Page:Ainsworth's Magazine - Volume 1.djvu/196
palace of its kings; and, consequently, these sculptures, the representations of processions made to monarchs, as supposed by Sir R. K. Porter, and others; or of political institutions, and ceremonies, as advocated by Herder. The comparison of the whole of the structure with everything that resembles it, in Egypt and in India, indicate their ecclesiastical purposes. The sculptures of the monarchs at the doors of the Sanctum, would indicate that kings alone were permitted entrance there; and indeed, the neighbourhood of the tombs of the monarchs would decide the question—for in what country or in what age has there been observed any wish to bring the last lesson of humility into immediate contact with the pride of life—to unite in the same enclosure the mansions of the living and the dead?
Ascending the stairs which led above these remarkable sculptures, we found ourselves in the Hall of Forty Columns, of which there are now only thirteen[1] standing. According to the information we could obtain, the two that are wanting, since the last accounts, were overthrown for the purpose of getting at the lead by which the segments are joined. To the south of the hall of columns are a series of apartments, composed of a number of window-frames and doorways, constructed of dark marble which takes a very high polish. Round the frames of the window are numerous inscriptions, while the doorways and niches are ornamented by bas-reliefs of various figures, among which the predominant are those of a king, with an attendant bearing an umbrella and a fan. Is it not curious, that while the original purposes of this very ancient object should have been totally perverted, that its name should have preserved the memory of its original use? The next predominating figures represent a king, combating with and triumphing over a mammiferous combmation, which possibly represents Ahrimanes.
These apartments, from the highly-finished condition of all their parts, the massive structure of the doors and windows, and the general air of retirement and sanctity that even still pervades them, would appear to have been the most secret and most sacred parts of the whole of the building—probably, the shrine of the unalimented and perpetual flame, (apparently an anticipation of gas, in the evaporation of naphtha,) to which kings alone were admitted—the home of the sacred fire always surpassing the rest of the building, as the singular structure of white marble near the Nakib e Rustum, also generally admitted to be a fire temple, does all that surrounds it.
All travellers have agreed in regarding these as the sanctum sanctorum of Persepolis, and have chosen the same apartment to leave the reminiscence of their visit, in their carved names. This is not the same common-place association that we fall in company with on the top of St. Peter's, or on the tower of Strasburg: there are but few names, and those any man would feel proud to be associated with; they are, as still legible—Pietro della Valle, Neibuhr, Kæmpfer, Le Brun, Herbert, Olearius, Thevenot, Chardin, Sir R. K. Porter, Morier, H. J. Bridges, Rich, Macdonald Kinneir, Colonel Taylor, Sir H. Bethune, Belanger (the naturalist), Mrs. M. in a little frame, and a few others. Those of the seventeenth century are almost all in one spot; part of those of the eighteenth are more ambitious; and lastly, the nineteenth century is represented by the mission of Sir John Malcolm and all its members, carefully engraved on a tablet. It is said they took with them a professed sculptor—a Mr. Shepheard, for the purpose. How many of the authors of these autographs never reached their own countries again! Poor Rich, among the last, died at Shiraz, on his return from these ruins where he last inscribed his name.
Many other masses of ruin adorn this vast terrace, some of gigantic proportions and exquisite workmanship, but the description of which would prove tedious. Beneath the platform are also ruins of aqueducts, by which the whole was supplied with water.
It only remains to notice the tombs: they are two, and are remarkable for their great size, being hewn out of the solid rock, and 130 feet in height; we entered one of these by a low aperture, which led us into a semicircular recess, where was a stone coffin filled with water. Above the tomb are great sculptured representations of a king before the fire altar, and the usual little winged angel above. These tombs are called the Tucht i Jemshid.
It is advocated, from the presence of these tombs of kings, by Heeren and Hoek, that the whole ruins are sepulchral monuments; but this is militated against, Ъу the separation of the tomb from the terrace, from which they are at some distance, and the pre-eminence of the unattached ruins, the existence of aqueducts and tanks to supply water to the living, the representation of fire worship on the doors of many of the apartments, the general character of the processions before recorded, and the vast magnitude of the whole. Still there is no doubt that the two were combined, as we see in many cases in modern Mohammedanism; a chief place of worship, rivetted to the affections of the people by revealing the tombs of their kings; and these purposes hung together by so slender a thread, that it would be impossible to say where the one began and the other left off.
We slept among the ruins of Persepolis, and the next day crossed the Kúr Ab, or river of Cyrus, to visit the tombs of the Nakib i Rustum,[2] which are also excavated on the face of a
- ↑ As usual, all travellers differ upon the number. In this respect, the columns of Persepolis rival the cedars of Lebanon.
- ↑ The Harem i Jemshid of Morier's Second Journey, p. 79, and according to Colonel Shee, a good Persian scholar, the Tacht i Kour or Kúr, the throne of Cyrus. They are called by Frazer, Tacht i Taús, or the Peacock's Throne.