,

especially, can we suppose this, when the very same prince used solid

blocks of stone, in the walls of the very inferior edifice which he

constructed in this same locality? Mr. Fergusson, in defence of

his hypothesis, alleges the frequent combination of meanness with

magnificence in the East, and softens down the meanness in the present

case by clothing his mud walls with enamelled tiles, and painting them

with all the colors of the rainbow. But here again the hypothesis is

wholly unsupported by fact. Neither at Persepolis, nor at Pasargadae,

nor at any other ancient Persian site, has a single fragment of an

enamelled tile or brick been discovered. In Babylonia and Assyria, where

the employment of such an ornamentation was common, the traces of it

which remain are abundant. Must not the entire absence of such traces

from all exclusively Persian ruins be held to indicate that this mode of

adorning edifices was not adopted in Persia?

If then we resign the notion of this remarkable building having been a

walled structure, we must suppose that it was a summer throne-room,

open to all the winds of heaven, except so far as it was protected by

curtains. For the use of these by the Persians in pillared edifices, we

have important historical authority in the statement already quoted from

the Book of Esther. The Persian palace, to which that passage directly

refers, contained a structure almost the exact counterpart of this

at Persepolis; and it is probable that at both places the interstices

between the outer pillars of, at any rate, the great central colonnade,

were filled with “hangings of white and green and blue, fastened with

cords of white and purple to silver rings,” which were attached to the

“pillars of marble;” and that by these means an undue supply of light

and air, as well as an unseemly publicity, were prevented. A traveller

in the country well observes, in allusion to this passage from Esther:

Nothing could be more appropriate than this method at Susa and

Persepolis, the spring residences of the Persian monarchs. It must be

considered that these columnar halls were the equivalents of the modern

throne-rooms, that here all public business was dispatched, and that

here the king might sit and enjoy the beauties of the landscape. With

the rich plains of Susa and Persepolis before him, he could well, after

his winter’s residence at Babylon, dispense with massive walls, which

would only check the warm fragrant breeze from those verdant prairies

adorned with the choicest flowers. A massive roof, covering the whole

expanse of columns, would be too cold and dismal, whereas curtains

around the central group would serve to admit both light and warmth.

Nothing can be conceived better adapted to the climate or the season.

If the central cluster of pillars was thus adapted to the purposes of

a throne-room, equally well may the isolated colonnades have served as

ante-chambers or posts for guards. Protected, perhaps, with curtains

or awnings of their own, of a coarser material than those of the main

chamber, or at any rate casting, when the sun was high, a broad and deep

shadow, they would give a welcome shelter to those who had to watch

over the safety of the monarch, or who were expecting but had not yet

received their summons to the royal presence. Except in the very hottest

weather, the Oriental does not love to pass his day within doors. Seated

on the pavement in groups, under the deep shadows of these colonnades,

which commanded a glorious view of the vast fertile plain of the

Bendamir, of the undulating mountain-tract beyond, and of the

picturesque hills known now as Koh-Istakhr, or Koh-Rhamgherd, the

subjects of the Great King, who had business at Court, would wait,

agreeably enough, till their turn came to approach the throne.

Our survey of the Persepolitan platform is now complete; but, before we

entirely dismiss the subject of Persian palaces, it seems proper to say

a few words with respect to the other palatial remains of Achasmenian

times, remains which exist in three places--at Murgab or Pasargadse, at

Istakr, and at the great mound of Susa. The Murgab and Istakr ruins were

carefully examined by MM. Coste and Flandin; while General Williams and

Mr. Loftus diligently explored, and completely made out, the plan of the

Susian edifice.

The ruins at Murgab, which are probably the most ancient in Persia,

comprise, besides the well-known “Tomb of Cyrus,” two principal

buildings. The largest of these was of an oblong-square shape, about 147

feet long by 116 wide. It seems to have been surrounded by a lofty

wall, in which were huge portals, consisting of great blocks of

stone, partially hollowed out, to render them portable. There was an

inscription on the jambs of each portal, containing the words, “I am

Cyrus the King, the Achaemenian.” Within the walled enclosure which may

have been skirted internally by a colonnade was a pillared building, of

much greater height than the surrounding walls, as is evident from the

single column which remains. This shaft, which is perfectly plain, and

shows no signs of a capital, has an altitude of thirty-six feet, with

a diameter of three feet four inches at the base. On the area around,

which was carefully paved, are the bases of seven other similar pillars,

arranged in lines, and so situated as apparently to indicate an oblong

hall, supported by twelve pillars, in three rows of four each. The

chief peculiarity of the arrangement is, a variety in the width of the

intercolumniations, which measure twenty-seven feet ten inches in one

direction, but twenty-one feet only in the other. The smaller building,

which is situated at only a short distance from the larger one, covers a

space of 125 feet by fifty. It consists of twelve pillar bases, arranged

in two rows of six each, the pillars being somewhat thicker than those

of the other building, and placed somewhat closer together. [PLATE

XLIX., Fig. 5.] The form of the base is very singular. It exhibits

at the side a semicircular bulge, ornamented with a series of nine

flutings, which are carried entirely round the base in parallel

horizontal circles. [PLATE L., Fig. 2.] In front of the pillar bases,

at the distance of about twenty-three feet from the nearest, is a square

column, still upright, on which is sculptured a curious mythological

figure, together with the same curt legend, which appears on the larger

building--“I am Cyrus, the King, the Achaemenian.”

[Illustration: PLATE XLIX.]

There are two other buildings at Murgab remarkable for their masonry.

One is a square tower, with slightly projecting corners, built of

hewn blocks of stone, very regularly laid, and carried to a height

of forty-two feet. The other is a platform, exceedingly massive and

handsome, composed entirely of squared stone, and faced with blocks

often eight or ten feet long, laid in horizontal courses, and rusticated

throughout in a manner that is highly ornamental. [PLATE L. Fig. 3.] The

style resembles that of the substructions of the Temple of Jerusalem.

It occurs occasionally, though somewhat rarely, in Greece; but there

is said to exist nowhere so extensive and beautiful a specimen of it as

that of the platform at this ancient site. [PLATE L., Fig. 4.]

The palace at Istakr is in better preservation than either of the two

pillared edifices at Murgab; but still, it is not in such a condition as

to enable us to lay down with any certainty even its ground-plan. [PLATE

LI., Fig. 1.] One pillar only remains erect; but the bases of eight

others have been found in situ; the walls are partly to be traced,

and the jambs of several doorways and niches are still standing. These

remains show that in many respects, as in the character of the pillars,

which were fluted and had capitals like those already described, in the

massiveness of the door and window jambs, and in the thickness of

the walls, the Istakr Palace resembled closely the buildings on the

Persepolitan platform; but at the same time they indicate that its plan

was wholly different, and thus our knowledge of the platform buildings

in no degree enables us to complete, or even to carry forward to any

appreciable extent, the ground-plan of the edifice derived from actual

research. The height of the columns, which is inferior to that of the

lowest at the great platform, would seem to indicate, either that the

building was the first in which stone pillars were attempted, or that

it was erected at a time when the Persians no longer possessed the

mechanical skill required to quarry, transport, and raise into place the

enormous blocks used in the best days of the nation.

[Illustration: PLATE LI.]

The palace of Susa, exhumed by Mr. Loftus and General Williams,

consisted of a great Hall or Throne-room, almost exactly a duplicate

of the Chehl Minar at Persepolis, and of a few other very inferior

buildings. It stood at the summit of the great platform, a quadrilateral

mass of unburnt brick, which from a remote antiquity had supported the

residence of the old Susian kings. It fronted a little west of north,

and commanded a magnificent view over the Susianian plains to the

mountains of Lauristan. An inscription, repeated on four of its

pillar-bases, showed that it was originally built by Darius Hystaspis,

and afterwards repaired by Artaxerxes Longimanus. As it was so exactly

a reproduction of an edifice already minutely described, no further

account of it need be here given.

From the palaces of the Persian kings we may now pass to their tombs,

remarkable structures which drew the attention of the ancients, and

which have been very fully examined and represented in modern times.

These tombs are eight in number, but present only two types, so that

it will be sufficient to give in this place a detailed account of two

tombs--one of each description.

The most ancient, and, on the whole, the most remarkable of the tombs,

is almost universally allowed to be that of the Great Cyrus. It is

unique in design, totally different from all the other royal sepulchres;

and, though it has been often described, demands, and must

receive, notice in any account that is given of the ancient Persian

constructions. The historian Arrian calls it “a house upon a pedestal;”

and this brief description exactly expresses its general character. On a

base, composed of huge blocks of the most beautiful white marble,1 which

rises pyramidically in seven steps of different heights, there stands a

small “house” of similar material, crowned with a stone roof, which

is formed in front and rear into a pediment resembling that of a Greek

temple. [PLATE LI., Fig.3.] The “house” has no window, but one of the

end walls was pierced by a low and narrow doorway, which led into a

small chamber or cell, about eleven feet long, seven broad, and seven

high. Here, as ancient writers inform us, the body of the Great Cyrus

was deposited in a golden coffin. Internally the chamber is destitute

of any inscription, and indeed seems to have been left perfectly plain.

Externally, there is a cornice of some elegance below the pediment, a

good molding over the doorway, which is also doubly recessed--and two

other very slight moldings, one at the base of the “house,” and the

other at the bottom of the second step. [PLATE LI., Fig. 2.] Except for

these, the whole edifice is perfectly plain. Its present height above

the ground is thirty-six feet, and it may originally have been a foot

or eighteen inches higher, for the top of the roof is worn away. It

measures at the base forty-seven feet by forty-three feet nine inches.

The tomb stands within a rectangular area, marked out by pillars, the

bases or broken shafts of which are still to be seen. They appear to

have been twenty-four in number; all of them circular and smooth, not

fluted; six pillars occupied each side of the rectangle, and they stood

distant from each other about fourteen feet. It is probable that they

originally supported a colonnade, which skirted internally a small

walled court, within which the tomb was placed. The capitals of the

pillars, if they had any, have wholly disappeared; and the researches

conducted on the spot have failed to discover any trace of them.

The remainder of the Persian royal sepulchres are rock-tombs,

excavations in the sides of mountains, generally at a considerable

elevation, so placed as to attract the eye of the beholder, while they

are extremely difficult of approach. Of this kind of tomb there are

four in the face of the mountain which bounds the Pulwar Valley on the

north-west, while there are three others in the immediate vicinity of

the Persepolitan platform, two in the mountain which overhangs it, and

one in the rocks a little further to the south. The general shape of

the excavations, as it presents itself to the eye of the spectator,

resembles a Greek cross. [PLATE LII., Fig. 1.] This is divided by

horizontal lines into three portions, the upper one (corresponding with

the topmost limb of the cross) containing a very curious sculptured

representation of the monarch worshipping Ormazd; the middle one, which

comprises the two side limbs, together with the space between them,

being carved architecturally so as to resemble a portico; and the third

compartment (corresponding with the lowest limb of the cross) being left

perfectly plain. In the centre of the middle compartment is sculptured

on the face of the rock the similitude of a doorway, closely resembling

those which still stand on the great platform; that is to say, doubly

recessed, and ornamented at the top with lily-work. The upper portion of

this doorway is filled with the solid rock, smoothed to a flat surface

and crossed by three horizontal bars. The lower portion, to the height

of four or five feet, is cut away; and thus entrance is given to the

actual tomb, which is hollowed out in the rock behind.

[Illustration: PLATE LII.]

Thus far the rock tombs, are, with scarcely an exception, of the same

type. The excavations, however, behind their ornamental fronts, present

some curious differences. In the simplest case of all, we find, on

entering, an arched chamber, thirteen feet five inches long by seven

feet two inches wide, from which there opens out, opposite to the door

and at the height of about four feet from the ground, a deep horizontal

recess, arched, like the chamber. Near the front of this recess is a

further perpendicular excavation, in length six feet ten inches, in

width three feet three inches, and in depth the same. This was the

actual sarcophagus, and was covered, or intended to be covered, by a

slab of stone. In the deeper part of the recess there is room for two

other such sarcophagi; but in this case they have not been excavated,

one burial only having, it would seem, taken place in this tomb. Other

sepulchres present the same general features, but provide for a much

greater number of interments. In that of Darius Hystaspis the sepulchral

chamber contains three distinct recesses, in each of which are three

sarcophagi, so that the tomb would hold nine bodies. It has, apparently,

been cut originally for a single recess, on the exact plan of the tomb

described above, but has afterwards been elongated towards the left.

[PLATE LIII., Fig. 1.] Two of the tombs show a still more elaborate

ground-plan--one in which curved lines take to some extent the place

of straight ones. [PLATE LII., Fig. 2.] The tombs above the platform of

Persepolis are more richly ornamented than the others, the lintels

and sideposts of the doorways being covered with rosettes, and the

entablature above the cornice bearing a row of lions, facing on either

side towards the centre. [PLATE LIII., Fig. 2.]

[Illustration: PLATE LIII.]

A curious edifice, belonging probably to the later Achaemenian times,

stands immediately in front of the four royal tombs at Nakhsh-i-Eustam.

This is a square tower, composed of large blocks of marble, cut with

great exactness, and joined together without mortar or cement of

any kind. The building is thirty-six feet high; and each side of it

measures, as near as possible, twenty-four feet. It is ornamented with

pilasters at the corners and with six recessed niches, or false windows,

in three ranks, one over the other, on three out of its four faces. On

the fourth face are two niches only, one over the other; and below

them is a doorway with a cornice. The surface of the walls between the

pilasters is also ornamented with a number of rectangular depressions,

resembling the sunken ends of beams. The doorway, which looks north,

towards the tombs, is not at the bottom of the building, but half-way up

its side, and must have been reached either by a ladder or by a flight

of steps. It leads into a square chamber, twelve feet wide by nearly

eighteen high, extending to the top of the building, and roofed in with

four large slabs of stone, which reach entirely across from side to

side, being rather more than twenty-four feet long, six feet wide, and

from eighteen inches to three feet in thickness. [PLATE LIII., Fig. 3.]

On the top these slabs are so cut that the roof has every way a slight

incline; at their edges they are fashioned between the pilasters, into

a dentated cornice, like that which is seen on the tomb. Externally they

were clamped together in the same careful way which we find to have been

in use both at Persepolis and Parsargadae. The building seems to have

been closed originally by two ponderous stone doors. [PLATE LIV., Fig.

1.]

[Illustration: PLATE LIV.]

Another remarkable construction, which must belong to a very ancient

period in the history of the country, is a gateway composed of enormous

stones, which forms a portion of the ruins of Istakr. [PLATE LIV., Fig.

2.] It has generally been regarded as one of the old gates of the city;

but its position in the gorge between the town wall and the opposite

mountain, and the fact that it lies directly across the road from

Pasargadae into the plain of Merdasht, seem rather to imply that it was

one of those fortified “gates,” which we know to have been maintained by

the Persians, at narrow points along their great routes, for the purpose

of securing them, and stopping the advance of an enemy. On either

side were walls of vast thickness, on the one hand abutting upon the

mountain, on the other probably connected with the wall of the town,

while between them were three massive pillars, once, no doubt, the

supports of a tower, from which the defenders of the gate would engage

its assailants at a great advantage.

We have now described (so far as our data have rendered it possible)

all the more important of the ancient edifices of the Persians, and

may proceed to consider the next branch of the present inquiry, namely,

their skill in the mimetic arts. Before, however, the subject of their

architecture is wholly dismissed, a few words seem to be required on its

general character and chief peculiarities.

First, then, the simplicity and regularity of the style are worthy of

remark. In the ground-plans of buildings the straight line only is used;

all the angles are right angles; all the pillars fall into line; the

intervals between pillar and pillar are regular, and generally equal;

doorways are commonly placed opposite intercolumniations; where there is

but one doorway, it is in the middle of the wall which it pierces; where

there are two, they correspond to one another. Correspondence is the

general law. Not only does door correspond to door, and pillar to

pillar, but room to room, window to window, and even niche to niche.

Most of the buildings are so contrived that one half is the exact

duplicate of the other; and where this is not the case, the irregularity

is generally either slight, or the result of an alteration, made

probably for convenience sake. Travellers are impressed with the Grecian

character of what they behold, though there is an almost entire absence

of Greek forms. The regularity is not confined to single buildings, but

extends to the relations of different edifices one to another. The sides

of buildings standing on one platform, at whatever distance they may be,

are parallel. There is, however, less consideration paid than we should

have expected to the exact position, with respect to a main building,

in which a subordinate one shall be placed. Propylaea, for instance,

are not opposite the centre of the edifice to which they conduct, but

slightly on one side of the centre. And generally, excepting in the

parallelism of their sides, buildings seem placed with but slight regard

to neighboring ones.

For effect, the Persian architecture must have depended, firstly,

upon the harmony that is produced by the observance of regularity and

proportion; and, secondly, upon two main features of the style. These

were the grand sculptured staircases which formed the approaches to all

the principal buildings, and the vast groves of elegant pillars in and

about the great halls. The lesser buildings were probably ugly, except

in front. But such edifices as the Chehl Minar at Persepolis, and its

duplicate at Susa--where long vistas of columns met the eye on every

side, and the great central cluster was supported by lighter detached

groups, combining similarity of form with some variety of ornament,

where richly colored drapings contrasted with the cool gray stone of the

building, and a golden roof overhung a pavement of many hues--must

have been handsome, from whatever side they were contemplated, and for

general richness and harmony of effect may have compared favorably

with any edifices which, up to the time of their construction, had been

erected in any country or by any people. If it may seem to some that

they were wanting in grandeur, on account of their comparatively low

height--a height which, including that of the platform, was probably in

no case much more than a hundred feet--it must be remembered that the

buildings of Greece and (except the Pyramids) those of Egypt, had the

same defect, and that, until the constructive powers of the arch came to

be understood, it was almost impossible to erect a building that should

be at once lofty and elegant. Height, moreover, if the buildings are for

use, implies inconvenience, a waste of time and power being involved

in the ascent and descent of steps. The ancient architects, studying

utility more than effect, preferred spreading out their buildings

to piling them up, and rarely, unless in thickly-peopled towns, even

introduced a second story.

The spectator, however, was impressed with a sense of grandeur in

another way. The use of huge blocks of stone, not only in platforms,

but in the buildings themselves, in the shafts of pillars, the antae of

porticos, the jambs of doorways, occasionally in roofs, and perhaps in

epistylia, produced the same impression of power, and the same feeling

of personal insignificance in the beholder, which is commonly effected

by great size in the edifice, and particularly by height. The mechanical

skill required to transport and raise into place the largest of these

blocks must have been very considerable, and their employment causes not

merely a blind admiration of those who so built on the part of ignorant

persons, but a profound respect for them on the part of those who are by

their studies and tastes best qualified for pronouncing on the relative

and absolute merits of architectural masterpieces.

Among the less pleasing peculiarities of the Persian architecture may be

mentioned a general narrowness of doors in proportion to their height, a

want of passages, a thickness of walls, which is architecturally clumsy,

but which would have had certain advantages in such a climate, an

inclination to place the doors of rooms near one corner, an allowance of

two entrances into a great hall from under a single portico, a peculiar

position of propylaea, and the very large employment of pillars in

the interior of buildings. In many of these points, and also in the

architectural use which was made of sculpture, the style of building

resembled, to some extent, that of Assyria; the propylaea, however, were

less Assyrian than Egyptian; while in the main and best features of the

architecture, it was (so far as we can tell) original. The solid and

handsome stone platforms, the noble staircases, and the profusion of

light and elegant stone columns, which formed the true glory of

the architecture--being the features on which its effect chiefly

depended--have nowhere been discovered in Assyria; and all the

evidence is against their existence. The Arians found in Mesopotamia an

architecture of which the pillar was scarcely an element at all--which

was fragile and unenduring--and which depended for its effect on a

lavish display of partially colored sculpture and more richly tinted

enamelled brick. Instead of imitating this, they elaborated for

themselves, from the wooden buildings of their own mountain homes, a

style almost exactly the reverse of that with which their victories had

brought them into contact. Adopting, of main features, nothing but the

platform, they imparted even to this a new character, by substituting

in its construction the best for the worst of materials, and by further

giving to these stone structures a massive solidity, from the employment

of huge, blocks, which made them stand in the strongest possible

contrast to the frail and perishable mounds of Babylonia and Assyria.

Having secured in this way a firm and enduring basis, they proceeded to

erect upon it buildings where the perpendicular line was primary and the

horizontal secondary--buildings of almost, the same solid and massive

character as the platform itself--forests of light but strong columns,

supporting a wide-spreading roof, sometimes open to the air, sometimes

enclosed by walls, according as they were designed for summer or winter

use, or for greater or less privacy. To edifices of this character

elaborate ornamentation was unnecessary; for the beauty of the column is

such that nothing more is needed to set off a building. Sculpture

would thus be dispensed with, or reserved for mere occasional use, and

employed not so much on the palace itself as on its outer approaches;

while brick enamelling could well be rejected altogether, as too poor

and fragile a decoration for buildings of such strength and solidity.

The origination of this columnar architecture must be ascribed to the

Medes, who, dwelling in or near the more wooden parts of the Zagros

range, constructed, during the period of their empire, edifices of

considerable magnificence, whereof wooden pillars were the principal

feature, the courts being surrounded by colonnades, and the chief

buildings having porticos, the pillars in both cases being of wood. A

wooden roof rested on these supports, protected externally by plates of

metal. We do not know if the pillars had capitals, or if they supported

an entablature; but probability is in favor of both these arrangements

having existed. When the Persians succeeded the Medes in the

sovereignty of Western Asia, they found Arian architecture in this

condition. As stone, however, was the natural material of their country,

which is but scantily wooded and is particularly barren towards the edge

of the great plateau, where their chief towns were situated, and as

they had from the first a strong desire of fame and a love for the

substantial and the enduring, they almost immediately substituted for

the cedar and cypress pillars of the Medes, stone shafts, plain or

fluted, which they carried to a surprising height, and fixed with such

firmness that many of them have resisted the destructive powers of

time, of earthquakes, and of vandalism for more than three-and-twenty

centuries, and still stand erect and nearly as perfect as when they

received the last touch from the sculptor’s hand more than 2000 years

ago. It is the glory of the Persians in art to have invented this style,

which they certainly did not learn from the Assyrians, and which

they can scarcely be supposed to have adopted from Egypt, where the

conception of the pillar and its ornamentation were wholly different.

We can scarcely doubt that Greece received from this quarter the impulse

which led to the substitution of the light and elegant forms which

distinguish the architecture of her best period from the rude and clumsy

work of the more ancient times.

Of the mimetic art of the Persians we do not possess any great amount,

or any great variety, of specimens. The existing remains consist of

reliefs, either executed on the natural rock or on large slabs of hewn

stone used in building, of impressions upon coins, and of a certain

number of intaglios cut upon gems. We possess no Persian statues, no

modelled figures, no metal castings, no carvings in ivory or in wood, no

enamellings, no pottery even. The excavations on Persian sites have been

singularly barren of those minor results which flowed so largely

from the Mosopotamian excavations, and have yielded no traces of the

furniture, domestic implements, or wall-ornamentation of the people;

have produced, in fact, no small objects at all, excepting a few

cylinders and some spear and arrow heads, thus throwing scarcely any

light on the taste or artistic genius of the people.

The nearest approach to statuary which we meet with among the Persian

remains are the figures of colossal bulls, set to guard portals,

or porticos, which are not indeed sculptures in the round, but are

specimens of exceedingly high relief, and which, being carved in front

as well as along the side, do not fall very far short of statues. Of

such figures, we find two varieties--one representing the real animal,

the other a monster with the body and legs of a bull, the head of a

man, and the wings of an eagle. There is considerable merit in both

representations. They are free from the defect of flatness, or want of

breadth in comparison with the length, which characterizes the similar

figures of Assyrian artists; and they are altogether grand, massive, and

imposing. The general proportions of the bulls are good, the limbs are

accurately drawn, the muscular development is well portrayed, and the

pose of the figure is majestic. Even the monstrous forms of human-headed

bulls have a certain air of quiet dignity, which is not without its

effect on the beholder; and, although implying no great artistic merit,

since they are little more than reproductions of Assyrian models,

indicate an appreciation of some of the best qualities of Assyrian

art--the combination of repose with strength, of great size with the

most careful finish, and of strangeness with the absence of any approach

to grotesqueness or absurdity. The other Persian reliefs may be divided

under four heads:

(1) Mythological representations of a man--the king apparently--engaged

in combat with a lion, a bull, or a monster; (2) Processions of guards,

courtiers, attendants, or tribute-bearers; (3) Representations of the

monarch walking, seated upon his throne, or employed in the act of

worship; and (4) Representations of lions and bulls, either singly or

engaged in combat.

On the jambs of doorways in three of the Persepolitan buildings, a human

figure, dressed in the Median robe, but with the sleeve thrown back from

the right arm, is represented in the act of killing either a lion, a

bull, or a grotesque monster. In every case the animal is rampant, and

assails his antagonist with three of his feet, while he stands on the

fourth. The lion and bull have nothing about them that is very peculiar;

but the monsters present most strange and unusual combinations. One

of them has the griffin head, which we have already seen in use in

the capitals of columns, a feathered crest and neck, a bird’s wings,

a scorpion’s tail, and legs terminating in the claws of an eagle. The

other has an eagle’s head, ears like an ass, feathers on the neck, the

breast, and the back, with the body, legs, and tail of a lion. [PLATE

LV., Fig. 1.] Figures of equal grotesqueness, some of which possess

certain resemblances to these, are common in the mythology of Assyria,

and have been already represented in these volumes; but the Persian

specimens are no servile imitations of these earlier forms. The idea of

the Assyrian artist has, indeed, been borrowed; but Persian fancy has

worked it out in its own way, adding, modifying, and subtracting in such

a manner as to give to the form produced a quite peculiar, and (so to

speak) native character.

[Illustration: PLATE LV.]

Persian gems abound with monstrous forms, of equal, or even superior

grotesqueness. As the Gothic architects indulged their imagination

in the most wonderful combinations to represent evil spirits or the

varieties of vice and sensualism, so the Persian gem-engravers seem

to have allowed their fancy to run riot in the creation of monsters,

representative of the Powers of Darkness or of different kinds of evil,

The stones exhibit the king in conflict with a vast variety of monsters,

some nearly resembling the Persepolitan, while others have strange

shapes unseen elsewhere. Winged lions, with two tails and with the horns

of a ram or an antelope, sphinxes and griffins of half a dozen different

kinds, and various other nondescript creatures, appear upon the Persian

gems and cylinders, furnishing abundant evidence of the quaint and

prolific fancy of the designers.

The processional subjects represented by the Persian artists are of

three kinds. In the simplest and least interesting the royal guards, or

the officers of the court, are represented in one or more lines of very

similar figures, either moving in one direction, or standing in two

bodies, one facing the other, in the attitude of quiet expectation. In

these subjects there is a great sameness, and a very small amount of

merit. The proportion of the forms is, indeed, fairly good, the heads

and hands are well drawn, and there is some grace in certain of

the figures, but the general effect is tame and somewhat heavy; the

attitudes are stiff, and present little variety, while, nevertheless,

they are sometimes impossible; there is a monotonous repetition of

identically the same figure, which is tiresome, and a want of grouping

which is very inartistic. If Persia had produced nothing better than

this in sculpture, she would have had to be placed not only behind

Assyria, but behind Egypt, as far as the sculptor’s art is concerned.

Processional scenes of a more attractive character are, however,

tolerably frequent. Some exhibit to us the royal purveyors arriving at

the palace with their train of attendants, and bringing with them the

provisions required for the table of the monarch. Here we have some

varieties of costume which are curious, and some representations

of Persian utensils, which are not without a certain interest.

Occasionally, too, we are presented with animal forms, as kids, which

have considerable merit.

But by far the most interesting of the processional scenes, are those

which represent the conquered nations bringing to the monarch those

precious products of their several countries which the Lord of Asia

expected to receive annually, as a sort of free gift from his subjects,

in addition to the fixed tribute which was exacted from them. Here we

have a wonderful variety of costume and equipment, a happy admixture of

animal with human forms, horses, asses, chariots, sheep, cattle, camels,

interspersed among men, and the whole divided into groups by means of

cypress-trees, which break the series into portions, and allow the eye

to rest in succession upon a number of distinct pictures. Processions of

this kind occurred on several of the Persepolitan staircases; but by far

the most elaborate and complete is that on the grand steps in front of

the Chehl Minar, or Great Hall of Audience, where we see above twenty

such groups of figures, each with it own peculiar features, and all

finished with the utmost care and delicacy. The illustration [PLATE LV.,

Fig. 2], which is taken from a photograph, will give a tolerable idea

of the general character of this relief; it shows the greater portion of

six groups, whereof two are much injured by the fall of the parapet-wall

on which they were represented, while the remaining four are in good

preservation. It will be noticed that the animal forms--the Bactrian

camel and the humped ox--are superior to the human, and have

considerable positive merit as works of art. This relative superiority

is observable throughout the entire series, which contains, besides

several horses (some of which have been already represented in these

volumes), a lioness, an excellent figure of the wild ass, and two

tolerably well-drawn sheep. [PLATE LVI., Fig. 2 and 3.]

[Illustration: PLATE LVI.]

The representations of the monarch upon the reliefs are of three kinds.

In the simplest, he is on foot, attended by the parasol-bearer and

the napkin-bearer, or by the latter only, apparently in the act of

proceeding from one part of the palace to another. In the more elaborate

he is either seated on an elevated throne, which is generally supported

by numerous caryatid figures, or he stands on a platform similarly

upheld, in the act of worship before an altar. This latter is the

universal representation upon tombs, while the throne scenes are

reserved for palaces. In both representations the supporting figures

are numerous; and it is here chiefly that we notice varieties of

physiognomy, which are evidently intended to recall the differences

in the physical type of the several races by which the Empire was

inhabited. In one case, we have a negro very well portrayed; in others

we trace the features of Scyths or Tatars. It is manifest that the

artist has not been content to mark the nationality of the different

figures by costume alone, but has aimed at reproducing upon the stone

the physiognomic peculiarities of each race.

The purely animal representations which the bas-reliefs bring before us

are few in number, and have little variety of type. The most curious and

the most artistic is one which is several times repeated at Persepolis,

where it forms the usual ornamentation of the triangular spaces on the

facades of stairs. This is a representation of a combat between a lion

and a bull, or (perhaps, we should rather say) a representation of a

lion seizing and devouring a bull; for the latter animal is evidently

powerless to offer any resistance to the fierce beast which has sprung

upon him from behind, and has fixed both fangs and claws in his body.

[PLATE LVI., Fig. 4.] In his agony the bull rears up his fore-parts, and

turns his head feebly towards his assailant, whose strong limbs and jaws

have too firm a hold to be dislodged by such struggles as his unhappy

victim is capable of making. In no Assyrian drawing is the massiveness

and strength of the king of beasts more powerfully rendered than in

this favorite group, which the Persian sculptors repeated without the

slightest change from generation to generation. The contour of the lion,

his vast muscular development, and his fierce countenance are really

admirable, and the bold presentation of the face in full, instead of in

profile, is beyond the ordinary powers of Oriental artists.

Drawings of bulls and lions in rows, where each animal is the exact

counterpart of all the others, are found upon the friezes of some of the

tombs, and upon the representations of canopies over the royal throne.

These drawings are fairly spirited, but have not any extraordinary

merit. They reproduce forms well known in Assyria. A figure of a sitting

lion seems also to have been introduced occasionally on the facades of

staircases, occurring in the central compartment of the parapet-wall at

top. These figures, in no case, remain complete; but enough is left

to show distinctly what the attitude was, and this appears not to have

resembled very closely any common Assyrian type. [PLATE LVII., Fig. 1.]

[Illustration: PLATE LVII.]

The Persian gem-engravings have considerable merit, and need not fear a

comparison with those of any other Oriental nation. They occur upon

hard stones of many different kinds, as cornelian, onyx, rock-crystal,

sapphirine, sardonyx, chalcedony, etc., and are executed for the most

part with great skill and delicacy. The designs which they embody are in

general of a mythological character; but sometimes scenes of real life

occur upon them, and then the drawing is often good, and almost

always spirited. In proof of this, the reader may be referred to the

hunting-scenes already given, which are derived wholly from this source,

as well as to the gems figured [PLATE LVI., Fig. 3], one of which is

certainly, and the other almost certainly, of Persian workmanship. In

the former we see the king, not struggling with a mythological lion but

engaged apparently in the actual chase of the king of beasts Two lions

have been roused from their lairs, and the monarch hastily places an

arrow on the string, anxious to despatch one of his foes before the

other can come to close quarters The eagerness of the hunter and the

spirit and boldness of the animals are well represented. In the other

gem, while there is less of artistic excellence, we have a scene of

peculiar interest placed before us. A combat between two Persians and

two Cythians seems to be represented. The latter marked by their peaked

cap and their loose trousers, fight with the bow and the battle-axe,

the former with the bow and the sword One Scyth is receiving his

death-wound, the other is about to let loose a shaft, but seems at the

same time half inclined to fly The steady confidence of the warriors

on the one side contrasts well with the timidity and hesitancy of their

weaker and smaller rivals. [PLATE LVII., Fig. 3.]

The vegetable forms represented on the gems are sometimes graceful

and pleasing. This is especially the case with palm-trees, a favorite

subject of the artists, who delineated with remarkable success the

feathery leaves, the pendant fruit and the rough bark of the

stem. [PLATE LVIII., Fig 1.] The lion-hunter represented on the

signet-cylinder of Darius Hystaspis takes place in a palm-grove, and

furnishes the accompanying example of this form of vegetable life.

[Illustration: PLATE LVIII.]

One gem, ascribed on somewhat doubtful grounds to the Persians of

Achaemenian times, contains what appears to be a portrait. It is thought

to be the bust of a satrap of Salamis in Cyprus, and is very carefully

executed. If really of Persian workmanship, it would indicate a

considerable advance in the power of representing the human countenance

between the time of Darius Hystaspis and that of Alexander [PLATE LVII.

Fig. 2.]

Persian coins are of three principal types. The earliest have on the one

side the figure of a monarch bearing the diadem and armed with the bow

and javelin, while on the other there is an irregular indentation of the

same nature with the _quadratum incusum_ of the Greeks. This rude form

is replaced in later times by a second design, which is sometimes a

horseman, sometimes the forepart of a ship, sometimes the king drawing

an an arrow from his quiver. Another type exhibits on the obverse the

monarch in combat with a lion while the reverse shows a galley, or a

towered and battlemented city with two lions standing below it, back to

back. The third common type has on the obverse the king in his chariot,

with his charioteer in front of him, and (generally) an attendant

carrying a fly-chaser behind. The reverse has either the trireme or the

battlemented city. A specimen of each type is given. [PLATE LVII., Fig.

4.]

The artistic merit of these medals is not great. The relief is low,

and the drawing generally somewhat rude. The head of the monarch in the

early coins is greatly too large. The animal forms are, however, much

superior to the human, and the horses which draw the royal chariot, the

lions placed below the battlemented city, and the bulls which are found

occasionally in the same position, must be pronounced truthful and

spirited.

Of the Persian taste in furniture, utensils, personal ornaments and the

like, we need say but little. The throne and footstool of the monarch

are the only pieces of furniture represented in the sculptures,

and these, though sufficiently elegant in their forms, are not very

remarkable. Costliness of material seems to have been more prized than

beauty of shape; and variety appears to have been carefully eschewed,

one single uniform type of each article occurring in all the

representations. The utensils represented are likewise few in number,

and limited to certain constantly repeated forms. The most elaborate is

the censer, which has been already given. With this is usually seen

a sort of pail or basket, shaped like a lady’s reticule, in which the

aromatic gums for burning were probably kept. [PLATE LVIII., Fig. 5.]

A covered dish, and a goblet with an inverted saucer over it, are also

forms of frequent occurrence in the hands of the royal attendants; and

the tribute-bearers frequently carry, among their other offerings, bowls

or basons, which, though not of Persian manufacture, were no doubt left

at the court, and took their place among the utensils of the palace.

[PLATE LVIII., Figs. 2 and 3.]

In the matter of personal ornaments the taste of the Persians seems to

have been peculiarly simple. Earrings were commonly plain rings of gold;

bracelets mere bands of the same metal. Collars were circlets of gold

twisted in a very inartificial fashion. There was nothing artistic

in the sheaths or hilts of swords, though spear-shafts were sometimes

adorned with the representation of an apple or a pomegranate. Dresses

seem not to have been often patterned, but to have depended generally

for their effect on make and color. In all these respects we observe

a remarkable contrast between the Arian and the Semitic races,

extreme simplicity characterizing the one, while the most elaborate

ornamentation was affected by the other.

Persia was not celebrated in antiquity for the production of any special

fabrics. The arts of weaving and dyeing were undoubtedly practised in

the dominant country, as well as in most of the subject provinces, and

the Persian dyes seem even to have had a certain reputation; but none

of the productions of their looms acquired a name among foreign nations.

Their skill, indeed, in the mechanical arts generally was, it is

probable, not more than moderate. It was their boast that they were

soldiers, and had won a position by their good swords which gave them

the command of all that was most exquisite and admirable, whether in the

natural world or among the products of human industry. So long as the

carpets of Babylon and Sardis, the shawls of Kashmir and India, the fine

linen of Borsippa and Egypt, the ornamental metal-work of Greece,

the coverlets of Damascus, the muslins of Babylonia, the multiform

manufactures of the Phoenician towns, poured continually into Persia

Proper in the way of tribute, gifts, or merchandise, it was needless for

the native population to engage largely in industrial enterprise.

To science the ancient Persians contributed absolutely nothing. The

genius of the nation was adverse to that patient study and those

laborious investigations from which alone scientific progress ensues.

Too light and frivolous, too vivacious, too sensuous for such pursuits,

they left them to the patient Babylonians, and the thoughtful, many-sided

Greeks. The schools of Orchoe, Borsippa, and Miletus flourished under

their sway, but without provoking their emulation, possibly without so

much as attracting their attention. From first to last, from the dawn

to the final close of their power, they abstained wholly from scientific

studies. It would seem that they thought it enough to place before the

world, as signs of their intellectual vigor, the fabric of their Empire

and the buildings of Susa and Persepolis.