·OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF
THE PALACES
OF
NINEVEH
AND
PERSEPOLIS
RESTORED:
AN ESSAY ON ANCIENT ASSYRIAN AND PERSIAN
ARCHITECTURE.
32936
BY JAMES FERGUSSON, ESQ.
46
79
AUTHOR OT
THE TRUD PRINCIPLES OT BEAUTY IN ART,
ILLUSTRATIONS OF INDIAN ARCHITECTURE
ETC. ETC.
22:51.
fer
Library Reg No
INDIA
LONDON:
JOHN MURRAYALBEMARLE STREET.
1851.

·Trontispiece
زمانی را
با دیدم ای
مهر (1)
LIBRARY, NEW DELHI.
335
کے
مکا2
22 5
rer.
LONDON:
SPOTTISWOODes and SHAW,
New-street-Square.

·TO
AUSTEN HENRY LAYARD, D.C.I.,
THE INDEFATIGABLE EXPLORER
AND ABLE ILLUSTRATOR OF ASSYRIAN ANTIQUITY,
THIS WORK IS DEDICATED
BY
HIS SINCERE FRIEND AND ADMIRER,
THE AUTHOR.
RESTORATION
RE
INDIA

·Frontispiece Works by the same Author. ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE ROCK-CUT TEMPLES OF INDIA. 18 Plates in Tinted Lithography, folio; with an 8vo Volume of Text, Plans, &c. 22.78. 6d. London, Weale, 1845.. PICTURESQUE ILLUSTRATIONS OF ANCIENT ARCHITEC- TURE IN HINDOSTAN. 24 Plates in coloured Lithography, with Plans, Woodcuts, and explanatory Text, &c. 47. 48. London, Hogarth, 1847. AN ESSAY ON THE ANCIENT TOPOGRAPHY OF JERU- SALEM: with restored Plans of the Temple, and with Plans, Sections, and Details of the Church built by Constantine the Great over the Holy Sepulchre, now known as the Mosque of Omar. 168.; or 21s, half Russia. London, Weale, 1847. AN ESSAY ON A PROPOSED NEW SYSTEM OF FORTI- FICATION, with Hints for its Application to our National Defences. 128. 6d. London, Weale, 1819. AN HISTORICAL INQUIRY INTO THE TRUE PRINCIPLES OF BEAUTY IN ART, more especially with reference to Architecture. Royal 8vo. 318. 6d. London, Longmans, 1849. OBSERVATIONS ON THE BRITISH MUSEUM, NATIONAL GALLERY, and NATIONAL RECORD OFFICE: with Suggestions for their Improvement. 8vo. London, Weale, 1849.

·Library Res. No INDIA. PRE FACE. The recent discoveries in Assyria have been so startling from their novelty, and so important in the results already obtained from them, that scarcely any apology seems to be required for offering to the public an attempt to render one phasis of the revelation more clear than it has hitherto been; for many books must still be written, and many minds must still be brought to bear on every separate branch of the discovery, before either the materials already brought to light can be fully elaborated, or their intrinsic value made available as an addition to the general stock of human knowledge. The present work is almost exclusively devoted to one department of the subject, which has not attracted the special attention of any competent person since the recent explorations have thrown so much new light upon it. It has no new discoveries to announce of facts or things brought to light in the countries of which it treats; all the reasoning in the following pages being founded on data already published and in the hands of the public. No new A 3 ·vi PREFACE. Frontispiece reading of the inscriptions has been attempted, nor any general views of the history of the country, nor pictures of the manners of its inhabitants, either in past or in present times. All those departments have been avoided which have already engaged the attention of persons more competent to illustrate them than I can pretend to be; and I have, therefore, confined myself almost exclusively to two branches of the inquiry, the chronology of the Assyrian empire, and the architecture of western Asia from the earliest period to the age of Alexander. The latter being, however, more exclusively the subject of this work, I have treated the former as subordinate to it; and though I have for my own satisfaction worked it out in as much detail as the other, I have here compressed it to as great an extent as was compatible with making its results available for the second and principal object of the inquiry to which this book is devoted. Essentially it is a work on architecture; and though I have been forced to touch on almost every subject to illustrate this one and to make my deductions clear, my only object has been to render the ancient architecture of Assyria and Persia intelligible, and to enable it to take its place among the various styles wliich have hitherto been recognised by the learned. In writing on a subject in which our knowledge is so rapidly progressive as it is with regard to all that concerns these countries in ancient times, I am perfectly aware that I am exposing myself to the chance of immediate and summary refutation ; not, perhaps, ·PREFACE. vii from any weakness in my argumente any ignorance of the subject as it at present stands, but because new facts are daily being brought to light. Some more perfect palace may any day be discovered, which may supply facts that would refute the best possible theory founded only on the knowledge at present available. At present I have very little hope that so fortunate a discovery will be made. I have therefore tried to master all that is now known, and conscientiously examined every indication that could guide me towards a truthful solution of the problem before me, - more I could not do; and, having done this, I cannot feel it a reproach if I should have failed to know what may still be buried in the mounds of Assyria. If any one will take the trouble of reading what I wrote on this subject two years ago in "The True Principles of Beauty in Art," and of comparing it with the views now put forth, he will see how little reluctance I feel to acknowledge myself to be wrong, and how little I am inclined to adhere to exploded theories. When that book was written, nothing was known of M. Botta’s discoveries but through his letters to Dr. Jules Mohl, the last of which is merely a confession that the building he was excavating was as incomprehensible to him * as it then was to me and to others. Mr. Layard had then published nothing. The Baron Texier's work was only commenced, and very few of his plates referring * Partially quoted, page 269. A 4 ·viii PREFACE. Frontispiece ; to Persepolis had then been published, and no text. The same is true even to a greater extent with regard to that of Flandin and Coste. The only materials really available, were the works of Chardin, Le Brun, Niebuhr, and Ker Porter, which had not sufficed to enable any one to restore the buildings of Persepolis, and did not afford me sufficient data to accomplish this more satisfactorily than those who had attempted it before me. During the last two years, however, our stock of information has been immensely added to, in every branch of knowledge referring to this subject ; and though more may yet be brought to light in Assyria, very little that is really important can now be added to our information regarding Persepolis ; so that, I think, we may proceed with tolerable confidence towards restoring the greater number of buildings treated of in this volume. Still the experience of the last two years should make any one as it makes me advancing any theory of restoration, either as complete or final; and I am far from regarding any of the views advanced in this work as at all pretending to that degree of perfection. All I propose is to bring down the knowledge obtained to the present day; and I hope I have neither overlooked any available source of information, nor omitted to draw from the facts observed any legitimate inference that may assist in elucidating the subject matter of the work. If I have done this and I have tried to do it honestly and fairly - I shall have accomplished all very cautious in ·PREFACE. which have hitherto been overlooked, besides brie ix I have attempted; and the results of future discoveries scarcely concern me, in so far, at least, as they may tend either to prove or disprove the views here set forth. As I have asked no one's advice or opinion (except Mr. Layard's) regarding the views set forth in the following pages, I am of course unable to foresee how far others may be inclined to agree with me, either in part or in whole; but whether they do or not, I trust that I have at least placed many things in a new and clearer light, and have suggested views of the subject ing together the whole matter in one volume, so that those who follow me will at least have the advantage of starting from a more advanced point in the discussion, and be thus able to carry it further than if it were wholly new to them. If I have accomplished only this I have done some good, and enough to reward me for such a labour of love as this inquiry has been; but I trust I have done more, though of this others only can judge rightly. At all events, I trust I may lay down my pen with that feeling of satisfaction which every man is entitled to indulge in, who has made an honest effort — however humble it may be to advance the great cause of knowledge and of truth. If every man would - each in his separate department - do the same, ignorance and falsehood would soon disappear from among mankind.

·was able X NOTE. Since this work went to the press I have received from Mr. Layard a letter dated Mousul, September 30., written in answer to one I addressed him in August, explaining to him my views for restoring the Assyrian palaces. From his answer I learn that nothing bearing directly on the architectural question had up to that time been brought to light in addition to what has been published in his works, which are in the hands of the public. At the same time his answers to my queries and his observations on my scheme, are as satisfactory as I could wish. I have not alluded to this in the text, and in doing so now wish particularly to guard against committing Mr. Layard to any opinion, either for or against my views. The materials I to furnish him in a short letter were far too scanty to enable him to judge correctly, either as to what my views were, or of the reasoning on which they were founded. When he publishes the splendid results of his recent explorations, he will no doubt put forward his own views on the subject. Till he does so he must be considered as having given no opinion regarding it. Within the last few days I have seen Mr. Cooper, the artist sent out by the trustees of the British Museum to assist Mr. Layard. As I expected from Mr. Layard's letter, he has little additional information to give on this subject; but he informs me that a layer, or pavement, of small stones in cement, had been found running through the mud brick walls, at some height above the top of the slabs, how high he does not recollect. If this is so, it confirms my views to such an extent as to make the mode of lighting the rooms proposed in this work almost a certainty. 20. Langham Place, Dec. 1850. ERRATA. Page 80. line 10. for “ Nineveh," read “ Nimroud.” Page 301. last line of note, for “100” read “180 et seq."

·TABLE OF CONTENTS. 1 Page INTRODUCTION: Comparison between Egypt and Assyria Discoveries of Hieroglyphics and Arrow-headed Characters 5 Judea, and the Bearing of the Discoveries on her History 7 Their Bearing on Indian Antiquity 10 INSCRIPTIONS : Discoveries of Professor Grotefend 13 Discoveries of Burnouf and Lassen 17 Discoveries of Rawlinson 18 Races inhabiting Mesopotamia 22 Median Inscriptions 25 CHRONOLOGY: Present State of Inquiry 28 Materials available for Elucidation of Subject 30 Sources of Information 34 Egyptian Chronology as bearing on Assyria 35 Chronology of Achemenian Period 41 Chronology of Median Period 43 Epoch of Arbaces 49 Shalmaneser and Senacherib Dynasties 50 Epoch of Ninus 53 Epoch of Nimrod and Foundation of Empire 59 Geography of Assyrian Remains 66 Size and Plan of Nineveh 69 Old Palace of Nimroud, and Dynasty of its Founders 72 Khorsabad and Koyunjik, and the Dynasty which founded those Palonac ·xii TABLE OF CONTENTS. Page 80 South-west Edifice of Nimroud and its Founders Recapitulation 83 ARCHITECTURE: PART I. SECTION I. 84 86 89 92 INTRODUCTORY Persian Story Persepolis and its Environs Passargadæ founded by Cyrus - PERSEPOLIS Plan of Terraced Platform Classification of Buildings at Persepolis STAIRS PROPYLÆA Propylæa of Xerxes Smaller Propylæa Their Uses 95 96 99 101 104 106 110 112 10 PALACE OF DARIUS 115 Walls, how constructed 121 Tomb of Darius; Copy of Façade of his Palace 124 Stage or Talar 126 SOUTH-EASTERN EDIFICE 131 Mode in which these Buildings were lighted 133 HEXASTYLE HALLS 138 Palace of Xerxes ib. Hall of Xerxes or Chehil Minar 144 Form and Position of its Walls 145 Pillars of Hal 149 Coloured Decoration of Walls 153 Arched Doorways 157 Order of Columns 158 Entablature of Columns 165 Talar 167 External Appearance and Comparison with other Buildings 170 SOUTH-WESTERN EDIFICE 172 ·TABLE OF CONTENTS. xiii Page HALL OF A HUNDRED COLUMNS 175 Mode of Lighting 177 Talar and Tabsar from a Pilaster of this Building 181 Position of Throne in these Buildings 183 Inquiry as to whether these Buildings were Palaces or Temples 186 Extracts from Dabistan, and their Application 190 SECTION II. ISTAKR Foundation of Istakr Queen Homai Gateway at Istakr Fire Temple at Istakr PASSARGADE Platform and Masonry Tomb of Cyrus House for the Magi attached to Tomb 197 198 201 205 - 206 209 210 - 215 217 SECTION III. JERUSALEM Temple of Solomon Talar on its Roof Palace of Solomon House of the Forest of Lebanon Josephus's Description thereof, and Parallel with Assyrian Buildings - 218 219 221 224 225 229 PART II. SECTION I. KHORSABAD Situation of Ruins, and Forni of City General Plan of Terraced Mound Terrace Wall - Propylæa Stairs HAREEM Façade towards Temple Court Inner Court 233 235 238 240 241 247 251 253 255 ·xiy TABLE OF CONTENTS. PRO THE PALACE Vaulted Entrance Passage Three Principal Rooms Elevation of State Apartments Sculptures Various Theories of Restoration The one proposed by the Author Pillars to support Roof General Section and Appearance of Building Illustrations from Egypt and Syria Illustrations from Persepolis, India, &c. THE TEMPLE Its Platform Its Destruction Lord Aberdeen's Black Stone The Asheerah, or Sacred Tree Resumé Mode of Destruction Page 257 - 258 - 261 - 265 ib. 269 - 271 - 276 - 279 - 281 - 287 292 . 293 - 296 298 301 S 304 306 we SECTION II. - 309 - 311 - 312 KOYUNJIK Nebbi Yunus Dimensions of Nineveh NORTH-WEST PALACE, NIMROUD General Plan of Building Inner Apartments Banqueting Hall, &c. Temple - CENTRAL AND SOUTH-WEST EDIFICES Hall of South-west Edifice KALAH SHERGHAT 314 317 - 319 321 323 324 326 329 SECTION III. BABYLONIA Size and Plan of Babylon Mujelibé Kasr and Amran 331 332 334 336 ·LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. ху Page SECTION IV. CONCLUSION 339 Ionic Art of Greece derived from Assyria 340 Sculpture of Greece Assyrian in Origin 345 Chrys-elephantine Statues probably Assyrian 347 Etruscan Art derived from Assyria - 348 Syrian and Indian coming from the same Source 349 Technic Value of Assyrian Art 351 Asthetic Value of Assyrian Art 353 Phonetic Value of Assyrian Art 354 Animated Forms of Assyrian Art 355 Classification of Style - 356 Wooden Origin of Architecture 359 Terraces and Thickness of Walls 361 Descending Series of Phonetic Art combined with Ascending Series of Technic ones - 363 Results of this Coincidence 366 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. Page FRONTISPIECE. Restoration of Northern Angle of Palace Court, Khorsabad. No. 1. Plan of Nineveh 70 2. Environs of Persepolis 90 3. Stairs to Palace of Xerxes to face 101 4. View from Top of Great Stairs to face 103 5. Plan of Propylæum 107 6. Plan of Palace of Darius 116 7. Façade of Palace of Darius 120 8. Tomb of Darius at Naksh-1-Rustam to face 124 9. Palace at Ispahan 130 10. Vihara at Ajuntah 135 11. Palace of Xerxes 140 ·14. Pille xvi LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. Page No. 12. Hall of Xerxes 144 13. Doorway at Firuzabad - 157 of Western Portico 159 15. Pillar of Northern Portico 160 16. Pavilion at Khorsabad * - 163 17. Section of Hall of Xerxes 165 18. Restoration of Hall of Xerxes to face 170 19. Niche in Hall of a Hundred Columns 176 20. King seated on a Talar, under a Tabsar 181 21. Throne-room, Teheran 184 22. Kabah at Istakr 206 23. Platform at Passargada 210 24. Elevation of Masonry at Passargadæ 211 25. Tomb of Cyrus 215 26. Diagram Sections of Solomon's House 226 27. General plan of Palace at Khorsabad 238 28. Terrace Wall at Khorsabad 240 29. Existing Remains of Propylæa at Khorsabad 245 30. Plan of Three principal Rooms at Khorsabad 262 31. Section of principal Rooms at Khorsabad to face 271 32. Bas-relief at El Tell Amarna 284 33. Palace of Thothmes, Thebes 285 34. Section of Mosque at Amedabad 289 35. A Nestorian House in the District of Tiyari 291 36. Elevation of Stylobate of Temple at Khorsabad 293 37. Section of Stylobate of Temple ib. 38. Lord Aberdeen's Black Stone 298 39. Plan of North-west Palace at Nimroud 317 40. Plan of Hall of South-west Palace 326 41. Plan of Babylon- 335 42. Bas-relief of Futteh Ali Shah 363 PLATE 1. Plan of Persepolis to face 94 PLATE II. Plan of Palace at Khorsabad to face 288 w * Proin Mr. Layard's work on “ Nineveh and its Remains."

·NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. INTRODUCTION. LONG before the time when civilisation first dawned on Europe, -- whilst the forests of Greece served only as a refuge to a few expatriated wanderers, whose crimes or misfortunes had driven them to seek in their fastnesses, that asylum which their own native lands refused them; and centuries before the foundation of the all imperial Rome, two great and powerful nations, one on the banks of the Nile, the other in the valley of the Euphrates, had risen from infancy to maturity; and from maturity were again passing to that inevitable doom of decay, which awaits the mightiest empire as certainly as it does the meanest of mortal things. Of these two, the one in Africa was, so far as extant records still remain to tell, by far the more ancient. Search however as we may, we have hitherto failed even to approximate to her initial B ·2 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. date. That, of her earliest recorded king, it is true, we know with some certainty. But we find the eternal pyramids still standing there to tell us, that a few centuries afterwards, and at least 3000 years before the Christian æra, the Egyptians had learned to transport the heaviest blocks of granite from Syene to the Delta, to cut and polish them with a precision we cannot now surpass, and to use them constructively with a degree of science unequalled from that day to this. We know also, from the contemporary tombs, that at that age their system of writing, their religion, their arts, were all as complete and as completely fixed and settled as at any subsequent period of their history. All telling certainly of a long anterior life, which alone could have led to so fixed and immoveable a maturity. In Assyria the case is widely different. No monument -- no king whose name is known to us, can claim a higher antiquity than for twenty or twentyfive centuries before the Christian æra; and none of the nations or races inhabiting that valley carry us back, even by their traditions, to a date anterior to the building of the pyramids of Egypt. But more than this: none of them show that hankering after immortality which betokens a long recorded past. Like new people, they neither cared to record the annals of their race, nor to provide for the stability of their existence through future generations. The pride of the Egyptian was in his high antiquity, and his consequent confidence in an unlimited duration for the future. Those who dwelt in Meso- ·INTRODUCTION. 3 potamia had no long past to look back to, and cared little in consequence for the future. It was not, however, in this that these two nations differed from one another, so much as in their internal polity, and their relations with the strangers around them. Confined within their own narrow valley, watered by its own solitary and mysterious Nile, the Egyptians cared not to mingle with the other and newer nations of the world, whom they heartily despised; they neither sought to propagate their religious system among them, nor to force their laws upon them. If conquered, they cast out the conquerors again, and resumed their own peculiar path as if nothing had happened: as conquerors, they spoiled and oppressed the nations they subdued, but left no trace of themselves in foreign lands. Even their slave populations were always strangers in their land; and after centuries of sojourn, left it as they entered, with scarce a trace of Egypt in their language, their policy, or their religion. In Assyria, on the contrary, all the tribes of Iran and Turan pass and repass across the scene. The Chaldæan, with the Arab, is at one time in power: then the Sythe or Tartar; and then the Mede and the Persian. The three great classes of nations who, from the most ancient times to the present hour, оссиру and nearly the whole of Asia, appear simultaneously in the valley of the Euphrates, from the earliest dawn of history to the present hour; and each, as it in succession acquired the predominance, casting out the other: this country thus all Europe B 2 ·4 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS, receiving into its bosom all the great nations of the earth, and again dispersing them, to carry her arts and her civilisation to the remotest corners of the world; acting as a vast crucible of human chemistry, and within her own boundaries mixing and mingling the elements with a confusion that has hitherto defied analysis, and will still require long, long study, before we either understand Assyria in herself or in her influence on the nations around her. Enough, however, we now know to feel sure that to her both Europe and Asia owe far more than they ever owed to the uncommunicative mysteries of the Egyptians. Egypt may, indeed, have been the schoolmistress from whom the ancient world derived half her science and her arts; but the nations from whom we are descended were born in Assyria, and out of her they brought all their sympathies, all their innate civilisation, Till within the last few years the history of these two nations was a myth, known to us only from certain traditions collected by the Greeks, but misunderstood by them, and handed down to us so full of contradictions and absurdities, that it was impossible to sift the truth from the chaff in which it was buried. The discovery of the true reading of the hieroglyphics by Dr. Young, and its completion by Champollion, put an end to this state of matters so far as Egypt was concerned, and placed her history on a basis from which it cannot now be overturned. Once the readings of the king's names were known, and the authenticity of Manetho's lists fully established, ·Www were difference; they still remaine in three languages, with INTRODUCTION. this was an easy task for Egypt. The three great periods of her art, that of the Memphite pyramidbuilders, that of the Theban temples, and, lastly, that of the Ptolemaic and Roman imitations, easily distinguished, divided from one another by periods of above 1000 years between each, but following each other in regular succession, with only such variations as enable the initiated to detect the - the utterance of one civilisation, and the evidence of only one religion, reappearing at three periods, after intermediate epochs of exhaustion and repose. A far more wonderful discovery, however, than that of the hieroglyphics, was that of the true mode of reading the arrow-headed inscriptions of Assyria. Here there was no tablet containing an edict written liar; for though there were trilingual inscriptions in abundance, all were equally unknown; and it required an amount of sagacity and of perseverance, which is an honour to our age, to enable us to decipher one of them, so completely as to be able to apply the knowledge thus gained to the reading of the others. But not only is it wonderful from its difficulty, but still more so from its results: for in Assyria we had no Manetho to hand down to us even such barren lists of kings as his; all was confusion and mystery,--no contemporary and no native record existed, except indeed some notices so fragmentary as to be nearly unintelligible; when suddenly we find ourselves reading the annals of their ancient kings, ·6 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. written by their orders and under their eye on tablets that now crowd our museums, and which give the past to the present with a distinctness we even now can scarcely realise. A few years ago, as Layard well expresses it, a small packing case would have contained all that Europe knew or possessed of the ancient kingdom of Assyria; and we did not dream, nor dare to hope, that much more would be restored to us. Now, on the contrary, her palaces are laid open to us, and we know more of them than we do of those of Greece or Rome, notwithstanding the recovery of the buried cities of Pompeii and Herculaneum; and we have, or at least know of the existence of, more sculptures and more inscriptions remaining in Assyria, than have reached us from Greece, or perhaps from Greece and Rome together; still, had it not been for the simultaneous discovery of the reading of her inscriptions, they would have stood there as mysterious and as unintelligible to us as the handwriting on the wall was to the priests of Belshazzar. The wonderful thing is, that just when the one discovery was on the eve of completion, the other was made, to complete its usefulness; had either preceded the other, half of what is now known to us might have been lost from our not knowing what we were doing, or being careless of what is now of so much interest; but the one came with the other, and together they have revealed to us the records of a history that had been lost for centuries; and so completely lost that no man living even so much as susnected the possibility of their existence.

·INTRODUCTION. 7 Traveller after traveller passed through the land, and saw the Arab pasturing his flocks on the long lines of level plains, and the village of the more settled tribes perched on a mound that seemed to tell of former occupants; but many believed them natural; and there seemed scarcely more history to be gathered from these, than there is of former times from the ocean and its wrecks, or the sandhills that bound its shore. One fortunate discovery at Khorsabad by M. Botta, some seven years ago, dispelled these doubts, and subsequent researches by him and other able explorers have already almost wholly removed the darkness, that hung over the subject. Much of course, very much, still remains to be done; but the veil is already removed, and success is certain; so that we only require a short time more and the lost history of Assyria may rank in certainty with that of any neighbouring nation of the same age; or, at least, we shall know the form and rank of her civilisation and her place in the world's history; even though the confusion of races and dynasties should still baffle our attempts to place her chronology on that certain basis which we are now almost sure of obtaining for that of Egypt. However interesting the histories of these two countries may be on their own account, there is still one point in which they appeal even more directly to our sympathies. For it was out of Assyria that Abraham came - it was into Egypt that his descendants migrated, and it was there they passed their infancy, till from a pastoral tribe they had grown into a B4 ·8 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. nation. It was with these two kingdoms that were all their important relations of war and peace during the times of the greatness and power of the Jewish people; and, lastly, it was in bondage in the land whence their forefathers migrated, that they closed their career as an independent nation. Thus their whole history oscillates between the two. But all their relations of affinity of race, or of language, or religion, were with the East. They were driven to Egypt by famine, and held there in hated bondage, till released by the exertions of their first great lawgiver; but they came out without contracting one feeling of love or veneration for those with whom they had so long dwelt: and in all their backslidings and all their future history, they scarcely ever showed a trace of their education in the land of their sojourn. They were a distinct and separate people, and have remained so ever since. It was not so with Assyria. They spoke a cognate language, had the same customs and feelings; on every occasion of revolt they turned to the gods worshipped in Babylon or Nineveh as their gods; and only a few of them could eventually be kept from relapsing from the purer faith, to that of the land whence they came. To understand, then, their history or their feelings in religion, we must turn to the eastward, not as we have hitherto done to Egypt. It was naturally enough, it must be confessed, that we did so in the first instance; for when Egypt's history was first made known to us by the interpretation of the hieroglyphics, it was to her, as a contemporary and nearly allied nation, that men ·INTRODUCTION. 9 turned with avidity for an explanation of what had appeared so dark. It was in vain, however. The similarity was not more than exists, and must always exist, between two Eastern people, and those who looked deepest into the matter saw soon how unsatisfactory all explanations of the Bible text were, whenever derived from so antagonistic a source. The case is very different when we turn to Assyria ; there is scarcely a fact or an expression in the whole book that is not made clearer by the knowledge we have already derived, or hope hereafter to obtain, from the discoveries in this long-buried land; and they promise to supply us with exactly what we wanted to enable us to understand and realise what we there find written. For it is one of the peculiarities of the Jewish history, and certainly not one of the least singular, that all we know of them is derived from their written books. Not one monument, not one sculptured stone, not one letter of an inscription, not even a potsherd, remains to witness by a material fact the existence of the Jewish kingdom. No inuseum ever possessed a Jewish antiquity, while Egypt, Assyria, Greece, and all the surrounding countries teem with material evidence of former greatness, and of the people that once inhabited them. But if so singularly deficient in this respect, the Jewish history is far more complete in every other than that of any of the surrounding nations of their age; for we now possess not only her written chronicles, but what we may consider as her literature; while neither Assyria nor Egypt can boast of a single ·and unexpected light, and that is Indianapolis 10 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. book that has, at least, come down to our day, or of whose existence we ever heard from any credible source. What, therefore, is deficient in the one, the other must supply; and this Assyria does for Judæa; and now we certainly shall be able to restore her forms and modes of utterance with a certainty and a distinctness of which no one could have had a conception till these recent discoveries were made. There is still another ancient nation on whose antiquity these discoveries promise to throw a great on the history of the aboriginal tribes, or Tamul nations who still occupy a great part of the country, but on that of the Sanscrit-speaking people, whose language is the only one studied, and whose literature in consequence is the only one known in Europe, so that they are generally, but most erroneously, looked upon as the only people of India. So far from this being the case, we know that they are strangers to that land, who came across the Indus, probably some thirty centuries before the Christian æra, bringing with them in their Vedantic lore, the traditions and the religion of that great central tribe, from which the Persians, and probably the Medes, migrated to the south, and the European races to the west. So closely, indeed, were they allied to the Assyrians on their southern and western frontiers, that it is almost impossible but that some light must be thrown on them by these discoveries. But even if the Brahmans passed into India at too early a date, and by too direct a route, the Vishnave ·11 INTRODUCTION. religion was certainly closely allied to the Assyrian. So, too, I believe it will be found, that Buddhism, a religion most closely allied to the Magian, came from this fertile source. Indeed, there is scarcely a point of history and religion in India that these discoveries will not illustrate, even if they fail in satisfactorily explaining it; it is when the whole are compared and weighed one against the other, that we shall at last be able to solve the great problem of primæval antiquity, where all has hitherto seemed so dark to the wise, and so wild to the more imaginative inquirer. It is on this community of ancient nations that the new light has so unexpectedly dawned. When we have thoroughly explored its sources and mastered its results, a new world will be opened to our experience, and a new cycle added to our hitherto limited knowledge of the history of our race. Up to this time the histories of Greece and Rome, and of the people with whom they were in connexion, were considered the ancient histories of the world. They must now be content to rank only as transitional epochs, through which the wisdom and civilisation elaborated by these earlier people were transferred from Asia and from Africa to Europe, to be elaborated on a wider scale by another community of nations, whose extent is limited only by the surface of the globe. It is an almost incalculable gain to us at the present stage of our progress, to be able thus to look back to the primary source from which our civilisation was derived,- to be able to test by actual inspection the unfounded claim to originality to which the Greeks ·12 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. so often pretend, and at the same time to appreciate, fairly and fully, what they really did by their own efforts to advance themselves beyond what was actually transmitted to them by others; thus enabling us to judge of what we should attempt, and of what, if attempted, we may be able to effect. But more than this, is the enlargement of our views of the history of the world, and the wisdom we acquire by extending our horizon of vision, and increasing the length of our series of examples ; not only as knowledge to enable us to understand the past, but as science enabling us to predict the future ; which a sufficiently lengthy series of examples would certainly enable us to do, but which can only be attempted from such a far extending retrospect of what has gone before. It is to this task that earnest men are now addressing themselves, and with the certainty of ultimate success. It is true we as yet stand only on the threshold of the discovery; but we know that the door through which we gaze leads to the chambers where the knowledge we are seeking lies stored, and that its treasures will certainly be laid open to those who ask earnestly, and who fearlessly search after truth, and truth only.

·INSCRIPTIONS. 13 INSCRIPTIONS. So much of the reasoning in the following pages depends on the reading of the arrow-headed inscriptions which are found on the walls of the palaces of Persepolis and Nineveh, that before going further it will be necessary to explain, as shortly as may be, the mode in which they have been interpreted, and the degree of reliance that is to be placed on the results obtained. This I know has been done more than once before, and better, perhaps, than I can do it; nevertheless the public generally are unfamiliar with the process, and many still amuse themselves by quoting the mistakes made during the progress of the discovery, to justify their disbelief in the conclusions arrived at. It is most undeniably to Professor Grotefend, of Göttingen, that we owe the key which has led to all we know in the matter. His first discovery was made and announced in 1802, but not, I believe, published till 1805; and the first complete account of his discoveries, and of the mode in which he arrived at them, was given in an appendix to Heeren's “ Asiatic Nations," in 1815, and afterwards in an improved form in 1825, from which I shall try and explain the process. There is on the walls of Persepolis a number of inscriptions, generally short, and almost always written in three different languages, and with three distinct alphabets, though all cuneiform of course. The first of these, which, from its taking precedence of the ·14 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. others, was assumed to be Persian, had every appearance of being alphabetical, which was by no means so clear with regard to the others, as these latter seldom contained much more than half the number of distinct characters, or occupied half the length of the first. But, besides this, a very slight inspection showed that it possessed an inestimable advantage to the decipherer, in all the words being separated from one another by a disjunctive sign of a wedge, placed diagonally, at the beginning or end of each word. This was evident from its occurring every where throughout all the inscriptions, never compounded with the others; and, however various the terminations of similar groups of characters might be, they were always preceded and followed by this disjunctive sign. These points being assumed, Professor Grotefend chose for his analysis two short inscriptions at Persepolis, which, anticipating somewhat a subsequent stage of the discovery, I shall translate at full. The first runs thus : “Darius the great king, the king of kings, the king of nations, the son of Hystaspes, the Achæmenian. It is he who has executed this sculpture.” The second: “Xerxes the great king, the king of kings, the son of Darius the Achæmenian.”* It was evident that these two inscriptions were, as far as the word Achæmenian, identical in form, except the group “ king of nations," not found in the second, and which, therefore, as not necessary for the sense, may be re- * Colonel Rawlinson's Memoir in Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol.x, p. 271. et seq.

·INSCRIPTIONS. 15 jected for the present. In the next place, one word occurs three or four times over in each, with a slight terminal difference, and which could therefore only be a title: what it was remained to be seen. After these rejections there remained four groups; the last being common to both, was assumed to be a title, and long baffled the ingenuity of decipherers; of the other three, one was common to both, but assumed a different place with regard to the other two, which led inevitably to the conclusion that it was a genealogy that had been recorded, more especially as the name that began the first inscription was preceded in the second by a group of characters "the son of," which occupies the same place with regard to the second group in the first. This at least was Grotefend's great guess, or assumption, for at first it can scarcely be called by a higher name, though it has since become the foundation of all our knowledge. Having advanced so far as to satisfy his own mind, that he had here a genealogical succession of three names, he next proceeded to try and find out who these names belonged to; and having first, by an examination of all the authorities, ancient and modern, bearing on the subject, arrived at the conclusion that Persepolis was the work of the Achæmenian dynasty, he proceeded to try their names in succession. Cyrus and Cambyses would not fit, for none of the three names began with the same letter. Cyrus and Artaxerxes were equally inapplicable, as the names in the inscription were nearly of the same length, while one ·NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. were the correct ones, by a tentati letters of the first name should not ? 16 of these was twice as long as the other. He then tried the right ones, and they fitted as nearly as could be expected; he next proceeded to prove that they shall try and explain in English, as more easily intelligible. If the three names were Hystaspes, Darius, and Xerxes, it is evident that the first and second third would occur as the sixth of that name, and as the terminal letter of all three; the t would not again appear; the a must be the second of the second name; the p would not again occur, but the e would appear twice in the third name, and so on; if this if this process were easy and as perfect in Persian I have described it in English, it would not only have been proved beyond a shadow of doubt that the names applied to these groups by Professor Grotefend were the correct ones, but the value of eleven or twelve characters of the alphabet would have been determined beyond cavil. Unfortunately, however, the true native pronunciation of these names was not then known, as the Greek mode of expressing them could by no means be relied upon. By means of the Zend, however, and some varieties in the Greek, the professor was enabled to approach the true mode of spelling so nearly, and to make it fit so closely to the proposed reading, that no reasonable doubt existed in the minds of candid inquirers that he was correct. He himself never hesitated a second, nor have those best qualified to express an opinion. as as ·INSCRIPTIONS. 17 With the fragment of an alphabet thus obtained Grotefend was able to detect the name of Cyrus in the short inscription at Pasargada. But with this step in the right direction, the progress of the discovery long halted; and it was then by no means apparent whence new light was to come; for it was evident that a knowledge of ten or twelve out of forty characters was by no means sufficient to enable us to read the language, though this was attempted over and over again, both in Germany and France, leading however to those singular discrepancies and mistakes which long threw such discredit on the whole process. The next great step in the discovery was made by M. Burnouf, whose intimate knowledge of the Zend language enabled him to publish in 1836 an approximative translation of two short inscriptions at Hamadan; and what was, perhaps, of more importance, because less open to objection, he ascertained that one of the inscriptions at Persepolis—that on the south wall-contained a number of proper names,—twenty-four as it now appears -ten of which he was enabled to determine correctly; thus adding considerably to the extent of the alphabet, and to the confidence in its power, which was indeed now so fully established, that it seemed only to require a sufficient amount of industry, coupled with a critical knowledge of Zend, Sanscrit, and other dialects closely allied to the ancient language of Persia, to solve the difficulty. Both these requisites were found in Professor Lassen, of Bonn, who in three memoirs — the C ·18 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. first published in 1836, the second in 1839, and the last in 1844, -nearly completed the task of alphabetical discovery While this was going on in Europe, Colonel Rawlinson, then stationed at Kermanshah, in Persia, having copied himself the two inscriptions at Hamadan, set himself, in 1835, to try and decipher them, being then ignorant of what had been effected in Europe, or of the process which had led Grotefend to the result he had heard of, but did not understand. Finding them identical in every respect except an epithet, and the three groups arranged genealogically, which had first enabled Grotefend to proceed so far as he did, he, applying the same tentative process, arrived at the same conclusion, and also made some progress in reading the text of the inscription.* While continuing his studies in this direction, he learned what had been done in ) Europe, and also procured a copy of M. Burnouf's “ Commentary on the Yacna," in which the Zend language is critically analysed and developed. But besides these advantages, he had one of immense importance, of which the students in Europe were deprived, in being able, first to copy two hundred lines, and then the whole four hundred, of the great Behistun inscription; thus giving him a mass of material for analysis and collation, which enabled him to proceed rapidly with the deciphering of the whole. * For a full account of the discovery and the process by which it was arrived at, see Colonel Rawlinson's Memoir, forming the tenth volume of the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society.

·INSCRIPTIONS. 19 With more than eighty proper names now at his disposal, he was enabled to perfect an alphabet, which differed only in one character from the one completed by Professor Lassen, at Bonn, from the same materials of course, but without any communication between them,-a circumstance in itself sufficient to prove how sure the data were on which they proceeded. On applying the alphabet so obtained to the text of the inscriptions, the language proved to be an old form of Persian, closely allied to the Vedic Sanscrit of India on the one hand, and the more modern Zend of Persia on the other; and so nearly resembling these two, not only in the sound of their vocables, but also in grammatical construction, that the general purport of the inscriptions was at once intelligible to any one moderately acquainted with these two languages. It still required, of course, a considerable degree of industry and of critical acumen to make out the whole problem in a satisfactory manner. This, however, has been applied by Messrs. Lassen and Rawlinson; and there is not now one paragraph in all the inscriptions whose meaning can be considered as at all doubtful, and scarcely one word, or one inflection, which has not already been determined with such approximative certainty, that what remains now to be done is of very little interest either to the historian or the ethnographer, and may safely be handed over to the critical philologer to exercise his ingenuity upon it. In the meanwhile we may rest satisfied that we as certainly know the meaning of ·20 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. these Persian texts, as we know the import of any Anglo-Saxon writing, or of any dead language, whose meaning has not been handed down to us by continuous descent, but obtained by its comparative affinity with cognate tongues. The certainty of such a process has long been acknowledged, and is as applicable to this as to any other known language. To those who have neither followed the progress of this discovery, nor read any of the more elaborate treatises on the subject, a great deal of the above must, of course, appear mere assertion; and so indeed must any attempt to explain the process be, unless backed by illustrations and examples far exceeding in extent anything admissible into such a work as this. If any one, however, who still doubts will take the trouble of reading Colonel Rawlinson's admirable treatise in the tenth volume of the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, I think he must arrive at the same conclusion with all those who are best qualified to express an opinion on the subject, — that this part of the problem at least has been completely and satisfactorily solved; and although it has occupied some of the best scholars of Europe during nearly half a century, the result is well worthy of the labour that has been bestowed upon it, and is one of the greatest triumphs of modern science over difficulties, which in another age would have deterred any one from attempting so apparently hopeless a task. However great were the difficulties of deciphering these Persian inscriptions, they were as nothing when compared with those presented by the Babylonian ·INSCRIPTIONS, 21 and Assyrian texts. In the Persian we had only to deal with an alphabet of less than forty distinct characters, and a language so well known, that once the letters were recognised, the translation of the words, though difficult of course, was still a matter of certainty, and one that it only required a little patience to accomplish, when undertaken by a person possessing the amount of knowledge already available for the purpose. The Assyrian inscriptions, however, presented what at first sight appeared to be at least 500 or 600 characters. In the course of analysis, however, many of these were found to be only different modes of writing the same letter; many were homophones, though differing in form -- some were syllabic; but after every deduction that could be made, there still remained an alphabet of about 150 letters, and these frequently used with a laxity that is perfectly startling: besides, many of the characters were evidently ideographs, or hieroglyphics representing a thing by a non-phonetic sign, and without the resemblance to the thing signified, which is such an aid in Egypt. After what has been accomplished, it would, of course, be presumptuous to say that such an alphabet must for ever have defied the ingenuity of the learned; but certainly no such task has hitherto been accomplished; and for the present, at least, it must have remained unknown, had it not been for a circumstance singularly characteristic of Mesopotamia, ---the coexistence of three great distinct nationalities in one country, remaining distinct and unchanged from the earliest dawn of history, and co-existing unchanged C 3 ·22 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. it and unmingled in the same lands at the present hour. When the history of Mesopotamia first opens to us, we find the Semitic family, under the name of Chaldæans or Arabs, holding supreme rule in that country. But the Medes and Persians were there also; so, too, appears, were the Scythians; but as neither of them had ruled at that period, we know little of them, and the language of the dominant class is the only one used. In the middle ages of this history, when Persia held supreme sway over these lands, the three races seem to have been considered as nearly equally important, at least, all the inscriptions of this period are trilingual. One written in Persian, is addressed to the Indo-Germanic races; one in Assyrian-perhaps more properly called Babylonian, as the language had, with the capital, taken that form before the extinction of the empire_was addressed to the Semitic races: the third, which, though only partially deciphered as yet, is understood to be a Tartar tongue, addressed to the Scythians. At the present time the Arab, the Persian, and the Turk still occupy their places; but now the order of precedence is reversed: the Arab is a subject wanderer where his forefathers held supreme sway: the Persian enjoys independence only in his native plains and hills; when existing near the great rivers, he too is subject to the Turk, who rules the other two, and with as firm and despotic a sway as that of Nimrod or his successors. As Rawlinson has remarked before, "If a governor of Bagdad wishes to make himself intelligible to all ·INSCRIPTIONS. 23 his subjects, he must issue his edict in three languages, the Persian, Turkish, and Arabic;" and so it was in the days of Darius; and it is to this circumstance, and to this only, that any progress has been made in the decipherment of the inscriptions of Babylonia and Assyria. In the first place, the inscriptions contain from 80 to 100 proper names, and from these it was not difficult to construct an alphabet with very tolerable approximative certainty: all the common words, such as father, son, city, country, enemy, rebel, conqueror, &c. were also from their position easily recognizable, and their sound also approximatively by means of the alphabet constructed as above. When the process had been conducted so far, it was found that the language was one closely allied to the Hebrew and old Chaldæan, so that the grammatical construction and inflections could also be approximatively ascertained. Notwithstanding all these aids, however, the task was one of such difficulty, that a less able or less persevering man than Colonel Rawlinson might have abandoned it in despair. For to add to its other difficulties, the whole of the left hand portion of the Babylonian transcript of the great Behistun inscription was peeled off from the rock and irrecoverably lost, so that nothing remained but the endings of the țines throughout; and the Persepolitan inscriptions were so few and short, and so full of repetition, that they barely afforded the means of ascertaining what the language was, and certainly did not contain the materials for either such a vocabulary or grammar as would have afforded a clue ·24 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. ; to the meaning of the inscriptions of Babylonia and Assyria. With these aids, however, and a careful, though most laborious analysis of what remains at Behistun, the meaning of about 500 words has been certainly determined; and as these contain all the common words of the language, they suffice to explain the meaning of any simple record of events, such as the bulk of these inscriptions is composed of. The alphabet, so elaborated, is sufficient for the reading approximatively of the proper names of men and places ; but, unfortunately, not always of kings, as their designations are generally expressed in titles and epithets, and not phonetically by spelling. It has sufficed also to disclose the character of the language and its affinity with, as well as its discrepancies from, other known tongues of Semitic origin. This discovery, though not of course to be compared in its present state with that of the Persian, is still an immense gain, not only from the amount of information that has already been obtained by its means from the inscriptions which have been read, with more or less certainty, but also because it opens a path that must inevitably lead to as perfect a decipherment of these inscriptions as we have already obtained of the Persian. With an alphabet, so nearly perfect as the one already elaborated, with a certain knowledge of the affinities of this language to others with which the learned are familiar, and with 500 of the most usual words certainly known, it can only require a sufficient amount of industry on the part of those whose philological acquirements fit them ·INSCRIPTIONS. 25 for the task, to perfect what has been so well commenced. Once this is a accomplished, we may read these contemporary annals of Assyria and Babylonia with as much certainty as we do those of our own Anglo-Saxon kings. We are of course far from this; yet the knowledge we have already gained, if not so great as might be anticipated, is at least certain, and may be reasoned on as such without fear of the result of subsequent discoveries. Some progress has been made by Westergaard in deciphering the third class of inscriptions that are found in the Achæmenian tablets; but it is not of importance that this should be completed immediately, for no other inscriptions in the same language are known to exist elsewhere, so that no new information would be disclosed by their being read, that we are not already in possession of from our readings of the other two. Still it of course would be interesting to know exactly what the character and affinities of the language were, and to what people it consequently was addressed. I cannot myself help thinking it may be Etruscan, or some language so closely allied to it, that from it we may at last solve the puzzle that has baffled the learned so long. It would indeed be a curious reversal of the usual mode of proceeding, if we should at last learn the meaning of a language whose alphabet we so perfectly know from one whose character and import are so utterly unknown to us at this moment. But this is not the place for such speculations.

·oftent as Scotch 26 NINEVEL AND PERSEPOLIS. The third language has been styled Median, for want of a better name, the Medes being generally supposed to have been the third nation of whom the empire of the Achæmenidæ was composed. This, however, I feel convinced is a mistake; for every thing tends to the belief that the Medes and Persians were in manners, laws, religion, and also in language, one and the same people; and that the latter, if it difdiffers from English, or at most as German differs from Dutch. I believe, besides, that there is very little doubt but that the language has in it a decidedly Scythic or Tartar element*, which in itself would at once destroy all idea of its being addressed to the Medes. This, however, is a question for future discussion, when we know more about the matter. All that interests us here is, to know, first, that by a process analogous to the one I have described, the value of the Persian arrow-headed alphabet has been perfectly ascertained, and the inscriptions written with it, being in a known tongue, have been deciphered with all the certainty requisite for our purposes ; and, secondly, that by the interlineation and comparison of the Persian inscriptions with their Babylonian transcripts, great and certain progress has been made in reading the language in which the inscriptions of Assyria and Babylonia are written; so that a great amount of authentic information has already been * This is now so fully admitted by Colonel Rawlinson, in his Memoir so often referred to, and by others as competent to give an opinion on the subject as hiruself, that it scarcely seems now to be a matter of doubt.

·27 CHRONOLOGY. obtained regarding the history and arts of that people, that before was entirely hid from us, and which even now suffices to give us very clear and certain notions of what and who that people were, and of what they actually performed, as well as what they aspired to do. But scarcely less important than the knowledge of what has been done, is the certainty we acquire that the path is clear for the completion of what still remains to be accomplished ; so that it is only a question of time as to how long it will take before all these Assyrian inscriptions — and they already fill volumes — will be as available to the artist or the historical inquirer, as are any of those that have come down to us from the ages of Greek or Roman antiquity. CHRONOLOGY. There is nothing more essential in an inquiry like the present, than to obtain as clear ideas as may be possible of the chronology of the objects about to be discussed, not only relatively to one another, but also, if possible, to ascertain the exact period that elapsed between the age of one and that of another; without this, all reasoning is vague and unsatisfactory in the extreme; and it is impossible either to understand what one sees, or to derive from it that instruction which a knowledge of its position in a series most inevitably conveys.

·NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. the ruins still standing 28 By far the most important result obtained in Egypt, by the translation of the hieroglyphics, has been precisely this, that it has enabled us to classify the monuments, – to see how one building and one style grew out of another, — and in what mode the national mind expressed itself at the various epochs with which we are now familiar. This being accomplished, Egypt takes her place at once in the world's history; and any one who knows her chronology can read her history more easily by a simple inspection of than if it were written in printed volumes; and her monuments now recall the past far more vividly and distinctly than ever yet was done by mere words. And so it will be with Assyria, when we know the exact date of the various palaces that have lately been disinterred, and can assign to each its place in history, and know the dynasty and race to which it belonged: not only shall we understand the acts of which it is the exponent, but the dynasties and races will become entities and living things; not mere lists of unmeaning names, as they have hitherto been, but voices of men, who lived, and acted, and who expressed their feelings and their aspirations in those forms we now gaze upon and are trying to understand, standing face to face, as it were with the Assyrian, who lived 4000 years ago, and who saw these figures grow beneath the chisel of the sculptor, and read these inscriptions as we do now: what he saw and felt we now see and may feel, if we will give ourselves the trouble to study and to understand.

·Rawlinson. CHRONOLOGY. 29 Hitherto the difficulties of coming to a correct understanding of the subject have appeared almost insuperable, and the most various and conflicting ideas have been published on the subject. Rawlinson, as the exponent of one school of chronologers, for instance, will allow of nothing earlier than the thirteenth century B. C.; while Layard, adopting the chronology of another class of reasoners, pleads earnestly for an antiquity of at least another 1000 years being allowed to his favourite monuments. Generally, indeed, chronologers may be said to be pretty equally divided between these two epochs; one half of them following Ctesias, who places Ninus in the twenty-third century B.C., the other following Herodotus, who is supposed to place him ten centuries nearer our own time. Of late years the latter has been by far the most favourite theory, and is generally adopted by the Germans as a fixed datum, and is so used by It is of course with extreme diffidence that I differ from one so well qualified to give an opinion on such a subject as he is; but, with all due deference, I think he overlooks and despises * by far the most important element for deciding the question. For he scarcely admits the style of art to be evidence at all, but relies wholly on the inscriptions, which he has * In his paper on the Assyrian Inscriptions published in the 12th volume of the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, he says, “Such a discovery (of an historical inscription of the Koyunjik king) appears to me to be of far more importance than the mere laying bare of sculptured slabs, which, however interesting the design, neither furnish us with new ideas, nor convey any great historical truth." See note, p. 470.

·30 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. shown such talent and industry in deciphering, as the only means we have of determining the question. Layard, on the other hand, who, to an intuitive perception of the smallest shades of difference in expression, joins a familiarity with the form of Assyrian art, as great as that of Rawlinson with the inscriptions, takes a view of the matter far more concurrent with the ascertained facts of the case. Neither mode, it is true, will by itself explain the difficulty, which can only be solved by a judicious combination of both; but, of the two, when they appear irreconcilable, it will be safest, in nine cases out of ten, to rely on the form of art, rather than on the mere words of an inscription, which even in our own language it is so easy to misunderstand, and often so difficult to apply—at least so it has proved in the inquiry into the dates of mediæval and other edifices; for in every instance where the documentary evidence or inscriptions have contradicted, or seemed to contradict, the evidence derived from the style or form of the building in question, the ultimate decision has always been in favour of the latter ; and I am excessively mistaken if it must not always be so, and as much in Assyrian as in mediæval art. Documentary evidence may be altered in a thousand ways; inscriptions may be added and altered long after the period to which they apparently belong ; an absolute monarch may even knowingly inscribe a positive falsehood on the walls of his palace; similarity of names may mislead, and mistranslation deceive, besides numerous other sources ·Szo CHRONOLOGY. 31 of error. But buildings always are, if I may use and always have a purpose, which never is to deceive. Art too is always the expression of some contemporary idea, and conveys it unaltered to the latest times. No monarch, however absolute, can make the art of his time other than the expression of the feelings of that age; nor can he make it better than the advancement of his people at that time will afford. Nor till this nineteenth century has any human being ever dreamt of trying to make it Worse. It is therefore always an intelligible contemporary; one which, when read, cannot deceive, and tells its tale with a distinctness no writing can afford. It is true we often, indeed may always, require an expletive text to enable us to read art rightly, but it is to supply this that is after all the truest and most important use to which the inscriptions can be turned. In an inquiry like the present the great and most important question is, Do we at present possess materials sufficient to enable us to reconstruct the chronology of Assyria on anything like a satisfactory basis? My own impression is that we do. Much of course will afterwards be added, many gaps more satisfactorily filled up, and the whole rendered infinitely more complete. All that can now be attempted is to reconstruct the skeleton; the flesh and blood must come afterwards. Judging, however, from what has happened in Egypt, neither the monu- ·NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. dorus, and to elevate the testimony of Manetho into ments nor the inscriptions will in themselves suffice for this inquiry; what they will do, however, will be to point out to us what historian we are to believe, what tradition we are to reject; and generally they will guide us safely through the chaos of conflicting evidence that has hitherto so sorely perplexed chronologers. In Egypt the monuments and the inscriptions, with the papyri, are far more numerous and more perfect than we can hope to obtain from Assyria ; but even they would never have sufficed to enable us to reconstruct her chronology. All they have done has been to discredit the accounts of Herodotus and Diothe position of an undoubted fact. Without his lists of the dynasties, we might still be disputing whether the eighteenth dynasty or the pyramid builders were the earliest kings, if indeed it were not settled absolutely that the pyramids were more modern than the palaces at Thebes; and there is not one single dynasty in the whole thirty, whose epoch or duration has yet been obtained from any monumental or strictly Egyptian data. So far as we can at present see, the same is and must be the case with Assyria ; her civilisation was cotemporary with that of Egypt and strikingly similar in form; and nothing that has yet come to light leads us to hope for anything different in form or essence from what has been found on the banks of the Nile. Enough has, however, I conceive, been done to point out to us what in our written histories we ought to believe and what to ·CHRONOLOGY. 33 reject; and that is, I fear, all we must expect from such a source. It requires no small degree of confidence in the views about to be proposed to enable any one to make these assertions, or indeed to propose any scheme of Assyrian chronology, with the knowledge that some thousands of inscribed cylinders, referring certainly to the most important æra of Assyrian history, are now on their way to England, and may be here and deciphered, almost as soon as this volume is in the hands of the public. No one, however, would rejoice more than I should if they should place the history of the Assyrian empire on a sure and solid basis, even though in doing so they should prove me to be entirely wrong; but I have no such hope. Our knowledge of Egyptian literature is too intimate to entitle us to expect from a sister kingdom what we do not find in her; and it is almost impossible that such contradictions as we find, could have existed, or such falsifications as Ctesias transcribes could have been tolerated, had means of verifying the facts existed at the time of the Persian conquest. Still we know that subsequently to this period Berosus and Manetho constructed their histories from native records, so we should not despair: but the chance of finding again the materials from which they wrote appears to me so vague and remote as scarcely to be worth while calculating upon as a probable contingency; at least, in ordinary circumstances, such would certainly be the case; but the whole revelation of the lost Assyrian empire, which has within the last few D ·34 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. years been vouchsafed to us, is so wonderful and unexpected, that he would be bold who would dare to assert that another revelation even more wonderful and as little to be calculated upon as the first, may not yet arise out of it, to improve and enlarge our hitherto narrow views of the ancient history of mankind. Till very recently the only sources available for the reconstruction of the Chronology of Assyria were the fragmentary and often contradictory notices of her history found in the Greek, Roman or Byzantine authors, and the incidental allusions to it found in the Bible: we are now, however, able to add to these, two others, derived from her own, and from the Egyptian monuments, which from their nature are more certain, and, when understood, more satisfactory, than any reasoning can be, which rests merely on the former kind of evidence. These I propose to take up in the following order : 1. The Egyptian Chronology and its bearing on that of Assyria. 2. The native historians, together with the versions of the Greek and other foreigners who treat of the subject. 3. The Bible ; or rather, perhaps, the two latter taken together. 4. The information afforded by the recently discovered monuments and the inscriptions that cover their walls. It will not be necessary for me to enter at any length ·CHRONOLOGY. some time 35 into the subject of Egyptian Chronology, as in a work* say on this subject, and neither have my subsequent readings induced me to alter one word of what I there stated, nor has any new fact been brought to light, so far at least as I know, that alters in any way the data on which my reasoning was grounded. It would of course have been more satisfactory if the system then put forward had been subjected to a searching criticism by some qualified person, as we should then have known what could be urged for or against it, and whether some things may not have been overlooked that more prominence ought to have been given to. This, however, has not been vouchsafed to it. But, on the other hand, the views then put forward have been confirined in a most satisfactory manner by the celebrated Lepsius, in his recently published work on the Chronology of the Egyptians. * Both from his talents and the opportunities he has had, he is perhaps of all men the best qualified to decide the difficult questions which have hitherto perplexed the subject; and it is therefore no small satisfaction to me to find that on every single question on which he expresses an opinion in the volume now published, An Historical Inquiry into the True Principles of Beauty in Art; published by Longman, in November, 1848. † Die Chronologie der Ægypter, Berlin, 1849. I hope that in the quotations I am about to make from the opinions of the author, I have always correctly expressed his meaning; but, like all Germans, he generally expresses himself so guardedly and with so much reticence, that it is not always easy to make out what he means. D 2 ·36 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. he confirms the view of the case I had previously taken. Though his work was published some time after mine, he does not appear to be aware that I had written on the subject, at least, he never alludes to me or my work; we must therefore be considered as working independently ; but it ought in consequence to give the public confidence in the results arrived at, when they find that two authors, without any communication with one another, come to identically the same conclusion on subjects which have hitherto been supposed to be incapable of any exact determination. The principal facts of this Chronology, in so far at least as they bear on the present subject of inquiry, were these :-- it was first shown that the Egyptian monarchy was founded by Menes, about the year 3906 B.C.* From this period the monarchy was continued through ten dynasties for a period of twelve or thirteen centuries, without any apparent change of importance; and, as far as we can see, without their interfering with the affairs of Asia, and without any Asiatic people attempting to invade their sacred limits. During this period, it is true, they possessed the peninsula of Mount Sinai, and worked the mines there, but there is no trace of them beyond these limits. * Lepsius (p. 499.) makes this date 3893, a difference of thirteen years, not, however arising from difference of opinion regarding the data on which the calculation is based, but with regard to the reading of a passage of Syncellus, which gives the initial date, from which the 3555 years are to be reckoned. I am not now prepared to assert which reading is best, but I still prefer my own.

·CHRONOLOGY. 37 It was the kings of this epoch who built all the pyramids now found in Egypt (with perhaps one exception), the principal ones having been erected about thirty-two centuries before Christ. The eleventh and twelfth dynasties were of a different race, and far more active and ambitious than their predecessors. The third king of the latter dynasty having been the original Sesostris (the Osortasen of the monuments). According to Manetho, "he conquered all Asia in nine years, and Europe as far as Thrace.” The monuments, too, he has left in Egypt are, of their class, the oldest and the finest we yet possess. This brilliant epoch, however, was followed by a reaction the most disastrous known in the whole range of her history; for about the year B.C. 2340 Egypt was invaded by an Asiatic people hostile to her race and religion, and who held her in cruel subjection for a period of 511 years.* These were, however, at last conquered and expelled by the native princes of Egypt; and with the beginning of the eighteenth dynasty (about 1829 B.c.), a new and glorious epoch, dawned on Egypt, and the tide of conquest again rolled back towards the East. Probably the very first kings of this dynasty carried their victorious arms into Asia; but be this as it may, it is proved almost beyond a doubt that the third * It is only from an incidental allusion in Lepsius, made p. 519., that I infer his agreement with me with regard to the epoch of the Shepherd invasion, and its duration. I do not think I can be mistaken, but he expresses himself darkly and mysteriously. D 3 ·38 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. Thothmes (B. C. 1750) conquered the Naharaina, or Mesopotamia, and laid siege to Nineveh and Babylon.* From this period till the death of the first king of the nineteenth dynasty (the famous Sesostris of the Greeks (about B. c. 1372), Egypt maintained her position at home, and also, apparently, though with occasional breaks, her foreign conquests. With the death, however, of this great king, ends the glorious period of her history. Sixty years afterwardst, or about the year 1312 B. C., she lost her slave population, an event so well known to us as the Exode of the Jews; and though, occasionally, under some new dynasty, she seems for a moment about to recover some of her former greatness, she had not the stamina to support the position she attempted to regain, and at last she sunk beneath the Persian rule of the savage Cambyses, never again to be an independent kingdom under native princes. Taking these facts as they stand, if we try to apply them to the history of Assyria, we shall find that there is nothing in Egyptian history anterior to the twelfth dynasty that throws any direct light on that of the sister kingdom, nor even indirectly, beyond the inference, that as a kingdom existed at that time * See Translation of Tablet at Karnac, by S. Birch, Esq., published in the Transactions of the Royal Society of Literature, vol. ii., new series. † As I was, I believe, the first author who in recent times advocated seriously this date for the Exode, it was with no small satisfaction that I found so competent an authority as Lepsius most unhesitatingly affirm. ing all that I had previously advanced on this subject. There is a difference of two years between our dates, he taking one Rabbinical authority, I another. I have not an idea which is the correct one.

·39 CHRONOLOGY. on the banks of the Nile, another may have existed contemporaneously in the valley of the Euphrates. From the easy conquest of Asia by the Sesostris of the twelfth dynasty, however, we may infer that in his time there did not exist any great or powerful monarchy in that country, although immediately afterwards a revolution seems to have taken place, from which we may infer that one, if not two, great kingdoms rose into power in Asia, about twenty-two centuries before the Christian æra. If we knew who the Shepherd Hyksos were, who overran Egypt at this period, it would tend considerably to elucidate the matter: unfortunately, however, that subject remains as obscure as ever, and I have nothing further to offer than the conjecture I have before hazarded, that they were Haicanians*, of Armenian race, perhaps also known as the Philistines, of Palestine. I do not think it possible they could have been Arabs, and Assyrians they certainly were not, as one of their first acts, after electing a king, was to fortify Avaris (Pelusium). “For he (Salatis) regarded with suspicion the growing power of the Assyrians, who he foresaw would one day undertake an invasion of the kingdom.” | The important fact, however, for our present purpose, is that about this period (twenty-second or * It must be confessed that this theory rests mainly on a nominal similarity; but coupled with the antagonism of Haic to the Assyrian Belus, and the general date and probabilities of the case, ---- too minute to insist upon separately -taken together they make up, I think, a strong inference in favour of this view. † Manetho, as quoted by Josephus, contra Apion., lib. i. cap. 14. D4 ·pod "erful again became an Asiatic province under the 40 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. twenty-third century B.C.), Assyria was a rising power, and capable of undertaking the conquest of her fallen rival. We have no evidence that she did do so; but it is by no means improbable that without actual conquest, she may have exacted tribute from the Shepherds, and treated them as vassals. From this period till the rise of the eighteenth dynasty, there is nothing to contradict the idea of a phrates ; indeed, the inference is, that it did then exist there, but gradually of course falling into decay, as all dynasties do in that country after a more or less active existence of one or two centuries. During the ascendancy of the eighteenth dynasty, it will, I conceive, be in vain to look for either a powerful kingdom or any great monumental remains in Western Asia ; but after the death of the first king of the nineteenth dynasty, the continual flux and reflux of power would lead us to expect Assyria to rise in power as the tide of her rival's fortune again ebbed. And so I believe we shall find the most famous of Assyrian dynasties arising at this period under Ninus. From this time, though with occasional breaks, the Asiatic races continued gradually to gain the ascendancy over the African, till at last Persian dynasty of the Achæmenidæ. It is not, perhaps, necessary to insist more on these facts at present, as I shall frequently have occasion to refer to them in the sequel; and I will only add here, that in every particular instance the chronology of Egypt, as I understand it, agrees most perfectly ·be convenient to divide CHRONOLOGY. 41 with that of Assyria, as derived from other sources, which I now proceed to examine. In examining the native annals of Assyria, it will periods, and beginning with the latest and best known, to trace her history backwards till the long lines of her kings lose themselves in the mists of antiquity. The latest period of her history which belongs to the present inquiry, is the Achæmenian; extending from the accession of Cyrus, B. C. 560, to the death of Alexander, B. c. 323. Immediately preceding this is the Median period; from Arbaces, B. C. 821, to Cyrus, B. C. 560. The next may be called the lower Assyrian period ; from Ninus, B. C. 1341, to Arbaces, B. C. 821. Beyond this we have the older Assyrian empire; from Nimrod, about B. c. 2200, to Ninus B. C. 1341. And again, an undefined period before this, extending possibly to a date nearly coeval with the foundation of the Egyptian empire by Menes. With regard to the first of these periods, it will not be necessary to say anything here; its dates are too well known to require discussion. The annexed copy, however, of Ptolemy's Astronomical Canon, will be found useful for reference, and carries back the chronology of Babylon to the foundation of the æra of Nabonasar, with a certainty and exactness which, unfortunately, we are unable to attain for any other period of this history.

·42 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. Astronomical Canon of Ptolemy from Theon. {Four dertion RE Wer Years Summation of reign. of years. B.C. Foundation Nabonasar 14 14 747 of wra. Nadius 2 16 733 Chozirus or Porus 5 21 731 Ilulaius 5 26 726 Mardokempadus 12 38 1721 Arkeanus 5 43 709 Interregnum 2 45 704 Belibus 3 48 702 Apronadius 6 54 699 Rigebelus 1 55 693 Mosesi Mordakus 59 692 Interregnum 67 688 Asar-Adinus 13 80 680 Sogdochenus 20 100 667 Kinil-Adanus 22 122 647 Nabopolasarus 21 143 625 Nabokolasar 43 186 604 Nabuchodonosor. Ilouarodam 2 188 561 Nerikassolasar 4 192 559 Nabonadius 17 209 555 Cyrus takes Babylon 9 218 538 Accession 560. Cambyses (Smerdis) 8 226 529 Darius 36 262 521 Xerxes 21 283 486 Artaxerxes 41 324 465 Darius II. (Nothus) 19 343 424 Artaxerxes (Mnemon) 46 389 405 Ochus 21 410 359 Arses 2 412 338 Darius III. (Codomanus) 4 416 336 Alexander the Great 8 424 332 ·CHRONOLOGY. 43 The Median period is not, however, to be so easily disposed of; and has, indeed, formed the chief difficulty with those who have hitherto attempted to put in order the chronology of this empire. By far the greatest part, however, of the obscurity that surrounds this question, has arisen from an assumed difficulty in reconciling the history of this period, as handed down to us by the Greeks and other profane historians, with the incidental notices of the same kings contained in Scripture. According to the view I am about to propose, this discrepancy does not exist; but, on the contrary, the two accounts fully confirm and elucidate one another. Two separate and distinct accounts of this period, by Greek historians, have reached our time; the most full and particular being that of Ctesias, which chronologers are now pretty generally agreed in rejecting as apocryphal, and in substituting in its stead the other, by Herodotus, which in like manner is as generally considered the only authentic one, it being always assumed that the one differs from and contradicts the other; whereas, if I am not very much mistaken, the one is only the necessary complement of the other. The account of Ctesias is in substance as follows*: -The successors of Ninus had sunk into a state of slothfulness and debauchery, which rendered them not only incapable of any great or worthy deed, but at the same time a disgrace to their sex and to their * This account is abstracted from Diodorus, vol. ii. p. 11. et seq. of edit. Wesseling ·44 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. race. Their womanly habits so excited the contempt, and perhaps also the ambition, of Arbaces, the commander of the Median contingent, which annually came from that province to do duty in the capital, that he conspired with Belysys, the Babylonian, and the commanders of the other forces, to dethrone Sardanapalus, the slothful possessor of the throne of Ninus. With an energy, however, which the previous description of the historian would scarcely have led us to expect, the king assumed the command of those forces that remained faithful to him, and defeated the rebels in three several actions; but lulled to security by his success, he was surprised at night by his enemies, whose forces had been recruited by some Bactrians, who were coming to join the king, but were seduced by Arbaces from their allegiance. The consequence was a total defeat of the royal army, which enabled the rebels to lay siege to the capital; they do not, however, seem to have had the power of taking it *, had not the river undermined considerable portion of the wall, which falling, left a breach in its fortifications. Being warned by a prophecy that the city must fall when the river became its enemy, Sardanapalus burned himself with all his valuables in his palace, and the city surrendered to Arbaces. * Ctesias makes at this point a curious assertion in ascribing the difficulty the rebels had in pushing the siege to the fact that batteringrams, mounds of earth, and balistæ were not then invented." We now know from the sculptures, that all these three were commonly used at least 1000 years before the period of which he is speaking.

·CHRONOLOGY. 45 In gratitude for his assistance, Belysys was appointed king or satrap of Babylon. And Ctesias goes on to say, “ that after a reign of twenty-eight years, Arbaces left the kingdom to his son Mandaunkes, who reigned fifty years. To him succeeded Sosarmos thirty years; then Artoukas fifty, Arbianes twentytwo, and Artaios for forty years. After relating the circumstances of the war with the Cadusians under Parsondas, which happened during this reign, he proceeds to state that after Artaios reigned Artynes twenty-two years and Astybaras forty. During the reign of the last the Parthians revolted, and gave up their city to the Sakas, or Scythians; this was the cause of a war of some years, but which was concluded again before the death of the king. He was succeeded by Astyages, the Mede, who held the empire till it was overthrown by Cyrus. The account of Herodotus *, which is supposed to contradict this, is, that after the revolt of the Medes each people governed themselves by their own laws, for a period of time which he does not define, till Dežokes, a Median, remarkable for his integrity and strict justice, procured his election as king by his countrymen. He reigned for fifty-three years, but only over his own countrymen; and neither carried on foreign wars, nor have we any hint of his interfering with the neighbouring states. His son Phraortes, however, was more ambitious; and after subduing the Persians, he turned his arms * Herodotus, i. 96. et seq.

·NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. was slain by them in battle, and his army 46 against the Assyrians of Nineveh; showing plainly that Nineveh was still a state, governed by its own kings and sufficiently powerful to resist the Median defeated. His son Cyaxares succeeded ; and, desirous of avenging his father, again made war against the Ninevites, but was interrupted in his operations by the Scythian invasion (evidently the same alluded to by Ctesias). This last kept him in check for twentyeight years; but on their losing their power through their licentiousness and misrule, Cyaxares returned to the war with the Ninevites, and this time with success, having defeated them, and taken their capital, which he must have nearly destroyed, at least we hear no more of it in history from this date. After a reign of forty years, he was succeeded by Astyages, who reigned thirty-five years, when again we come to the epoch of Cyrus. We are enabled to eke out a little, this somewhat meagre account, by an extract from Herodotus, found in Diodorus *, where the former is made to say that between the destruction of the Assyrian empire by the Medes, and the election of Cyaxares (Dežokes the Medes seem always to have borne the same name in the second generation), an interregnum of several generations occurred. We have also a distinct date for the latter event, which is said to have occurred in the second year of the seventeenth Olympiad, B. C. 711. * Diodorus, ii. 32.

·CHRONOLOGY. e Verthrow the elder race. 47 Chronologers generally are very angry with Diodorus for this falsification of the text of Herodotus, and not without reason, if he were quoting from Clio, which is the only work we now possess of that author alluding to these facts. But it appears to me scarcely to admit of a doubt that the work to which he refers is the history of Assyria, which Herodotus tells us twice over, he was writing or had written* and I cannot but c consider the passage in Aristotlet, so often quoted, as decisive evidence that such a history was written, and in the hands of his fellow countrymen. We have, therefore, in these two authors an account of this epoch in which they mutually confirm and support one another, provided we always bear in mind that Ctesias is speaking of the Arbacidæ who reigned in Nineveh, and Herodotus of a Median dynasty, that more than 100 years afterwards arose in their native country I, and finally gathered strength Assuming this to be so, if we attempt to ascertain the dates of the events that principally interest us in this inquiry, we shall find that the final destruction of Nineveh by Cyaxares took place about the year B.C. 600, because we have for the forty years of the reign of that king, the initial and final dates of 634 Site * Herodotus, lib. i. c. 184. and lib. i. c. 106. † Aristotle, Hist. Annal. lib. viii. # The capital of this race was not, apparently, the Ecbatana of Hamadan, which was the only city of that name known to after historians, but the Atropatenian Ecbatana, situated at Takt i Soleiman, as proved by Rawlinson in a Memoir in the tenth volume of the Journal of the Royal Geographical Society of London.

·48 NINEVEHI AND PERSEPOLIS. and 595; and the history of his reign is so detailed, that we can almost assign to each year, its occupation. Thus we have the period of the arrival of the Scythian hunters, and their occupation, till the tragical story of their revenge, which led to the five years' war ending with the famous battle of the eclipse, all which must have occupied seven or eight years. Then came the first siege of Nineveh, and the interruption of twenty-eight years caused by the Scythian invasion, which brings us down, in the shortest calculation, to the year 600, supposing the siege to have been immediately resumed and carried out within the year. It may have been two or three years subsequent to this period (I would prefer 597), but it could not have been earlier. It is, however, usually placed by chronologers in 606, which I think untenable, but there is an error of six years running through the chronology of the whole of this period, which I am unable either to trace to its source or to explain; it may, nevertheless, vitiate all calculations based on these facts to that extent. We have two accounts of this final destruction of Nineveh quoted by Eusebius, one from Polyhistor, the other from Abydenus *, who calls the king of Assyria Saracus, who followed the example of Sardanapalus, in burning himself in his palace when attacked by Busalossorus (Nabopolasar), the father of Nabuchodnasar. If this is correctly related, it would place the event before the accession of the latter B. c. 604 : * Eusebius, Ar. Chron. 53.

·to the Meulan CHRONOLOGY. 49 but, from the way in which he is mentioned, I cannot help suspecting that though the war was commenced in his father's time, the city was not destroyed till Nebuchodnasar had succeeded to his father's throne. * Unfortunately, Herodotus has left us no figures from which we can ascertain what date he assigned Ctesias, they would carry back that event to B.C. 877; but, as I shall presently show that Ctesias was certainly guilty of extending the reigns of the earlier kings of Assyria to more than double their real length, we may safely adopt the shorter dates for his second and fourth kings, and instead of fifty and fifty years, which he assigns to them, allow them twenty and thirty respectively, as is done by Eusebius and Syncellus, which will reduce the date to B.C. 827. My own impression is that the true date is B.C. 821; but there is still here the old error of six years, which haunts us every where. Africanus, as quoted by Syncellus, places this event A. M. 4675, or B.C. 825.† Eusebius forty years before the first Olympiad I, or B. C. 816 ; in his Canon, however, which is by far the most careful and trustworthy document we have of its class, the * In the other extract (Euseb. Chron. 46.), from Polyhistor, where the same event is narrated in nearly similar terms, it is placed even more distinctly in the reign of Nabopolasar, but both authors make him and the destruction of Nineveh as contemporary with, and happening during, the reign of Astyages, which is puzzling. Must we carry the whole Median chronology of Herodotus six years backwards ? + Syncellus, pp. 165. 198. | Euseb., Chron. Armen., p. 48.

·*3 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. took ljon ent occurs in the year of Abraham 1196, or B. C. 9, and the accession of Deïokes is placed in the cond year of the eighteenth Olympiad, or four ars too late if we may trust Herodotus; both events, erefore, must be set back by that amount. Notwithstanding this, I fear there is not yet a suffiincy of data for fixing exactly the year in which rdanapalus burnt himself; but I think we may fely assert that it was not before B. C. 827, nor later an B. C. 817; and this is, at all events, quite near ough for our present purpose. It only remains, before leaving this branch of the bject, to say a few words regarding the kings of ssyria, mentioned in Scripture as invading Judea yout this period. The first of these is Phul, who about the year c. 769 came up against Manahem, but was connt with a tribute of 1000 talents of silver, and reirned. Thirty-one years afterwards, however, anoier king, Tiglath Pilneser, invaded the country, and edesh, and Hazor and Gilead and Galilee, all the ind of Naphtali; and carried them captives to Asyria." Fifteen years after this event, a third king, Shalvaneser, laid siege to Samaria, and after a siege of hree years took it, and carried away the inhabitants nto captivity. He afterwards besieged Tyre for ve years, without success.t * 2 Kings, xv. 29. † Josephus, Ant. Jud. ix. 14. 1.

·CHRONOLOGY. 51 In extent of conquest, however, these kings were surpassed by a fourth, Senacherib, who carried his conquering arms to the confines of Egypt, about the year B. c. 711. We have here, therefore, a dynasty of at least four warlike Assyrian kings, who during sixty years gradually extended their conquests towards the west and south, from the confines of Syria to the borders of Egypt. If we were forced by chronological difficulties to assume that they were the predecessors of Sardanapalus, then indeed it might be affirmed that the Scriptures were in direct contradiction to profane history. For if there is one point on which all the historians of this epoch are consentaneous, it is that the later kings of the dynasty founded by Ninus were sunk in the most abject sloth, and did nothing worthy of being recorded. It would also be in direct contradiction to all experience; for I believe that there is no instance of a dynasty of Eastern monarchs who, having once sunk into that state of slothful lethargy which seems to be their destiny, were ever able to rouse themselves to such warlike exertions as are here narrated. If, however, we apply this history to the Medo-Assyrian dynasty of the Arbacidæ, the whole becomes not only intelligible, but probable. They were precisely such a race, young and vigorous, as we should expect to find, trying to extend their newly-acquired empire by conquest: and when we know more of their real names and their deeds which I trust we shall soon do from inscriptions - feel no doubt but that we shall easily be able to -I ·NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. terials now at our 52 identify each and all of them. At present this is not easy; as our lists are, I am convinced, meagre and imperfect, two or three reigns being run into one, and the names sadly mutilated. There cannot, however, I think, be much difficulty in identifying Phul with the third, Sosarmus, and Tiglath Pilneser with his successor.* The dates, however, do not accord when we attempt to identify Salmaneser with Artaios, nor can we find room for Senacherib. Some confusion there certainly is here, which it is needless to attempt to explain at the present time, as the mafor the purpose, whereas we may rest with almost perfect confidence, in the hope that the inscriptions will clear up such a difficulty as this. One of the causes of confusion at this period appears to be, that in the Bible the word Assyria is sometimes used as a synonyme for Mesopotamia, and in consequence some of these kings may have been kings of Babylonia, and for a time of both places; which increases the difficulty at present, but may eventually make the solution more easy. Be this as it may, I look upon it as one of the best established facts in this period of Assyrian history that these biblical kings were not any of the predecessors of Sardanapalus, but some of the successors of Arbaces or Belesys, who had usurped their throne. * This view of the matter is far from being original: it was ably advocated by Mr. Dickenson, in a paper in the fourth volume of the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, and has been proposed by others before him.

·CHRONOLOGY. 53 I think they were almost certainly the Arbacidæ of Nineveh, but this is not so absolutely certain as the main fact which reconciles sacred and profane history at this point, and renders the principal epochs of the Median dynasty as nearly certain as can well be expected in such an inquiry. When, however, we come to examine the length of the period during which the descendants of Ninus occupied the throne of Nineveh, before their overthrow by Arbaces, we do find Ctesias and Herodotus in direct contradiction to one another, as Diodorus * would lead us to expect we should: the former asserting that thirty kings succeeded one another from in a space of 1360 or 1306† years (for both readings are found); Herodotus, on the contrary, merely stating the length of their duration at 520 years), without giving the number of reigns. The former account we may safely reject, for the very simple reason, that it is impossible, no dynasty of kings, either in Asia or elsewhere, ever having averaged upwards of forty-three years per reign; and even if we admit the forty or forty-five reigns of Eusebius and Syncellus, the average duration is still an impossibility. Confining our observations to those dynasties only who have reigned in this part of Asia, we find in the Ptolemaic Canon above quoted (p. 42.) twenty-nine father to son, * Diodorus, p. 444., ed. Wesseling. † Diodorus, lib. ii. p. 112., et. seq. | Herodotus, i. xcv.

·NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. are 54 kings and two interregnums in 424 years, or an average of about fourteen years to each reign. The dynasty of the Sassanidæ gives very nearly the same result — thirty kings in 418 years. That of the kalifs, however, gives a much smaller average, being fifty-seven reigns in 626 years, or an average of eleven years to each reign. The Samanian dynasty averaged only ten years to each reign, the Gaznavides fourteen, the Seljukians eight, which is also the average of the Mogul Tartars; and the present or Sufi dynasty have averaged eleven years. About the same results are obtained from the Indian and other Eastern dynasties, twelve years being a fair average, fifteen an extreme one. ceptions. The kings of Israel, for instance, from Saul to Zedekiah, averaged twenty-one years ; but I know of no other instance of such longevity. Even however if this reasoning from analogy were not sufficient, we have the direct and positive testimony of Kephalion*, that not one of these Assyrian kings reigned for twenty years, so degenerate and enervate had they become from their slothful indolence. If this is so, their reigns could not have averaged more than twelve years, or fifteen at the utmost; so that thirty kings — if there were only that number - would not suffice for even the more moderate period of Herodotus. To a person unacquainted with the mode in which history is written in the East, it may appear strange * Syncellus, p. 167.

·CHRONOLOGY. 55 that such a monstrous falsification should not only have been perpetrated, but have passed almost unquestioned down till very modern times. Unfortunately, however, this is not the only, nor by any means the most extravagant mystification of truth which is found in Eastern annals, where imagination is much more consulted than the more critical logic to which we are accustomed. The mode in which these falsifications are made is something like the following. Supposing some English chronicler, some time hence, were to attempt to compile a history of England from such scanty materials as are usually at the command of an Asiatic historian, he would find that this country was invaded from France by Julius Cæsar about the Christian era; but all the names of the kings between Julius Cæsar and William the Conqueror being lost and forgotten, those that succeeded the latter would have the length of their reigns doubled, and by the assistance of an interregnum or two, and reigns of one or two years, if any such existed, - being made 41 and 52 or some such figure, the desired succession would be completed. Thus James I. would be made to coincide with 1066; or, as William III. accords more in name and action, he would, if possible, be carried up as far, either by amplification or t transposition, the author quietly making up his mind that it must be so, though he certainly did not find it so written. That this is not merely a supposition is evident from what we know of Indian chronology, which ·56 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. about the time of Ctesias was altered by a race kindred to the Persians to nearly the same extent. Thus we find that Arrian*, quoting from Megasthenes, states that the Indians enumerated 153 kings before the time of Alexander as reigning during 6042 years, whereas it is now almost certain that the latter figure should be 2786; and from what we know of the list, the number of kings ought to be considerably increased. Since then, the falsification has gone on to a far greater extent; but here, as in Persia, the great epochal dates seem never to have been lost sight of or altered, only the names and events belonging to a lower one are transferred to a higher, and these again thrust further back in the history. Thus in India the heroes and events of the Mahabarat, which was contemporary with the war of Troy, are transferred to the epoch of the great immigration of the Sanscrit or Indo-Germanic races into India, or to B.C. 3101, and the events anterior to this, to astronomical periods of most preposterous duration. So, in Assyria, I conceive that Ninus and his acts are transferred by those who compounded the chronology which Ctesias copied, to the age of Nimrod, and the events of his age to the period of the deluge. To this, however, I shall return presently ; in the meanwhile we are left with the 520 years of Herodotus as the great authority for fixing the date of Ninus, which, if my view of the chronology of the * Arrian, Hist. Ind., chap. x.

·px 66 CHRONOLOGY. 57 Medo-Assyrian period is correct, will be 821+520, or B. C. 1341. There is, however, a passage in Polyhistor, as quoted by Eusebius *, which, as it comes almost certainly from the native Berosus, is entitled to the utmost confidence, and leads us almost exactly to the same date. syrians, and again minutely enumerates the names of forty-five kings, assigning to them a term of 526 years, after whom he says there was a king of the Chaldeans whose name was Phulus," &c. From the Bible we know the date of this last-named king to have been about B. c. 770, which added to the above sum gives 1296; to this, however, we must add the reigns of Ninus and Semiramis, which, unfortunately, we do not yet know. The Ctesian dates of fifty-two and forty-two years are evident exaggerations, like all the rest of that system. If a duplication, the date would be almost identical with that of Herodotus. As, however, Layard is now, I believe, excavating in the palaces built by these sovereigns, we may safely leave this question till the result of his discoveries is made known. I am not aware of any other date bearing directly on this subject, unless it be one in Thallus, who gives the date of Belus as 222 years before the fall of Troy t, and consequently about B. C. 1404. If he took * Armen. Chron., p. 39. † Lactantius, Epit. Div. Inst, 8vo. Cantab. 1718, p. 40. In Theoph. ad Ant., 281, the figures are 322.

·58 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. Belus for the father of Ninus, as most of the Byzantine chronologers did, this would come to nearly the same thing. Altogether, I think it admits of very little doubt that the middle of the fourteenth century B. c. is the period to which we must ascribe this revival of the Assyrian empire; for besides the certainty of it acquired from native historians, it is the one that accords most perfectly with the Egyptian chronology above set forth, for it is just at this time that the Egyptian monarchy perished, and so allowed its ancient rival again to rear its head. It is also by no means impossible that it was the establishment of a powerful monarchy of his own race in the native land of his people, that first encouraged Moses to attempt the deliverance of his countrymen from their Egyptian bondage, and to lead them to their promised inheritance in the land inhabited by their forefather Abraham. Except the names of the kings and the record of their sloth, there is nothing known of these five inglorious centuries. In this all their chroniclers agree, and it is fully confirmed from external circumstances; from which we learn that 170 years after their commencement, the reigning king of Nineveh was unable to rescue his vassal Priam of Troy from the vengeance of the Greeks under Agamemnon*; and shortly after this we find independent colonies of Grecians establishing themselves all along the coasts * Eusebius, in Armen., p. 42., et seq., especially the extracts from Kephalion therein contained.

·CHRONOLOGY. s 80 established, but maintained 59 of Asia Minor, in countries which we can scarcely doubt formed part of the empire of Ninus. But the most striking proof of their impotence, is the rise of the Jewish power under David, and its extension under his son Solomon over the greater part of Palestine, and almost to the banks of the Euphrates, so as to be at that period, if not the greatest, at least the most brilliant kingdom of Western Asia; itself till these rois fainéans passed from the scene, and a new and more vigorous race again attempted to regain the empire their predecessors had lost through their indolence and sloth. Before the period of Ninus, our safest guide, Herodotus, deserts us entirely, as there is not even the most distant allusion to it in the only work of his that has come down to our time. If, however, I am correct in my view of the falsified chronology of Ctesias, he may help us to an epochal date, though not to the facts belonging to it; for he places the foundation of the empire so nearly the date assigned to it by others, that I should be almost inclined to adopt his date in preference to many. He makes it out thus: First year of Cyrus Medes Assyrians B. C. 560 317 1360 or 1306 2183 or 2243 ·60 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. Of these two dates, perhaps the latter is to be preferred, as Diodorus, quoting him, states that the monarchy began more than 1000 years before the war of Troy; the first is exactly that amount; and therefore could hardly be the one meant. To reach this date, however, he undoubtedly falsified the Assyrian list, and also, I think, most certainly the beginning of the Median one, as before stated, and by so doing carried up the initial year of the reign of Ninus to that of Nimrod, whence the confusion afterwards caused by confounding these two kings together, as is done by Apollodorus. * Syncellus places this event A. M. 3216 or B. c. 2284, quoting from Africanus. The Armenian Eusebius, places it 1300 years before the fortieth year before the first Olympiad, or B. C. 2116; and there are several other dates scattered among the fragmentary remains of ancient authors, all of which seem to point to about the same period for the foundation of the monarchy. Thus, Æmilius Sura, quoted by V. Paterculus, places it 1995 years before B. C. 150 or 2145; the astronomical observations brought by Callisthenes from Babylon extended to 2237, or 1903 before the time of Alexander, B. C. 336. By far the most distinct evidence on the subject, however, is that contained in the extract from Polyhistor found in the Armenian Chronicle which there can be very little doubt is an abstract from Berosus's work; and if we could feel quite sure that * Apollodorus, Frag., p. 440., ed. Mülleri, Paris, 1841. † Chron. Arm., p. 39.

·CHRONOLOGY. 61 we had now the correct figures, it might be considered as almost definitive; unfortunately, however, the date of the second dynasty is omitted in the text, and only supplied by a marginal interpolation by some unknown hand, and the length of reigns assigned to the fourth dynasty is suspicious, though in so small a number there is nothing impossible in it. Taking it, however, as it stands, it makes the period of the older Assyrian monarchy 976 years, as follows: Eight Median kings, reigning during 224 years. Eleven kings 48 (?) Forty-nine Chaldean kings Nine Arabian kings 245 458 years. 976 If we add to these the first year of Ninus of Ninus 1341 2317 we obtain a date somewhat more ancient than is given by any of our other authorities, but not so much so as to vitiate the conclusion that the monarchy was founded about twenty-two or twentythree centuries before our era, which is all that is here contended for, and all that is, perhaps, attainable in present circumstances. The last and most important authority on this subject is the Biblical Chronology, which places Nimrod about the year 2218, whose date, therefore, we may consider as almost certainly fixed within certain limits, ·62 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. still open to criticism, but not materially affecting the results here arrived at. In attempting, however, to glean a few historical particulars to illustrate this long period, we are even worse off than for the one last considered. If, however, my view of Egyptian chronology is correct, and its bearing on Assyria what would consequently result, it would be in vain to look for any illustrious names or striking events during the last five centuries of this epoch, any more than we should expect to find them in Egypt, during the previous five centuries of Shepherd domination. In the beginning of this period, however, we have a dynasty quoted by Syncellus *, which I have no hesitation in identifying with the first dynasty of the eight Median kings, quoted from Polyhistor, on the preceding page; for, in the first place, the name of the first king, Evexius, is in the text identified with Nimrod, and the duration of the dynasty is the same, viz., 225 years for 224, and the number of kings as nearly so as is usually found in these remote times, seven in the one place, and eight in the other; one discrepancy, however, occurs, which may sidered of some importance, which is, that Polyhistor calls them Median kings; the authority Syncellus quotes, calls them Chaldeans. Whether this is really of any importance, others must decide. I would not lay much stress upon it, as the same author, in another place, speaking of the two first kings, calls nav be con- * Syncellus, p. 149.

·CHRONOLOGY. 63 them Chaldeans, but their followers Medes ; or, at all events, confounds the two denominations, so that it is difficult to know to which he applies the term. To this dynasty I shall return presently, but in the meanwhile we may dispose of the remainder of the chronology in a very few words, as almost all we know of it is contained in a passage of the Armenian Eusebius, which is as follows*: - "In addition to the above, Polyhistor continues thus: -- After the deluge, Evexius held possession of the coun: try of the Chaldeans during a period of four neri, and he was succeeded by his son, Comasbelus, who held the empire four neri and five sossi. But from the time of Xisuthrus and the deluge, to that at which the Medes took possession of Babylon, there were eighty-six kings. Polyhistor mentions each of them by name from the book of Berosus, the duration of the reigns of all of which kings comprehends a period of 33,091 years ; but when their power was thus firmly established, the Medes suddenly levied forces against Babylon to surprise it, and to place on the throne kings chosen from among themselves.'» Here follow the eight Median kings above alluded to. The corresponding passage in Syncellus (p. 76.), scarcely throws any additional light on the matter, except that he gives a date, which seems to be Polyhistor's, for the commencement of these eighty-six kings, which he places A. M. 2405, or B. C. 3095, -- a date I am inclined to place some confidence in, as it Eusebius, Arm. Chron., p. 39.

·and the 7 kinos 64 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. differs only six years from the great Indian epoch, 3101, which was derived from this country, or, at all events, from a people coming from central Asia. It is true such a date would only allow an average of about ten years to each king's reign; but, after what has been stated above, I hardly think this an objection. * The remainder of the passage I cannot translate, nor do those who have attempted it before me seem to be more able to make sense of it; but I think I can perceive that the confusion arises from the fact that when Ninus was transferred backwards to the age of Nimrod, he, with his son Comasbelus, was necessarily transferred to the beginning of the previous epoch in history, which gave rise to a confusion in the accounts of both Eusebius and Syncellus, which it is now so difficult to explain. † If instead of this somewhat doubtful date it is preferred to allow a somewhat longer average duration of reign to those eighty-six kings, an earlier date might be assigned to the commencement of the In the subsequent period, or from the Median invasion to Semiramis, we have 77 kings, according to Polyhistor, in 976 years, or about 12 to each reign. † The best translation I can make of the passage is, “ From or after the time of these 86 kings (viz. 2 kings of the Chaldæans, Evexius, and Comasbelus, and 84 of the Medes), he, Polyhistor, introduces Zoroaster of the Chaldæans, reigning with him for 190 solar years," &c.; from which it appears to me almost certainly to be inferred that Evexius, Nimrod, and Zoroaster are transferred back, as above explained, from their rightful places to the head of the great preceding epochs, and must be brought back to them to render either the facts or the chronology intelligible. Syncellus, p. 78., ed. Goar.

·CHRONOLOGY. 65 Assyrian Empire ; but I know of no mode of arriving at it except by such an arbitrary adjustment, unless we adhere to this date, which consequently I would, for the present at least, prefer doing. The Bible, unfortunately, throws very little light on this period of Assyrian history. We have, it is true, an account of the migration of Abraham, which, in spite of the high authority opposed to me, I cannot thinking took place from a northern country not from Werka, to the south of Babylon. Its relative date is slightly subsequent to the æra of Nimrod. After this, during his lifetime, we find an Assyrian king, who, according to Josephus *, " at this time had he dominion over Asia," interfering in the affairs of Syria, and holding Sodom ---one apparently of the principal cities of that day ---- in bondage for twelve years. The king's name is not mentioned, but only those of the four satraps who commanded his army. If I am correct in my chronology, this is one of the campaigns which we may expect to find recorded on the walls of the oldest palace at Nimroud; but this incident is all the Bible affords for the elucidation of this period, no other mention being made of the Assyrians till after the Exode. These are, it is true, but faint and meagre notices from which to attempt to reconstruct the history of a great nation, and all that could have been made of it is but such a skeleton as I have sketched. The last few years, however, have given hopes that we may clothe this skeleton with flesh, and reintegrate the * Josephus, J. Ant., lib. i. ch. 9. F ·66 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. such as history in nearly its pristine integrity. Henceforth we must look to the monuments and inscriptions for this, and to them we shall now turn to see what light they have already thrown on the subject. Before, however, doing this, it is necessary to remark that there is, and probably always will be, very great difficulty in identifying proper names, as they are seldom if ever spelt phonetically, but by monograms, “The beloved of the God Temen,” “The servant of Bar," and may consequently be variously pronounced; a fact, the discovery of which we owe to Colonel Rawlinson*, but which already accounts for half the confusion we find among the ancient chroniclers. It will perhaps add to the distinctness of what I am about to say, if, before proceeding to identify the builders of the palaces of Assyria with the names recorded in her annals, I briefly allude to the geographical distribution of the ruins themselves. So far as we at present know, there are three great mounds or groups of ruins situated along the line of the river within the boundaries of Assyria. On both edges of the plain there are smaller ruins, which may have been palaces or cities, but cannot compare with the three greater ones. Of these latter the most northern is situated on the eastern or left bank of the Tigris, * “ The Assyrians, I am convinced, did not distinguish their proper names by the sound but by the sense; and it was thus allowable, in alluding to a king by name, to employ synonymes to any extent, whether these synonymes were terms employed to denote the same deity, or whether they were different words used to express the same idea." (Journ. Asiat. Soc. vol. xii. p. 423.)

·CHRONOLOGY. 67 opposite Mosul, and has always been considered, and I think correctly, as the true site of the ancient Nineveh. About thirty miles further south, near the junction of the Great Zab with the Tigris, is situated the second great ruin, now familiar to us by its modern name of Nimroud; and about forty miles still further to the southward is the third group, lying this time on the right bank of the river, and known to the Arabs as Kalah Shergat, or Toprak Kalaa. * So little of interest has yet been found in this latter site, when compared at least with the others, that no attempt has been made to identify it with any city mentioned in ancient history. The identity of Nimroud has, however, given rise to considerable speculation, --Layard considering it as the southern extremity of Nineveh, Rawlinson identifying it with Halah, and others with Resen; which last I have very little doubt is the correct view of the matter. The determination of the point rests principally on the well known passage in the book of Genesist, “ And out of that land [Babel, &c.] went forth Asshur;" or, according to the marginal and perhaps more correct translation, “He [Nimrod] went out into Assyria, and builded Nineveh, and Rehoboth, and Calah; and Resen between Calah and Nineveh : the same is a great city." The latter part of this quotation seems to me quite fatal to the idea of Nimroud being Calah; for, * Rich's Map of the Tigris, vol. ii. p. 355., and elsewhere. † Chap. x. ver. 11.

·68 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. if it were so, where is Resen ? There is no mound or vestige of a ruin between that place and Mosul which could represent the city which the writer of the book of Genesis evidently meant to distinguish as the greatest city of the three; whereas, if we take Kalah Shergat for the Calah of Scripture, I do not think it would be possible in so few words to give a more correct view of the position of what was then the great city of Assyria. So far as the excavations go, they fully confirm this view of the matter, for Nimroud was then certainly the great city par excellence, and the principal residence of the kings of Assyria. At the same time I do not think that the reading of the name in the inscription, which Rawlinson admits to be so extremely doubtful, can be allowed to weigh against this positive testimony, though it is the only ground on which his identification of this city with the Calah of Genesis rests; while, on the other hand, the similarity of Resen and Larissa is striking, and ought, I think, to be definitive. Without, however, insisting too much on the nominal similarity, I may again refer to what I pointed out elsewhere * that the name the Etruscans assumed to themselves was Rasena or Resena, coupled with the fact that, wherever they or a cognate Pelasgic race are found, one of their principal cities at least bears the same name of Larissa. These nominal similarities, however, are singularly unsafe guides, but the passage of Genesis is too distinct to be put aside. v True Principles of Beauty in Art, p. 440.

·CHRONOLOGY. 69 Another theory of the geography of this locality has been based on a passage in the Book of the Prophet Jonah, who calls it " an exceeding great city, a city of three days' journey," —or say about forty miles, and which consequently includes Koyunjik and Nimroud in the same city, and appears to me nearly as improbable as the length of reign ascribed by Ctesias to the successors of Ninus. The true explanation of the passage will, I believe, be found in the meaning attached to the word "city" in Assyria in those days, as in India to this hour, where it is a term applied to the lands belonging to a village, town, or city, and not to the group of houses which generally occupies their centre; as the word “farm” does with us now, or “town" did with the Scotch, and "civitas" with the Latins. The true boundary of the city of Nineveh I believe to be perfectly well identified in the present day, by the mounds opposite Mosul, as may be seen from the plan on the next page, copied from the very careful survey of them made in 1820, by Mr. Rich, which shows a city extending about three miles and a half north and south, and about one inile and a half across, towards its northern extremity; the whole of the principal enclosure occupying about ten millions of square yards*, which, allowing fiftyt yards to each inhabit- * Rich's Travels in Kordistan, &c. vol. ii. p. 28. I may mention that there being no scale attached to this plan, all measurements based upon it are liable to a slight inaccuracy in amount. I have added a scale from the text, which cannot be far out, but it cannot be considered as absolutely correct. † See Topography of Jerusalen, by the Author, p. 50.

·70 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. ant, would give a population of about 200,000 souls. To this we must add, say, 50,000 for the eastern No. 1. VUX KHA! guitามพร RIVER ir RIS MAONI: CHESS BO YAS Plan of Nineveh. suburb, which appears to have been enclosed by a second wall, and probably as many more for another suburb, between the city and the river, or, say a population of 300,000 souls to the whole; which is quite as great a number as any historical indication would justify us in assuming, or that the circumstances of the country would lead us to expect could be supported so congregated together. It certainly was quite enough to astonish and confound the Grecian or Jewish historians or travellers, accustomed as they were to the little capitals of their ·CHRONOLOGY. 71 native lands, which were considered as large and iinportant cities, with one tenth of this number of inhabitants. Of the mounds scattered over or on the edges of the Assyrian plain, only one has been thoroughly examined; but it yielded the singularly interesting palace of Khorsabad, built by the father of the builder of the great palace of Nineveh. This mound is situated about twelve miles north of the latter place, but has not yet been identified with any city or palace inentioned in ancient history, or by any geographer of ancient times. If my chronology is correct, it may be the Telane of Stephanus Byzantinus; but of this hereafter. When the other Assyrian mounds shall have been examined, we may have much to add to this somewhat meagre list; but even as it stands, I believe we now, by a singular turn of good fortune, possess a specimen of each of the great epochs of Assyrian history, and are able to examine the form and appreciate the merits of the sculpture and the arts of that people at each of the great epochal periods pointed out above, having the old or north-west palace at Nimroud to represent the age of Nimrod; the palaces of Khorsabad and Koyunjik, for that of Ninus and his successors; the south-west palace at Nimroud, to represent the age of the Arbacidæ; and the palace at Persepolis, which undoubtedly belongs wholly to the Achæmenian age: a history of art, extending through two thousand years, of which a short time ago we knew so little, but which now promises to ·NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. of time that elapsed between them? Rawlinson would at 72 become as familiar to us as any form of ancient art which has survived the wreck of time. All those who have turned their attention to the subject of Assyrian antiquities, admit that the earlier buildings at Nimroud are in reality the oldest things yet discovered in Assyria; next to them come the two palaces of Khorsabad and Koyunjik, built by father and son The one question remaining is, what is the date of the later edifices, and what the interval place the latter kings contemporary with Solomon* (a supposition in itself wholly fatal to his chronology); and admits an interval of only about 100 years between the two epochs. Layard, without attempting to fix deinitive dates to either, insists repeatedly on a very much longer interval having occurred between the erection of the two palaces, basing his reasoning principally on the great change that had taken place, not only in the style of art, but in dress, arms, and even in the features and characters of the people represented. Certainly no one is so well qualified to express an opinion on such a subject, not only from his familiarity with the art in all its forms and in situ, but which he is surpassed by no one I know of. At the same time I do not think any one can pass A * Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol. xii. p. 421. 471.

·CHRONOLOGY. 6 The Chaldæans were the first that assumed the 73 from an examination of the specimens brought to Paris by M. Botta, to those procured for the British Museum by Mr. Layard, without at once perceiving so striking a difference in the forms of utterance, and such a falling off in purity and elegance of execution, as could have been the work of only a long series of years. So much is this the case, that it would require chronological data of far more completeness and certainty than have yet been brought forward to invalidate a conclusion based on so uniistakable a fact. My own impression is, that the interval was, as hinted above, eight or nine centuries, and that the old palace of Nimroud belongs to the age of Nimrod and his successors, and Khorsabad to Ninus. My reasons for this conclusion I shall now attempt to state as briefly as possible. In Syncellus* we find the following dynasty of Assyrian kings:- title of kings; of these the first was Evechius, known to us by the name Nembrod (Nimrod); he reigned at Babylon 63 years + Chomasbelus 73 Porus 35 Nechubes 43 Nabius 48 Oniballus 40 Zinzerus 46 225 years. * Syncellus, p. 90. † I may here remark, that the length of the reigns of the two first kings of this dynasty are reductions from the Neri and Sari, in which they NE ·74 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. his son. On the other hand, Major Rawlinson has already been able to make out from the oldest group of monuments at Nineveh the following names * : - Beltakat, probably not connected with the succeeding names, and may therefore be the mythical Belus, the founder of the empire (3095 ?) Temenbar I., whose relation to the following kings is also uncertain : Hevenk I. Katibar, Servant of Bar, Assar-adan-pal, Sardanapalus his son, the builder of the north-west palace at Nimroud. Temenbar II., his son, the builder of the central palace, and the king whose exploits are recorded on the obelisk in the British Museum. Fino Husi Hem, or Shemir Hem, his son. Hevenk II. his son, the last king. My own impression is that these two dynasties are almost undoubtedly identical, though it may, perhaps, be yet premature to attempt to identify the individual kings with one another. In the first place, Rawlinson himself pointed out the similarity of the name of Hevenk with Evechius. He reads it also doubtfully (p. 424.) as Komosbelos; are elsewhere stated, to solar years --Saros being taken at ten years, the Neros at one year eight months, and the Sossos at two months. This being a purely arbitrary calculation, the above dates for these two reigns are by no means to be depended upon. For this reduction see Lepsius, Chronologie der Egypter, p. 8. * See his Memoirs in the Journal of the Asiatic Society, vol. xii. p. 421., et seq.

·CHRONOLOGY, 75 while one of the readings of Syncellus gives the same result, stating that Cosmasbelus was another name for Evechius. I am not, however, inclined to insist that the name found on the monuments is actually that of Nimrod; but as the grandson almost invariably took his grandfather's name, as at least one of his titles, these two names, being found in these two dynasties, point I think to an unmistakable identity, as far as such a nominal similarity can be insisted upon in the present state of our knowledge of the alphabet and language. A more important point, however, is the mention of the Egyptian tribute on the obelisk, but without any hint of an Egyptian war or conquest; a state of things that could only, I conceive, exist during the period that the Shepherds held Egypt as above alluded to, and, therefore, anterior, at least, to the nineteenth century B. C. - the probability is by 200 or 300 years. As I shall presently show, the campaigns of the Khorsabad king in Syria must have taken place long anterior to Saul's time, probably immediately after the Exode, or they would certainly have been mentioned in the Bible. If, therefore, we allow any interval of importance to have elapsed between the two periods, we must at once ascend beyond the eighteenth dynasty, which brings us to the same conclusion. * Syncellus, p. 78. Evnxoov óv kat Kopaoßnlov.

·76 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. It would not, perhaps, be casy to prove it, but I cannot avoid the conviction that the campaign recorded in the tenth year of the obelisk annals is virtually the contemporary bulletin of the earliest war recorded in Scripture; for if we read as Sodom, the name now doubtfully read as Shalumas, every circumstance of time and place accords most perfectly without one valid objection to the identification, that I know of. Indeed, the whole tenor of the inscriptions, as far as they have been deciphered, points to such a period as this, and to no other; for below the period of the eighteenth dynasty there is certainly not room for two great building and conquering dynasties of kings. One, therefore, must be placed beyond it; and if this is granted, there is not much to choose from - the question lies in a very narrow compass. But, on the whole, the view of the matter I have proposed seems to me to fit all the exigences of the case to as satisfactory an extent as could be hoped for. We may, therefore, for the present, at least, safely assume, that the oldest Assyrian buildings yet discovered, -the north-west and central palaces at Nimroud, and the palace of Kalah Shergat, - were built by the dynasty who immediately succeeded Nimrod, and who consequently were contemporary with Abraham and the Shepherd Kings of Egypt; and that their date is about twenty-one or twenty-two centuries before our era. Neither the Bible nor the profane authors who ·CHRONOLOGY. 77 have come down to us, are very distinct on the subject; but I think the probable inference is, that we must look for the earlier dynasties, and consequently for older buildings, only in Babylonia, and not in Assyria at all; but this is of course a mere inference, which a stroke of a pickaxe may any day upset. Once we pass the period of the eighteenth dynasty, our inquiries as to who the builders of Khorsabad and Koyunjik were, are confined within even more narrow limits than in the former case; for there are no kings who could build such palaces, or carry on such wars as are recorded on their walls, except Ninus and Semiramis, unless it be the scriptural kings Salmaneser, Senacherib, &c. I have before given my reason for believing these latter to be the Median dynasty; and, besides this, I think Rawlinson's argument* quite fatal to such an identification, for we have several warlike kings to find a place for, after the builders of Khorsabad; and as they certainly were not the slothful successors of Ninus, they must have been these Medo-Assyrians. I therefore conceive Khorsabad to have been the first building of Ninus, the founder of this second dynasty. That the Khorsabad king was the first great king of his line is evident from his general silence regarding his ancestors; and the general description of his campaigns, in so far as the inscrip- See Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol. xii. p. 450., et seq.

·78 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. tions describing them have yet been published, is, I think, evidently such as could only have taken place at the period I have assigned to them, - before the war of Troy, or the settlement of the Jews in Palestine; and is, indeed, such as generally to accord with the description of them given in Diodorus. One passage in an inscription has given rise to considerable discussion ; but, instead of settling his era, as it might have been expected to do, has merely allowed a larger margin to the uncertainty. It is the allusion to the tribute received from Biarka, king of Misr, or Egypt. This name has been generally supposed, and correctly, I think, to represent Bocchoris; but unfortunately no king of that name occurs in the Egyptian lists of a time to agree with any hypothesis hitherto proposed. My own belief is, that the solution of the riddle will be found in the passage of Lysimachus quoted by Josephus *, where he gives that name to the king under whom the Exode took place, showing, I think, undoubtedly, that Amenophis, the unfortunate king who ascended the throne of Egypt B. c. 1322 or 1325, bore also that name at a date which coincided most minutely with the chronology here proposed. I have before hinted, that Khorsabad might have been called Telané, though the surmise is only founded on an assertion of Stephanus Byzantinus Ť, who calls it “one of the most ancient cities of Syria [Assyria], where Ninus resided before the building Contra Apion. i. 34. † Steph. Byzan. voce Tsavn.

·CHRONOLOGY. 79 of Nineveh ;” a description that would accord exactly with the view I take of the matter, though it is only a slight ground for identification. If Khorsabad was built by Ninus, Koyunjik was built by Semiramis, Ninyas, and their successors. If this were so, it might at first sight be expected that we should there find some trace of that celebrated queen. In the first place, however, it must be borne in mind that her acts, and even her existence, are very apocryphal; but admitting them to any reasonable extent, we find the same phenomenon at Babylon, where all the principal works are ascribed by the trustworthy Herodotus to a queen Nitochris, whose name, however, is no where to be found; but every brick of Babylon, and for a hundred miles round, bears the stamp of her husband, or son, or, at all events, contemporary king, Nebuchadnezzar.* This being so, it is more than probable that the great Koyunjik palace was founded by Ninus, but continued by his wife and in whose age the slabs and inscriptions would be added, as they were the last part of the work that was executed, though the terraces on which it stands, and the walls, may have been built by the founder of the dynasty. † From its size and site there can be little doubt but that this continued the great palace of Nineveh during son, * Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol. xii. P. 476. + I shall in the sequel have occasion to mention an equally fabulous queen Homai, to whom native authorities almost universally ascribe the building of the palaces of Persepolis, ·80 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. the five centuries that followed, and that it was here that Sardanapalus burned himself when defeated by Arbaces. It is, therefore, possible that memorials of some at least of these kings may yet be found there; but while the explorations are going on so successfully as they are, it is idle to speculate on what must soon be a certainty. There is only one other edifice for which an owner has to be found, viz., the south-west palace at Nineveh. Unfortunately, it has been so completely destroyed by fire, that, except its entrance hall, its plan is undistinguishable. Both Rawlinson and Layard admit -- the former insists strongly* , on its belonging to a different race from the builders of the palaces previously mentioned. For to erect it, the central palace was destroyed, its sculptures defaced or built into the walls, and the inscribed annals, of the Khorsabad king, intentionally defaced and destroyed. These, with the circumstances pointed out by Layard of its being on a higher level, and other local peculiarities, all point to this as being the most modern of Assyrian edifices, and built by a race hostile to the foriner dynasties. These circumstances point, I think, most unmistakably to the Medo-Assyrian dynasty of the Arbacidæ. There is no other who could have done this; but the description as well as the epoch, suits them exactly. It is, therefore, in this palace most probably that * Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol. xii. p. 458.

·CHRONOLOGY. 81 Saracus burned himself when his dynasty was overthrown by Cyaxares; and it is here alone, of all the buildings yet discovered, that we can look with confidence for the annals of those kings who besieged Samaria and Tyre, and carried the tribes of Israel into captivity at Halah and Habor. I need say nothing regarding the identity of the builder of Persepolis with the Achæmenian dynasty. If there ever was any doubt on the subject, the decipherment of the inscriptions on these walls has settled that question in as satisfactory a manner as any such can be disposed of; and the history of these kings is too well known and too familiar to us to call for any remarks in this place. Were I writing a special treatise on the chronology of Assyria, it would be necessary to dwell at much more length on many points only hinted at in the foregoing abstract, and to bring forward and discuss many minor indications of dates which have been passed over as unimportant. All I have, however, been attempting, is merely to give such a view of the chronology as shall render what follows intelligible, and to support it by such facts as suffice to show that it is based on a better interpretation than has hitherto been given of those data which are admitted to form the groundwork on which the chronology must be restored. For myself, I know of nothing that interferes with what I have advanced, or in any degree shakes my confidence in its general correctness. If others are ·82 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. not quite willing to allow so much, I think they must, at all events, admit that it is an hypothesis which accords with all the historical indications that can be gathered from Egyptian and Jewish records, or from the fragmentary scraps of Assyrian chronology that have come down to us, while at the same time it fixes a reasonable date to all the monuments hitherto discovered, and explains in a satisfactory manner their peculiarities in so far as they have been observed or rendered intelligible. This is as much as can be expected from any theory at the present time. It may be wrong, but it can only be shown to be so by the disinterment of new facts, or a new reading of those we already possess ; but if in the meanwhile it enables us to read and understand all the phenomena at present within our ken, it does as much as can be expected, and almost as much as could be wished for in the present progressive state of our knowledge. Before, however, dismissing this part of the subject altogether, I have put together on the opposite page, in a tabular form, the principal results arrived at in the foregoing inquiry; not only for the sake of rendering them more clearly intelligible by juxtaposition, but also for convenience of reference and application to what follows.

·CHRONOLOGY. 83 B.C. B.C. ASSYRIA. EGYPT, ETC. Foundation of empire by Menes - 3906 Foundation of empire 3095 ? Pyramid-builders. Eighty-six nameless kings. Invasion of Asia by Sesostris (Osortasen) - - 2400 Shepherd invasion of Egypt 2340 Nimrod, between 2300 and 2200 Six or seven kings, builders of the old palaces of Nimroud, Kalah Shergat, &c. Eleven kings - 2092 Forty-nine Chaldean kings 2044 mences G Nine Arabian kings Eighteenth dynasty com- 1829 Death of the first king of the nineteenth dynasty 1380 1586 Exode of the Jews 1312 Ninus 1341 Building of Khorsabad, Koyunjik, &c. Thirty or forty kings, ending with Sardanapalus Arbaees 821 Solomon 1015 Phul M 769 Nabonasar 747 Tiglath Pileser Salmaneser Senacherib 738 729 711 Nabuchodnosor 604 Deiokes 711 Cyaxares 634 Destruction of Nineveh under Saracus 600 or 597 Cyrus 560 Overthrow of Persian empire by Alexander 331 09 G2 ·81 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS, ARCHITECTURE. PART I. SECTION I. INTRODUCTORY. In treating of such a subject as the present, the philosophical mode would of course be, to begin with the oldest edifices, and trace the history of the arts downwards in time, and, unfortunately, also in style, to the most modern though least perfect examples. Were I about to write an account of the sculptural art of this country, that course might profitably be pursued, and would indeed bet the easiest and best ; but with the architecture it is different; for so imperfect are the remains of the older edifices, that it is only by comparing them with the more modern ones that their form can be ascertained; and it is only by thus proceeding from the known to the unknown that we either can arrive at truth ourselves, or hope to convey it intelligibly to others. There is, however, another reason which renders this course more than usually expedient in the present case, which is, that though it is easy to see that the sculpture, painting, and all the smaller arts form a descending series from the oldest palace at Nimroud to that at Persepolis, it is almost as certain that with architecture the case was reversed, and that the ·ARCHITECTURE. 85 latter palace was, as an architectural utterance, as superior to the former as it was inferior in the sculptural arts and all that belong to them. This is, it is true, by no means an uncommon phenomenon, but on the contrary may be considered as the most general law applicable to the subject, and were it better understood would enable us to treat the subject far more philosophically than we now can do. Our business at present, however, being with the architecture, there is but one course for us to follow, to take first that group of buildings which is most easily understood or restored, and from them attempt to explain those which in themselves afford less ineans for our doing so. In the present instance we have in Persepolis the skeleton of a complete style of Eastern architecture: all the bones are there, but the flesh is wanting; or, to speak less figuratively, we have there all the pillars, the doorways, and windows, but not one vestige of the walls that clothed them, and gave them form and meaning, or of the roofs they supported. In the Assyrian palaces we have the flesh and no bones; or, in other words, the walls are there with their sculptures and ornaments, but the pillars, the points of support, and windows are alike wanting. It is, I conceive, only by putting the two together that either can be rendered intelligible, unless some new discovery should come to light, again to revolutionise our ideas on this subject; but that, I fear, is so little probable that I shall proceed, at once to examine the remains of Persepolis, and then to apply ·86 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. the knowledge we acquire from them to their more venerable prototypes. There are few chapters in the history of the world of more intrinsic interest in themselves, or which are more familiar to us, than that of Persia during the period the Achæmenians held sway over her. The story opens with the boyhood of Cyrus, so beautifully related by Xenophon. Romance it may be, but it is the earliest and one of the best of its class, and far from an improbable opening to the history of one who first raised his people froin obscurity, and with their assistance won for himself the largest and the wealthiest inheritance the world could then afford. We have then the mad Cambyses, in his Egyptian expedition, dealing a death-blow to the most venerable of human monarchies, and only prevented by a sudden death from completing the conquest of the whole expire his ambition aspired to. The next is even a more interesting act in this great drama, as it brings us in contact with Darius and the memorable fight at Marathon, and Xerxes, whose name is so immortally linked with Thermopylæ and Salamis, not to their glory, it must be confessed ; but it is no small claim on our attention that they were, though on the wrong side, principal instigators of the noblest struggle for freedom of which the world's history affords us an example. Again the page of history opens on the advance and ·ACHÆMINIDÆ. have succumbed, and to which then 87 retreat of the 10,000 Greeks, connecting the name of the Younger Cyrus with one of the most extraordinary, and at the same time one of the noblest, military exploits of that or any other age, and it closes in disaster, but scarcely with disgrace, when the last Darius fell before the irresistible power of the Macedonian hero. Thus two short centuries sufficed to raise an unknown people from the obscurity of a remote province, and to enable them to attempt, and almost to succeed, in arrogating to themselves the empire of the world ---- saw their enormous but unwieldly power recoil before a handful of free and intellectual men, and saw them sink back into their original obscurity, not so much because of their own crimes or inherent weakness, as because a new power had arisen, of a higher order than their own, to which they must tinued subject, had that power remained true to itself. Unfortunately, however, all that we know of Persia, during this her most brilliant period, we learn only from her enemies. Liberal and intellectual, it is true, they were, and as victors they could afford to be generous; but still it is a stranger that portrays to us their manners, and an enemy that narrates their exploits; so that even with the utmost desire to tell only the truth, it is too much to hope that we have now the means of judging fairly what the Persians were, what they did themselves, what they thought truly great, or where they failed in accomplishing the object of their ambition. Not one scrap of their literature ·88 NINEVEI AND PERSEPOLIS. remains to us, nor one native utterance, except it be the buildings of Persepolis and those in its neighbourhood. These are all that Persia has left us of herself : had they perished, and had other nations not transmitted to us her story, we might scarcely have known of her existence, and her name would have been as unfamiliar to us, as that of some of the lost nations of that part of the world. These buildings are therefore invaluable as materials for general history, but far more so for elucidating the history of art; for they are the contemporary buildings with those that adorn the Acropolis at Athens, and here consequently, and here only, does the Persian meet his rival on a fair field, and offer us the means of judging correctly as to the merits of either competitor, in this one test of civilisation and of taste. It was while the Athenian was putting forth his strength to adorn the Theseion, the Parthenon and the Propylæa, and to render them worthy of their age and of their gods, that the Persian kings were spending their wealth on this their Acropolis, that they, too, might hand down to posterity a just idea of their power and magnificence, and that their worship might be celebrated in temples worthy of the heavenly host they adored. There is a wide difference between the two forms of art, and a wider, p perhaps, in the essential meaning they were intended to convey. Still they are near enough to admit of a fair comparison; and though in this respect, as in the field of battle, the power of the despot must yield to the intellect of the free man, still the comparison is more favour- ·PERSIA AND GREECE. 89 able to Persia than one might at first be led to expect; and her art, when once we accustom ourselves to its unfamiliar forins, has an elegance and grace, as well as an appropriateness, that renders it well worthy of study and attention for its own sake, without reference to its rivalry with Greece, or to its being the last native form which the arts of ancient Assyria assumed down to the time when that forin of civilisation perished entirely before the rising star of European influence, which changed for awhile the forms of that world, till a new and different era dawned upon it. Excepting, perhaps, the contemporary edifices on the Acropolis at Athens, few buildings were ever better placed for architectural effect than those whose ruins now form all that remains of what Diodorus calls "the richest of cities under the sun ; nor would it be easy to find a more favourable site any where; for they stand on the verge of one of the richest and most beautiful plains of Persia, surrounded on all sides by lofty inountains, whose rugged masses rise froin the verdant plain like islands from the ocean. At the foot of one of these, that projects somewhat beyond the line of the range into the plain, a lofty terrace is raised of the most massive and Cyclopean inasonry, on which are grouped the various edifices now known as the Takht of Jemsheed, or the palaces or temples of Persepolis, the principal one being placed nearly in the centre, and when perfect it must have been at least 100 feet above the terrace, on Diodorus, lib. xvii. * ·90 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. whose verge it stands, forming a stylobate to it of about forty-five feet in height. No. 2. 15 PAHAN NALEP PLAIN Rau OAD HER UING OF WAN MERV DASHT C. PASAR CADA PRASEKOL.19 MOUNT RAMMET 20,000 30,000 yds. 10,000 Environs of Persepolis. Immediately behind the ruins rises the sacred mountain, containing some at least of the tombs of those who crected the buildings on the platform below, and with its dense and rugged outline forms a singularly happy background to the palaces. as these, when perfect, were probably rich in colour and in gilding, the dark rock must have supplied the contrast that neither the sky nor verdure could have given, to bring out the brilliancy of their architecture. At the spot where Persepolis stands, the valley is a perfectly flat plain, ten or twelve miles in width, down the centre of which flows the Araxes, or Kur, a considerable stream, now called the Bund Emir, or Bendamir. * Innmediately in front of Persepolis the valley * From a bund or embankment thrown across it in the tenth century by the emir Assaf ud Doulah, ·SITE OF PERSEPOLIS. Dpd 91 widens considerably, or rather opens into another of considerable dimensions, but not watered by any stream. Looking up the valley to the right of the spectator standing among the ruins, the flatness of the plain is broken by three singular rocky hills, perfectly isolated from the rest, and so fantastic in their shapes, that modern Persian writers have castles they conceive them to be; no trace of building however, I believe, exists upon them, though their form would almost justify the Persian tradition. To the left the plain is almost unbounded, and the eye follows the line of the Araxes, till it loses itself in the salt lake of Bachtegan, at a distance of about forty English miles. When Persepolis was a city, there can be little doubt but that the noble plain of Marvdasht, with its delightful climate, its fertile soil, and abundance of water, was every foot of it cultivated like a garden. Even in the time of Chardin, it was "fertile, riche, abondante, belle, et delicieuse *;" and Le Brun mentions 880 villages situated on the plain, whilst inore than 1500, he adds, might have been counted within the compass of twelve leagues around the river. † Now the desolation of the plain surpasses that of the city, and the traveller who goes there unprovided with supplies may be forced to leave, because the villages of the plain can hardly supply the necessaries of life for him and his followers. At the distance of about a mile and a half from the * Tome ix. 154. † Voyages, p. 261.

·92 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. 20 ustance of about twenty miles in a direct ruins, in a northerly direction, a small valley, about two miles in width, opens at right angles into that of the Araxes, and winding among the rocky ranges behind the Taklit, becomes narrower and narrower, line, it again expands into the plain of Mourgaub, where a small stream takes its rise, and following the windings of the valley, joins the Araxes, immediately in front of the ruins of Persepolis. It was on this plain of Mourgaub that Cyrus met Astyages coming from Hamadan (Ecbatana); and here was fought the great battle that decided the fate of the empire, and transferred the sceptre of Asia from the hands of those who had held it so long to the hitherto undistinguished tribe of the Persians. It was to commemorate that victory that Cyrus here built the city of Pasargada, and here we still find the remains of several edifices bearing his name, and a small pyramid supporting his once celebrated tomb. It is here, too, that we must probably look for the works of his son Cambyses, and his tomb, if he built any thing in this part of his dominions, or prepared for his body a final resting place in his native land; at all events, no trace of him, or of his father, is to be found at Persepolis, which I cannot, therefore, help looking upon as a new foundation of the new branch of the Achæmenian family, that rose to power with the son of Hystaspes, who, finding, apparently, the narrow valley and ill-watered plain where Cyrus had fixed his “ Persian camp too limited for their ambition, had moved the capital to ·GENERAL VIEWS. 93 the wider and more fertile valley of the Araxes and the borders of the beautiful plain of Marvdasht, whicre We now find its splendid ruins strewed on the platform they once so richly adorned. In the gorge of this valley, just where it opens on the plain of Marvdasht, stands, or stood, the famous city of Istakr, so famed in Eastern story. If we might trust the tradition of the modern Persians, this was the oldest city in the world, existing much longer before, than we know it did after, the Achæmenian Persepolis, which alone is to us an object of so much interest. Its extent is easily traced by the mounds that occupy its site, and the foundations of the walls which still exist; but, besides this, one of its gates remains in a very perfect state, and of a style of architecture so bold and monolithic in its character, that it could not have belonged to the Sassanians or any dynasty subsequent to the time we are now speaking of; and besides this, there still exists within its walls, the ruins of an edifice still called the Hareer of Jemsheed, the pillars of which, though small (twenty-six feet in height), most certainly belong to the same age as those on the terrace of Persepolis. It is possible have been stolen from the latter place by some subsequent dynasty, and the remains of the edifice, where they now are found, are so few and indistinct, that without excavation it would not be easy to determine accurately whether it was an Achæmenian or Sassanian building. If the former, it must, I think, be conceded, that this is the city of they may ·Darius for his place of sepulture, whilst NINEVEHI AND PERSEPOLIS. Persepolis, though the Takht may be the palace or the teinple that bore the same name in ancient days. The question is important, as on its solution will mainly depend our conclusions as to the uses to which the edifices on the platform were originally dedicated. If they stood by themselves, at the distance of a couple of miles from the city, the conclusion is almost inevitable that they were temples. If, on the other hand, the city was grouped around their base, they may have been either, and probably were both; there is, however, one reason that inclines me to think that the city, properly so called, always stood in this gorge, which is, that four of the royal tombs, including that of Darius, are situated in a rock on the side of the valley furthest from the Takht, but close to the city, from every corner of which they could be seen. Two other royal tombs, of later date, are situated as close to the ruins on the platform, in the mountain just behind them; the seventh about half a mile to the southward. It therefore appears that it was the fashion to have the royal tombs close to the habitations or temples of the kings; and without some such motive it is difficult to understand why a rock at a distance of four miles should have been chosen by successors should have had their last resting places so near their dwellings. If the city stood where Istakr afterwards existed, the mystery is cleared up, and some light at least is thrown on some difficulties we shall meet with in a subsequent part of this inquiry.

·PERSEPOLIS. portu behind them, more especially as at Istakr we 95 PERSEPOLIS. If tradition could be trusted, Persepolis was in ancient tiines surrounded by a triple wall: no trace, however, of such a fortification now exists, in front at least of the terrace on which her sacred edifices stand. On the hill behind, a wall of circumvallation has been traced by Flandin and Coste, thus, with the terrace wall, enclosing the temples and tombs that stood on or near the platform; but on the plain in front, there is neither a line of foundation that could be supposed to mark a city wall, nor even one of those mounds which almost invariably mark the site of ancient cities. The plain here is as smooth and as level as in any other part; and it is very difficult to believe that buildings of any size or importance could have existed here and left so little find the extent of the city marked so clearly by these mounds, and this with a river running through the midst of them, whilst there is nothing to show that the river ever came nearer to Persepolis than it now does. An excavation might reveal something, but till this is made we must be allowed to consider their existence as very doubtful. Near the south-west corner of the platform one solitary pillar stood till the beginning of this century. It is mentioned by all the older travellers. Sir William Ouseley (1811) was, I believe, the first that missed it. It no doubt had companions; and, indeed, ·defined raised platform, where their remare a well- 96 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. at this corner there are evident traces of buildings having once existed; but the area to which these evidences are confined is so small as scarcely to weigh in the argument as to whether the royal city stood here or not. For the remains are not inore than would suffice for the residences of those whose services attached them to the edifices on the platform. To the northward, as far as Istakr, I believe no trace of buildings has been found. We are left, therefore, almost wholly to subsequent explorations, or to the reasonings we may derive from facts already observed - of which we shall be better able to judge in the sequel to enable us to determine where the city of Persepolis stood, or what its extent was. Its palaces or temples stood on a wellin sufficient perfection to astonish and awe the simple wayfarer who gazes at them as he crosses the once fertile plain of Marvdasht, and to convey to the more intelligent inquirer from the far west a nearly perfect idea of what they once were, and what rank in the scale of nations those were entitled to, who in raising them challenged the judgment of posterity on them and on their works. The accompanying plan * (plate I.), will convey a * The plan, which is drawn to a scale of 200 feet to 1 inch, is a reduction of that in Baron Texier's work, corrected by the various plans of individual buildings contained in that of Flandin and Coste. Their general plan is not yet published, and may probably alter to a slight extent the general form of the supporting wall, particularly to the north; but, as it will not affect either the form or position of the buildings, this is of little consequence. The dimensions quoted here are taken from Flandin and ·GENERAL. PLAN OF PERSEPOLIS. o Sreat terraces; that to the south 97 tolerably distinct idea of the general form and arrangements of the platform on which stand the ruins of Persepolis. North and south it extends nearly 1500 feet, or more than a quarter of a mile; east and west its extent varies from 800 to 900 feet. The whole, however, is not one level platform, but is being the smallest and lowest, rising only 20 or 23 feet from the plain, and its greatest breadth does not exceed 170 or 180 feet. In the centre is the great platform, measuring 770 feet north and south, and near 900 feet east and west, and rising 44 or 45 feet above the level of the plain. To the north of this again is the third terrace, extending north and south about 550 feet, but of very irregular breadth, as the hill projects considerably upon it to the eastward : it is about 10 feet lower than the central terrace, or, in other words, rises 35 feet from the plain. There are no buildings whatever on the southern terrace, and only a stair cut in the rock (?) leading to the rear of the palace of Xerxes, and the remains of a corresponding one, at the opposite angle of that palace, the latter having been, however, a structural erection. On the northern terrace there is only one important building, the Propylæa of Xerxes, and the remains apparently of a similar building about 400 feet to the eastward of this. Costes plates, and, though not quite to be depended upon, are the best available at present, and near enough to the truth for present purposes. H ·feet above the plain ; this, however, 98 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. All the principal buildings, therefore, are situated on the great central platform, but at various levels. The great hall of 100 columns, for instance, is on the level of the northern terrace. The great hall of Xerxes, usually called the Chehil Minar, 10 feet higher, or on the general level of the central platform; the palace of Xerxes stands 10 feet higher, or 55 feet above the plain. The highest level, however, is that of the floor of the palace of Darius, which is 59 or 60 being placed on a stylobate 15 feet high, so that the building generally may be said to rest on the same level as the great hall. Though the southern terrace supports no buildings, it is remarkable for an important inscription * of Darius, built into its supporting wall at I, proving, at least, that this is part of the original work of the founder; and I cannot divest myself of the idea that the entrance was originally on this side; if it were not, why were these great inscriptions placed here instead of on the front, under the western portico of the great hall? But what is of more importance is, that the palace of Darius alone of all the buildings on the platform faces the south: had the entrance always been where it now is, nothing could be more anomalous and awkward than the position and orientation of this building. With the entrance to the southward its peculiarities are all explained; indeed, my own impression is, that the north terrace a * Translated by Rawlinson, in the Journal of the Asiatic Society, vol. X. p. 273., et seq.

·CLASSIFICATION OF BUILDINGS. 99 is wholly an addition by Xerxes to the work of his father; and, unless we admit this, there are several peculiarities difficult to explain. Perhaps a more careful examination of the masonry of the supporting walls than has yet been bestowed upon them would settle this question; but any theory based on the peculiarities of the masonry exhibited on one of the plates hitherto published is sure to be upset by the next, as no two show the same structure; so that this resource is not at present available for determining the question, which, indeed, can only be settled by some one on the spot.* In describing the various edifices situated on the great platform of Persepolis, it will be found more convenient and intelligible to take them according to some classification, in preference to describing them cither locally, as they occur to the visitor ascending the great stairs, or to attempt to arrange them chronologically; for we are yet uncertain who were the builders of some of them, and an error in this respect Inight lead to considerable confusion. They possess, however, a peculiarity which enables us to classify them as easily as we do Greek temples, into distyle, tetrastyle, hexastyle, &c., from the number of pillars which form the porticoes at one or both ends of them; for the Persepolitan buildings have all of them square * A Persian author, Hamdallah, A. D. 1339, in describing Persepolis, which he does with singular fidelity and exactness, says, " on two sides were ascents by means of staircases." If it were ever so, it could only be by tradition that this could be known, as no trace of a second staircase could well have existed in modern times. The assertion, however, is curious, though probably not of much importance. 1 2 ·NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. suchen 100 halls, in which either four, sixteen, thirty-six, or some To avoid, however, inventing new and unpronounceable terms, I shall use the same nomenclature which is familiar to us from the Greek art,-calling a hall of four pillars distyle, because it has two pillars on each side; tetrastyle, those of sixteen columns from their having four on each side, as also because their porticoes are tetrastyle in antis. Halls of thirty-six columns, in like manner, will be called hexastyle, as their porticoes are. There is no hall of sixty-four pillars at Persepolis, but one of a hundred, or decastyle. In this last instance, however, the portico is octastyle, thus showing that the internal columns form a better basis for classification than the external ones; besides that, as the distyle halls, or those with four pillars, have no porticoes, we should be obliged to invent new names for them if we adopted the pillars of the porticoes as those from which our nomenclature was to proceed. STAIRS. say a Before, however, speaking of the edifices themselves, it is necessary to sa few words regarding the stairs that lead to them, which are as remarkable as any of the architectural features of Persepolis, and peculiar to the place. It is more than probable that the Persians derived this feature from the Assyrians, who, as they always placed their palaces on artificial terraces like this one, probably bestowed considerable

·No. 3.
To f2cego 101.
ME
SCHES
STAIRS TO PALACE OF KERXES.

·STAIRS. • three and a half inches, while they 101 care on the decoration of the approaches to them: all their stairs, however, have perished, at least in so far as we yet know, and we are only left to infer what they were, from what we find here. Of the Persepolitan examples, the finest (in scale at least) is the one leading from the plain to the northern terrace*: it consists of two double flights, the steps being twenty-two feet wide, and rising only about fifteen inches; the ascent being thus so easy that persons on horseback ascend and descend without difficulty. The inaterials, however, with which it is executed, are even more colossal than the scale on which it is designed; four, five, and even six steps being cut out of one slab of marble, and the perpendicular walls being built of immense blocks, not symmetrically arranged, but, like the rest of the terrace walls, of a bold Cyclopean kind of masonry, which for such a purpose has a far grander effect than more polished or more evenly jointed work. At o in the general plan, near the north-eastern angle of the palace of Xerxes, is another stair designed on precisely the same plan as this great one, except that it projects wholly from the wall instead of being let into it, and is covered in every part with sculpture. It is now unfortunately much ruined, but its general appearance will be understood from the annexed woodcut, No. 3., which represents its ruins as they now are. * Its plan is shown in Plate No. 1., and its general appearance in woodcut No. 4., a few pages further on.

·100 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. The more usual arrangement, however, of Persepolitan stairs is that of two flights facing one another, and approaching laterally to a central object. There is one of these, the oldest, at F, in front of Darius's palace *, and another added to its western face at E by Artaxerxes; another at D, facing the one represented in the last woodcut; two at G G, leading to the southwestern edifice, and one behind the palace of Xerxes. But by far the finest and most typical arrangement of this class, is that leading to the great hall of Xerxes, which consists of four flights arranged as the double ones are in the preceding examples. The object of this arrangement, though certainly unusual, (I do not know of its occurring elsewhere,) was twofold, and is easily understood on inspecting the ruins. The first was to admit of the front being adorned with sculpture, which is here invariably the case with all those on the terrace. Generally the flat part in front, between the tops of the two converging stairs, is occupied by colossal guards with spears, standing face to face in the centre; the spandrils are filled by a combat of a lion killing a bull. In the smaller examples the processions of persons bringing gifts are represented on the balustrades as if ascending the stairs; but on the great one B, in front of the great hall, they occupy the whole space between the central and side flights, and are there arranged in three rows, one above the other; thus rendering it a worthy approach to the gorgeous hall it was designed to lead to; and taken altogether, perhaps the noblest example * See also woodcut No.7., which represents this façade.

·No text on this page.

·1o face page 103.
No. 1.
ML BLUME
F
St.GILAS
VIEW FROM TOP OF GREAT STAIRS.
tu

·PRESENT ASPECT OF RUINS. 103 of a flight of stairs to be found in any part of the world. The second object, which, however, was perhaps the primary cause of the arrangement, will be better understood hereafter, when it will be explained how the throne stood in these porches, and that the stairs were consequently so arranged as to admit of crowds passing by and saluting without either turning or changing the direction of their march. These staircases were, in fact, to the Persians what the tympana of their temples were to the Greeks the great iconastases or image places, whereon they lavished all the resources of their art. As being so much nearer the eye, the Persian arrangement had, perhaps, in many respects, the advantage, - for a representation of men and things at least, --for gods it would not have been tolerated; but the Persian never dared to attempt the noble blasphemy of the Greek, and was content to represent his fellow men such as they were; though never--here at least-as following their ordinary avocations, but only in their festive state, as administering to the greatness of their sovereign lord. The scene that presents itself to the traveller who now ascends the great flight of steps that leads from the plain to the platform of Persepolis, will be best understood from the annexed woodcut, No. 4., which represents the ruins as they now are. Below the spectator are the stairs themselves in all their grandeur, and immediately in front of them the colossal remains ·104 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. of the Propylæum of Xerxes, consisting of four great masses of masonry, with sculptured bulls attached to them; and two pillars out of the four that once supported its roof; beyond them is seen the stair-formed stylobate of this great hall, with its sculptured front, and on it the fifteen that remain, of the seventy-two pillars that once supported its roof; through them, again, are seen the few remains that exist of the palaces Darius and Xerxes, and on the extreme left those of the hall of a hundred columns. Imperfect and fragmentary as these are, they suffice to enable us to restore, with very tolerable certainty, all the buildings of which these remains once formed a part, and to estimate, almost exactly, what this platform sustained when Alexander visited this spot after the overthrow of the dynasty that built them. If any uncertainty still attaches to the subject, it is not because there are not sufficient materials for a perfect restoration, but because they have been so imperfectly examined or so carelessly represented, that one who has never been on the spot has the greatest possible difficulty in ascertaining the real form of the ruins that now exist. PROPYLÆA. The first building which I shall attempt to describe is the Propylæum of Xerxes, not only because it is the principal one of the first class, or distyle halls, into which I have divided the buildings of Persepolis, but also because it is locally the first that meets one on ascending the platform. That it was erected by Xerxes is undoubted, in consequence of the inscrip- ·PROPYLÆA. 105 tion, repeated in three languages, on each of the four piers that remain, or twelve times in all. This I shall quote entire, as it is not only a fair specimen of the Persepolitan inscriptions in general, but also because it contains more architectural information than any of the others. It runs as follows :- + The Great God Auramazda (Ormazd), he it is who has given (made) this world, who has given mankind, who has given life to mankind, who has made Xerxes king, both king of the people and lawgiver of the people. I am Xerxes the king, the great king, the king of kings, the king of the many peopled countries, the supporter also of the great world, the son of King Darius the Achæmenian. Says Xerxes the king, by the grace of Ormazd, I have made this gate of entrance (or this public portal): there is many another nobler work besides (or in) this Persepolis, which I have executed, and which my father has executed. Whatsoever noble works are to be seen, we have executed all of them, by the grace of Ormazd. Says Xerxes the king; may Ormazd protect me and my empire. Both that which has been executed by me, and that which has been executed by my father, may Ormazd protect it.”* From the above it will be observed that Xerxes speaks of his own works and those of his father as the only ones existing in Persepolis; thus confirming the conclusion which is inevitably forced upon us by the examination of the ruins themselves, that Darius * See Rawlinson's Memoirs, in the tenth volume of the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, p. 329., from which the above is copied.

·106 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. was the original founder of the place; but of this more hereafter. The propylæum stands at the distance of forty-five feet from the head of the stairs, and symmetrically with the centre of it; but it is not in the centre of the great hall, nor nearly so; a circumstance which leads me to suspect it was built first, and that when it was erected the great hall was designed on a smaller scale than was afterwards adopted ; and there being no room for extension of the hall towards the west, its centre was thrown further to the eastward than was originally intended: had it not been for this, it would have been quite as easy to have put the propylæum forty feet further that way too, and so have centred it with its great adjunct. Too much stress must not, however, be laid on this, as symmetry in different buildings to one another, was by no means a law cither here or elsewhere, in any true style; and if it cannot be shown that these two were parts of one whole, of course the architect would rather have avoided, than sought symmetry. My own impression, however, being that they are one, I should therefore rather expect it here. The principal remains now found of this building are, four great piers, of the eastern and western portals. They are nearly alike in size, being twenty or twenty-one feet, east and west, on their inner faces, and six feet thick. On the back of each are two spurs, evidently the commencement of some connecting walls, the edges being left rough, as the whole of the masonry of the back is; indeed, the ·PROPYLÆA. 107 * foundation of these walls can be traced some way on each side*, and to the south, the foundation of one No.5. jamb of a third portal can still be traced t; thus leaving no doubt, when these facts are taken in conjunction with the other remains on the platform, that this was a square hall, with three portals at least. Whether it had a fourth on the north or not cannot be ascertained from any remains found on the spot; but if my idea of its use is correct, we should not expect to find one there. The internal dimensions of this hall are considerable, being eighty-two feet each wayf; and the roof was supported by four pillars, two of which are still standing, placed in a square & in the centre Propyleun. (Scale 100 ft, ta linch.) * Flandin and Coste, pl. 73.; Texier, pl. 93. ; Niebuhr, pl. xviii., &c. Texier and Niebuhr, 1. s. C. I These dimensions are taken from Texier and Flandin and Coste. Ker Porter makes them somewhat less, about 78 feet square. See vol. i. Pero p.590. $ I had completed my restoration of this building before Flandin and Coste's plate 73. was published, which contains the details of this building. On looking at it, I was horrified to find that the pillars, instead of being equidistant, were about 8.50 metres from one another in an east and west direction, which other authorities make them, but only 5 metres from one another north and south. As this plan was carefully drawn to a large scale, and the same measurement was repeated in an elevation of the building, and a third time in a section, both to a large scale, I felt inclined to give up the matter in despair, feeling I had no authority I could trust to. After, however, re-examining all my other authorities, I returned to this work, and found the dimensions figured, very small on this plate, as 8.28 E. and W., and 8-56 N. and S., in accordance with every one else! It is difficult to conceive how an error so gross should have escaped the obser- ES ·108 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. equidistant from each other, or about twenty-seven feet from centre to centre, and the same distance from the surrounding walls. These pillars are each forty-six feet nine inches in height, and of the same order as those of the great hall, so similar indeed as to be undistinguishable, except by the smaller dimensions of these; and the woodcut of the latter, No. 15., given further on, will therefore, mutatis mutandis, serve for both. That these pillars supported a roof does not, I think, admit of a shadow of a doubt; they are placed precisely as they should be for such a purpose, and I know of no instance in the whole world, of pillars so placed being ever used for any other purpose. Though how they did so is not easily determinable, as our three principal authorities differ, as usual, from one another with regard to them. Ker Porter asserting* that their tops are "perfectly smooth, without the least vestige of any loose fragment.” Texier f represents them with the usual stone tenon for joining stone and woodwork; and Flandin and Costeſ found a double bull capital, which they unhesitatingly restore as their crowning member. Could we ascertain the height of the portals, we might perhaps settle this question; but as their ruins do not exceed vation of any one who had ever looked at a plan of Persepolis ; but so it stands, after having passed through a dozen hands, and, unfortunately, is far from being the only error the work contains, though none perhaps so gross. Vol. i. p. 590. † Texier, plates 102. and 107. | Flandin and Coste.

·PROPYLÆA. 109 thirty feet in height, it will be only by a more critical examination of the pillars themselves that the question will be determined. It is not, however, of much importance here, and may, for the present at least, be left undetermined. The most remarkable ornaments to this edifice are the four colossal bulls that adorn its portals. Those next the stairs or facing the west are merely bulls without any of the symbolical adjuncts which usually accompany such representations in this country. They stand on a basement about five feet in height, which projects to about the same extent beyond the piers, and is of the same brendth as they are; above this, they stand--the two are nearly similar-in height about fifteen feet. Their dimensions are therefore gigantic, but their grandeur of expression does not so much depend on this, as on the powerful development of force, which the Assyrian and Persian artists knew so well how to impart to animal forms. There is a massiveness in the muscular development, and a rugged solidity a about the joints, which give to their animals a character of gigantic force unmatched, so far as I know, in animal sculpture, but analogous to what the Greeks attained in the human form in their representations of Hercules. The other two, looking towards the mountain, are similar to these in the form and expression of their bodies and limbs; but they have human heads (now dreadfully defaced), surmounted by the horned tiara so familiar to us from the Assyrian examples, and, like them, their throats are clothed with feathers, and ·110 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. their backs surmounted by an enormous pair of wings, which have this peculiarity, that the great feathers turn upwards with a bold and graceful curve, whereas, in the Assyrian examples, they lie flat backwards like an eagle's. These, however, are mere differences of detail, for in every essential respect these winged bulls are the same as those found at Nimroud and Khorsabad ; thus pointing to a closer connection between the arts and religion of the two people than, from other circumstances, we should be led to expect. As I mentioned before, there exists at the northeastern angle of the palace of Xerxes a staircase, which is an exact miniature of the great one leading to the platform, marked c in the general plan, and represented in woodcut No. 3. At the same relative distance from the fop of it, and in the same relative position, we find four bases of columns, which we cannot doubt supported the roof of an edifice similar to the one we have just been describing. No vestige, however, of its walls or portals remains, and no further information is therefore obtained from this example to assist in elucidating the theory of these buildings. The building I have called on the plan the central edifice, is a third example of a distyle hall, belonging apparently to an edifice now represented by the heap of ruins to the westward of it. Two of its portals, those to the north and east, are perfect; of the southern one, one pier remains entire, and the foundations of the other, but the existence of the western portal is very problematical. Texier and Ker Porter both mark it in their plans, the former ·CENTRAL EDIFICE. 111 with the dimensions figured; but the accurate Niebuhr did not perceive it, and Flandin and Coste, though they made some excavations here, omit it altogether. All, however, agree in tracing the bases of the four central pillars, and to these the latter authorities add one to the southward, and an extension of the eastern foundations of the building, both northward and southward. Though these additions give this edifice a somewhat different character from the other distyle halls found here, I would not reject them, but assume that the northern and southern portals were protected by porches, as these remains would lead us to suppose they were. Though considerably larger than the hall last mentioned, this one is still very much smaller than the first described; its internal dimensions being only fifty-one feet each way; and the thickness of its walls is also considerably less, being only eight feet; it differs also in the character of its sculpture, for instead of the bulls of the great propylæum, the sides of the doorways here are ornamented by representations of the king seated on his throne, or walking in state, followed by attendants holding the umbrella of state over his head, or armed with the chowrie and other insignia of Persian royalty. In front of the hall of one hundred columns, are the remains of a portal with winged bulls, and one or two columns (Niebuhr mentions two) which apparently belonged to a fourth edifice of this class; and in front of the palace of Darius there now exists ·112 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. a mass of ruins which I cannot help suspecting covered a fifth, though this last is a mere conjecture of my own. We have, however, certainly three if not four of these edifices; and the question now to be asked is, what were they? and for what purposes erected ? In the inscription above quoted, the building is called (in the accusative) "duwarthim," which, as Rawlinson suggests, certainly means door or gate, and is found in nearly the same form in all the cognate languages. Still it is not a gateway or entrance in the manner we usually understand this word, but used more as a justice hall or place of assembly at the entrance or gate of the palace. I have, for instance, no hesitation in identifying this building with the gate which plays so important a part in the story of Esther, under the reign of the very king who built this one, -—the gate in which Mordecai sat when he overheard the conspirators, and in which Haman sat when he refused to bow to him, - where Mordecai could not enter when clothed in sackcloth, &c., — the viziral seat of judgment, or that where one of the principal officers of the palace sat to transact business, hear causes, or receive homage. Frequently throughout the Bible the word gate is used in the same sense, as in Ruth *, chap. iv. verse 1., where judgment is given on the subject of Ruth's marriage; and in Genesis (xxiii. 10. 18.), where Abraham buys a field in the gate; and in numerous other places, * In the Septuagint, the word in Ruth is translated muling but throughout Esther it is avn.

·INDIAN EXAMPLES. way as this. If this surmise is correct, the arrangement of this 113 where I am convinced the word does not mean the doorway in the walls of the town, but such a doorbuilding is easily understood; in the great propylæum, for instance, the judgment-seat would be against the north wall, and there would be no doorway there. The southern entrance would be the judge's, whether he was the vizir, or the king, if he ever sat in judgment here; but the crowd, whether coming to demand justice or to pay their respects, would pass in at the western and out at the eastern gate, which thus became the two principal ones. In the same manner in the central edifice, the lateral portals are not distinguished by their superior magnificence from the central one, but they are so by their porches, which again favours the idea of its being an audience hall of this sort. To this subject I shall have occasion to revert, when discussing the use of the other buildings. In the mean time, I may mention that these distyle halls are the oldest architectural forms we have in India. Thus, the oldest Vihara at Ajuntah*, is a square apartment, with its roof supported by four pillars, precisely in this manner; and the oldest structural building in India that I am acquainted with, the Chäori in the Mokundra Passt, is just such another as these The difference being, that in the Indian exare. * Rock-cut Temples of India, by the Author, p. 17. pl.5. † Picturesque Illustrations of Ancient Architecture in Hindostan, by the Author, plate vi.

·114 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. amples, the roof is entirely of stone and of the most massive construction, so that besides the four central pillars, eight pilasters or half columns were attached to the wall to support the other ends of the architraves, and that part of them that was built into the wall was left rough, as is the case here, and gives a strange druidical look to the building; for besides its similarity of form, this example has the singularly Persepolitan peculiarity of having lost its walls. Their massive foundations still exist, but not one brick or stone of thern above the level of the floor now remains. Another of these Chäoris, but considerably more modern, exists at Barolli. * The original square, with its four pillars, is here extended in something of the same manner as the central edifice, except that instead of being only extended laterally, it is so in this instance on all four sides. They afterwards become considerably more complicated, but wherever found they are always placed symmetrically in front of some temple or important building, never attached to it. The name now applied to these buildings in India is Chäori or nuptial hall; and tradition tells of princes and princesses, Huns and Rajpoots, who have plighted their faith beneath their massive roofs; they are now used to celebrate the mystical union of the male and female divinity ; but this belongs to a modern * Picturesque Illustrations of Ancient Architecture in Hindostan, by the Author, plate viii.

·PALACE OF DARIUS. 115 and debased superstition, and is consequently quite inapplicable to their ancient form. Whatever their purpose may have been, I feel convinced that it was the same in both instances, and that the Indian are copies of the Persian examples, erected for the same purposes by cognate races. When we understand the use of the one, so shall we that of the other. At present, we must pass on to the next class of examples, the tetrastyle halls, - and see what light they will afford towards solving these dark questions. THE PALACE OF DARIUS. h This, though one of the smallest, is certainly one of the most interesting buildings on the platform of Persepolis, from its being in all probability the first erected here, and besides, being the only building we know of, erected by that monarch, either here or elsewhere. That it was erected by him we know certainly, from the inscriptions on its walls, in which Darius himself states that he executed the work, which is confirmed by an inscription of his son Xerxes, wherein he too says it was erected by his father. * The only part that is not of his age is the western staircase, which was added by Artaxerxes, as the inscription on it proves; though why such an addition should have been made is somewhat doubtful. See Rawlinson's often-quoted Memoirs in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol. X. I 2

·116
NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS.
The inscription seems to say, "it was for his own
convenience."*
Most probably it was to bring the
No. 6.
0 0 0
23
(Scale of it, to 1 inch.)
50
0 0 0
73
0
100 feet.
Palace of Darius,
orientation of the building as far as possible into
conformity with that of the others, it being, as I
before remarked, the only one that faced the south.
We must not, however, regard a stair at Persepolis
as a mere means of ascending a platform, for here it
always is the place where inscriptions are engraved,
and where the principal sculptural decorations are
placed
As I before pointed out, this building stands on a
lofty stylobate, which elevates its floor to a higher
* See Rawlinson's Memoirs in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,
p. 342.

·PAI ACE OF DARIUS. 117 level than that of any other in Persepolis; its dimensions are 132 feet 6 inches north and south, and 96 east and west. This platform is ascended by a double flight of steps on its southern face, these being part of the original design, and on the west by the stairs of Artaxerxes just mentioned, as is. shown in the annexed woodcut*, explanatory of the arrangements of the building, as far as there is now any authority for them. As will be As will be perceived from it, the centre of the building is occupied by a large square apartment, measuring, as near as may be, fifty feet each way. The floor of this apartment was till recently covered by a mass of rubbish, which prevented its disposition being seen. On this, however, being partially removed by Messrs. Flandin and Coste, they found there the bases of sixteen columns symmetrically arranged at equal distances on the floor, and consequently ten feet apart from centre to centre; but, as they could not have been less than two feet diameter, the intercolumniation would only have been eight feet. The south wall of the room has one door in the centre, and four windows; the north wall, two doorways and three niches, corresponding with the windows opposite; they therefore are arranged symmetrically with the columns. The eastern wall, however, has only one door and three niches, and the western * This woodcut is to a scale of 50 feet to 1 inch, or double that to which the other plans are drawn, The building is so interesting, and its details so minute, that this was requisite to give it the clearness necessary for the following explanation.

·NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. appears to be. spears; the first having what appears to be a long shield befon 118 two doors (one probably an insertion by Artaxerxes) and two niches; the columns therefore stand in front of the openings instead of between them,-an awkwardness it is not easy to account for, but so it certainly In the southern porch there are eight columns, spaced in an E. and W. direction, like those in the central apartment; but north and south the intercolumniation is nearly three feet greater, apparently to give a deeper shade, to protect the building from the southern sun. For in the other similar building, - the south-eastern edifice, - the intercolumniation is the same both ways, for there the porch faces the north. On each side of this porch is a small apartment, into which open two doorways, on the jambs of which are sculptured two doryphores, or guards, bearing universal on the jambs of all the lateral doors leading into the porches at Persepolis, there cannot be much doubt but that these apartments were guard chambers, which indeed we might almost assume from their situation. On both sides of the central hall are ranged several small apartments, apparently the dwelling-rooms of the priests, if it was a temple, -of the king or his attendants, if a palace. It is not very easy to ascertain what was the form of those behind, so little remains of even the foundations of their walls. They seem, however, to have been larger, and more ·PALACE OF DARIUS. 119 worthy of a royal occupant; though still, if a palace, it would be difficult to point out one any where so deficient in the accommodation requisite for the residence of a great king. The sculptures would seem to indicate some such distinction, as those on the jambs of the lateral doorways represent mythological subjects, of the king slaying Chimæras and symbolical monsters, while the two doorways leading to the apartments behind are occupied by representations of the king, with two servants behind him carrying the chowrie, or flychaser; and the southern entrance is occupied by the king, followed by servants bearing the umbrella of state. All this would seem to indicate that the central and rear apartments were devoted to kingly state, the lateral ones to priestly mysteries, perhaps chapels. The two long apartments in the rear probably contained stairs leading to the roof, though there is no authority for this but their position and form, and the necessity of there being such a provision somewhere, which there is scarcely any room for elsewhere; and in this palace the thickness of the walls is not sufficient to admit of their being in them, as probably was the case in the other and more important edifices. The general appearance of the southern or principal front of the edifice will be best understood from the annexed woodcut, which represents its façade as it now is, showing all the peculiarities of Persepolitan art with considerable clearness. The most remark- I 4

·120
No. 7.
NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS.
12
ME
DEE
GENERO
Tabla
Tagade of Palace of Darius.
(cale o is, to 1 incin.)

·PALACE OF DARIUS. 121 able feature being, as usual, the stylobate, with its sculpture and double stairs, as described above, and to which I need not therefore again refer. The principal objects on the platform are the two great anta, each of one single block of marble. Except inscriptions on them, these are here, as in the other examples, perfectly plain and unadorned; but at the back of them, at their summits, a set of inverted steps or gradini are cut to receive the ends of the horizontal architrave, which stretched from one to the other, over the heads of the four intervening pillars ; thus giving us not only their height, but the form of their epistyla, which is important in attempting to restore the palace. Between these anta are seen the principal entrance, of the same form and style as all the doorways now found here, and four windows, two on each side, which are also of the Persepolitan type, found in every one of these palaces, with such slight modification as can only be detected by the minutest scrutiny. Indeed, so favourite is this form, that where it is not wanted as a window it is used as a niche, the back being blocked up by one large slab of stone. So far all is intelligible enough; but here, as every where else in Persepolis, we are struck with a peculiarity most difficult to explain, which is, the absence of walls or of any trace of them. It cannot for one instant be doubted that walls did exist, in the interstices between the windows and doors, not only from a common-sense view of the matter, but because we find the side of the slab where it would be hid by ·122 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. such walls, always left rough, while the other three exposed sides are as invariably most carefully polished and finished; but the difficulty is to ascertain of what substance these walls were composed. The most obvious conjecture is, that they were filled in with sun-dried bricks, like the walls of the Assyrians, and plastered and painted on the outside. If it were so, their disappearance would be easily accounted for, exposed as they have been for 2000 years to the rain and winds, on the bare surface of a rock, a position so totally different from that of Assyrian edifices, which, besides that their mass and number of their walls were such as enabled them at once to fill up the chambers they surrounded, were also wholly composed of sun-dried bricks; whereas here, all the framework is of the most solid and durable materials; and it is just this that causes the difficulty; for it is almost impossible to conceive that men who could build all the essential parts of their edifices with such monolithic masses as to make their ruins look like so many Stonehenges, so massive are their parts, should have been content to fill in the interstices with mud plastered over. Yet, if we assume that they used kiln-burnt bricks, what has become of them? It is true, that the existence of Istakr for 1000 years after Persepolis was deserted, would account for anything being carried away which was portable, and we may therefore safely assume that all whole bricks might be removed. But where are the fragments and chippings ? Nothing is is so imperishable as fragments of burnt clay; and ·as must be content to assume for WALLS OF PERSEPOLITAN PALACES. 123 fieaps of it must have been found if the walls were of hard bricks. A third theory is, that they were constructed of smaller masses of stone, which might casily be removed, and consequently have disappeared. This, however, could hardly be the case. If the stones were hewn, they must have been fitted to those that remain; their rough surfaces, however, are such would not admit of a joint. If rubble masonry, it would not be worth removing, and some parts would at least remain. The question is a provoking one, for it is one that any traveller might settle in a morning by digging through the foundation of such an edifice as the hall of a hundred columns, which cloes not stand on a stylobate; but till some one settles it by an appeal to facts, I fear the only safe theory is that the walls were composed of mud bricks-a bathos in art that it would be difficult to understand elsewhere; but as the two great capitals of the Persian empire were wholly constructed of such bricks, and all their palaces and temples were of this ignoble material, we Achæmenians followed the example set them by their predecessors. Plastered they of course were, and also carefully painted, together with the stonework, some of which, if we may believe earlier travellers, still showed traces of colour and gilding * when they visited the spot, In some other places the gold also that was laid on the freez and cornish, as also on the trim of vests, was also in as perfect lustre as if it had been but newly done." (Herbert's Travels, p. 152. ed. 1665.) Daulier says of the inscription : " Il paroist encor à plusieurs de ces caractères ·124 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. and as Baron Texier* still restores it. Glazed tiles would in consequence be here inadmissible, as the glaze could not be carried over the stones, and a discord would in consequence be the result. If, however, no other argument could be advanced in favour of their being painted, the fact now so incontrovertibly established of all the Assyrian edifices having been so gorgeously coloured, is quite sufficient to make it more than probable that the same was the case here. But not only then, but down to the present hour, the Persians build their principal mosques and palaces with walls composed of ill-burnt bricks, which they either plaster and paint, or ornament with glazed tiles of the most brilliant colours and elaborate patterns; so that neither from what preceded nor from what followed the Achæmenian epoch must we be led to expect any other mode of building or ornamenting their walls than this one, the only singularity here being its being used in conjunction with an architecture of a character so totally dissimilar. In attempting to restore the facade of this edifice we are fortunately not left wholly to conjecture; for besides the remains in this spot, Darius has left us in his tomb what I believe to be an actual facsimile of his palace, cut in the rock. The annexed woodcut (No. 8.) represents the tomb of this monarch at Naksh-i-Rustam, looking, as before qu'ils ont été dorez." (Beaut. de la Perse, p. 61.) See also Chardin, t. ix. p. 187.; Kæmpfer, p. 338. (Sir W. Ouseley, vol. ii. p. 281.) * Texier, plate 111.

·No. 8.
To face page 134.
over
ODD00000
pre
HAN
SAX* FOR EXXXVATION
50
100
TOMB OR DARI 8 AT NAKSH-I-RUSTAM

·No text on this page.

·TOMB OF DARIUS. 125 mentioned, on Istakr, but between three and four miles froin this place. It is known to be his, from the inscriptions that cover it; the upper one of which has been translated, but the one between the pillars is, unfortunately, so much destroyed as to be nearly illegible. Its form will be understood from the woodcut, carefully reduced from Messrs. Flandin and Coste's drawing, which, however, differs in some respects from Ker Porter's and Texier's, but not to such an extent as to vitiate any of the following conclusions. Below the pillared colonnade the rock is smoothed to a considerable extent, whether to afford a space for a picture on plaster representing the stylobate, or for some adventitious decoration, or whether merely to prevent access to the tomb, is not now easily determined, but most probably the last was the true motive. Above this is a copy of a tetrastyle portico, which I take to be a repetition of that of his palace, because, in the first place, the dimensions are identical both as to width (fifty feet), and the height of the columns, which is ascertained in the palace by the bed of the architrave cut in the antæ (twenty feet). The same circumstance gives us the depth of the entablature, which is the same in both cases, and the form of it is very nearly so: there is, however, a slight discrepancy in the number of facets in the two examples, but whether this is the act of the architect of Darius, or a wrong measurement of Flandin and Coste's, remains to be determined, -I rather suspect the latter.

·126 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. This, however, is so slight as scarcely to deserve notice; but the residuary fact remains, that we have here two porticoes which are facsimiles of one another ; for with our knowledge of Persepolitan architecture, we may confidently assume that the double bull capital is the only one that could be used here for such a purpose. So far we may proceed with safety; but above the portico on the tomb there is represented a curious stage, supported by two rows of figures, bearing it on their uplifted hands, and at each angle is carved one of the griffins which appear so often on the walls of the palaces here. On this stage the king stands, with a bent bow in his hand, worshipping the sun, whose image is seen carved above the fire altar that stands before him, while above his head hovers his ferouher, or disembodied spirit; a good genius or guardian angel, that generally in Assyrian, as well as in Persian bassi relievi, accompanies the king when performing any important act. The question is, did this stage, or a similar one, stand on the roof of the palace ? To my mind it admits of no doubt that it did; because, finding so literal a translation of the portico below it, I cannot conceive why on one part of this sculpture they should have copied so literally and then indulged in such a vagary as this; for if it were not the actual representation of a stage on a house-top for an altar, what is it? or what could lead to such a form being invented ? A stronger argument, however, is derived from the ·PALACE OF DARIUS. 127 arrangement of the central hall of the palace itself; for why place there sixteen columns unless to support such a stage as this? We have halls in Persepolis more than eighty feet square, and four pillars suffice to support their roofs, but here one fifty feet square has sixteen, and is indeed so choked with columns that it must have been almost useless for any purpose of state or habitation, and could not, I conceive, have been so crowded if it had not been that it was built to support something more important than itself. It indeed was sacrificed for the sake of the altar it was built to sustain. Another, and perhaps stronger argument, is the extreme probability that such an erection should be found on the top of the house of Darius; because from all we know of the worship and religion of the Persians, we know that their rites were not perforined in temples or chambers, but that they worshipped the host of heaven in high places, on mountain tops in the country, and on the tops of their houses in the city. The flat roof, however, of a dwelling is neither a dignified nor an appropriate place for such an altar, and the probability is, that it would be raised by some means above the chance of defilement and pollution. It could not be done by a stone or brick wall over the centre of an apartment, but must therefore have been by some such stage as this. Nothing, besides, can answer more correctly to the indications we have in the Bible; as, for instance, when Hezekiah was trying to eradicate this very Sabæan worship, he "took away the horses that the kinro of 2 ·128 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. Judah had given to the sun, and burned the chariots of the sun with fire, and the altars that were on the top of the upper chamber of Ahaz, which the kings of Judah had made," * besides the other passages referred to below; all which show that the house-top was the place where the host of heaven was worshipped; but this is the only passage that I know of, where it is mentioned that the royal altar was on the top of an upper chamber, as this is, not merely on the roof of the house itself.t A few years ago it might have appeared strange to argue for such a literal copy of a structural building being found in a rock-cut tomb. The recent discoveries, however, in Lycia have made us familiar with this peculiarity; for all the tombs there that are cut in the rock are literal transcripts, not only of stone, but of wooden edifices, and copied with such minute fidelity that the mortices of the wood, the pins that held it together, and all the carpentry fittings, are copied with a precision of which it is difficult to understand the motive; but so it certainly was and is, and Lycia, it must be recollected, was then a Persian province, subject to this very king Darius. And as he was, so far as we know, the first Persian king who * 2 Kings, xxiii. 11 and 12. Compare also Zephaniah, i. 5., and Jeremiah, xix. 13, and xxxii. 29, &c. There is a curious expression in Quintus Curtius (lib. vi. cap. vi.) which seems to have hitherto puzzled all commentators. In speaking of Alexander's pride and insolence, he says: “ Persicæ regiæ par deorum potentiæ fastigium æmulabatur; jacere humi venerabundos pati capit," &c. Unless alluding to some such architectural form as this, it is unintelligible, but not so now, as the form explains the sense. nse. as, t ·TALAR. 129 ever carved himself a sepulchre out of the living rock, it is far from improbable he should adopt the canons of this art as practised at that time by his own subjects in another part of his dominions; while they copied, so literally, their dwellings and stone houses, he copied his palace, or his temple, whichever it may be determined that it was. Nor is it difficult to understand how this fashion of stages on the roof arose; for in Persia most people sleep on the roof of their houses, and in some instances on stages like this, so as to catch the breeze and be freer from the annoyance of insects. In the Tiyari house, for instance, represented in Layard's work*, and quoted from it further on, there are two such stages erected for this purpose ; rude, of course, but easily capable of translation into such forms as this. A more refined instance is represented in the accompanying woodcut (No. 9.), in which a similar eréction is shown as built on the roof of the palace of Char Bagh, at Ispahan; and every one at all acquainted with the forms of Persian, and indeed of all eastern art, knows how common and how indispensable such erections on the roofs of palaces are. Generally they are merely sleeping kiosks, but the form once suggested, they may of course be applied to praying places, or indeed to any other analogous architectural use. I shall have frequent occasions to refer to this * Layard's Nineveh, vol.i. n. 1717 ·130 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. subject, and I trust, before leaving it, I shall make the fact of its existence as clear to others as it is to No.9. LocorolojQUOIK . OK.CHILD Palacc at Ispahan. myself. In the meanwhile, however, to prevent confusion it is necessary to find some name for it, which I tlıink can, in this instance, be done without difficulty by applying to it that of Talar, which in the great Persian dictionary, the Burhan Katea, is defined as a seat, throne (or stage), or chamber composed of beams and boards, and supported on four pillars or a description so applicable to this superstructure, that I have no doubt but that the lexicographer had some such object in view when he wrote more;"* *** I owe this quotation to Sir W. Ouseley's Travels, vol. ii. p. 265. I adopt his translation as it stands, though the Persian would seem to describe even more exactly the object to which I am applying it.

·SOUTH-EASTERN EDIFICE. which I shall continue to do in the following A firms me in the belief, expressed above, that the door 131 it, or, at all events, it is so descriptive of it, that no confusion can arise from our applying it in this sense, SOUTH-EASTERN EDIFICE. The other edifice, which I have called the “South- Eastern," is so nearly identical, in every particular, with the central part of the one just described, that it may be dismissed with very slight notice. The only essential difference is, that being turned towards the north*, and in consequence so deep a shade not being required, the pillars of the portico are spaced equally in every direction, like those of the hall; or, in other words, all the pillars of this edifice are placed with a distance of ten feet from centre to centre in both directions, for the dimensions of the edifices The only difference in the arrangement of the central hall is that it has only one door on each side, placed opposite each other; a circumstance that conw on the north-west angle of the hall of the palace of Darius was an insertion by Artaxerxes, when he added his stairs to the western side. The building is not, like the others, situated on an elevated stylobate, but, on the contrary, is placed on a lower level than any other edifice on the platform. * In Ker Porter's plan (and in his text, p. 661.) it is turned towards the south; but the other authorities are so consentaneous on this point, that it must have been by inadvertence that it appears so in his.

·NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. the sister edifice: the guards! 132 The consequence is that the sand and rubbish have gathered about it to a considerable extent, so that the plan of its outward apartments, if it had any, could only be ascertained by excavation. Messrs. Flandin and Coste made some excavations in the centre, and found the bases of columns arranged similarly to those in Darius's palace. * But the exterior does not seem to have been examined. Certain it is, however, that no traces exist above ground, as would have been the case had Darius's palace been buried to the same extent. Unfortunately there is no inscription on this building by which its age can be determined; a fact which would almost of itself preclude the idea of its being built by Darius, as that king, apparently, lost no opportunity of engraving his name on whatever he did, and wherever he went. Its sculptures are identical in design with those of leading into the portico; the king, with his parasol, in the central doorway of the great hall; the mythical combats on the sides, and kingly state again in the two doorways at the back of the hall; so that this affords no clue to the age, though perhaps some one intimately acquainted with the character of Persian art might detect in the execution of the sculptures such a difference of style as would determine whether it was contemporary with the palace of Darius, or whether it preceded it, or was erected subsequently. * Their plans of this edifice not being yet published, I take this statement from a passage in the Revue des Deux Mondes, August, 1850 written by M. Flandin himself.

·133 before the con of the upper, perhaps before that SOUTH-EASTERN EDIFICE. With such drawings as we now possess it would be ridiculous to attempt any thing of the kind; but even these drawings suffice to show that it has a monolithic character of solidity about it, and a massiveness of proportion greater than that possessed by any other edifice on the platform; which would seem to point to an age different from the rest, the first or the last, but as far as that characteristic may be depended upon, it would seem to be the earliest. At all events, I feel assured, that if any building here has a claim to be considered as belonging to either Cyrus or Cambyses, it must be this one; and I am sometimes inclined to believe that this was a solitary temple that stood here on a natural eminence of either of the terraces, and that being placed in a hollow by them, the earth has accumulated around its base so as to bury it. An excavation in front of its porch would, if this theory is correct, reveal its stylobate, with the stairs, sculpture, and inscriptions which form so invariable an accompaniment to an edifice of this sort, that it is difficult to understand their absence here, and would be an anomaly in Persian art unless accounted for by some such explanation as that now proposed. Before leaving the subject of these tetrastyle halls, it may be as well to say a few words as to the mode in which they were lighted; for though the question is not so important with regard to them as it is in respect of the larger halls, still, as it is one of the principal difficulties of the whole subject, it inay be or by sou ·NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS, how they could suffice; still the fact of the porch of the 134 as well to take it up from the beginning, so as to render it eventually intelligible. If, of course, the south-eastern edifice were always as we now find it, a hall and porch without side chambers, the question would not require to be raised: the five doorways that open into it would more than suffice; for in eastern countries doorways are windows, and in most cases windows are doorways; but as I feel certain that this edifice, like the palace of Darius, originally had, or was designed to be surrounded by smaller apartments, our reasoning will apply with equal force to either edifice. The only windows, properly so called, that open into these central halls are four, two on each side of the central doorway under the porches. These are so small, only four feet six inches high, by two feet ten inches in breadth, that it is difficult to understand palace of Darius facing the south being six feet deeper than that of the south-eastern edifice which faces the north, points, I think, conclusively to the fact that these were the principal openings through which light was admitted. To attempt to light an apartment fifty feet square by four small windows placed under a double portico thirty feet deep, would, in this climate, be like placing four small candles in a ball-room; but, in the East, the sun is bright, and gloom so agreeable, that in this instance, I believe, we shall find that they suffice for this purpose. It would not, perhaps, have done so, had these central halls been the principal apartments ·INDIAN VIHARAS. 135 of the edifices, or the main object for which they were built; but, as will appear more clearly in the sequel, they seem to have been only basement crypts, if I may use the term, destined to support the structure of the Talar raised upon them, and consequently a moderate portion of light served to fit them for their purposes. No. 10. GANG TUARY GIDE CELLS CL CIR CELLE SZAVANEVA VERANDA Vihara at Ajuntah. Scale 50 feet to 1 inch) The annexed woodcut will, perhaps, make this subject somewhat clearer. It represents the groundplan of one of the Rock-cut Viharas (monasteries) of Ajuntah.* I have chosen the one nearest in size, though not in age, to these Persepolitan buildings, the dimensions of the hall being forty-eight feet square f, and the only light admitted to it is by a * See Illustrations of the Rock-cut Temples of India, by the Author p. 23. and plate 2. † This is the exact dimension Ker Porter gives, vol. i. P. 643, and 661. I have, however, followed the French dimensions, as more detailed and correct.

·136 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. doorway and two windows under a portico, tetrastyle in antis, like those at Persepolis. It is true that at Ajuntah the porch is only one row of columns in depth, while at Persepolis there are two rows; but, to balance this, it must be observed, that a considerable quantity of light could and would be admitted to the central hall by the five doorways that open from lateral apartments into it, whereas the Ajuntah cave being wholly in the rock, no glimmering of light could enter except through the portico; and it was required not only to light the hall, but the sanctuary and the cells on each side, which at Persepolis had their own windows opening outwards, so that the advantage is altogether on the side of the Persepolitan edifice; and if these three openings were considered sufficient at Ajuntah, those provided at Persepolis must have been more than was required for such a tetrastyle hall as this: in larger halls inore may have been required; but of this hereafter. This plan of an Indian monastery is not only interesting as explaining the mode of lighting these edifices, but also as pointing to a similarity of architectural form on both sides of the Indus, which may serve as a guide to future explorers in that path. For it will be observed that the Vihara is a tetrastyle hall like the one we have just been describing, with this only difference, that the four central columns are omitted, and for the obvious reason that the Buddhists did not worship on their house-tops like their brothers the Magi; and, though the two religions resembled one another in so very many respects (as ·INDIAN VIHARAS. lumns, leavina 137 might be expected from their having the same origin in the same country), they differ in this, that the Buddhist is essentially an internal, the Magian an external form of worship; and, consequently, it was essential to the former that their hall should be fitted for purposes of state, whereas, with the latter, the hall was sacrificed to the roof, and to the altar which was placed thereon. I need scarcely repeat here a remark I have so often made elsewhere— that these Ajuntah caves, and indeed all rock-cut structures in all parts of the world, are, in their first stages at least, exact copies of structural buildings; so that it is no false reasoning to compare the one with the other; for except in durability, there is no difference between them; and the Ajuntah caves are particularly interesting here, as they consist, like the buildings of Persepolis, of distyle, tetrastyle, hexastyle, and octastyle halls, with porches in front, and surrounded by cells. The only difference being, that in all instances (there is one exception at Baug*) the Indian architects omit the central group of cothe reason I have pointed out above. To ho? See Rock-cut Temples, p. 27., and Lieutenant Dangerfield's Memoirs, vol. ii., Trans. Bombay, Lit. Soc.

·138 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. HEXASTYLE HALLS. 2 Of the next class — that of Hexastyle edifices, - Persepolis possesses two. One now known as the Palace of Xerxes, a building nearly on the same relative scale as the palace of Darius; the other, which I have called the Hall of Xerxes, is the pride and glory of Persepolis and of Persian architecture, being by far the noblest and most splendid specimen of their art that time has spared us. The inscriptions on the former leave no doubt as to the fact of Xerxes having been the builder of it; and though Rawlinson seems to doubt it*, I think it nearly as certain that to him also we must ascribe the erection of the latter. For, in the first place, there is the inscription † on the great sculptured staircase on its northern face, in which he takes credit for it, and does not mention his father as having any share in the work, as he does in the inscription on his father's palace, and does not even allude to the other works of his father, as he does in the inscription on the propylæa above quoted; and if he built the foundations or stylobates, à fortiori, he must have erected the superstructure: that could not have been built first. It is true there is no inscription on the walls of the edifice to settle this question, but for the simple reason, that not one vestige of these walls remains * Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol. x. p. 271. | Idem, vol. x. p. 326. ca ·HEXASTYLE HALLS. 139 above ground, nor any place where an inscription could be placed. But if this were not deemed conclusive, the architectural evidence would, I conceive, be more than sufficient to settle the question : for the position of the propylæa, their size, and the absolute identity of the style of the pillars, show incontestably the same hand; and the fact of its being merely a magnified copy of his palace, and very unlike, both in dimensions and style, to anything Darius ever built, settles the question I think, beyond dispute; while, on the other hand, I am not aware of one argument of importance in favour of its being ascribed to the father instead of the son, while arguments on the other side might be multiplied to any extent; such, for instance, as Darius's palace facing the south and this the north, -an awkwardness that could hardly have occurred in the works of the same monarch; but as I shall have occasion to recur to them in the sequel, I shall not insist more on it in this place. Though the palace is so much smaller than the hall, its remains are so much more complete that it will be convenient to examine it first. As shown in the woodcut on the next page, it consists of a hexastyle hall with a portico dipteral in antis. At the back of this portico there are two doorways leading into the great hall, neither of them being in the centre, but in the * It was Flandin and Coste who (by excavating, apparently,) discovered the bases of the columns of this portico, and so enabled me, who had, like others, overlooked it, to see at once the similarity between this edifice and the Chehil Minar. It is true they are marked on Ker Porter's plan, but so incorrectly as only to mislead. They are not shown either in Texier's or in Niebuhr's plans.

·140 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. aisle next to each end, --a peculiarity of Persepolitan architecture that must be borne in mind to understand the sequel; between these two doors are three windows, and one beyond them each way. No. 11. O o o o o o . O OO O O Oo 0 o 0 o o ET: 3 . o Oo Tala-c of Xerxes. (Seniu 100 feet to linch) The hall itself is eighty-seven feet six inches square (Texier), and on its floor are found the marks of thirty-six columns, spaced equidistant from one another, as in the former instances; here, however, the intercolumniation is somewhat wider, the distance being twelve feet six inches from the centre of one column to that of another. At the back of the hall, towards the south, there is in the centre, one doorway which opens on a narrow terrace, from which two flights of steps lead down to the lower southern plat- ·PALACE OF XERXES. 141 form. Besides this door there are six windows in the wall, and as from its position no chamber could ever have existed on this side, the strong southern light there admitted must have been more than sufficient, taken in conjunction with those on the north, to have lighted up every corner of even this larger hall; thus confirming the view taken of the smaller ones, that they were lighted not from the roof, or by any extraneous means, but merely by the openings now found in the walls. Down the centre of the floor of this palace there runs an aqueduct (which has obtained for the building the popular name of the Baths) in a direction from south to north. Towards its southern end, as shown in the woodcut, by the dotted lines, it branches out to the right and left, and terminates under the southern wall. It could not be meant to convey water from the reservoir on the hill behind the terrace, as is generally supposed; for though that may be at a higher level than the floor of the palace, the intervening ground is lower, and water could only have passed this so as to ascend again, by closed pipes, of which there is no trace, nor is it probable the Persians knew their use. It therefore could only be a drain to receive the water from the roof, similar to those found in all the Assyrian palaces, and its termination under the walls shows, further, that the water must have reached it by pipes in the wall, probably formed of tubes of baked clay let into one another. The edifice is too much ruined to tell us whether similar pipes and drains existed under the side walls, though from its position ·1 economy NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. probable the water was drained towards the us in Persia that this system of drainage was or because the water from the temple roof was l, can only be determined when we have made r minds as to what the edifices were. each side of the hall, is a range of apartments, but thirty-five feet in width. The principal one ich is on the centre of each side of the hall. two are square, and their roofs were supported ur pillars each, arranged equidistantly, as in Istyle halls. Behind them the space is cut up three small chambers or cells, of extremely w dimensions. It is possible one or more of in that case the outer ones may have cond the stairs leading to the roof; but the sculpon the side of the windows would seem to indithat they were the private apartments - the g-room, indeed, of the sovereign*, or of the s if it was a temple. The room in front of the le apartments does not appear to have been ed, but to have formed one room, thirty-four by twenty-two on each side. Beyond this, to the northward, are two apartments, which from their position to have been guard-cham- They, too, seem to have been cut up in small by divisions, but to what extent is not quite as authorities differ. I have followed Flandin Joste in this respect, though I am afraid there santy materials for determining the point exactly. * Ker Porter, vol. i. p. 652. WW ·PALACE OF XERXES. 143 The sculpture of this palace differs somewhat from that of those we have been examining; inasmuch as all the doorways (all those at least which remain), leading into the great hall, are adorned with the image of the king, followed by two attendants, one of them bearing the umbrella or the fly-chaser, - there being no mythical combats on the side entrances but to make up for this want of variety, the windows to the sides are adorned by groups of dinner-bearing servants, The difference being perhaps characteristic of the two kings, and of the downward tendency of all Eastern dynasties from the moment of their first establishment on the throne they have won. The doryphores, or spear-bearing sentinels, however, still adorn the portals leading from the side apartments into the porch; this being the invariable rule in all the palaces here. As before mentioned, the remains of a distyle hall exist in front of this building, though a little on one side, and two staircases, one on the east and one on the west side of the terrace on which it stands, -- not arranged, as usual, in front of the stylobate, but so placed as to serve the same purpose, of allowing the multitude to march across the front of the palace without interruption. So that, taken altogether, this and the palace of Darius are the two most complete buildings in Persepolis, and enable us to understand very completely all the arrangements of these edifices. I need scarcely add that this building must, like the tetrastyle halls, have supported a Talar A11* ·144 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. internal arrangements indicate this as certainly as those of the smaller halls; and I may also add here, though it will only be discussed in the sequel, that it appears that the pillars of both these edifices were of wood, and not of stone, or any more durable materials; the internal ones, at least, almost certainly were so, though those of the porticoes may have been of the nobler material. No. 12. le Ion KO Hall of Xerxes. (Scale 100 feet to linch.) If, from this, we turn to the great Hall of Xerxes, or, as it is commonly called, the Chehil Minar, or hall of forty columns, we shall perceive that as far as the pillars of the central hall are concerned, or those of the ·HALL OF XERXES. of the Palace into hexastyle porticoes in the 145 northern portico in front of it, the one building differs in no respect from the other, except in dimension. Between these two groups of pillars we have the foundation of two doorways *, placed, not as in the Palace, in the second, but here, in the line of the first aisle, on each side of the centre; a difference which, however, is quite immaterial. These doorways give us the thickness of the walls, and if we continue them all round the central phalanx of columns, we shall find that they exactly fit the spaces left, allowing the same intercolununiation throughout. The one change which it is necessary to make is, to extend the little distyle halls on the east and west faces --- a change rendered requisite by the necessities of lighting so large an apartment: with this slight alteration, the two buildings become identical in design. Another point is, that by extending these lateral walls to the front, the two outer flights of steps come up exactly to the angle of the antæ, as they do in the front of the palace of Darius: a coincidence which could not be accidental, and explains at once why the stairs were so placed, and also proves, to my mind, that the wall ended there. Indeed, I do not think that, after the illustration already given of this style of architecture, any one can reasonably doubt but that all Persepolitan porticoes were porticoes in * Ker Porter omits these, but Niebuhr and Flandin and Coste put them in as shown on my plan. Texier adds two more externally to them and misplaces one, which is so evidently a mistake that I have not hesitated to omit his view of it. Even if it were correct, however, it would not affect what follows to any sensible extent.

·146 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. antis; and as we know, from existing remains, that a wall did exist in the rear of this portico, we cannot doubt but that one did on each side of it; for it is impossible to explain how otherwise it could terminate to the east and west. The same is also true with regard to the eastern and western porticoes; the wall between the central pillars and the northern portico must have been continued as far as their fronts, and one must have enclosed the whole to the southward, similar to that of the palace. These elements of a restoration I look upon as nearly quite certain ; and the only thing that can, I think, remain doubtful, is, whether walls were continued between the eastern and western porticoes and the central phalanx. I would, myself, most unhesitatingly say that these must have existed, but for one circumstance which must not be overlooked. It is, that Flandin and Coste's plan shows a drain passing down the centre of these spaces, exactly under where these walls should be. To show this, I at one time intended in the woodcut to restore one half of the hall as I suppose it to have been, and to leave the wall out in the other to show these drains; but, to prevent confusion, I have omitted them in the woodcut, as they are shown on the general plan, which renders their arrangement more intelligible. In the first place, it will be remarked there are two square openings on each side, into them. These I have no doubt do exist, and correspond exactly with those these gentlemen show under the southern walls of the Palace; but they make the ·DRAINS UNDER HALL. justified in doubting 147 drain proceed from one to the other; and though it may appear impertinent in one who has never been there to say so, to those that have, my own impression is that this junction does not exist. Nobody ever saw it there before, and when plans are so full of mistakes and oversights as these are, I think we are factorily proved. One other circumstance inclines me still more to this view of the case, which is, that the drain or aqueduct from Darius's palace, which runs into these, does not do so at right angles, or run into this uppermost and principal drain, but turns to the eastward, so as to avoid it; and I cannot conceive any reason why this should be so, unless it were to avoid the wall that stood here. But even assuming that these drains do exist, as shown on these plans, is it not possible--nay even probable--that a narrow drain may have been cut in the rock under the footings of a mud-brick wall eighteen feet in thickness, to keep it dry ? With such a width of base and rock foundation, such an expedient could not possibly affect its stability, and when you build with mud, dryness is the first essential to durability. So that, taken altogether, even if these drains do exist which is doubtful - I do not think that they ought to bear any weight either one way or another on the question; but it is requisite to state it fairly, as others, without this explanation, might think differently Another question, and a most important one, is that of lighting, which should probably in itself 12 ·148 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. suffice to determine how the walls were arranged. In speaking of the tetrastyle halls, I showed, I trust satisfactorily, that they were lighted by openings in one wall only, and that wall covered by deep porticoes. In the hexastyle hall built by Xerxes, I showed that this did not suffice for its increased dimensions, and consequently light was admitted through a second wall, and that exposed to the south. In the present instance the hall is so much larger than either of these, that light is admitted through all the four walls of the central apartment. Three of them are covered, it is true, with porticoes, but the fourth, which is the southern one, is exposed to the direct rays of the sun; thus showing a gradation in design to suit the increased dimensions of the buildings, which, to my mind, is decisive, not only as to the mode in which they were lighted, but also that the restoration shown in plan is the correct one. The only other hypothesis that occurs to me as possible, is that the wall at the rear of the side porticoes may have been omitted, and curtains hung on the east and west sides of the central phalanx of columns, which may have been drawn across to the outer ranges when the hall was used; thus forrning temporary roof, of no small beauty, it must be con. fessed, and in perfect accordance with what we find in many Eastern palaces at the present day. Before the recent additions to our knowledge, such a theory was not only plausible, but perhaps offered the best mode of explaining the anomalies this building seemed to present, but with our present improved knowledge, ·PLAN OF GREAT HALL. 149 such a view of the case appears altogether untenable, and the direct evidence to the contrary is so strong as to amount to perfect conviction to my mind. Although, therefore, I at one time intended to have restored the plan of one half of the building in conformity with this hypothesis, that others might choose which ever appeared to them most conformable with their views of the case, I have abandoned it as scarcely worth suggesting, and restored it in accordance with the observed facts and the analogies derived from the Palace built by the same monarch. Assuming therefore, for the present at least, that this is a correct representation of the ground plan of the building, we get over one great difficulty of the subject, but are met at once by an anomaly by no mcans easy of explanation, which is this: --- In the buildings previously described, we have (except in the propylæa) met only with traces of the foundations of columns, but not one pillar erect, nor scarcely even a base in situ; but, on the other hand, the doorways, windows, and niches, together with the foundations of the walls, exist everywhere, so as to leave no doubt whatever either of their existence or position. Here, on the contrary, fifteen of the seventy-two columns are still standing, and the bases Sir Thomas Herbert, in his Travels, says: “ Adjoining there is a pacious room, best resembling a hall. The dimensions, by the remaining walls that compass it, may very well be discovered. In it are nineteen columns," &c. See page 151. of his Travels in 1665. I scarce know what importance to attach to this assertion; not much, I fear, and certainly none to the view that accompanies it. one to the view of L 3 ·NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. for the pillars of the 150 of almost all the rest are in situ ; but on the other hand, no trace of the walls is found, or of any thing belonging to them, except the foundations of two doorways behind the northern portico, and we look in vain for the colossal sculptured jambs, the windows, niches, and antæ, which mark the site, and reveal the form of the other edifices on the platform. The first part of the difficulty may easily be expalaces of Darius and Xerxes were so small, that supposing them to have been of stone, they could easily have been removed ; and we need only bear in mind that the city of Istakr flourished within a few iniles of this spot for than a thousand years after these palaces were deserted, and that it only requires half a dozen men, with a few poles, to remove the frustum of a column two feet or two and a half feet in diameter, and probably only five feet or six feet in length; but pillars sixty feet in height and six feet in diameter are by no means so easily dealt with. It requires considerable power to throw them down, and considerable mechanical skill to remove their frusta, when on the ground; besides, the first operation could not be performed without breaking the column to pieces, without the erection of scaffolding, and a greater expense and trouble than was worth while, to obtain masses so unmanageable and unfit for any of the domestic purposes to which the smaller ones could be applied. It is probable, therefore, the larger ones are uninjured by the hand of man, unless in more ·WOODEN PILLARS. 151 wanton mischief; but the smaller ones may have been too tempting a booty to have been resisted. There is another suggestion, which I would willingly slur over if I could, though I fear it is only too likely to be the true one; it is, that the columns of the smaller palaces were of wood, and have consequently perished by their own inherent decay. I shall presently have occasion to show that the roofs of the palaces of Nineveh were certainly supported by wooden posts, so there is no prima facie improbability that the same was the case here: but the direct proof is even stronger; for the nature and form of the foundations left, the absence of all fragments, or of a single base being found in the rubbish, all tend to show that wood, rather than stone, was used, at least internally, to support the wooden roofs which covered in the buildings. I do not know if the expression of Curtius may be allowed to stand as direct testimony in favour of the wooden theory, but as far as it goes, it is certainly strongly in favour of it*: but more distinct than this is the description given by Polybius of the palace of Ecbatanat, which he says was wholly built of cedar and of cypress wood; and he mentions not only the internal, but also the external pillars and the roof they supported, as composed of these materials, and * Quintius Curtius, lib. v. 7. Multa cedro ædificata erat regia, quæ celeriter igne concepto late fudit incendium. + Polybius, vol. x. 24. He is evidently speaking of a palace of about the same age as these, as he mentions that the Macedonians, under Alexander, tore off many of the silver plates with which its pillars and walls were adorned.

·NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. in this hall 152 inferentially we are led to suppose that even the walls were of wood, which we do not find could have been the case here.* Altogether, the evidence of wooden architecture, confirmed as it is by what we find in the rock-cut structures of Lycia and India, is so strong, that I fear there is no escaping it; and we must admit the great probability that most of the roofs here were supported by wooden posts, without which, indeed, it would be difficult to understand how Alexander could have burnt one of these palaces so easily as he did. Be this as it may, we certainly have stone pillars original. But if stone was used for these parts to a greater extent in the hall than in the palaces, it certainly was used to a far less extent in the walls that surrounded them. Of what then were the walls composed ? My own conviction is, that they were built of mud bricks, and covered with glazed and enamelled tiles. The thickness of the walls almost certainly proves the first part of the proposition; for a wall eighteen feet in thickness t, built of stone, is an absurdity scarcely to be thought of; and even if, of the imperfectly burnt bricks of those days, one half that thickness would have more than sufficed. It is true we only certainly know from measurement that the wall behind the northern portico was of that thickness; but as the distance between the side porticoes and the central a Polybius, lib. x. 24. † 5:46 met., Texier, plate 93., or seventeen feet ten inches.

·COLOURED ARCHITECTURE. 153 group is identical with that between them and the northern portico, the thickness of the wall must have been the same there as in front. With regard to the tiles, we have only analogy to rest upon ; but as all the most ornamental and expensive buildings in these parts have been so adorned from the time of the foundation of Nineveh to the present hour, we should rather expect, than otherwise, that this building would be so ornamented. The discoveries both of M. Botta and of Layard have proved incontestably, what the Greek historians seem to insinuate, that the Ninevite buildings were coated in this manner. Specimens of the tiles now exist, both in the Louvre and the British Museum, which explain at the same time why no remains of them are found at Persepolis; for the bricks are so badly burnt, and the enamel so imperfectly glazed, that had they not been completely buried they must have crumbled to pieces long before this. The modern enamelled tiles, such as cover the mosques of Teflis, Teheran, or Ispahan, are far better burnt, and would resist the atmosphere for an indefinite period. The Persepolitan may have held an intermediate grade between the two, and still have perished in toto, either by crumbling under the influence of the atmosphere, or the more perfect specimens may have been removed by hand of man, so that their not being found now is scarcely an argument either way. To a person accustomed only to the colourless stone architecture of Europe, such a mode of building and decorating a building may, indeed must, ·154 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. appear anomalous; but it requires only a slight acquaintance with Eastern art, and more especially with that of Persia, to understand that, even setting aside the evidence of existing remains, it is more than probable that this would be the mode adopted for so ornamental a structure as this one appears to have been. In all ages and in all countries, Eastern architecture seems to have been much more remarkable for its colours than for its forms; and whether we turn to the Alhambra or to the buildings beyond the Indus, the same fact meets us everywhere. It is no matter how flat or how extensive their plain walls may be, everywhere the most exquisite and delicate ornament is found covering them, and relieved with the most brilliant, and at the same time the most harmonious colouring They were thus enabled to dispense almost entirely with form or shadow, and trusting only to ornament and colour, to render that beautiful which in itself had no pretension to either beauty or design. When, therefore, a Persian architect wishes to conceive or produce anything more than usually magnificent, the process, in his mind, is diametrically opposed to what occurs to a European. He revels in colour and ornament, and leaves form to take care of itself; with the European, on the contrary, form is everything, and colour, if tolerated, is adventitious and subordinate. To a Persian, plain stone walls surrounding such a building as this, however massive and well polished they may have been, would have ·COLOURED ARCHITECTURE. have done what he could to attain to it. His son 155 appeared a cold and rude method of getting over the difficulty, and its superior durability would have but few charms with a people who aspire so little to immortality in any form, and to whom eternity, either past or future, is inerely an amusing exaggeration. With the Persian, then, as now, the present is all in all; he is heedless of the past and reckless of the future. The gorgeous splendour of a passing pageant is to him a nobler conception than the eternity of a pyramid. We mourn over the premature decay of their enamelled mosques; the Persian heeds it not, and would not move either hand or foot to arrest it. They belong to the past, and he sees then perish before his eyes, without a feeling, or regret, or a wish to save; and feeling this, he cares little to consign to his posterity what they will value as lightly. Of all the Persian monarchs Darius is the only one who seems to have had a hankering after immortality, and both by his buildings and inscriptions seems to Xerxes, however, was a truer Persian, and from what we know of his life, we should expect of him that he would consider the enjoyment of a gorgeous present as far preferable to any posthumous fame, and a form of art such as I have been describing, in preference to a more solid or more simple style. True it is that it was perishable, and has perished; but when perfect I cannot conceive anything more gorgeous, or perhaps much more beautiful, than such a building as this must have appeared in the clear sunshine of a Persian climate, if ornamented and ·156 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. coloured as I conceive it to have been when in the days of its pristine magnificence. If I am correct in this view of the matter, it is more than probable, indeed almost certain, that no stone whatever was used in the construction of the walls; the lintels, therefore, of the doorways and windows must either have been formed of wood or arched. The former is, unfortunately, only too common a practice in the East, and many buildings owe their early ruin to its existence. I I am, however, unwilling to believe that it was used here, but would prefer very much the second supposition, because we know from the remains at Nimroud that the arch was currently used in building long before the time of the Achæmenidæ, and on the sculptures of the Assyrian palaces we find city gates and the larger openings almost invariably represented as arched ; so that the probability is strong that this mode was used here. It is true we have no example on the spot*; but at Firuzabad, some eighty miles to the southward, there exist now the remains of a Sassanian palace of a style totally distinct from every thing here--a pillarless, vaulted and domed edifice; yet its three principal apartments are ornamented by a * In a view published in Valentyn, Oud en Niewe oost Indien, ed. 1724, vol. v, p. 221., there is a large, and in most respects singularly correct, view of the ruins, made by a Heer Jager, which represents one arch joining two doorposts, which I am inclined to think could scarcely be an inadvertence, more especially as the doorway so represented is the one which Artaxerxes added to the palace of Darius, and was therefore exceptional even there, and employed only after long familiarity with the Greeks. It would not of course do to build much on such a view as this, but I am not inclined to reject its evidence entirely.

·ARCHED OPENINGS. 157 No. 13. Time 30:4. Doorway at Puuzabad. scries of niches and doorways so Persepolitan in character and detail as to catch the eye of the most careless observer. They are in discord with every thing around them; but are just such openings as I should fancy were used here. The presumption, therefore, is that the Sassanian architect borrowed them from this place, where they may still have existed in his time. One of them is represented in the annexed woodcut (No.13.); from which it will easily be seen how much they differ from Sassanian art in general, but how appropriate they would be at Persepolis. Whatever uncertainty there may exist regarding the walls of this building, there is, most fortunately, none regarding the pillars that supported the roof, Fifteen of these are still standing, and in a sufficiently perfect state to show all their forms and dimensions, When Pietro della Valle visited these ruins in 1621, twenty-five columns were still on their bases; at least so he says; but Herbert, in 1627, only six years afterwards, and Mendelslo, in 1638, saw only nineteen. Fryer, in 1677, found only eighteen. Kämpfer, in 1696, and Niebuhr, in 1765, counted seventeen. Francklin, in 1787, found that two of that number had disappeared in the interval, as only ·NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. plain shafts and circular bases and double bull capitals, 158 fifteen then remained, which number still exists. Of these the largest groups, comparatively, are those of the eastern and western porticoes--five existing in the one group, and four in the other, - while of the northern portico only one pillar is now standing, and of the thirty-six that once occupied the centre, five only remain; a circumstance that would seem to indicate that they supported some heavier mass which in falling ruined ther, and bearing towards the eastward, bore down the greater number of them. If it were not so, we should rather have expected to find the unsupported outer columns of the porticoes ruined first, and the centre phalanx supporting one another after these had fallen. Be this as it may, as we have still some of each, we are enabled to ascertain what their forms and varieties were, and we find that they were of two orders and two varieties of each order; the eastern and western porticoes being of one order specimens but those of the one portico differing slightly from those of the other. The centre phalanx and the northern portico are also of one order, differing very considerably from that of the lateral porticoes, but identical with another, except in as far as the base and perhaps the upper member of the capital are concerned. pillars of the propylæa are identical with these last. To begin with the simplest, -those of the eastern and western porticoes (woodcut No. 14.),- they consist of a circular base or plinth one foot in height and cight The ·PILLARS. 159 No. 14. feet in diameter, on which is placed a member in the form of an inverted lotus flower three feet two inches in height. Above this is a torus, fillet, &c., similar to those of the Ionic order, making altogether a base five feet six inches in height. From this rises the shaft, composed of four blocks of marble measuring together fifty-four feet ten inches in height, five feet four inches in diameter at the base, and tapering to four feet six inches at the summit. In all instances, when stone pillars are found here, they are fluted; in the present instance with fifty-two parallel flutes, exactly similar in form to those of the Greek Ionic order, which this one so much resembles. The capital is composed of two demi-bulls, and measures seven feet in height by twelve feet two inches in its greatest breadth. The whole height, therefore, from the floor to the under side of the architrave, is sixty-seven feet four inches; but to the hollow between the two bulls, on which the transverse beam of the roof rested, as rillar of Western Portico. shown on the façade of Darius's tomb, is three feet four inches less, — mak- Liefoot ·160 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. No. 15. ing the height to under side of that beam just sixty-four feet. ** The columns of the eastern portico differ from those of the western only in having bases of a somewhat richer detail, and the capitals, instead of being double bulls, are double demigriffins of the usual grinning pattern so common in Persepolis and all the older specimens of architecture in India. The base of the columns of the northern portico is identical with those of the lateral porticoes in dimensions and general design, but somewhat less rich in detail. The shaft, too, is in every respect similar to the height of forty-one feet eight inches from the ground; the fluted shaft, however, terminates here, and is surmounted by a capital of a form peculiar to Persepolis (and perhaps Nineveh), sixteen feet six inches in height, -making together a column Laufest nine feet two inches less in total t'i uf Northern Fortico. height than those of the porticoes. * The above measurements are taken from the large drawings of the pillars in Texier's work, pl. 104. and 107., corrected as far as can be done from the data furnished so as to make the figured dimensions agree the drawings, which they very seldom do. They differ to the extent of about 10 per cent. from those furnished by Ker Porter, but as they agree as nearly as could be expected with Flandin and Coste's, I am forced to abandon the latter and adopt these. $ with ·PILLARS AT PERSEPOLIS. 161 The capital is composed of three distinct parts. The lower one, three feet nine inches in height, resembles very much the base, both in form and design. It is separated by the usual Ionic ornament, familiarly known as the bead and reel, from the next, which has more of the bell form of the Roman Corinthian order. In this instance, however, the lotus is evidently the “ motif” of the composition. Its summit is slightly rounded, and on it rests the third and tallest part of the capital (eight feet three inches), something in the form of a Maltese cross in horizontal section, fluted throughout and ornamented by four Ionic volutes in each face. So, at least, it is represented in all the detailed drawings in both the great French works so often quoted. But Ker Porter represents it with only two volutes, both in the perspective sketch and detailed restoration, in plate 45., and says in the text, in so many words (p. 637.), "The upper compartment has only two volutes." Thus carefully distinguishing it from those of the propylæa, which he represents in words and drawing as having four. It is true that in the picturesque views that accompany Flandin and Coste's work, they are sometimes represented one way, and sometimes another; but these sketches are avowedly so incorrect, that it would be absurd to draw any conclusion from anything they contain. My own impression is that the pillars of the northern portico had two volutes on each face, those in the interior four (it may be vice versa); but this can only be determined by MI ·162 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. some one who will go there with his eyes open, which does not seem yet to have been the case.* As will have been observed from the preceding, the inner columns are nine feet two inches lower than the outer ones, or, taking the backs of the bulls as the standard, still five feet ten inches below the under side of the lowest beam. Had the case been reversed, it might easily have been explained. Indeed, the water shed would seem to require some such expedient; for, notwithstanding all the pains taken to drain the great hall, it is not easy to comprehend why its roof should have been made a tank, as this would lead us to suppose. To obviate this difficulty, both Flandin and Coste, and Texier, place a doublebull capital above the volutes, so as to make the heights of all equal. There are, however, several objections to this, --- for the interior apartments at least. In these the beams running equally in four directions, a capital facing only in two is a singularly awkward expedient, as clumsy for an interior as it is appropriate for an external porch, where we only really know of its having been used. It may therefore have been so employed in the northern as well as in the eastern and western faces. But for the interior we must adopt some other solution; and that, I think, is found in the * In attempting to restore this order on a former occasion, I followed Ker Porter implicitly, the French works being then very incomplete; but feel myself now forced to abandon that view for one more in conformity with their data. If, however, he should eventually prove to be correct,- which I cannot help suspecting he is, --the restoration given in “The True Principles of Beauty" would conform far more closely with my idea of what the northern portico should be than the one now offered.

·PILLARS OF HALL. 163 annexed woodcut from the sculptures at Khorsabad (No. 16.), which represents a pavilion with pillars as similar to these as the very rude drawing and sculp- No. 16. Pavilion at Khorsabaa. ture could represent them. On these, over the volutes, will be observed three inverted gradini, which I have no doubt represent the bracket capital so universally used in the East, and which is, therefore, what should propose adding here. We have, however, besides, strong internal evidence that this was the form adopted; for on the tops of these columns there still exists a stone tenon or dowel * rough-hewn, but forming part of the lower stone, which Texier, plates 102. 105. 107., &c.; and Ker Porter, plate 45.; see also woodcut No. 15. M 2 ·NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. found among termining whethe 164 evidently was meant to be inserted into something; and this could not have been a double-bull capital, because no such tenon exists on the top of the columns of the lateral porticoes, where we know these were, and where there now are capitals of this description. Besides, if this had been let into a stone member of any sort, it is improbable that such a stone should have fallen without breaking off the tenon or bringing the capital down with it, unless we suppose the bulls to be split exactly in two, which, however, would have required a blow that would have brought the whole down together. Besides all this, no fragments of these bull capitals are the débris that covers the floor of the central hall; whereas, had such capitals existed, they must have been found there. Putting all this together, there can, I think, be very little doubt but that the upper member of the capital in the interior was of the form I have represented it, unless we choose to consider it lower than the outer sides, which I cannot admit it ever could have been. As to the question whether the pillars of the northern portico had the bracket or the bull capital, it will easily be determined, by any one observing on the spot whether these capitals had tenons or were smooth; which will also be the safest way of dethis is done, the question had better be left in doubt. Besides this probable variety in the capitals, there is a difference in the bases of these columns,—those of the propylæa and of the northern portico being ·PILLARS OF HALL. 165 bell-shaped like those of the side ones; but in the interior of the hall this is omitted and replaced by a rough block and square plinth just under the torus. The lowest member was certainly meant to be hidden by the floor, and probably the latter was flush with it; thus showing that the floor of this apartment was raised four or five feet above the level of its porticoes, and ascended most probably by steps in the doorways. These suggestions I have put together in the annexed section (No. 17.), which explains these forms better than can be done in words. No. 17. Section of Hall of Xerxes. We have no authority for the form of the entablature which these pillars supported, except what is derived from the tombs. This one, however, was probably much richer than anything we find there; for the columns that support it are far more elaborately * Ker Porter confines this alteration (p. 638.) to the two central rows, pointing north and south; but his own plan shows all the thirty-six with square bases, and so do the French authorities. It is true some of M. Flandin's sketches make them all bell-shaped; but that is nothing. M 3 ·166 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. ornamented, and would in consequence require a richer entablature to accord with them. Whatever its form was, we may safely assume that the material used was wood, not only in consequence of the immense length of the stone beam that would have been required, -twenty-eight feet six inches, - but because no vestiges of it have been found among the ruins, which, had it been composed of any more durable material, must, I conceive, have been the case. Like the entablatures of the tombs, it probably consisted of an architrave and frieze only. The former, like the Greek Ionic, divided into two or three facets, and surmounted by a dentil cornice, which in the Greek order was placed higher up under the cornice. The frieze here was a true Zoophorus, being ornamented by one or more rows of bulls or lions, facing towards the centre, --so at least it is represented on the tombs and other sculptures, -- and this apparently was surmounted by only a simple fillet, without any trace of a cornice, the third or crowning member of the Greek entablature. Indeed, neither in ancient nor modern Persian art do we find that this member was ever employed. It is true in modern palaces, where external curtains are used, a slight wooden cornice projects so as to protect them from the weather, sloping downwards, to throw the rain off, and take the same line as the curtain when drawn forwards. This is a very ancient form of cornice in India, but only used when curtains were also employed. External curtains, however, could never have been ·CORNICE ON HALL. 167 used here, for there is not room for them on the western, and they were not wanted on the northern, and are inapplicable to the southern face; so that a deep cornice would have been as useless as its appearance must have been heavy and inappropriate. For with columns, more than ten diameters in height, and more than four diameters apart, anything approaching to the solidity and shadow of the Greek entablature would have been crushingly heavy; and the greatest art of the architect must have been to design something so light as to prevent his substructure from appearing weak and insufficient. It is more than probable that antcfixa or acroteria, or perhaps griffins, were used over each column to break the sky-line, and give lightness and relief to the upper member of the entablature. As, however, we have no authority for these forms in detail, I have not ventured at present to supply the deficiency which inore careful examination may, perhaps, one day supply from actually observed facts. There is only one other part of this building which requires a few words of notice before passing to the other edifices on the platform; this is the Talar, or stage on the roof, which, from the internal evidence of the pillars and the direct testimony of his tomb, I suggested must have existed on the top of the palace of Darius. The same internal evidence exists here to lead us to believe that the roof of the great hall supported some superstructure, or why that equal spacing throughout? Why was not the central aisle wider?

·168 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. Why were its columns not thicker and higher, so as to admit of a clerestory, as in the great halls of Egypt, with which the Persians were so familiar? It is, in short, almost impossible to understand an arrangement so unmeaning and so inartistic, if the hall were the principal part of the structure; but with the idea that it was subordinate, it becomes intelligible and appropriate. The authority of the tombs, all of which possess this member, is here also of considerable weight, though there is no hexastyle example among them. But besides this, we have, in this instance, the direct testimony of a tradition sufficiently distinct to be of no small importance in determining the question. A Persian lexicographer * raises a stupendous edifice on these wonderful columns; for, explaining the name “ Chehil Minar," which the Takht has borne for centuries (and which signifies the forty spires or pillars), he says, “it denotes the throne of Solomon, on whom be the blessing of God, consisting of 140 columns, on the summit of which was constructed a palace of 160 gaz” † [in length most probably, as supplied by Sir W. Ouseley; but either way it must be an exaggeration, like the number of columns]. The above is confirmed by another authority, the Sheikh Zarkub, who, in his history of Shiraz, mentions the 140 columns erected by King Jemsheed on a rising ground, and the kiushk built upon it or * The Burhan Katea. The following is taken from Sir William Ouseley's Travels (vol. ii. p. 259.), as it is to him I am indebted for this quotation. † The gaz is as nearly as may be the same as the French metre.

·TALAR OF HALL. 22 question: quoting from a Persian author, Hati? 169 them." He adds, “the length of the kiushk was 160 gaz; so that in no region had any monarch ever beheld or constructed such an edifice, and the vestiges of it which remain at the present day are still called Chehil Minareh." There is one other tradition quoted by the same author *, which seems to bear somewhat on this who mentions it on the authority of a more ancient writer (Hamdallah), he says: “It is related that in ancient times persons ascended to the summits of these columns, now fallen, and took earth and clay therefrom, which they crushed, and found amongst it Indian tutty, useful as a medicine for the eyes," &c. For our present purpose it is of little importance whether the zinc was found there or not, but it seems to point out that within the reach of tradition, the roof, or some part of it, existed; for of course neither clay nor tutty could be found on the subsurface of the mere column, and if the roof existed, so may some part of the kiosk; so that the memory of it was fresh in the time of the authorities from whom the above lexicographer and historian quote. It is possible that a careful examination of the Persian authorities might throw some further light on the subject; but I am far from sanguine in this respect; for so long a period elapsed between the overthrow of the Achæmenidæ, so many dynasties and religions passed over the stage between the epoch of the desertion of Persepolis and that of the earliest * Sir William Ouseley's Travels, vol. ii. p. 388.

·NINEVEHI AND PERSEPOLIS. It is not, and does not pretend to be, a resta 170 Persian authors, - that it is hardly probable any of them saw this edifice in any thing like its pristine integrity, and they are too careless in noticing the present to enable those who attempt to write the history of Persia from the materials they furnish to do so with much precision. Be this as it may, the evidence (written, sculptured, and built) seems to me, when taken together, to be more than sufficient to justify us in restoring it as I have done; but, as I shall have again to revert to this point in describing the Hall of a Hundred Columns, I shall leave it for the present as it stands. In the annexed woodcut (No. 18.) I have put together the forms of this building, as far as they can be ascertained; and with the restored ground-plan and section, it will, I hope, give a tolerable idea of the general form and description of this remarkable edifice. for it neither has the columns nor the ornaments which covered its walls and adorned the roof and every part of it. It would be easy to add these, of course; but it would be only from the imagination, and I have preferred leaving it in its cold flatness rather than attempt what we have at present no authority for. For the same reason I have not supplied the stairs that must have led to the roof; probably they may have been in the thickness of the walls; indeed, I should say most probably it was so; but they may also have been in the angle between the northern and two lateral porticoes where the guard chambers stand, and these may have

·No. 18.
To face page 271.
Fut
29 LITO
RESTORATION 05 HAT. OF VERSES

·No text on this page.

·EXTERNAL APPEARANCE OF HALL. 171 we have been two or even three stories in height, reaching to the level of the roof. But for all this no authority, and therefore had better leave it till further observations supply some data for our conjectures. I may also add that the woodcut does not do justice to the drawing from which it was engraved; so that, though it may represent the form, it does not represent the appearance, of the building it is designed to illustrate. One of the most remarkable features of this building is its dimensions, which render it one of the largest buildings on a regular plan, if not in reality the most extensive that had been crected at its time, or, indeed, up to the period of the great Christian cathedrals. The centre hall alone covered internally more than 40,000 square feet, or, with its walls, 55,700; its three porticoes add 42,500 feet to this, and, including the guard rooms (6800), it makes a rectangle of about 300 feet by 350, or 105,000 square feet. The great hall at Karnac, the most stupendous building of antiquity, covers internally 58,300 feet, and, with its walls and porticoes, only 88,800, and the two largest temples of antiquity,--those of Jupiter Olympius at Athens and Agrigentum, --cover respectively only 59,000 and 56,000 feet. We have no cathedral in England that at all comes near it in dimensions; nor indeed in France or Germany is there any one that covers so much ground. Cologne comes nearest to it—81,500 feet; but, of course, the comparison is hardly fair, as these buildings had ·172 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. stone roofs and were far higher. But in linear horizontal dimensions the only edifice of the middle ages that comes up to it is Milan cathedral, which covers 107,800 feet, and (taken all in all) is perhaps the building that resembles it most both in style and the general character of the effect it must have produced on the spectator. Neither of them belongs to the best class of art; and in this respect they are surpassed by many smaller edifices; but for fairy lightness of forin and exuberance of rich, though halfbarbarous ornament, they stand unrivalled in the ancient and the modern world. Neither is quite satisfactory, but the most rigid critic cannot deny that they produce a sensation of bewilderment and beauty which it is impossible to resist; and to most minds they seem, and must always have appeared to be, among the noblest creations of human intellect or of human power. SOUTH-WESTERN EDIFICE. I shall say little here regarding the south-western edifice, as nothing remains by which its architectural character can be satisfactorily deterinined. According to Niebuhr's plan, we should be led to suppose it a tetrastyle hall facing the north ; according to Ker Porter, a pentastyle hall,— if such a style exists, ---facing in that direction; while Texier makes it an hexastyle facing the east, as shown in the general plan. Flandin and Coste have not yet ·scription is, however, word for word identical with SOUTH-WESTERN EDIFICE. 173 published their view of the matter; but it cannot be of much importance, as it is evident that the remains do not suffice for determining accurately even the number of pillars that stood here. It may have been an anomalous building with an uneven number of columns, but this is hardly probable ; but, till the remains are more carefully examined than they have hitherto been, it is useless attempting to reason regarding them. All that is necessary here is to bear in mind that a hall did stand on this corner of the platform, which must be numbered among the others. At first I was inclined to call it the palace of Artaxerxes, because on the northern face of its stylobate there is an inscription by that king. This inthe one engraved by the same monarch on the western staircase of Darius's palace; and as that was an addition to an older palace, so may this one be. If the remains were sufficiently distinct to enable us to trace either a resemblance or a difference with the others, the determination of its date would be important; but as the question now stands, its name had better remain as indeterminate as its form unfortunately is, at present at least. In the same manner I can merely allude, in passing, to the mound of ruins that exists in the very centre of the great group of buildings in front of the palace of Xerxes, and behind the great hall. Ker Porter and others have supposed this to mark the spot where stood the palace fired by Alexander, at the “Royal feast for ·tradict such a theory, if this really is the residence of 174 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. Persia won," and look upon it as a monument of his mad folly. There is not, perhaps, much to conthe sovereigns of Persia,---which I doubt,--but at the same time there is nothing t to prove positively that this mound either covers a palace or an edifice of any sort consumed by fire. I look on it, nevertheless, as the most interesting spot now existing on the platform; the only one, indeed, from which we may hope for much further elucidation of the subject. The probability certainly is, that it covers an edifice of some sort; and our experience among the mudbuilt edifices of Assyria teaches us, that it is only from one similarly buried that we can hope for any further discoveries here. My own impression is, that if a trench were run across it we should be able to determine at once how the walls were built, and how they were decorated at Persepolis - perhaps also, how the roofs were formed; it might, indeed, explain to us all that remains doubtful. Be this as it may, the size and position of the mound, and its being certainly artificial, point to it as being most probably the grave of one of the principal edifices of the platform, but of what form or nature will not be known till some Layard visits the spot and draws forth its secrets to the light of day.

·HALL OF A HUNDRED COLUMNS. 175 HALL OF A HUNDRED COLUMNS. The only building that now remains to be dem scribed, is the great decastyle hall, or Hall of a Hundred Columns, as I have ventured to call it on the general plan, situated nearly in the centre of the platform, to the eastward of all the other buildings. At first sight it seems one of the simplest and most complete of all the Persepolitan buildings, but, on nearer examination, it turns out to be the most puzzling of the whole, and the one least easy to understand or to restore ; for it possesses all the peculiarities of Persepolitan architecture to such an exaggerated extent, that, had we only this building to go by, we should never believe that such forms of art were ever actually used, and, as it is, we find it very difficult to apply them here, even after all the knowledge we have acquired from the examination of the others. The principal part of the building consists of a great square hall measuring above 225 feet each way. Three sides of it are exactly similar, having two doorways each, with three niches or blank windows between each doorway, thus dividing the wall into eleven equal spaces, and leading to the presumption, derived from our experience of other buildings, that there must have been ten columns in front of each wall.

·No, 19. 12. Niche in Hall of 100 Columnns. and 176 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. As these niches are the best preserved, and perhaps also the best executed at Persepolis, one of them is represented on the annexed woodcut (No. 19.), which will serve as a type for all those found at Persepolis. The windows are in every respect the same, except that they are pierced through, instead of their backs being blocked up, as is the case with this one. The northern wall differs somewhat from the other three, inasmuch as, instead of being ten feet thick, it has windows instead of niches,-nine, according to Niebuhr, seven, according to Ker Porter and Texier, and only three, according to Flandin and Coste. The latter, however, I believe to be one of the many mistakes of their work, though it is wonderful how difficult it is to ascertain so simple a fact as even this one is, which nothing but the most inexcusable carelessness could have left at all doubtful. Besides the presumption derived from the equal division of the walls, Flandin and Coste, on excavating to the floor of the building, found the bases of six columns* (Texier marks a seventh), so placed as to leave very little doubt that the columns were equally spaced over the whole floor. For a long time I resisted this conclusion, and tried to believe that the * See also M. Flandin's Paper in the last August Number of the Revue des deux Mondes.

·HALL OF A HUNDRED COLUMNS. 177 hall must have been divided by partition walls into apartments of different sizes and heights; but this theory presents so many difficulties, and is so utterly unsupported by any analogy, that I have been forced to abandon it and to adopt the simple one shown in the general plan, of a great decastyle hall. At the same time the diameter of the pillars is so sinall, as shown by their bases and the fragments of their shafts that remain, that they could not have been taller than those of the Hareem of Jeinsheed at Istakr, which, it has been surmised, were stolen from this edifice; but whether or not, twenty-five feet is the utmost we can allow for the height of this roof; and, certainly, a square hall covering 50,000 square feet, and only twenty-five feet in height, is an apparent anomaly difficult to understand. In the first place, how was it lighted? There are no windows whatever, except those on the northern side — be they three or seven -- and the two doors which are the only other openings on each face, are manifestly insufficient for this purpose. Besides, the tops of the cornices of the niches are fifteen feet from the floor, that of the doors when complete must have been nearly twenty-five. It is possible that the ten feet above the side niches may have formed an open arcade all round, which would have admitted a considerable quantity of light. But if we adopt this theory, we must abandon all idea of any apartments surrounding the hall, which, had they existed, must have been as high at least as the doors that led into thein; and that such did exist, I think is almost cer- N ·NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. lower parts of 178 tainly proved by the absence of windows in the doorways, besides the analogies derived from the other edifices.* All which, when put together, prove, I think incontestibly, that such was the case here; so that we must abandon all idea of light from the sides. The only other place from which light could be introduced was, of course, the roof. The simplest mode of doing this would have been to have raised the centre aisle, so as to make an Egyptian clerestory; but, as I before remarked, this was never done here, as a flat roof is an essential characteristic of this style; but besides this, the pillars here being all of the same diameter, proves that such was not the case in this instance. It inust therefore have been by a flat opening. In the section of the hall of Xerxes (woodcut No. 17.) I have shown how this could be done without either admitting the sun's rays or the rain when it fell. I do not think that such an expedient was employed, or indeed required in that building, but I have so drawn it there, lest others might differ from me on this head, and to illustrate what may have been an essential expedient here. The arrangement of the sculpture of the doorways tends strongly to confirm the idea of there having been cells or apartments all round the building, and that the roof therefore was only available for lighting; myself * It will be recollected that the temple that Solomon built at Jerusalem was surrounded with cells like these Persepolitan temples, of which more hereafter.

·whence they seem to be issuing, and which is lem, HALL OF A HUNDRED COLUMNS. 179 for the two lateral doorways leading into the northern porch are adorned with the representation of two spearmen, as is universally the case in all Persepolitan buildings; and if they are here too, we may confidently look for the guard-chamber behind them, invariable accompaniment. The sculptures also of the two side doors on the cast and west are identical with those similarly situated on the side doorways leading from the central to the side apartments in Darius's palace, and it is therefore scarcely probable that they should be found adorning outer doors here. The north and south doors though, as in other instances devoted to kingly state, are somewhat peculiar in form, and more than usually interesting For it can scarcely be doubted, as Heeren suggested long ago, but that these sculptures are like writings on the wall, indicating the use of the building, and of the particular parts of it to which these doorways lead. The northern doorways under the porch represent the king seated on his throne, with more than the usual number of attendants, and more of the insignia of royalty than are represented in the other sculptures; and beneath him, in five rows, are represented the various costumes of the different nations or bodies composing the army; from which I should infer that this building had no stylobate or stairs, otherwise that would have been the place for such a representation; but that not being available in this N 2 ·180 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. instance, this spot was chosen instead for the sculptural display On the two southern doorways, the king is also represented sitting on his throne, accompanied by attendants; but here the throne is erected on a stage or platform exactly similar to the one represented on Darius's tomb, and which I have assumed to have been placed on all the palaces; being sculptured on a pilaster, it is here of course narrow, and three tiers in height instead of two, as this talar or stage is always represented on the tombs. From this I would also infer that such a talar was erected on the roof of this building, and that it was three stories in height. If this were not so, of what conceivable use was such a hall as this, --so large and low, and so undignified in every respect ? It could not have been intended to support an upper story of chambers, divided by walls or partitions, for the pillars are too slender and widely spaced to admit of such an idea, but it would suffice to support a talar: for such a purpose it would form a noble basement, but for anything else, or for any other purpose we know of, it seems to me, at least, an inexplicable mystery. So strongly, indeed, does this representation bear on the whole question, that I have had it engraved here (No. 20.), not only as illustrating the use of the talar or platform, but also that of the tabsar or canopy, erected over the king's head to shade him from the rays of the sun, as the name implies ; to which I shall have occasion to refer more pointedly in the sequel, ·TABSAR AND TALAR. 181 but in the meanwhile I shall proceed with the description of this singular building. No. 20. 4 WWW dah King seated on a Talar, under a Tabsar. This hall possesses, besides, a peculiarity not found in any of the other buildings here, which is, a portico with a less number of pillars than the hall itself; for here, though the hall is decastyle, the portico has only eight pillars in width. It is also the only portico here that has bulls attached to the side piers, N 3 ·182 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. instead of the usual plain antæ. They, as far as can be judged from what remains, for they are much ruined, are similar both in size and design to those of the piers that adorn the portals of the propylæa at the top of the great stairs; and are thus the only indication we have of the age of this building, as it is natural to presume that two things so similar are the work of the same time. The fourth pair of bulls, also, which exist on this platform, are those of the distyle hall—if it were such--- just in front of these; and the three buildings, taken together, though not placed symmetrically, look so like parts of one great conception, that I should feel inclined to ascribe the whole to Xerxes. There is, however, no inscription, nor any certain indication to settle the point definitively; and until some one visits Persepolis who has sufficient knowledge to perceive the minute gradations of change which occur in sculpture from one king's reign to another, the question of the age of this building must remain somewhat doubtful*; but judging from such engravings as have been published, I am strongly impressed with the idea that it is to Xerxes that we owe this building, and that it, with the great hall and their two propylæa, form part of one great design for adorning the platform, conceived and executed by that inonarch, the one being the pendant * Rawlinson (Journ. Asiatic Society, vol. x. p. 340.) and others have been inclined to ascribe this building to a later king, perhaps Artaxerxes, because the preservation of the sculptures is better here than elsewhere. The difference, however, of 100 years in a building that had been deserted for more than 2000 years, is so slight, that this indication can scarcely be reckoned upon as of any value in determining such a case.

·TIIRONE ROOMS. 183 to, and the complement of the other, serving different purposes of course, but such as were necessary to complete the design of the palace. I think I have now noticed all the peculiarities of this singular style of architecture except one, though that is neither the least striking nor the least suggestive of them. It is, that the doorways are rarely placed in the centre of the porches. In all other styles with which I am acquainted the rule is, that the principal entrance shall always be in the centre, and I cannot call to mind any prominent example of a contrary practice; here, however, though it is true that the doorways of the two tetrastyle halls are so placed, those of the great hall of Xerxes are twin, and have one intercolumniation between them. Those of his palace have three such spaces, and probably three windows between them, and the same is the case here, not only with regard to the front, but to the doors on the other three sides. Of course so exceptional an arrangement had a cause, and it is one which it is not difficult to suggest, for it requires only a slight knowledge of Eastern habits to see that these porches were in fact throne rooms. Indeed, in all the Eastern palaces I know of, the throne room is an open porch, two or three intercolumniations in depth, at the back of which the throne is placed, in the centre of course, and through which, in front of the throne, those pass who wish to see, who wish to see, or be seen by, the monarch they worship. Not, however, to travel further than is necessary from the locality we are dealing with, I have chosen as an

·184
NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS.
illustration the throne-room of the palace of Teheran
(No. 21.), which, it will be observed, is merely an
open portico, distyle in antis, behind the pillars of
No. 21.
PRES
ALL SIMA
G.X.CHIDS
Throne-room, Teheran.
which, but only removed a few feet from the edge of
the stylobate, is placed the throne, a permanent
erection, supported partly by human figures (statues),
partly by lions, and griffins, and sphinxes. On this
the king sits on state occasions, while the courtiers
and the military defile before him, but without their
ascending to the platform, which is reserved for the
select and privileged few, who stand around the
throne as their habitual post of honour.
Such a throne, I conceive, was erected in those
porches, either temporarily or permanently, most

·TIIRONE ROOMS. 185 probably the latter, and here the king sat in state on the great festivals of his court. Looking at the plans with the hint thus afforded us, we shall now be better able to understand the disposition of the stairs leading up to the palaces than before; for with the throne erected in the porch, a stair leading directly to the front would have been a clumsy and inappropriate contrivance; but stairs, such as we find here, were admirably adapted to the ceremonial of an Eastern court where passing before the throne, whether merely for the purpose of bowing to him that sits on it, or of presenting a petition or a gift, was the daily and most important business of the thousands who lived on the monarch's favour or trembled at his frown. For all this, the stairs and porches of these Persepolitan palaces are admirably adapted, both from their form and depth; more so, indeed, than those of any other Eastern palace I am acquainted with ; and the object of their facing the north is not only thus accounted for, but confirms the view here taken, for the one thing most to be feared was the rays of their burning sun. Here the difficulty was avoided without curtains or screens, which would have interfered with the splendour of the court and the general effect of the architecture; arranged, as I suppose them to have been, these throne porches certainly surpass in elegance and appropriateness any of those now found at Agra or Delhi, or any I am acquainted with in Persia at the present day. Having now described all the buildings of which ·186 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. any remains exist on the platform of Persepolis, we may revert to a question very often asked, but never yet satisfactorily answered, -- Were these buildings palaces or temples ?- a difficulty, however, not peculiar to this place, as the same uncertainty exists in Egypt: in Thebes, for instance, where, according to our usual nomenclature, it is impossible to say whether the great buildings there, were properly speaking, mere places of worship or residences of the sovereigns. That the king did generally, if not always, reside within their walls seems nearly certain, and that all the great ceremonies and mistrations of government took place within these halls are facts that can scarcely be doubted ; indeed, they seem at first sight to have been built almost wholly for these kingly purposes, whereas, on the other hand, the portion set apart for the image of the god, if there ever was one, or exclusively devoted to religious ceremonies, is so small and insignificant as scarcely to deserve notice in comparison to the rest; yet these buildings were as certainly temples, and the only ones, of the most theocratic religion the world ever knew, though, at the same time, they were the palaces of the most absolute kings of whom we have any record. To name, therefore, these palace-temples or temple-palaces, as well as our Persepolitan buildings, we must redefine our words, and come to a clearer understanding of the terms we use, before we can explain what the buildings of which we are now treating really were. When we speak of a Greek or Roman temple we ·TEMPLIC PALACES. 187 It was a any secular perfectly understand the term we use. building simple in plan and outline, meant to contain an image of the god to whom it was dedicated, and wholly devoted to the religious ceremonies connected with the prescribed worship of that deity. A Christian church, in like manner, was in all ages a temple, wholly devoted to religious worship, without use, a hall, in short, where people may congregate to worship the great God himself, or the saint to whom it is dedicated, but with the distinct idea that it is the house of God, sacred to the purposes of religion, and the fit and proper place in which to offer up prayer and sacrifice. In like manner, a palace in all the countries of Europe is, and has always been, merely a large house. It possesses the sleeping, eating, and state and festival apartments, which are found in the dwellings of all men of the middle, and even the lower classes, - larger, more numerous, and more splendid, of course, but dedicated to the same uses, and to them only. In modern times a king is only a chief magistrate; in the middle ages he was a leader; and neither Greece or Rome ever had kings in the Asiatic sense of the word, at least certainly not after Rome ceased to be Etruscan *, or in other words, Asiatic, in her form of government. In Persia, however, and indeed throughout the East, the king is an essential and principal part of all forms of government, and virtually, also, the chief priest of his people, and head Rex Anius, rex idem hominum Plvbique sacerdos. Virgil, Æn. iii. 80.

·188 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. of the religions of his country. We should have a far more distinct idea of the Eastern kingly offices and functions in ancient days if we called him Caliph or Pope instead of king, and were it not that with us the latter title is applied to only one potentate on earth, and we can scarcely understand the idea of there being, or having been another, the term is just such a one as would correctly define that union of temporal and spiritual power which we find united in the Persian monarch; and at the same time, as a necessary corollary, the term basilica, in its original Roman sense, would as correctly describe the buildings we have been examining at Persepolis. The actual dwelling places of the king they certainly were not, nor is there any trace on the platform of such a range of apartments as would have suited a hareem, which, without going further than the book of Esther, we know was possessed by the very king who built all the principal edifices here. Neither in Assyria, nor indeed in Asia, from the earliest day to the present hour, did there ever exist a palace without a range of private and secluded apartments, which virtually form the dwelling of the sovereign; but there neither is a trace of such a thing here, nor is there room for it on the principal platform. If it stood here at all it must have been on the lower southern terrace; but from that being so much overlooked, it is very improbable that it should have been there, and I am far more inclined to think it stood on the plain to the southward of the platform, or perhaps even more probably at Istakr.

·PERSIAN TEMPLES. 189 If, however, these buildings were not palaces according to our usual acceptation of the term, still less were they temples ; for as Herodotus told us long ago, “ The Persians have neither images, nor temples, nor altars; these they consider unlawful, and impute folly to those that make them."* It is true, that both before and after this time,-in Assyria at least, -- the planets, which were the principal objects of their adoration, were symbolised under strange chimeral forms ; but during the earlier stages of the existence of the Persians as a nation, they adhered to the purer forms of Sabæanism, which abhorred the idea of representing God under a human form, or of ascribing to him human wants, or a human will. When the Persian worshipped he stood in the virtual presence of his god, and saw with his eyes the actual object of his adoration. He could not conceive that the sun, or the moon, or the planets, which he daily saw dwelling in heaven, could reside on earth in housės built by human hands, or that any particular spot of earth could be more sacred to them than another, for they shone alike everywhere and on all; and so of the elements; the earth, fire, air, and water, were everywhere, and in all places they were equally sacred; the Persian could worship everywhere, – best, however, in the open air, and best of all on the highest places, whence the heavenly orbs could be most easily and longest seen; and these places therefore, if any, from the frequency of their being * Lib. i. ch. 121.

·190 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. applied to this purpose, became, to a certain extent, sacred to the purposes of worship. In the open country it was the hill-tops; in towns the roof of every man's house was his praying place. In palaces too it was the roof ; a and if we may argue from what was found at Persepolis, a stage or talar raised above the roof. But still, neither here nor elsewhere does the roof seem to have been erected solely for this purpose, nor the building below it dedicated wholly to religion ; but it seems only to have been so used from the accident of its being the highest place, and consequently the one most fitted for this form of worship. Did we know more of the habits of the Persian kings, we might perhaps be able to explain all the peculiarities of their edifices; unfortunately, however, we are as yet singularly ignorant on this subject, the notices in the Greek historians being ineagre and unsatisfactory on this point, and even the Zend Avesta can hardly be taken as describing "anything we can certainly identify with what we find here; nor do I know of any single passage in Persian history that is of much use to us, unless it be the following one from the Dabistan,- a modern work, it must be confessed, but in this instance it is quoting from the Akhtaristan, an older work, that has perished. After describing the images under which the seven planets are symbolised, for which we must look to Assyria, as no trace of an image is found here, nor any representation in the bassi relievi which could ·DABISTAN. 191 4 lead us to suppose that any such ever existed, - he goes on to say, “ There was a city called the Royal Abode *, or Sarai, facing which are seven temples ;' alluding, I think almost certainly, to Persepolis, as he refers more distinctly to it again a little further on as “ Haftsur, or Seven Ramparts, in Istakr of Persia.” of “On each day of the week, in the dress appropriated to each planet, the king exhibited himself from a lofty tabsar, or window, fronting the temple of the planet, whilst the people in due order and arrangement offered up their prayers. For example, on Sunday, or Yakshambah, he showed himself clad in a yellow kaba, or tunic of gold tissue, wearing a crown of the same metal set with rubies and diamonds, covered with many ornaments of gold from the tabsar, the circumference of which was embossed with similar stones. Under this window the several ranks of inilitary were drawn out in due gradation, until the last line took post in the kashudzar, or ample area, in which were posted soldiers of the lowest order. When the king issued forth like the sun from the orient of the tabsar, all the people prostrated themselves in adoration, and the monarch devoted himself to the concerns of mankind. The tabsar is a place of observation in a lofty pavilion, which the princes of Hindostan call Jahrokah, or lattice window. On the other days the king appeared with similar brilliancy from the other tabsars. In like manner, on the great festivals the * I quote from the translation of the Dabistan, by Shea and Troyer, Paris, 1843, p. 42., ct seg. † Idem, p. 48.

·NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. the tabsar, facino ? 192 king went in choice garments to the temples of the several images, and on his return seated himself in gone to the Rozistan, or Dadistan, devoted himself to the affairs of state. The Rozistan was a place which had no tabsar, where the king seated himself on the throne, his ministers standing around in due gradation. “The Dadistan was the hall of justice where, when the king was seated, no one was prevented from having access to him : so that the king first came to the tabsar, then to the Rozistan, and lastly to the Dadistan." A little further on, he says: 66 In front of each temple was a large fire-temple, so that there were seven in all, namely, Kaiwan-azar (Saturn), Hormuzazar (Jupiter), Bahram-azar (Mars), Har-azar (Sun), Nahid-azar (Venus), Tir-azar (Mercury), and Mahazar (Moon); so that each fire-temple was dedicated to one of the seven planets, and in these they burnt the proper perfumes.” This passage must not, of course, be too literally understood, as it is an abstract, not a copy, by a modern author, from an older work, describing usages with which the former was unfamiliar, and buildings he never saw; and it is, therefore, more than probable that he misapprehended the use of some of the terms used, and evidently tries to assimilate them to rites which existed in Hindostan in his day (the seventeenth century). Taking it, however, as it stands, it seems to be, ·DADISTAN AND ROZISTAN. 193 covers a singularly correct description of Persepolis, with its buildings, and the uses to which they were applied. The tabsar he describes from what he saw, and which may now be seen in the palaces of Agra and Delhi, as an enclosed and covered balcony. No trace of any such, however, exists at Persepolis, nor from the colonnaded forms of the buildings could any such be used there; but the canopy that the king's head, on the sculptures (as, for instance, woodcut No. 20.), exactly represents such a shade, as the meaning of the word, as well as the description in the text, would require; and I have no doubt but that the tabsar was an erection on the roofs or talars of the palaces, where the kings of Persia worshipped the planets, or were worshipped by their subjects. The Rozistan would thus be the central hall of these basilicas, if that were used for state purposes at all, and not merely, as I have suggested above, a crypt constructed to elevate and sustain the roof and its accompaniments. If it were so, the great front porch would be the Rozistan, and the square distyle hall the Dadistan; but if, on the contrary, we assume the central hall to have been so used, the porch, with its throne, becomes the Dadistan, -- which, I confess, seems to me to be the most probable mode of looking at it. The distyle halls are in this case only mentioned in the text as fire temples; a distinction, however, which would by no means militate against the idea of their having been used as justice halls as before suggested; for all these buildings seem to have been applied to what is by us considered the 0 ·NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. and travellers. In the 194 double purpose of secular government and religious worship, but which, as I have tried to explain above, was in Persia only two aspects of one and the same thing, and it is only possible to understand these buildings, by bearing in mind that they were both temples and secular buildings, and none of them exclusively devoted to either of these purposes. There were, too, if I inistake not, exactly seven of them - at least there are certainly six halls or palaces, and if the mound of ruins, between the palace and hall of Xerxes, covers one, which it almost certainly does, there is exactly the number required, and no more. It seems also to have been a fact that each of these buildings had before it a square edifice answering the above description of a fire-teinple. It is true we only find the remains of four of these now, but there almost certainly was a fifth in front of Darius's palace, and the south-eastern and south-western cdifices, which are the only ones without this adjunct, are in themselves so incomplete, that we should not be surprised at these adjuncts having disappeared. These arrangements seem to have prevailed in the East down to very recent times. Thus we learn from Ferishtah, that Humaiyun shah (1531 --1556) caused seven halls of audience to be built, in which he received persons according to their ranks. The first called the palace of the moon, was set apart for amcalled the palace of Utarid (Venus), civil officers and persons of that description were received, and there were five other palaces for the five remaining planets.

·INDIAN PALACES. 195 In each of these buildings he gave public audiences, according to the planet of the day. * At Futtehpore Sicri his illustrious son, Akbar, built, or intended to build, a series of the same sort; but the palace is now so ruined f, that it is not easy to restore its plan. In neither of those instances, however, could these halls be called temples or religious edifices. Humaiyun, at least, was a good inussulman, and though Iris son indulged in a few religious vagaries, it was not on the side of superstition he erred. The prevailing idea throughout seems to have been separate halls for separate purposes, some more honourable than others, and giving by their different names and usages some variety to the general monotony of Eastern ceremonial. Be this as it may, I trust the above is sufficient to show that these buildings were not palaces, if by that word we mean royal residences, still less were they temples, if by that we mean places wholly dedicated to the worship of the Supreme Being; nor do I know any word by which they can be correctly described. Basilica is perhaps the best, if we use it in a sense somewhat intermediate between the old Roman and more modern Christian meaning of it; as a great hall, where royal state, and the dispensation of justice with the administration of the empire were combined with religious adoration; in the Ro- * See Brigg's translation, vol. ii. p. 71. † Principally by the Company's government selling the stones of which the palaces are built, at so much 1 maund, to any one who wants to build a house or repair a road!

·196 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. man, the former was the principal object; in the latter, the religious character ultimately prevailed, to the total exclusion of the other; but it is between these two extremes that we must look for the true significance of the buildings we have just been describing. A more extended search through the Persian authorities (for which I am not qualified) might throw more light on this subject; but I hope what has been said above will suffice to explain the general form and arrangements of the edifices that once existed on the great terraces of Persepolis, and also to define, as nearly as is requisite in a work so purely architectural as this is, the general purposes to which they were applied. To go beyond this would require a disquisition on the religion of the ancient Persians, which would be totally out of place here, even if I were competent to undertake it, which I am not. If, however, I have rendered the buildings more intelligible than they were, I shall have assisted to clear the ground for those who are better qualified, and who will I hope will supply the deficiency. The whole of this subject will be better understood when we have examined the Ninevite palaces, and are able to grasp the whole subject. I shall not, therefore, say anything more regarding it at present; but before leaving this part of the country it will be requisite to say a few words regarding the remains at Istakr and Passargadæ. It is true they are of singularly little interest when compared with such edifices as those which exist on the platform of Persepolis, but they are a necessary complement to the subject, and must not, therefore, be overlooked.

·ISTAKR. 197 PART I, SECTION IT. ISTAKR AND PASSARGADÆ. NOTWITHSTANDING the light that has been thrown on the matter by recent explorations, considerable confusion still exists with regard to the comparative geography of this corner of Persia, owing to the contradictions and misstatements found in the Greek and Roman writers, who mention the sites of Persepolis and Passargada. That this confusion should arise is by no means to be wondered at, when we recollect that not one of the authors, whose works we now possess, ever visited the spot; so that it is no wonder they should confound two towns not twenty miles apart in a direct line*, and only thirty miles distant by the tortuous road that connects them. In our own day it is a favourite theory that Khorsabad and Nimroud, though twice as far apart as Persepolis and Passargadæ, were only parts of one city; and we should not, therefore, feel surprised that the Greeks should confound these two, which, besides their proximity, had the same, or nearly the same name; the one being only a Greek translation of the other. For none of the Greeks mention the name of Istakr, by which alone it is known to the native historians. It would require a chapter very much longer than 20,000 metres, according to Flandin and Coste's survey. 03 ·NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. altar, an innumerable number of thousands of years 198 would at all suit this work, to say all that could be said on this subject: I shall therefore content myself by merely stating the results arrived at, with such explanation as may seem requisite to render them intelligible. The native historians of Persia all ascribe an immense antiquity to their favourite Istakr. The Dabistan tells us it was here that Mahabad, the founder of the Mahabadian dynasty, erected his first before the Christian era, and built a Kabah, --of which more hereafter. To descend, however, to more reasonable times, it does appear that in Cyrus's time there was a "Persian city," 1* where he first raised the standard of revolt; and the subsequent events of the campaign against Astyages point to this as the spot where it stoodf; for it would seem that Cyrus advanced one day's march to meet the enemy coming from Ecbatana, and that the decisive battle took place on the plain of Mourgaub, which is the only spot where Cyrus could draw out his forces so as to check the advance of the Medes and cover the city, besides securing himself a safe retreat in the event of a defeat. It also perfectly explains the story of the women of the city urging their sons and husbands back to the fight when discouraged by the first success of the Medes.I * Justin., i. 6. † See woodcut No. 2., which must be referred to as explanatory of what follows. I Justin, loc. cit.; Plutarch de Virt. Mulier. ; Vita Alexandri; and Xenophon, Cyr., viii. 37.

·ISTAKR. 199 In memory of his victory, Cyrus allowed his camp to become petrified into a city, - by a process frequently taking place at this day in the East, but more especially in India, -calling it Passargadæ, or the town or village of the Persians; and here are found his tomb and the remains of his palace and other buildings at the present day. It is here that Arrian places the palace burnt by Alexander, and with the additional confirmation that after narrating how the conqueror visited the tomb of Cyrus on his return from India, he adds, “ He then returned to the royal palace of the Persian monarchs, which he had before laid in ashes," * speaking of it as if close to the tomb. Nor can it be said that Arrian vas ignorant of the distinction between the two cities, for the Very next chapter opens with the words, 6 While Alexander tarried at Passargadæ and Persepolis, he began,” &c. In all this, however, he is contradicted by Strabo, who says that it was at Persepolis that the palace was burnt, and that thence Alexander went to Passargadæ. † In this, as in other instances, the confusion between the two cities is so complete that it will be only from the existing remains that the disputed question can be settled. In the present instance I should feel inclined to suppose Arrian correct, not only from his being generally a better authority, but because there is no evidence of fire at Persepolis, nor any sign of its having been so completely ruined as Curtius I and other authors would lead us to suppose. Arrian, Alex. Ex., vi. c. 30. † Strabo, p. 730. $ Curtius, v. 7. ** ·200 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. Be this as it may, as I said before, it appears that Darius removed the principal seat of government from the sacred, but inconvenient situation of Passargada to the old capital of Istakr, or, at least, to its immediate neighbourhood; for Persepolis may, without any great stretch of imagination, be considered as a southern suburb of Istakr, and it is possible that in his time and that of his successors, the suburb may have been considered the principal quarter of the city; but after the destruction of the Persian monarchy by Alexander, it appears to have shrunk back to its original locality. Thus allowing it a duration of less than two centuries, which may account for its remains being so completely obliterated, while the mounds of Istakr so clearly point out its site and dimensions. It was still called Persepolis when attacked by Antiochus (B. C. 164), and was sufficiently large and powerful to resist and expel that king when he attempted to storm the Temple after he had gained possession of the city. * After this we hear no more of it by this name, though Istakr is mentioned by almost all the Persian geographers and historians, as not only the most ancient but as the largest city of Persia, down to the time of the Mahomedan invasion; even then it inust have been a powerful city, for it successfully resisted one of Omar's generals in 639, and forced him to retreat with considerable loss. Five years afterwards, however, when the cause of its country was desperate, it * 2 Maccabees, ix. 2.

·ISTAKR. the Devil and Julius Cæsar de 201 yielded by capitulation to the Moslems. But again, in 648, the inhabitants of Istakr rebelled, slew their Arab governor, and reasserted their independence, but in vain. With the rest of Persia, they were forced to submit to the energy and enthusiasm of the new race of conquerors. The city, however, still remained the capital of the district, and a large and important place down to a comparatively recent period. We might, therefore, naturally expect that the native historians would furnish us with some authentic particulars regarding a city they knew and saw; and that from their writings we might be able to glean something that would throw light on the various questions that arise in examining the ruins. Unfortunately, however, this is not the case. Sir William Ouseley has carefully examined all the passages that are known to bear on this point, and the result of his inquiry, added to what has been done in this direction before and since, is meagre in the extreme. With them all, Jemsheed and Solomon play as important a part in the foundation of the city as castles in England; and when descending a little more to particulars, they ascribe the erection of the Chehil Minar, and generally of the buildings of Istakr, to a Queen Homai*, o Queen Homai*, or Humai, who was as great a builder with the Persian writers as Semiramis was with the ancient Assyrians. Indeed, the * I follow principally Mirkond in this narrative; but all the historians are nearly coincident as to the principal facts of the case. D'Herbelot has also been consulted, in voce Homai; according to this latter authority she built Semrem, or Semiramis.

·NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. reigned 120 years, finding valuable jewels, and other marks of identita 202 similarity of the history of these two queens is so great that it may not be uninteresting to dwell longer on the adventures of the former, than the intrinsic merit of her story would otherwise justify. According to the Persian historians, Homai was the daughter of Behmen (Artaxerxes Longimanus), who succeeded directly to his father, Gustasp (Darius Hystaspes), to the exclusion of Isfendiar, who must be meant for Xerxes, though he is said never to have ascended the throne, but was killed in a duel with Rustam, during his father's lifetime. himself on the point of death, he superseded the rightful heir to the throne in favour of a son with whom his daughter was enceinte to him at the time. She, however, being ambitious of rule, exposed her child, to whom she was left guardian, in an ark on the Araxes, taking care, however, to place some frail bark with her infant. The child was rescued by a miller, or, according to some accounts, a fuller, from his perilous situation, and brought up by him. Like all fabulous royal infants, however, he soon showed himself superior to his apparent condition, and joining the army with which his mother was waging successful war against Room - Greece, - he so distinguished himself, that she was led to inquire into his origin and parentage, and finding out that it was her own son, she resigned in his favour, after a reign of thirty-two years. He was known as Darab, possibly Darius Nothus, and was succeeded by Dara, ·QUEEN HOMAI. 203 I the Darius conquered by Alexander, the intermediate reigns being omitted. So uniform is the account given of this Queen Homai, that if we were as dependent on native historians as Ctesias was, we should be forced to admit her history, and believe in her works as firmly as he did in those of Semiramis. Fortunately, in this instance, the contemporary testimony of the Greeks enables us to reject the whole story of Homai as utterly fabulous; and till some more authentic testimony can be adduced in their favour, we may also regard the stories of Semiramis and Nitocris in the same manner. The curious point, however, is that all the great buildings, and indeed all the great acts in the country should be ascribed to three queens, regarding whose existence the monuments are entirely silent, and this in a country where it is extremely doubtful if ever a queen reigned at all, and where, if we may trust the sculptures, women were wholly excluded from any share in public affairs. As the authorities which ascribe the building of the edifices at Persepolis, and especially the Chehil Minar, to Queen Homai, have been collected together by Sir William Ouseley in his travels in Persia *, I shall not attempt to repeat them here, nor quote more than one, which seems to throw some additional light on the matter: it is in the Nizam al Tuarick of Cazi Beizavi.† In the history of Queen Homai we * Travels in Persia, by Sir W. Ouseley, vol. ii. p. 303., et seq. † Illem, p. 371. ; see also p. 391., et passim.

·204 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. read," as some traditions relate, she built the Chehil Minareh, or hall of forty columns, and a great mansion that stood in the midst of Istakr, and which the Moselmans converted into a mesjid or mosque, and this mosque is at the present time (the thirteenth century) fallen to decay.” The latter part of this sentence certainly does not refer to any building on the platform, as there is no vestige of a tradition that any of them were ever so used, but it fits exactly to the building called the Hareem of Jemsheed, which, as I before mentioned, is the one building at Istakr that can claim an Achæmenian origin. Its pillars certainly do belong to the age of Xerxes, and the only question is, were they stolen from Persepolis, either by the Arsacidæ or by the Mahomedans, to build a mosque ? The latter is by no means an improbable theory, as all the earlier mosques in India are built with pillars taken from Hindoo remains; and I would adopt it if I were not inclined to believe that it really is the residence, or at least a residence of the Achæmenidæ. The building, however, is too much ruined to enable us to predicate this with certainty, though the plans of the foundations, as far as they have been published *, bear so strong a similarity with the masonry at Persepolis, that if they are to be depended upon, they can leave very little doubt on the subject. The thickness of the walls, between eleven and twelve feet, being almost conclusive on the subject. As far as its plan can be now traced, the building * Flandin and Coste, pl. 58.; Texier, pl. 137.

·ISTAKR. 205 was a square of above 250 feet each way; one angle, however, the south-eastern, is cut off, which destroys its regularity; and the nine pillars, whose foundations can now be traced, - - one only is standing, -are so irregularly spaced that it cannot for a moment be confounded with the temple-like buildings on the platform, with which it has no affinity whatever except in the form of its masonry and details. So that altogether, if a building of the Achæmenidæ, it must be considered as a residence, or at all events a building erected for a totally different purpose from that to which those were dedicated which stood on the platform. For myself, I cannot help looking on it as the hareem or dwelling we miss among the more monumental remains we have just been examining. Besides some traces of the walls that surrounded the city and of the mounds that they enclose, there is only one other important ruin in Istakr, the remains of one of the city gates *, - a building so monolithic in its character, and so simple and grand in its proportions, that it is impossible to ascribe it to any period subsequent to the days of the Achæmenidæ; indeed, so simply grand is it that it might almost be supposed to be older, had we any knowledge of any race capable of executing such a work before their time; but as we know of none, we must be content for the present to ascribe it to them; and this, with the traditions and facts above stated, I think completes the evidence that this was a city of the Persians, at * Texier, pl. 137.; Flandin and Coste, pls. 59, 60.

·NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. progeny, and retained its greatness as a 206 the period we are now speaking of, but whether or not it was the one, whose name the Greeks translated into their own mellifluous sounds or not, is not so absolutely determined: my, own impression is, that it always was the city par excellence. Persepolis was the new town of Istakr, and Passargadæ the royal residence of the Achæmenidæ; perhaps also, as the cradle of their greatness, it remained the sacred and most holy spot, though Persepolis might be the favourite and most splendid of the royal cities. The old city, however, outlived its younger and more splendid after the time when the owl, according to the Eastern eclogue, chanted its dirge not only in the halls of Afrasiab, but in those of his conquerors, the proudest and the greatest of the dynasties of this land. As I mentioned before, the city of Istakr is situated in the gorge of a valley, just where it opens on the plain of Marvdasht, and between two mountains, no doubt the cros opos of Diodorus, in the scarped face of the inost northern of which are excavated the tombs of Darius and those of his successors. Immediately in front of these tombs stands a small square building (No. 22.), remarkable for the peculiarity of its architecture, being unlike anything found at Persepolis, or, indeed, any where else; except, indeed, at Passargadæ, where a duplicate of it exists. It is No. 22. 11. COMIDE Kabahat Istakr.

·KABAH AT ISTAKR. actually, or at least traditionally, beina as either 207 about twenty-two feet square at the base, and thirtyfive feet in height; at each corner is a pilaster, and the whole of the surface between them is ornamented by small projecting facets, like the ends of timbers; on one side only, at about half its height, is a small doorway, five feet by six, opening into a small apartment, about twelve feet square; on the other sides are two or four sunk panels, representing, apparently, false windows. The whole is roofed by two enormous slabs, presenting on their outer faces a Persian entablature, but, like all of their class, with the smallest possible degree of projection. These peculiarities render it interesting to the architect as a singular and not unpleasing illustration of a style of decoration of which it is the only specimen; but it is hardly less so to the antiquary as an example of an ancient fire temple, which I believe there can be but little doubt that it is. Its central apartment was designed to contain the sacred fire, the traces of which it even now retains in its smokeblackened roof, and for the security of which it was provided with a massive stone door, whose traces are still seen on the Besides this, I cannot help looking on it as either temple, erected by Mahabad, and called “ Haftsur, in Istakr of Persia, where he erected a house, to which he gave the name of Abad, and which at present is called the Kabah, and which the inhabi tants of that country were commanded to hold in pavement. * * In the above I have principally followed Ker Porter, p. 562., et seq.

·208 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIŞ. reverence."* This, the author of the Dabistan immediately afterwards confounds with the Kabah at Mekka; but not without reason, for they were both Sabæan fire-temples, and the images which Mahomed destroyed when he purified that at Mekka, were those of the planets, which were also worshipped here. Indeed, even to this hour, the black stone of the Kabah is considered the emblem of Saturn, to whom that Kabah was especially dedicated; whereas this one, as the Kabah of Zaratusht (Zoroaster), as the Ked Khudâ † told Sir W. Ouseley it was, must have been dedicated to Ormuzd or Jupiter, and ought to be of an earthy colour, which I believe it in fact is. But the peculiarity of their forms, the position of their entrance, and general similarity of arrangement, added to what we know of their history, leaves, I think, very little doubt as to their being temples of the same primæval religion. I The Mekka one, however, may retain its old form; whereas, from the similarity that exists between this one and that at Passargadæ, there is very little doubt but that it has been rebuilt, most probably by Darius, but on the old sacred spot, and in the old form. It probably was the propinquity of this sacred and time-honoured edifice, as well as that of the old capital, that induced Darius and his immediate successors to excavate their tombs in the rock that over- * Dabistan, translated by Shea and Troyer, vol. i. p. 48. + Travels, vol. ii. p. 299. † For the form and appearance of the Kabah at Mekka see Ali Bey's Travels, vol. ü. pls. 53, 54, and 56.

·PASSARGADÆ. 209 hangs it, and the same feeling may have induced the three last Achæmenidæ to place their tombs in the rocks immediately behind Persepolis, when its firetemples had acquired a little of that sanctity of age, which a hundred years of continuous sacrifice would bestow on them. I shall have occasion to return again to the subject of the Kabahs, when speaking of the Assyrian one represented on Lord Aberdeen's black stone, of which a representation is given further on; but, in the meanwhile, may close this branch of my subject with a few remarks on the scanty remains of the ancient capital of Cyrus. PASSARGADE. From what we know of its history, as well as from existing remains, we are justified in assuming that Passargadæ never was either so splendid as Persepolis, nor so populous as Istakr; still its remains are far from being without interest, and as they almost all bear an inscription of Cyrus the Great, they are important to the elucidation of the subject of Persian antiquity. As I before mentioned, and as shown in woodcut No. 2., they are situated on an extensive and well-watered plain, about twenty miles in a direct line north-east from Persepolis. The principal ruin is a terrace of somewhat irregular shape (woodcut No. 23.), added to the western end of a small hill that rises from the plain to the northward of all the other remains. The western face, P ·NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS, eastern side, each face of the masonry 210 as at Persepolis, is the principal one, and rises to a considerable height; the other two slope off to where they join the hill, which they do on their 260 feet. No. 23. 2624 Z6T -260 € Platform at Passargadæ. The whole of the facing of this terrace is of the most carefully wrought ashlar work, rusticated throughout in a manner highly ornamental, in which it differs considerably from that at Persepolis, which, though massive and grand, is rude in comparison, the stones there being irregular in size, and the courses being no where horizontal. Here, on the contrary, the whole is of the character represented in the annexed woodcut (No. 24.), being carefully executed throughout. This style occurs every where at Jerusalem, particularly in the substructure of the Temple; and sometimes, but rarely, in Greece; but ·PLATFORM AT PASSARGADE 211 no where, that I know of, is there so extensive and beautiful a specimen of it as here. No vestige of a building now remains on the platform; yet I think it scarcely admits of a doubt No, 24. NATI 2014 "4" TAR Hem Wort STA WWW. re Azt WWW.UTTA Elevation of Masonry at Passarganize. but that it once supported at least one edifice, similar to those of Persepolis, most probably a tetrastyle hall, somewhat similar in dimensions to that of Darius, but with walls of brick like those of the Hall of Xerxes, and pillars of wood, like most of the other edifices at Persepolis; so that its disappearance may be easily accounted for, without going beyond the examples we have been examining. If we may trust Plutarch *, it was at Passargadæ that the ceremony of the inauguration of the Persian monarchs took place; and it is only, I conceive, in such an edifice that such a ceremony could take place, more Persarum. Indeed, looking at it, either * Vita Artoxerxis.

·NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS, ever, can even not be 212 by itself, or in conjunction with the ruins around it, it seems almost impossible to escape the conviction that this was the “high place,” where Cyrus worshipped, and where, afterwards, his successors were clothed with the groun or rude garment he had worn before he became a king. At some little distance to the southward of this, are the remains of a kabah, or fire-temple, in almost every respect exactly similar to the one at Istakr just described. This one, however, is much more ruined than the other is. About a quarter of a mile to the southward of this is a square pier, marking the site of an edifice, whose plan can no longer be traced, and is therefore only remarkable for its monolithic dimensions, and for its bearing the short and pithy inscription in three languages which is inscribed on more than half the number of edifices situated on this plain: it simply says: “I am Cyrus the King, the Achæmenian.” About the same distance, again, towards the southeast, is another ruin, whose general dimensions, how- It is of a quadrangular form, about 150 feet by 130. Three piers, similar to the one last described, mark the position of its walls with tolerable certainty ; one of which bears an inscription identical with the one above quoted. But the most rernarkable object here is a solitary pillar, that seems to stand in the centre of a court-yard or apartment, plain cylindrical shaft, without either visible base or capital, nearly fifty feet in height, composed of four pieces of marble. ness. a ·PASSARGADÆ. 213 Its height being so disproportioned to the size of the edifice, and its being so utterly alone, almost force on us the conviction that it was monumental, and not meant to support a roof. Were either the inscription above quoted or any other engraved on it, I should say there was no doubt about the matter, so similar is it in every respect to the lâts set up by Asoka in India, a couple of centuries later, to bear his edicts. The absence, however, of an inscription of any sort is puzzling. May it not, however, have been a monumental pillar in the outer court of the palace, on which the edict of the day was painted, or printed in some ephemeral manner, to admit of its being changed? Be this as it may, if the palace which Alexander burnt was at Passargadæ this is the only ruin that can lay claim to that "bad eminence;" for as far as we can judge, it was a residence, and the only building that could have been a dwelling and feasting palace among those that remain. It being also almost exactly in the midst of the city, like the Hareem of Jemsheed at Istakr, inclines me very much to look on this as the royal residence of Cyrus the Great, but whether it was the one distinguished by Alexander's folly is not so easily determined. The next ruin to the southward and eastward was apparently a hall, 150 feet by 80, supported by two rows of pillars down the centre, of which, however, only the bases, or rather substructures, now remain, and the whole is so completely ruined, and at the same time so very unlike anything we find among P3 ·NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. in the Achæmenian," 214 the more perfect remains at Persepolis, that it is almost in vain to speculate on what was either its form or destination. Immediately outside of it, however, is a pier fifteen feet in height, on which is sculptured the figure of a man with four wings, and on his head a strange symbolical group of almost purely Egyptian design, and over this the usual but whether it was meant to embody his Ferouher, or spirit, or some other sacred personification, is by no means clear at present ; nor will it be till we know more than we now do of the mythology of these regions, that we shall be able to determine either what or whom this strange mythical figure was meant to represent, nor does it much concern our present subject that we should stop here to inquire. By far the most interesting of the remains, however, on the Passargadæan plain is the tomb of the founder of the city and empire. Though there is now no ancient inscription on the building, the account of it given by Arrian, and the incidental notices elsewhere, leave, I think, no doubt whatever, but that this is “ the small house with a roof” that stood in the royal garden at Passargadæ *, and contained the mortal remains of the great Cyrus. The annexed woodcut (No. 25.) will give a general idea of its form. The pyramid on which it stands is forty-five feet by forty-two at the base, and consists of seven irregular courses of stone (are the seven symbolical of the planets ?), the height of which is eighteen feet. On this is situated the small house, * Arrian, lib. vi. cap 29.

·TOMB OF CYRUS.
215
twenty-one feet by seventeen and a half outside, the
centre of which is occupied by a cell ten feet six
No. 25.
Tomb of Cyrtis.
inches by seven feet, which once contained the golden
coffin, the bed, the cloak, and other royal robes and
regalia of Cyrus. The whole is surmounted by a
pedimented roof, similar to that of a Greek temple in
miniature; and around the whole there once stood a
range of columns, though for what purpose, or what
they supported, is now by no means apparent.
The direct written evidence is so strong that this
was the tomb of Cyrus, that it scarcely admits of a
doubt, while the negative evidence, derived from its
style, is almost equally conclusive, for it certainly
was a building of the age of the Achæmenidæ, and
certainly a tomb; and as every other building of
importance on this plain belongs to Cyrus, as we know
* Justin., i. 9.
14

·216 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. from the inscriptions, this cannot well be anything else but his tomb. Still, it is so peculiar, so different from the mode of sepulture adopted by his successors, that it requires all this evidence to convince us that it really was so; for as yet we are not familiar with any people who buried their dead on the tops of pyramids. The Egyptians, the typical pyramid-builders, placed them either below these structures or in their very inmost centre; and though the Indian monarchs in after ages did something of the sort, it was more like a tradition of this than a fact. As for instance, in the great pyramid that covers the tomb of Ackbar at Secundra, there is a false tomb on the summit of the edifice; but the real tomb and the body lie in a vault under the very centre of the pyramid. It is of course to Mesopotamia that we must look for the solution of this riddle, and if it is true that Nitocris was buried over the gateway at Babylon, and if the Birs Nimrod was the tomb of Nebuchodnazar, we may understand that such may have been the royal mode of sepulture in those parts, and applying this again, I think there cannot be much doubt but that the three upper chambers found by Layard to the southward of the oldest palace at Nimroud were sepulchral; their position is so like this, and their disposition, on an enlarged scale, so similar to that of Darius's tomb at Naksh-i-Rustam, as shown in woodcut No. 8. Further researches will of course be required to settle these questions, but we are on the verge of solving them all. In the meantime, however, were it not for the direct testimony of Arrian ·TOMB OF CYRUS. 217 as to the body being found and seen by Alexander, I should feel very much inclined to suspect it still lay safe and sound beneath the foundation here, and that all he saw or opened was the cenotaph, or false tomb of the founder. Attached to the tomb, and near it, Arrian tells us there “was built a small house for the Magi who had the keeping of the tomb." It could not, however, be so very small, as they had a sheep allowed them daily, besides bread and flour, for their maintenance. And as Ker Porter suggested, I think there can be but little doubt but that this small house is the edifice now known as the caravanserai, the substructure of which is evidently old and of Achæmenian date, though all the superstructure has evidently been rebuilt and modernised since the Mahomedan times. It well deserves, however, a more careful examination than has yet been bestowed upon it; for if I mistake not it is the oldest authentic remains that exist of a priestly monastery, and a knowledge of its arrangements would throw considerable light on those of the Buddhist Viharas of India; which, if not copied from those of the Magi, were at least similar buildings applied to similar purposes, and a knowledge of one must assist us in understanding the other. I have now, I believe, mentioned all the remains of the Achæmenian dynasty now found in this part of Persia; and I hope I have made their forms and destinations more intelligible than it was possible for others to do before. There are still some points that admit of further elucidation from the examination of As- ·218 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. ; syrian remains; to these I will revert in the sequel, as they belong to that part of the subject which follows, and which will occupy the remaining part of this volume. PART I, -SECTION III. JERUSALEM. BEFORE commencing the description of the Ninevite remains it will serve to illustrate what is to follow if we turn aside a little to examine the buildings erected by Solomon in Jerusalem ; which, though not strictly belonging to our subject, are still so closely allied to it, that they throw not only considerable light on what has gone before, but at the same time receive back so clear a reflection from this side, that their forms and disposition become far more intelligible than ever they were before. The epoch at which these buildings were erected falls about half way between that of the Median palace at Nimroud and that of Ninus at Khorsabad, and was not so far removed from that of the buildings at Persepolis, but that, considering the immutability of forms in the East, they may fairly be considered as illustrating one another by their juxtaposition. It is true, no doubt, that Jerusalem is situated beyond the confines of Assyria; but its inhabitants were so closely allied, both in blood and religion, as well as in all their habits and customs, that for most purposes ·JERUSALEM. 219 . they may be considered as one people ; and the intercourse between them was so frequent and constant during the whole period of their histories, that it is difficult to overrate the influence the one must have had on the other. Unfortunately, no temple has yet been exhumed in Assyria in a sufficiently perfect state to throw any light on that built by Solomon ; for the only thing that can fairly be supposed to have been a temple is the platform and few fragments in the eastern angle of the Khorsabad mound; but this is so completely ruined, that literally not one stone remains upon another, and nothing remains by which it can be so restored as to render it of any use for our purposes of illustration. The case, however, is different when we turn to Persepolis and Passargadæ, where we meet with many points singularly illustrative of this most interesting building. The first is the form of the substructure, which is, as nearly as may be, identical with the platform that supports the buildings at these places, more especially at Passagardæ, where the platform (woodcut No. 23.) occupies the declivity of a hill, exactly as the platform of Solomon's Temple did, having one bold and broad face rising from the plain and two lateral ones sloping back till they meet the level of the hill.* The masonry too, as before re- * The dimensions of the platform of Solomon's Temple in the time of Josephus was 600 feet square, whereas this one is less than half that, or about 260 feet each way. There is, however, an expression in Josephus which, if it may be depended upon, explains away even this discrepancy, for he says (Bel. Jud i. 21.), " Herod rebuilt the Temple, and breasted up ·220 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. marked, is singularly similar, as may be seen on comparing that represented in woodcut No. 24. with the engravings of any of the recent works on Jerusalem.* The platform at Persepolis was so much added to, and designed to support so many buildings, that the similarity is not so apparent, though the idea was the same. As the Temple itself was, notwithstanding its richness, one of the smallest ever dedicated to the Deity, we naturally turn to the smallest at Persepolis for our illustrations; but even if we thus choose the Palace of Darius for this purpose, it is still too large, being tetrastyle in antis, or with four pillars in its portico; whereas that at Jerusalem had only two. The width, however, of the porch at the latter place was only thirty feet, twenty cubits, while that at Persepolis was fifty, so that the intercolumniations were the same in both instances, and certainly no pillars exist anywhere so nearly resembling the celebrated Jachin and Boaz as do those of the Persepolitan order represented in woodcut No. 15.; indeed, they are the only ones that render the chapiters of five cubits conceivable, and though they do not exactly correspond with those described in the Bible, they come so nearly to it, that the restoration from them is by no means an impossibility, which it is if we with a wall the area around it, so as to enlarge its area to twice its former extent.” If this were so, the Passargadæan platform was as like the Jewish one in extent as it was in style, in masonry, and in purpose. * I would expressly refer to Bartlett's Walks about Jerusalem, and to Mr. Tipping's Drawings, published with Dr. Traill's translation of Josephus : the latter are the best I know of.

·TEMPLE OF SOLOMON. 221 refer to either classical or Egyptian types as the basis of our reasoning At each end of this porch there certainly were at Jerusalem apartments corresponding in width with that of the cells that surrounded the Temple on three sides, and which consequently were the counterparts of the guard chambers at Persepolis. At Jerusalem, however, they seem to have been carried to a great height, —sixty cubits, while there is no appearance of this having been the case at Persepolis. The cells themselves have always been one of the most perplexing points of the Temple at Jerusalem. They have puzzled me and every one else, till recent exploration brought to light those surrounding the inner room of the palace or temple of Darius, but they so exactly resemble them that there can now, I conceive, be little doubt of their actual existence and position. The squareness of the inner apartment is another characteristic of both styles, being universal at Persepolis, and strongly insisted upon both in the Bible, and by Josephus and the Talmudists. The only part of the Jewish temple we miss at Persepolis is the outer chamber or pronaos, double the length of its width, which gave a more elongated form to the former than to the latter building; it does not seem to have been required for the purposes for which the Persian edifices were erected; they had no inner sanctum or holy of holies, and consequently no pronaos for less sacred purposes. There still remains to be noticed one most interesting peculiarity which hitherto has been so unin- ·222 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. telligible to me, as to every one else, that it has been overlooked or misunderstood, but now becomes an essential part of the fabric; it is, that the Temple at Jerusalem had an upper story of wood-a talar, in short, erected over the lower one of stone. It is true the Bible does not mention this, but Josephus does, and with such circumstantial evidence to support it, that I conceive there can be little or no doubt about it. He mentions it first in describing the Temple as built by Solomon, and after describing it as sixty cubits long, twenty broad, and sixty high, he says, on the top of this was another edifice of the same dimensions, so that the total altitude was 120 cubits.” * I may, however, before proceeding further, repeat a remark I made in another work on the same subject, - that all Josephus's measures in altitude are exaggerated, generally doubled, though his horizontal measurements may almost always be depended upon." A little further on he mentions, “the king had a curious contrivance for an ascent to the upper room over the temple by steps (or an inclined plane) in the thickness of the walls; for (he adds) it had no great door towards the east, as the lower house had, but small doors at the sides." We next find that Zerubbabel's temple was sixty feet lower than Solomon's I; or, in other words, that the upper story was omitted. Was the talar conus * Josephus, Ant. Jud., lib. viii. 3. 2. † Topography of Ancient Jerusalem, by the Author, p. 4. et passim. † Josephus, xy. 11. 1.

·TEMPLE AT JERUSALEM. 223 sidered by the Persians a symbol of royalty, and consequently ordered to be omitted ? The most pointed mention of it is, however, in the account of Herod's temple, where it is said that “the building was in length one hundred cubits, and in height twenty additional cubits, which, on the failure of the foundations, fell down, and this part it was that we resolved to raise again in the days of Nero."* This has hitherto appeared so obscure that some editors have marked the passage with asterisks, to show that something was wanting to the sense; but if spoken of a talar, nothing can be more clear,-its footings failed and it fell, but without either interrupting the worship of the temple, or interfering with it in any way. The last mention of it is with reference to the repair above alluded to, where he says, " that king Agrippa had, at a very great expense and with great trouble, brought thither such materials as were fit for the purpose, to raise the holy house twenty cubits higher, being pieces of timber very well worth seeing, both for their straightness and largeness; but the war coming on, John had them cut and prepared for building towers," &c. † These passages, I think, leave no doubt but that what was here referred to was a timber erection twenty cubits high, ---a talar, in short, —and exactly such as we find at Persepolis. What the object of the Jews was in erecting such a superstructure is by no means so evident, nor to Josephus, xv. 11. 1. | Idem, Bel. Jud., v. 1.5.

·224 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. what purposes they applied it; nor is it necessary to stop here to inquire into this, for it is sufficient for us to know that such an erection existed, thus nearly completing the identification in every point with the buildings we have just been examining at Persepolis, and showing in a satisfactory manner how the one may hereafter be made to illustrate the other, which they certainly do to a very considerable extent. At all events, I feel assured that till some Syrian or Assyrian temple is exhumed, it is to Persepolis only that we can look for any explanation of this singular but most interesting building. All analogies drawn from any Egyptian buildings have most singularly failed in this respect, and those derived from classical architecture only serve to show how men may deceive themselves on such a point. An Assyrian temple would of course be the best illustration, but till that is found the Persepolitan must suffice, and in fact leave very little to be desired. If we turn from the Temple to the House of Solomon we shall find that the buildings at Persepolis and Nineveh throw very considerable light on the arrangements of that palace, and that it, on the other hand, affords so valuable a commentary on what we find to the eastward, that I shall describe it somewhat more at length, and in doing so shall strive to combine the information derived from the Bible with what we find in Josephus ; the former of course being in all cases the paramount authority: but it was written merely as a record of what all saw and knew, and, consequently, is frequently unintelligible ·PALACE OF SOLOMON. of the terms used; whereas the latter, trying 225 to us, who neither understand the style nor the value plain to foreigners what he knew, but what he felt they did not understand, is far more explanatory and more easily intelligible to us, and forms a most valuable commentary on the better but more obscure authority. The principal edifice in the palace was the Basilica, or House, of the Forest of Lebanon*, which, says Josephus," he built to receive the people, for hearing causes and determining suits, and made it capacious enough to receive a large body of men who might come together on judicial business.” It was one hundred cubits long, fifty broad, and thirty high, supported," it is said, in the second verse of the description in the Bible, con four rows of cedar pillars, and cedar beams upon the pillars: ." the next verse enumerates, however, the whole number of pillars as “forty-five, fifteen in a row," an arithmetical difficulty, out of which Josephus does not help us, and the Septuagint cuts across by changing the first 4 into a 3. The biblical description then goes on to say, "and there were windows in three rows, and light was against light in three ranks; and all the doors and posts were square with the windows, and light was against light in three ranks.” This is not very easily understood, and un- * As the whole of the information on which the following reasoning is founded is contained in 1 Kings, viii. 1--12., the end of the same chapter in the Septuagint, and in Josephus's Antiquities, lih. viii. cap. v. pp. 1, 2., I shall not again refer to them, considering this note as sufficient, ·fig. 2. Whether it contained a clerestory or not is not mentioned; bz74 ??? 226 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. fortunately the expression in Josephus does not help us, for his θυρωμασι τριγλυφοις would seem to refer to a window divided into three parts rather than three rows of windows, which I take to be the true meaning; his describing, however, the roof as of the Corinthian order, throws considerable light on the matter, as he of course is not speaking of the order of the pillars but of the Corinthian, or, as it is sometimes called, Egyptian æcus, ---a room with two or more ranges of Corinthian pillars on the floor, supporting a clerestory, ornamented with details of that order. * fig. 1. No. 26. fig. 3. Diagram Sections of Solomon's House. * Though belonging to a long subsequent age, it may not be uninteresting to mention here that the great stoa basilica of the Temple, as rebuilt by Herod, was a porch 600 feet in length by 105 in width, divided into three aisles by rows of Corinthian columns. The centre aisle, however, of the stoa, which is what principally interests us here, was twice as high as the two side ones, and adorned with deep sculptures in wood. the fact of this unequal elevation of different parts of the roof, instead of the whole being one flat as now usual in the East, or pedimented as in Greece, points to a form of architecture we find everywhere in ancient That TTÜ ·PALACE OF SOLOMON. 227 The section of the building, therefore, probably was, if there were three rows of columns, like the diagram 1., or with four, it may have been either like 2.or 3.; my own impression is that it was almost certainly the last, and it is by no means improbable that the spaces between one range of columns were walled up or divided by screens (as shown on the left hand of fig. 3.), or some such devise ; so that though four ranges, or sixty pillars, supported the roof, only three ranges, or forty-five, stood free on the floor, which would at once explain the apparent discrepancy in the text. What, however, principally interests us here, is to know that the roof of this great basilica was supported by rows of cedar pillars about ten feet apart, in the direction of the length of the hall, and fifteen apart in a lateral direction if there were four rows, and eighteen apart if three: in this respect strongly resembling most of those of Persepolis and all those at Nineveh, as well as that at Ecbatana above referred to. The proportions of the hall were also about half way between those of Persepolis and Nineveh, for at the first-named city they were always square; here two squares, or twice the length of the breadth, was the proportion given; and at Nineveh, as we shall presently see, they were seldom under three squares in length Attached to this hall was a porch of pillars fifty cubits in length and thirty in breadth. The Septuagint says fifty square, but whether it was situated at times in Asia and in Egypt, but no where else that I am aware of. For plan and further particulars of the porch, see Ancient Topography of Jerusalem, by the Author.

·228 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. 2 one end or in the centre of the longest side, is not quite clear; my own impression is, that it was at the end. Be this as it may, the next building mentioned is a "porch of the throne where he might judge, even the porch of judgment, and it was covered with cedar from one side of the floor to the other." To this description in the Bible Josephus adds some important particulars; he calls it a temple (voos), and says 'it was placed opposite the porch above described, and that in this temple was a splendid hall supported by strong pillars, in which the king sat to administer justice." Taking, however, these three buildings as they stand, it will at once be perceived that we have the exact counterpart of the groups at Persepolis. First, an internal hall supported by pillars of wood or of stone; secondly, an external porch wider than its depth; and, lastly, a detached temple or gate of judgment, of which the four central pillars are always of stone at Persepolis, though it is probable that in most instances at that place those of the halls were of wood like this one at Jerusalem. After this both the Bible and Josephus mention the house of Pharaoh's daughter, but without any particulars as to its form or construction; this, however, is of less importance here, as we have as yet found 110 counterpart of such an arrangement either at Persepolis or Nineveh, though it is common in Eastern palaces to find the principal queen provided with a separate dwelling. * * It has been proposed that the word Ardastana in the short window inscriptions in Darius's palace at Persepolis, should be read Artystonn, ·PALACE OF SOLOMON. 229 The other building mentioned in the Bible is the house where he dwelt, which had another court within the porch, which was of like work.” Josephus says, there were, besides, other edifices for feasting and for taking relaxation, after business was over, all floored with cedar planks. It is exactly this building that we miss at Persepolis, and can only look for at Istakr, if it existed there; but it forms so important a part of what has been discovered at Nineveh, that I shall quote from the descriptions at some length, though their value will scarcely be perceived till we have examined more fully the buildings at the latter place. Following Josephus, we find that “ Solomon built some of these with stones of ten cubits, and wainscoted the walls with other stones that were sawed, and were of great value, such as are dug out of the bowels of the earth, for ornaments of temples, &c. The arrangement of the curious workmanship of these stones was in three rows; but the fourth was pre-eminent for the beauty of its sculpture; for on it were represented trees and all sorts of plants, with the shadows caused by their branches and the leaves that hung down from them. These trees and plants covered the stone that was beneath them, and their the name of the favourite wife of Darius; which would make that her palace rather than his, and it thus might be the counterpart of the house of Pharaoh's daughter. Rawlinson, however, rejects this reading in toto (Journal of the Asiatic Society, vol. x, p. 314., et seq.). Not feeling qualified to express an opinion on such a subject, I have followed hini implicitly in the text, though I confess I think the subject requires reconsideration, and am myself rather inclined towards the queenly iden. Q3 ·230 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. leaves were wrought so wonderfully thin and subtile, that they appeared almost in motion; but the rest of the wall, up to the roof, was plastered over, and, as it were, wrought over with various colours and pictures. This, as will be seen hereafter, is nearly a literal description of the way in which the Assyrian palaces were decorated, the lower part of the walls being covered with slabs of alabaster, generally, but not always ornamented with figured sculptures, the upper plastered and painted. We are not told whether Solomon ornamented the lower slabs of his palace, or whether the three rows were of different coloured marbles. I am inclined, however, to think they were carved, probably like most of the Assyrian ones, - the lowest with a picture, then a band of equal breadth bearing an inscription or carved ornament, and again a picture. The ornaments of the fourth row, which were so remarkable in Solomon's work, are not found in Assyria, but they probably were represented by the lowest range of paintings. To proceed, however, with our description:-“ He built besides various other edifices for pleasure, also long galleries, and these situated in an agreeable part of the palace, and among them a splendid hall for feasting and drinking, adorned on all sides with gold, and such other furniture as befitted so fine a room, and where all the vessels were of gold. It is difficult, however,” adds our author, “to reckon up the magnitude and variety of all the apartments of the palace, - how many smaller and how many ·PALACE OF SOLOMON. 231 larger sleeping-rooms there were, how many subterraneous, and how many in concealed or remote places, nor the beauty of those parts that were exposed to the open air, nor the groves, which were beautiful to look at, and at the same timne protected the body from the fierce rays of the sun," &c. All this, it will be perceived, is exactly what we want at Persepolis, but which we shall find and understand better after examining the palaces at Nineveh; I will not say more of it at present, and merely add that the whole of it is confirmed by what is said in the Bible, but there so succinctly as to be unintelligible to us without this commentary. There, however, one thing is added, which Josephus omits, that “the foundations were of costly stones, even of great stones, - stones of ten cubits, and stones of eight cubits.” This, I conceive, must refer, not to foundations, concealed under ground, but to such stylobates as those that support the edifices at Persepolis, and which seem to have been considered so important at both places. One only other Assyrianism remains to be mentioned in these descriptions, which is the frequent use of bulls, though not apparently winged ones, to support the laver and other things about the Temple; and not the least singular is the back of the great throne, which Josephus describes “as half a bullock, against which Solomon reclined when looking back." It scarcely, however, could have been one half, but inore probably two halves, as on the Persepolitan capitals, which would form an admirable back to the ·is that it will be far more difficult to detect diffe 232 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. throne, though it is difficult to conceive how one half could be so used. These, and other points, however, will be more easily understood in the sequel. In the meanwhile, I think we can have no difficulty in assuming Syria to be part of the architectural province of Assyria, and so closely allied to it, that all the buildings of the one place may serve to illustrate those of the other, if they should not prove to be nearly identical in all respects. My own impression, however, rences than to point out their almost perfect concordance. Before, however, leaving this part of the subject, I may as well allude to one other similarity between the buildings at Jerusalem and Persepolis, which may serve to illustrate some of the more puzzling peculiarities at the latter place. It is, that the Temple at Jerusalem was situated on a hill side, outside the walls, and separated by a valley from the city. Whereas the House of Solomon was in the city itself, and surrounded apparently by the habitations of his subjects. This is not quite a parallel arrangement with that at Persepolis and Istakr, but it is so similar that it adds one more probability to the views proposed in the preceding pages.

·233 PART II, SEOTION I. KHORSABAD. If the subject were so complete that we could follow a strictly chronological order, either in tracing the forms of architecture back to their sources, or downwards from the earliest to the latest times, the next building that would engage our scrutiny would be the Median palace of Nimroud, commonly known as the south-west edifice. It has, however, been so completely ruined, — by fire, apparently,-- when the city was taken by Cyaxares, and Saracus the Mede followed the example of Sardanapalus the Assyrian, that it is impossible now to trace even the plan or general outline of the form of the greater part of it; it is, therefore, of all the palaces of Nineveh, the one least appropriate for commencing our study of their arts; even, however, if it had not been the most completely ruined it would scarcely serve our purpose, for it is entirely constructed with fragments brought from the older edifices in its neighbourhood, generally with their sculptures either defaced or turned inwardly towards the wall, and treated as badly as works of art could be by a people of a different race, ·Y. NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. advantages of its own, it is the only one of these 234 their predecessors, and no veneration for either their arts or for their religion. In an historical point of view it will eventually prove, no doubt, of the highest interest to trace this defacement, both in its cause and its effects; and if I am correct in believing that this is the palace that was built and inhabited by the Salmaneser and Senacherib dynasty, with whose names we are so familiar, no palace in Assyria will yield more interesting results to history, but for the purpose of explaining the architecture it is not only ineligible but altogether inappropriate. On the other hand, the palace at Khorsabad is singularly well suited for this purpose; for though it has been injured, none of its features are obliterated entirely by the fire that destroyed it, and it has the great advantage of standing on a mound of its own, unmixed with edifices either of a more modern or earlier date. It was all the work of one king, apparently the most illustrious of his race. Besides these syrian palaces which has been thoroughly explored and excavated, and of which we have, besides, plans and descriptions, with carefully made sections and elevations of every feature drawn to scale. If, therefore, the subject can be made intelligible in the present state of our knowledge, it must be through the instrumentality of the labours of M. Botta at this place, and of the magnificent work in which the results of them are recorded. It is true, nevertheless, ·KHORSABAD. 235 that the palaces discovered by Mr. Layard are in themselves more interesting than the one excavated by M. Botta, and, considering the means at his disposal, he has done more for their elucidation than either that gentleman or any other living man could probably have done; but he has not been granted the means of doing what M. Botta was enabled, by the enlightened liberality of his government, to accomplish, so that his labours are not so available for our purposes as are those of his rival; but what he was not allowed to do, may still, I hope, to some extent, be done for him ; and one great object of the present inquiry is to commence such an illustration of his labours, and to render the work of the French savans available for the elucidation of the palaces he has discovered. The ruins of Khorsabad are situated about ten miles due north from Nineveh, on the banks of the same stream, Khausser, that joins the Tigris, opposite Mosul, washing in its course the base of the mound of Koyunjik, on which stood the great palace of Nineveh, begun, probably, by the same king who built this one, though principally erected by his Son. The ruins stand on the great alluvial plain of the Tigris, which here has an average breadth of about ten miles, and are situated about one mile and a half from the foot of the nearest range of hills bounding the ·mas 236 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS, plain. Besides the remains of the palace, there may here be distinctly traced the walls of the city, forming nearly a perfect square, two sides of which are 5750 feet, the other two 5400, or rather more than an English mile each way, all the four angles being perfectly right angles. On this wall are still found the traces of eight great towers, very irregularly spaced, one so large as to have almost the appearance of a separate citadel, or a smaller palace; nothing, however, but the usual strata of bricks were found on digging into it. The wall itself was forty-five feet wide at base, and composed of two or three irregular courses of Cyclopean-looking stone masonry to a height of three or four feet; above that it consisted of sun-dried bricks, but to what height cannot now be ascertained, probably to about thirty-five or thirty-six feet, as that is the height, as nearly as could be ascertained, of the revêtement wall of the terrace of the palace. At first sight it might be supposed that this enpalace; the immense thickness and solidity of the wall, however, I think entirely destroys such a theory. It does not require walls forty-five feet thick and more than thirty feet in height to enclose game; and if meant for defence, there must have been inhabitants to defend it, for a mere guard could not man a wall more than four miles in length. I think, therefore, we are justified in calling this the city of Khorsabad, and as such it would, allowing fifty square yards to each individual, contain a population ·KHORSABAD. 237 of between 60,000 and 70,000 souls, - a large number for a city in those days.* The sides of this city do not face the cardinal points, though the angles point very nearly to them, the walls consequently facing the intermediate points ; that towards the north-west is broken nearly in its centre, and in the gap, but protruding considerably beyond its line, is situated the palace itself, as shown in the woodcut (No. 27.) on the next page, which represents the mound as it now is, with the excavations made by M. Botta, and the ruins of the palace, in so far as it was laid bare by him. At the top and bottom of the woodcut are scen the city walls, running from the northern and western angles, and inside them, on the right hand, the larger, but lower mound, which stood within the city, and on the left, the higher square terrace, which supported the palace properly. so called, and which overlooked the great Assyrian plain towards the Tigris. There are now two very considerable gaps between the walls and the mound, as shown in the woodcut, * The perfect facility with which these walls can be traced, as well as those opposite Mosul, shown in woodcut No.1., is in itself quite sufficient to refute the idea of those who would make the old city extend from Nimroud to Khorsabad, for neither between nor beyond these ruins, nor connecting them in any way, can any trace of walls or mounds be found. If they can be traced so distinctly in these two localities, traces of them would be found elsewhere had they ever existed. Till they are found, we are justified, even from this circumstance alone, in assuming what every other consideration renders so probable, that they never existed, but that these were two independent cities, and quite as large, too, as the country could well support.

·238
NINEVEH AND
PERSEPOLIS.
No.27:
WALL
anwr
in
ASIAN
RAMERIKANT
WALL

·No text on this page.

·TERRACES AT KHORSABAD. the city and its walls necessitating the fall of the 239 larger on the southern than on the northern side; but there can be now no doubt but that they once almost touched, probably overlapped, the inner and lower part of the mound, so as to afford a circuitous and perfectly flanked entrance on this side to the city, and at the same time to prevent the possession of palace. It is not difficult, however, to account for their present enlargment; for the waters of the Khausser, when it overflows, rush, apparently, through the southern gap, and sometimes also through the northern one, into the deserted, and now marshy enclosure of the city; and it requires only a slight degree of assistance from a running stream to enable the almost tropical rains of that country to abrade a large gap in a mud wall like this one. The terrace on which the palace itself stood was, as nearly as can now be ascertained, square in general plan, and measuring about 650 feet each way, and projecting about 500 feet beyond the line of the walls of the city into the plain. It was not, however, bounded by straight lines, but, like that of Persepolis, broken by angular projections and indentations, which it is now impossible to follow, as the revêtement wall has only been uncovered in two places, a and a of the more detailed plan, plate II., while at the northern angle of the palace, and for some way on each side of it, the mound has been entirely removed, either from having its foundations sapped by the overflowing of the brook that runs so close to hononon ita atonna har hon and an ·240 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. peasantry, having been found particularly accessible at this point. To the inner side of the upper square mound there is attached a lower one of nearly the same extent, but of a different form, being between 1,300 and 1,400 feet long by about 300 in width, and is situated wholly within the line of the city walls. As M. Botta was, unfortunately, not provided with any levelling instruments, or any means of ascertaining No. 28. 10 20 30 40 50 feet. Terrace Wall at Khorsabai. either the absolute or relative heights of the different platforms, we are left in considerable uncertainty as to what the heights really were; as far, however, as he could judge, or can be gathered from his text, the height of the platform on which the palace stood was about thirty feet above the level of the plain, but the wall of revêtment was carried six 11 1 at loot ·TERRACE AT KHORSABAD. 241 style of he determines it, though I cannot think the evidence quite so clear as might be wished on this point. The lower terrace seems to be about ten feet below the upper, and consequently twenty feet above the level of the city. The masonry, and height of the wall and its parapet, are shown in the annexed woodcut (No. 28.), which is an exact tracing from one of M. Botta's plates, representing the excavation he made to ascertain these facts; so far as it goes, therefore, it must be considered as definitive till some new fact throws more light on the subject. As there have been found no traces of any buildings upon the lower terrace, except of one gateway, it is difficult to ascertain for what purpose it was used; in position, however, and relative height, it is so like the lower, or southern terrace, of Persepolis, that it is more than probable they were both intended to serve the same purpose. My own impression is, that they were appropriated to the residences of the guards and attendants or inferior officers attached to the palace. Their houses being of inferior materials would of course soon perish and be confounded with the mud on which they stood. It may, however, have been a garden, as that is an almost invariable adjunct to o an Eastern palace, and I do not know where to place one at Khorsabad if not here. The one building which stands on this terrace tells, however, somewhat against this view of the case; for I think it almost certainly marks the principal en- ·242 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. trance to the palace, probably the only one. This, however, is not M. Botta's opinion, as he seems to think that the palace platform was ascended by three or more stairs, or inclined planes, leading to each of the palace courts, viz., two on the north-western face, and one on the south-western, perhaps more. It is true there are now deep ravines, which cut into the platform at the places he indicates, and so far favour this view. He seems to me, however, to overlook the fact that the palace and city were fortified; and it would have been an anomaly, after surrounding the one by a wall forty-five feet thick, and the other by a terrace of beautiful masonry thirty-five feet high, and covering the platform with a parapet six feet in height, so as to defend all on it from the darts or arrows of the besiegers, to have left wide and open stairs leading down to the country, as if only to save an enemy the use of the scaling ladders the sculptures show they were such adepts in using: The example of Persepolis, as far as it goes, confirms this idea; for though the great stairs there now lead down to the plain, it is evident that whatever town or fortification existed at any time in conjunction with that palace, must have been in front of the platform, and enclosing the ruins to the north and south of it; so that these stairs, the only means of access, really led down into the city, as I suppose they did here. The question, however, scarcely needs this analogy, for it is impossible to get over the fact that the town and palace were fortified, and, consequently, that wherever there were gates they must ·ENTRANCE TO PALACE. 243 have been covered with outworks, as M. Botta found the one to be, he excavated on the south-east side; and I feel convinced that stairs could only exist leading to the tops of the walls or terraces from the inside, where they were protected by the city walls, and even then, I expect, very cautiously used. Besides, however, these arguments derived from probabilities, there is one drawn from the building itself which must be considered as nearly definitive as regards this question. On looking at the plan, plate II., it will be observed that there is a narrow gallery, or passage, marked x., which forms the only means of communication between the outer court and the parts towards the city with the palace, properly so called. This gallery was closed at one end by a portal more massive than any other in the whole edifice; the places for its hinges still remain, and a recess exists in the wall to receive its ponderous lock when the door was open; besides, the wall behind the door is not sculptured. All these circumstances, which are not found elsewhere, show that the door was larger and more important than any other, — the outer door, in short, of the palace. Had the door been at the north-west end of the gallery, and shut towards the palace court, we should at once understand that there must have been access from that side, and that it was meant to prevent intrusion into the hareem, or private apartments, from the public ones, but as it is at the end towards the city, and the lock and bars are towards the palace, it 17:17 ·be. 244 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. outer court, and the palace the inside ; a view which is further confirmed by the splendour of the great portals on the south-western side of this outer court, which, though leading to unadorned chambers, are more splendid than any others in the edifice, except those of the propylæa, which, however, they very much resemble. All this will become more intelligible as we proceed; but before attempting to describe the palace it is necessary to understand in what direction it was approached; and I think, after what has been said above, it must be admitted that it was from the city, and from that side only. Approaching it from this side, at the distance of about 100 feet inwards from the edge of the mound, is found a terrace fifty feet broad, paved with kilnburnt bricks, and supported on its outer edge by a terrace wall of stone. It is unfortunate that M. Botta did not lay bare this wall to its base, not only for the sake of ascertaining its character and height, but also because it is here, if anywhere, that the stairs must have existed that led up to the terrace; and as an Assyrian stair is still a desideratum, its discovery would have been of no small interest. On the outer edge of this paved platform M. Botta found the remains of a splendid portal, the elevation of which is represented in the annexed woodcut (No. 29.). Each side consists of two splendid, winged, 1 c Toon

·No. 29.
LKCHILDS
31
Existing Remains of Propylæa at Khorsabaa.
245

·246 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. in his arms, the whole group being thirty-one feet six inches in length by fifteen in height. The same was repeated on the other side, at the distance of nearly twenty feet. But between these two groups stood two other winged bulls, looking outwards, designed on even a more gigantic scale; for they are nineteen feet from the pavement of the portal to the top of their tiaras, and rather more in length, the whole portal being thus ninety feet in width and above twentyfive feet in depth. After excavating a little beyond the right-hand corner, as represented in the woodcut, and finding no trace even of the wall, M. Botta gave up all further exploration in this quarter ; had he, however, excavated inwards some twenty or thirty yards, he most probably would have found a second portal, and it might be, differing somewhat from this, for I feel convinced that this is not a mere doorway in a wall, but a propylæum, similar in design, and nearly in extent, to that of Xerxes at Persepolis. Were it a gateway it would have stood at the outer edge of the terrace, and been connected with a wall of equal importance, but it stands relatively exactly in the same position as the one at Persepolis, and, notwithstanding the greater profusion of bulls indulged in here, looks so like its portals that I cannot but regard them as similar edifices erected for the same purposes. The question, however, could easily be settled by a morning's digging, and I trust will be so set at rest some day. I have restored it on plate II., with a chamber about sixty feet square: though this is of conrse a ·STAIRS AT KHORSABAD. 247 mere guess; but it is not worth while attempting more where the facts are available to any inquirer who will employ a few Arabs, for a morning or two, to ascertain, by actual measurement, the true state of the case. No trace has been found, or indeed looked for, of the mode in which the upper platform was ascended from the lower. I have placed in the plan, plate II., a double flight of stairs opposite the passage No. 10., at the further end of the outer court, as that appears by far the most probable place for them to be situated in; but this, of course, is mere conjecture. It might, however, even now be worth any body's while to look for them there or thereabouts. For the Persians certainly were not the first to invent such beautiful architectural objects as the stairs at Persepolis were. A people like the Assyrians, who built their palaces * Colonel Rawlinson informs me that the inscriptions mention four great gateways belonging to this palace. If this be so, three have yet to be discovered. I would look for two of them at the two extremities of the lower terrace, and the third where it is indicated by the dotted lines at the top of the stairs leading to the upper terrace; but, till the excavations are completed, or the inscriptions translated, we must confine ourselves to such facts as are available. I learn, from the same authority, that the inscriptions on the walls contain a complete description of every part of the palace, and of the use to which it was dedicated. With our imperfect knowledge of the language, I fear it would be, at present, impossible to understand this, without a complete exploration of the whole mound, so as to be sure of our identifications. Nothing, however, could give a more complete idea of Assyria at that age, than such an extended excavation, accompanied by a translation of the inscriptions which describe it; and it is hoped that such may yet be undertaken. Till this is done, however, we must content ourselves with such materials as are at present at our disposal, though they certainly do not suffice for anything like a complete restoration.

·248 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. on terraces, must, from the earliest ages, have turned their attention to the decoration of this most important feature; and I am very much mistaken if one of these staircases, when found, does not turn out to be the most splendid architectural member of the whole palace. Hitherto, however, explorers have been content when they reached the pavement of the platform on which the palace stood; and naturally enough, it must be confessed, when such marvels were disclosed above them; but I trust, before long, that some well directed excavation in front of the principal façade will enable us to add this feature to those already discovered. Till this is done, it is needless to speculate further on their forms than by referring to Persepolis, and indicating the most probable place where they may be found. In the present instance, however, we do not know even the difference of level between the two terraces, and, consequently, not even their height: I have assumed it ten or fifteen feet from the analogy of Persepolis and the shading in M. Botta's plan, but these are slender data for so important a fact. It is by no means improbable that further towards the south-west, there may have been another less * When the Queen of Sheba visited Jerusalem, the thing that struck her most among the works of Solomon was the “ascent by which he went up into the house of the Lord." When she saw this, “there was no more spirit in her." The house itself does not seem to have appeared to her so worthy of admiration, as the stairs that led up to it. The same thing would most probably have occurred had she visited Persepolis in the time of King Xerxes ; and my own impression is that it would have occurred here also; or even, perhaps, here to a greater extent than at eithor of the othan nlnnoo ·STAIRS AT KHORSABAD. 249 important and private flight of stairs leading directly to the hareem ; but as there are circumstances, which will appear in the sequel, which discountenance such an idea, I have not attempted even to indicate them. If the great flight of steps were where I have placed them, I should certainly, were I on the spot, dig in front of them, to see if there did not exist here, at b, a square distyle hall, similar to the one on the lower terrace, though probably smaller. Whenever the stairs are found, there, I feel convinced, will this accompaniment also be disclosed; but I need not say that no trace of it has yet been discovered ; for the excavations hitherto made have only followed the lines of the walls, and when they failed, the excavation stopped; so that we still remain in ignorance of anything that may have existed in front of them, but in a detached position; a fact that must, to a certain extent, vitiate all positive conclusions regarding the arrangement and use of the building, for till we know all, we know nothing absolutely; but even as it at present stands, I think we know enough of Khorsabad, to be tolerably sure of what we are speaking about, and I fear we may yet wait long for anything more perfect. Having now ascended the upper platform, on which stood the palace, properly so called, it only remains to describe the buildings of which it was composed. To render, however, my description as distinct as possible, I shall divide them into three groups. First the range of huildinas surrounding the ·250 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. 7 court, I have called, in plate II., the Hareem Court, which I take to have been the private apartments, or residence, of the palace. Secondly, the palace, properly so called, consisting of fourteen apartments, or rooms, numbered 1 to 14 on the plan, all revêted with sculptured slabs of alabaster; but which have no communication with the hareem buildings, these latter being only accessible by the gateways in the outer and temple courts. And lastly, the temple, so called on the plan, situated in the very adytum of the palace, at the corner furthest removed from the entrance. Before, however, proceeding to describe these separate parts, it may perhaps be as well to premise, in order to prevent misconception, that the small plan, woodcut No. 27., represents the parts of the building disclosed by M. Botta, and the extent of his excavations. Whatever, therefore, is not found there, must be considered as a restoration. The plan, plate II., is drawn to the scale of 100 feet to one inch, or double that of the general plan of Persepolis, but the same to which all the woodcut plans are drawn, except that of the Palace of Darius; on it I have hatched or shaded all the parts actually existing: the restorations, for which I conceive there is sufficient authority, are drawn in simple outline; and those which are mere suggestions are indicated by dotted lines only. Notwithstanding all this, however, as will be seen on reference to the plate, a great deal still remains blank, and till it is excavated, we ·THE HAREEM. 251 cannot feel quite sure of any general views that may be proposed, and certainly do not know all that might be known regarding either the arrangement or purposes for which this palace was built. THE HAREEM. Of the group of buildings which I have called the Hareem, only two external façades now exist, or at least only two have hitherto been uncovered by excavation. The principal one facing the north-east, and forming one side of the outer court ; the other facing the north-west, forms one side of the temple court. Between these two, the building joins the angle of the palace, but there exist no means of communication between the two. No excavation has been made to ascertain either the position or the form of the south-eastern face; which is to be regretted, as, looking towards the principal entrance, it must have been decorated, to be in accordance with the rest. The sculptures, however, if any exist, must be looked for on the level of the lover terraces; appears to be a law of Assyrian art that all sculpture should be on a level with the eye, and within tangible distance. Either, therefore, there must have been a terrace here, and the palace itself must have been set back beyond where I have placed it, or the wall of the building itself must have risen from the lower level, which I think by far the most probable case This how for it ·252 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. 1; ever, remains to be determined by some future excavator. Of the south-western façade, likewise, nothing has been found, nor do I expect that any thing ever will for, from its position, it could not be seen from any part of the palace or its courts, so that, probably, nothing but domestic offices stood here; so at least one would guess from the nature of the excavations made in this part, as well as from the nature of the locality, which makes this place as the innermost part of the hareem, that most removed from all those devoted to state or show; so that, if menial offices existed anywhere among the parts already excavated, this is, I conceive, the spot where they must be sought. On the other hand, the position of the north-east façade is such, that we should naturally look there for the greatest display of architectural magnificence; and so indeed we find it; for in the centre is one of the most splendid portals of the whole edifice, consisting of two advanced pylons, on each of which are two bulls standing back to back, and between each pair a giant strangling a lion; and in the gateway, between the pylons, two larger winged-bulls, with human heads. The whole arrangement and the dimensions being almost identical with those of the face of the Propylæa described above, and represented in woodcut No. 29. On the side of the great portal, towards the palace, is a smaller one adorned with a pair of winged bulls, like all the external entrances to the palace; and between them and the ·nen OUTER WALL OF HARLEM. 253 western angle of the court, a plain wall extends for about one hundred feet; with only a slight break meant, apparently, merely as ornaments to break the uniformity of the lines, and give a shadow to relieve their monotony. The whole of this wall, like the one of the palace, which it joins, is revêted with slabs of gypsum, about ten feet in height, covered with sculptures of figures larger than life, representing the king in procession, with his principal officers of state, and attended by eunuchs and subordinate servants and soldiers. The excavations were not continued on the other side of the portal, towards the spot where I have placed the stairs, so that we do not know how far the façade extended in this direction. I have, however, restored it as exactly similar to the other, because in this palace the principal entrances seem generally to have been placed symmetrically in the centre of the buildings to which they belong, when, at least, no good reason is apparent for a different disposition ; and here the extent of the upper terrace, and the existence of buildings, at c, all seem to point to an equal extension on each side of the great portal, as I have drawn it. The other facade of the hareem, facing the temple court, is much less magnificent than this one, and at the same time far more complicated, possessing no less than five doorways in a length of about 160 feet, which is as far as it has been traced. Of these the principal one, d, adorned by a splendid pair of bulls, ·254 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. is not placed in the centre, but the reason of this is apparent, for it is exactly opposite a similar gateway in the hareem court, a circumstance that leaves almost no doubt but that a direct communication existed between the two, and that this was the royal entrance or passage between the hareem and the palace, forming the pendant to the passage No. 10., which was the public entrance froin the outer court. The small entrance between this and the palace corresponds with the one opposite it, leading into chamber 1., and consequently most probably led only into a similar apartment, which, from their position, judging from Persepolitan analogy, may have been guard chambers, or may have contained the stairs leading to the upper gallery and roof of the palace. Of the other three doors, the central one only has bulls, the other two being only adorned by sculptured slabs, similar to those that adorn the internal halls. Internally nothing was found but mud and mud bricks, so that the form of the chambers to which they led could not be traced ; but my own impression is, that they opened into a vihara or priests' residence, unconnected with the palace properly so called. Their proximity to the temple, and the otherwise needless multiplicity of entrances, I think point almost certainly to this conclusion; though it must be confessed there is no direct evidence to support such an inference as this, for all the sculptures of the palace, when not dedicated to kingly state, are of so religious a character, that the emblems found here by no means indicate a separate religious use; nor is it ·HAREEM COURT. 255 to be expected they should do so, if we bear in mind what we stated above (page 185.), regarding the king being virtually chief priest and head of the religious establishments of his kingdom. The building thus circumscribed, forms a parallelogram of about 300 feet by 400. In the centre of this block of building, and nearly equi-distant from the alternate sides of it, is found a court-yard, measuring about 110 feet in one direction, and probably 20 or 30 feet more on the other; as no trace, however, has been found of its south-western boundary, this last dimension is very uncertain. That it was a court and not a room, is certain from several circumstances besides its form, which I may as well recapitulate here, as the absence of them in other palaces has led to some confusion in this respect. The first is, that at Khorsabad all the courts or parts external to the façades are paved with kilnburnt bricks, while the interior of all the rooms are paved only with such as had been dried in the sun; another is, that winged bulls are only found here in external doorways, no entrance from one apartment to another being so decorated ; a third characteristic is, that all the interior faces of the apartments have suffered from the action of fire, whereas the exterior façades are undamaged from that cause. As, then, these peculiarities are found here, added to its form and position—which in itself should suffice - the fact may be considered as certain. On each of the three faces that remain of this court is a portal adorned with a pair of winged bulls ·events been so arranged that it was impossiball 256 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. that towards the north-west, leading, as before stated, direct to the temple court; the one opposite to it led to a range of apartments separated from one another only by walls of unburnt bricks, without the usual revêtement of alabaster slabs: so that after discovering two angles of apartments which were adorned, or rather strengthened by unsculptured slabs, and one portal at c, M. Botta gave up the apparently unprofitable task of excavating further in this direction. The third portal is in the rear of the principal façade, - but neither in the centre of that side of the court, nor symmetrical with either of the portals that open from that front towards the hareem, so that any passage leading from either of these portals to the inner one, must have formed an elbow, or at all persons in the outer court to see into the inner one, - a circumstance in itself sufficient to confirm the idea that this was the hareem of the palace. For such is exactly the ordinance of all the hareems of all the Eastern palaces I am acquainted with. A highly decorated but gloomy exterior, with one splendid portal, marking to the outer world the residence of the monarch, but within which none are admitted but those whose business takes them there, or those who are equals of the king in birth or state, and who consequently may be admitted to the honour of sharing his privacy. This, of course, necessitates a festal portal and some ornamented apartments generally opening on a court in the interior, but of a less solid ·THE PALACE, KHORSABAD. 257 character than the real state apartments of the palace; and such may have existed on the south-western side, where nothing is now found. Beyond this, this hareem, like every other, seems to have consisted of small and comparatively mean rooms, oceupied by the wives of the king, their women and attendants, and the eunuchs, who, to judge from the sculptures, were as numerous, and probably more important, in the days when this palace was built, than they ever were at any period of Persian history. Such being the M. Botta was, perhaps, right in giving up the unprofitable task of attempting to explore these apartments. For it was difficult, perhaps impossible, to trace the distinction between the mudbrick walls and the mud in which they were buried and, after all, we should only have gained a confirmation of what I think is sufficiently apparent without this,—that this central court was surrounded by rooms suited for a hareem and for nothing else; and as such we may now leave them, and proceed to describe the palace, which is by far the most complete and interesting part of the edifice. case, THE PALACE. Returning to the outer court, and looking towards the north-west, we have before us the external front of this edifice, extending for about 150 feet from that angle where it joins the Hareem wall, to the place where traces of it are now lost, in consequence of S ·258 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. the falling of the terrace wall and the degradation of the mound from the rains of 3000 years; and perhaps, also, the overflowings of the Khausser, which runs so close to this angle. I have, however, extended it fifty feet further, because I conceive that there being a fortified entrance through this wing, there could never have been an open passage round it, and, consequently, that the building mnst have extended to the edge of the terrace, wherever that was; and, judging from the general plan, I do not think that the terrace wall can have been nearer the Hareem wall than I have put it. This, however, is a matter on which each may judge for himself, and is only of very slight consequence after all. Exactly in the centre of the part that still remains is an entrance formed by two bulls; the pylons, however, on each side are ornamented only with human figures, like the whole of this façade, and not by double bulls like the Hareem portals. Behind these bulls is, or rather was, the great door before mentioned, and behind them, a passage fifty feet long and ten feet wide, leads to a second pair of winged bulls looking towards the palace court; both sides of this passage are covered with a double row of tribute. bearing people with scribes and attendants, and between and above them a long inscription, which contains an epitome of all the campaigns of King Ninus, which are repeated at more length and illustrated with more detail on the walls of the apartment to which this passage gives access. Being a passage, and the principal entrance to the ·ASSYRIAN VAULTS. 259 palace, it is paved neither with sun-dried nor baked bricks, but alone of all here it is paved with large slabs of stone; but its most singular peculiarity is, that of all the apartments in the palace it is the only one that has not suffered by the action of fire. This led M. Botta to believe that it never was roofed, but must always have remained open to the air. For having made up his mind that the other rooms must all have had wooden roofs, which when burning had calcined the sculptures on the walls, he could in no other way account for this one escaping but by supposing it had no roof; and being evidently an entrance and not a room, the supposition was probable enough. The true explanation, however, I believe to be, that it was vaulted. That the Assyrians could construct vaults we already know from the apartments so roofed, which Layard discovered at Nimroud, on his first journey; and in his subsequent explorations he has met with vaults and vaulted chambers, which leave no doubt of their ability in this respect; and such being the case, this is just such a passage as a vault would be particularly applicable to; had it been without a roof, it would have formed more of a court, but it evidently was kept narrow for some reason of roofing, and this could only, I think, be, to admit of a vault being thrown over it. Indeed, the idea of its being vaulted so fully accounts for all its peculiarities, that I cannot think it admits of any reasonable doubt that it was so; and no other theory that occurs to me explains the reas 2 ·NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. end of it on the doorways in 260 son of its form and circumstances, in a manner at all satisfactory. The position of the great door at the outer end of this passage has already been noticed, and marks, I think beyond a doubt, the fact of this being the external closing wall of the palace; but if it had a break in it at this place, it would have been most inappropriate for such a purpose, whereas closed and covered with a vault, the roofs of the two buildings are connected, and the wall presents a continuous front externally, with only the opening of the great doorway, which, however, seems to have been sufficiently strong and fortified to prevent any appearance of weakness arising from this circum- Frontispiece, I have copied literally the form of the on the sculptures, and are represented not only in M. Botta's but in Layard's plates of them. On either side of the portal that ends this passage towards the palace court, is a small doorway; that, on the right leading to two apartments, which M. Botta called the “bâtiment détaché," from the idea that it was separated from the rest by the passage above described. Like all the other apartments of the palace, they are revêted by sculptured slabs to the height of ten feet; they offer no peculiarity not found elsewhere, and there is no difficulty in restoring their plans, except as regards the length. I have made them nearly one hundred feet long, for the reason above stated; but I by no means insist on this fita chiontod to ·THE PALACE, KHORSABAD. 261 The doorway on the left hand leads into a small room (No. IX.), which has the appearance of a guard chamber, and this again opens into No. VI., one of the five large rooms in the palace, each of them being about 116 feet long, and ranging from 33 feet in width, to 21 feet 6 inches, which is the width of this one. Behind this again, and parallel to it, are two smaller rooms (XI. and xII.), to which access is obtained only by one door in the centre of the room last mentioned. All these four rooms have the usual revêtement of sculptured slabs of alabaster. The principal suite, however, of the palace consists of three rooms (II. V. VIII.), which are, both in their external and internal decorations, by far the most splendid of the whole palace. Their plan is represented to a larger scale in the annexed woodcut (No. 30.), with their dimensions figured, and the pillars that stood on their floors, and walls, as will be explained hereafter. The principal one of these, No. VIII., is approached by three doorways, —one in the centre, adorned by two colossal winged bulls within the entrance; and two pairs, back to back, on each of the projecting pylons : the lateral doorways are adorned by winged figures, human and hawk-headed, with their usual accompaniment, as shown in the Frontispiece, which represents this front restored. Within, the apartment is 116 feet 6 inches long by 33 wide. * * I am not quite sure of the minute exactitude of this dimension, as, though all M. Botta's plans measure the same on his drawings, they are all figured differently, but not to any serious extent.

·262 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. Two doors lead from this apartment to the central one, - one corresponding exactly with the central No. 30. kan...-21ft. ilcft 6 13 G- 9 OIL.*-- V11 -21 G----*12 9-- 152fe. IR 16 ft G- EcoJo 20 30 40 50 100 Luet Scale 50 feet to 1 inch. Three principal Rooms at Khorsabad. doorway, except, of course, that being in the interior, it has no bulls; the other I believe to be exactly opposite the left hand lateral one, but this I cannot positively affirm, as no two of M. Botta's plans agree on this subject. A central doorway leads from this to the third apartment of the suite, of the same length as the first, but three feet four inches narrower. It has three portals leading to the temple court, —-the lateral ones being like those of the first room, and so is the central one, except that it has only two bulls ;

·STAIRS TO UPPER GALLERIES. 263 the pylons, or projecting masses, being only adorned with colossal human figures; there being, in fact, only three portals in the palace with the full compleinent of six winged bulls, and they are those three through or past which a stranger must go who proceeds from the city towards the royal audience chamber. Turning to the right, after passing out of this last room we come to a very small one (No. I.), which either may have been a guard chamber, or may, as I suggested before, have contained a stair, leading to the upper apartments; the latter idea is confirmed by the appearance of the floor, on which two slabs like large shields are found, whose use puzzled M. Botta, and might do any one else; nor can I conceive what they were, if not devoted to some such purpose as this. The stairs of course would be of wood, and consequently it would be in vain to search for any remains of them now. This room does not seem to communicate with any of those near it, and we must therefore return to get into No. III., the narrowest apartment in the palace, and apparently only a passage to No. VI. This last splendid room of the same dimensions exactly as No. VIII., the two being the largest in the palace. On its inner face it has two doors, one leading into the other to a small room, No. VII., the latter - having no other outlet. The northern angle of this apartment has unfortunately fallen with the outer terrace that supported it, but enough remains at the other end to fix its dimensions and the position of No. VIII., S4 ·264 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. one of its entrances; and as this was adorned with a winged bull, we also know that it was an exterior, so that we may feel sure there were no more apartments on this side, and the only uncertainty that can exist is with regard to the width of the terrace in front of it. It cannot, I conceive, have been less than the thirty feet I have given it; or, in taking the usual slope of unsupported earth, ---say about forty-five degrees, it must have carried away the remains of the bull we still find there. It may have been twice as wide as I have made it, and the propinquity of the Khausser would justify us in assuming the probability of even a greater amount of degradation, but as no remains exist, I have left it as narrow as it could be, -any one may add as much as he pleases. Such was the plan of the state apartments of the palace of King Ninus. It is fortunately quite complete; and there is not one point on which any doubt can exist, except with regard to the length of the rooms XIII. and XIV., which is, however, so immaterial, as scarcely to deserve consideration. Were we able to restore the elevation with equal certainty, we should know at once how kings of Assyria were lodged in the fourteenth century before Christ. · Unfortunately, however, this is a matter of much more difficulty, and regarding which the most contrary opinions have been emitted. I trust, however, before leaving it, to render it somewhat clearer than it has hitherto been made ; and to this we must now address ourselves.

·BASSI-RILIEVI. 265 In attempting to restore the elevation, we fortunately can proceed with perfect certainty to the height of about ten feet in all the apartments of the palace, every one of them being revêted to that height with slabs of alabaster, covered with sculptures, sometimes in two lines, one above the other, with a band of inscriptions between, but more generally in only one height. Internally these bassi-rilievi extend to about 2500 feet in length, and externally to about 1500, so that their whole length extends to four fifths of a mile; and, as may be supposed, we have in such an extended series a complete history of the life, and almost a complete picture of the thoughts, feelings, and aspirations, of the king who built the palace, and under whose direction these sculptures were executed. As might be expected, from the state of civilisation at that time, the principal and favourite subjects are war abroad and state at home; for besides the epitome of the king's wars in the vaulted entrance passage, there are separate histories of each separate campaign, and representations of the taking of all the principal cities that held out against him. These and the treatment of the captives, which was barbarous enough one poor fellow, for instance, being flayed alive — form the staple form the staple commodity of the sculptures; while the larger bassi-rilievi generally represent the king and his officers of state receiving tribute or the homage of his own or of conquered people. Besides these, many of the bassi-rilievi are ·NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. paintings, and many represent thrones, chariots, 266 of a purely religious nature; some wholly occupied by subjects of the chase ; some are actually landscape domestic furniture, and utensils; all, indeed, that the king prized or felt much interest in. No Assyrian women, however, ever appear in these sculptures; as captives they are sometimes represented among the other spoil, or as interceding for mercy from the walls of a falling city. But the queen, who forms so indispensable a part of the sculptured state of the Egyptian monarch, never appears here; nor are women of any class, except the servile, ever represented on the walls of Nineveh or Persepolis, — marking a change of manners not a little singular, and going far to discredit the stories of Semiramis and Nitocris and others, whose fabulous exploits have been handed down to us by the Greeks. To describe all these sculptures would require volumes, and then it would be impossible to render them intelligible without drawings. I must there. fore leave them to works to which they more exclusively belong, and proceed with the architecture, which more especially interests us here. Above the slabs, the courses of sun-dried bricks, of which the walls are composed, have been traced to the height generally of about three feet *, making thus a total height, as far as can positively be ascer- * In the plates of M. Botta's work, the courses are represented as terminating throughout exactly one metre above the top of the slabs ; but this M. Botta protests against in the text, as a misrepresentation, and corrects it by an explanatory diagram, ·ARCHITECTURAL ORNAMENTS. 267 were. tained, of about thirteen or fourteen feet from the floor. Besides this, there are found among the rubbish along the foot of all the walls fragments of kilnburnt bricks, painted or enamelled on one of their faces, proving incontestably that above the slabs the wall was faced with coloured decorations of this sort. Unfortunately no fragments of this decoration remain in situ; nor do the fragments lie in any such connected groups as to enable us to ascertain how they were arranged, nor indeed even what the subjects We know, however, that human figures certainly formed part of them, and arrow-headed inscriptions, painted yellow on a pale blue ground; but generally they seem to represent architectural ornaments honeysuckles, scrolls, guilloches, and other such decorations, all, however, brilliantly coloured; which, added to the traces of painting found on the slabs, leaves no doubt that the whole decorations of the walls were elaborated with colour as well as form; and though perhaps not always in the best taste, must have formed as brilliant a mural decoration as any that either ancient or modern times can afford an example of.* There can at the same time be almost no doubt but that these sculptured and painted decorations were intended to be the principal ornament of the palace; and though therefore we may regret the loss * more The certainty that these decorations and sculptures were coloured, leaves, I think, no doubt but that those of Persepolis were so also, as I mentioned before, ·268 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. of the roof and of the upper part of the structure, we may rest satisfied that we have got all that was really most valuable and interesting; for, as will be more apparent in the sequel, the architecture of the Assyrians was not one of pillars and walls, with roofs and their cornices and adjuncts, as is the case with all the other styles we are usually acquainted with, but one depending almost wholly for its effect on its sculptural decorations of men and animals; next in importance to these were the coloured decorations with which they were eked out and completed; and least in importance – in the eyes of the Assyrians — were the pillars and the roof they supported, and the walls against which the sculpture and paintings were placed; all this being almost exactly the reverse of what we find in Grecian, Gothic, or modern art; and whether the Assyrians were right or not in adopting this singular gradation of parts, it is, perhaps, of all the circumstances connected with this style the most interesting, as being literally, to us, a new idea in art, though perhaps the first and oldest form of art that the young world knew. Above this height of thirteen feet from the floor all is uncertainty, for no fact has been observed, either here or in any other of the excavated palaces of Assyria, that bears directly on the subject ; we are therefore left almost wholly to inductive reasoning and analogy for our restoration. And as might be expected in such a case, various and conflicting systems have been proposed, though none have hitherto met with general approval.

·MODE OF ROOFING. 269 When excavating the building, M. Botta arrived at the conclusion that he was exploring the recesses of a tomb, all seemed so dark and dismal.* His friend and coadjutor, M. E. Flandin, on his return published in the “Revue des deux Mondes” his theory that it was a palace, and that all the rooms were vaulted. In proposing this, however, he was obliged to admit that rooms thirty-three feet wide could not be vaulted with the usual mud bricks of which the walls were composed; and to avoid the difficulty of accounting for the disappearance of the kiln-burnt bricks he so liberally employed, he was forced to put forward a most gratuitous assumption that they had disintegrated. In his large work, M. Botta devotes more space than it deserved to showing how untenable this theory was. But when he came to propose a better substitute, admitted his inability to do so, and only suggested a mode of roofing still found in Armenia, by which timbers laid horizontally are made to form a sort of domical skylight, or rather louvre, to admit light and carry off smoke. That this theory is insufficient is only too evident; but the woodcut (p. 73.) by which he illustrates it is interesting, as it is in wood, the mode of vaulting practised in stone in all the older temples of India †, being one fur- * La destination de ce monument est toujours un problème pour moi. Jusqu'à présent on ne peut en voir le plan, et on ne peut dire si c'était un palais ou un tombeau. Je crois cette dernière destination plus probable, parce que l'intérieur a dû être complétement obscur: nulle part en effet, on ne voit trace des fenêtres, &c. (Cinquième Lettre à Jules Mohl, dated Mossul, October, 1843.) † I have given one geometric example of it in my Picturesque Illus- 2 ·270 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. ther proof of the singular persistence of architectural forms through so many ages in this part of the world, and showing also, as far as it goes, that we are not wrong in looking for modern illustrations of ancient practices in Asia, nor in looking to India for types that have been lost in their native land. When Layard published his large work, he suggested the plan which has been adopted by almost all the architects of Europe for the last century, as the mode in which Greek temples were lighted, – that is, of taking off the greater part of the roof. In another work*, I have shown that this mode never was adopted either by the Greeks or any or any other people; and the arguments that apply there are ten times more pertinent here, where such a mode would, by admitting the direct rays of the midday sun in summer, and the torrents of rain in the wet season, render a palace so utterly uninhabitable, that the theory scarcely requires refutation. It was not, however, proposed by its author as an architectural restoration. All that was meant by the plate was to convey a general idea of the decoration of an Assyrian palace, and that object it fully accomplished, without effecting more. Some more complete theory is therefore still a desideratum. The one I am about to propose meets, I believe, all the exigencies of the case, as it at present trations of Indian Architecture, at Barolli, pl. vii. p. 35. The diagram is small, and not quite to the point, but I could furnish many others if required. * True Principles of Beauty in Art, p. 381. et seq.

·No text on this page.

·No. 31.
To face page 271.
00G
VOO@GEN
0001 WOOOOOO
O@@O
@O OOO
@
OOOOOO
KO
mas
LAL
113611
SECTION OF PRINCIPAL ROOMS AT KHORSABAD.

·HEIGHT OF WALLS. 271 stands; but whether or not it is the true theory, will depend on what further light may be thrown on the matter by subsequent discoveries, or its answering the form of other buildings yet buried in the mounds of Assyria. As it certainly explains all that has hitherto appeared mysterious about these buildings, I have no hesitation in putting it forward; and no one will be more rejoiced than myself, if future explorations should bring to light something bearing more directly on the subject, even if that should prove this theory to be wrong. The general form of the restoration I propose will be easily understood from the Frontispiece, which represents the north angle of the palace restored, and by the section of the three principal apartments, represented in woodcut No. 31. My belief is that the walls were carried up to the height at least of the slab at the back of the great bulls, or say about eighteen or nineteen feet, which with a low parapet would make the part covered by slabs exactly one half of the whole height. They may have been higher; but neither is there any authority for this, nor do the exigencies of the case seem at all to require it. At this height, therefore, I would let them remain for the present. Above this the top of the wall must either have been paved with kiln-burnt bricks or tiles, or, what is more probable, floðred with wood, so as to protect the mud bricks from the action of the weather. This I look upon as quite indispensable, and if there were windows in this upper part of the walls -- as some have supposed —their soles must have been protected in some such ·272 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. inanner, and traces of it in that case would have been found. Any continuous flooring, however, at the height I propose must have perished with the walls below it. On this platform I conceive that two rows of dwarf pillars stood, -one on the inner, one on the outer edge of the wall, -rising to a height of twelve or fifteen feet, either more or less, for there is no authority for this; and I have, in adopting it, been guided solely by the apparent fitness of such a height to the intended purpose. These pillars, which on the exterior at least most probably, had the double-bull capital of Persepolis, supported a flat terrace roof over each wall, composed of mud and plastered on the upper surface; but as no horizontal timber could carry such a roof over a space of thirty-three feet, I conceive that all the larger halls had two rows of pillars down their centres, and the smaller ones, such as Nos. VI. and xIv., probably one row; the very narrow ones, such as XI. and XIII., were almost certainly without pillars at all. The central hall, No. V., I conceive must have had a roof higher than the rest, and trussed to a certain extent, as shown in the section, so as to admit into it a sufficiency of light which it could not receive through the rooms on either side of it. Such, in a few words, is the system I propose: let us now see how far it fits the exigencies of the case. One of the first exigencies to be met by any theory of restoration, is, that it shall admit a sufficiency of light to all the apartments, to enable all the sculptures and paintings to be perfectly seen, and all the ·MODE OF LIGHTING. 273 inscriptions read, and at the same time shall exclude the direct rays of the sun and the rain. The one here proposed meets this, I conceive, to the fullest possible extent; for any quantity of light is admitted through these loggias, while they are so deep that the direct rays of the sun never can touch the floor, or, by heightening to a very small extent the inner parapet, they could never touch even the sculptured slabs. At the same time they admit of its being tempered with the greatest possible facility, for curtains might be hung inside the outer range of pillars; indeed they were almost certainly so disposed, so that the light inside might always be subdued to any desired extent. The same is true with regard to the rain; it could not, even in a heavy storm, beat in at such an angle; and here again the curtains would afford a simple and at the same time an ample protection, if required; so that in this respect I consider the theory is irreproachable. At the same time it accounts for the most striking peculiarities of these palaces,—the enormous thickness of some of the walls, and the variety that exists in this respect among them. Take, for instance, the three walls that enclose rooms XIII. and xiv. The one towards the outer court is only five feet thick, exclusive of its slabs; the middle one is one-third more; the one towards the palace court twice as thick in its narrowest part, and nearly three times as thick in its general breadth. The explanation of this seems easy. The palace being in a manner fortified towards the outer court, there would be no opening ·NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. of the and use and as it will be observed from the plan, 274 in that wall, consequently no gallery, and all that would be required would be a wall thick enough to resist violence and support the roof. Towards the inner court, however, the case was different. From this side the light must be admitted in sufficient quantities to light not only the outer but the inner apartment, for which I conceive a gallery such as I propose would be amply sufficient; but for this purpose the upper part of the middle wall must also be occupied by pillars; hence its greater thickness than the outer wall, which on any other theory would be an anomaly not easily accounted for. The same gradation is observed in the thickness cut No. 30.), the outer ones being by far the thickest, so as to exclude by the depth of their galleries the direct rays of the sun and the rain, the internal ones being only one intercolumniation wide, so as to support galleries of the breadth required for symmetry the wall between chambers II. and v. is narrower than that between V. and VIII., because chamber II. is narrower than chamber VIII., and having in consequence a narrower intercolumniation, had also a narrower gallery, which at once accounts for what would otherwise be a puzzling anomaly. In the Nimroud palaces the same system will be observed throughout: but of this more hereafter. Another and very cogent reason for this view of the case, is that, as I mentioned before, all the platforms of the palace terraces were surrounded by a ·UPPER STORY. 275 parapet wall of solid masonry, six to seven feet (two metres) in height; so that a person standing thereon, or on the floor of any of the rooms of the palace, was debarred a sight of the country, which would be singular if it were so, when we consider the pains that were taken, and the risk run, to obtain a site for it outside the city, and looking over the fertile plains of the Tigris. The only plausible explanation of such an anomaly is that the palace had an upper story, for such these galleries were; and calculating the area of the tops of the walls which they occupied, we find that this upper story was in extent, as nearly as may be, exactly the same as that of the ground floor or area of the apartments. It was thus in fact a two-storied palace, though the floors were not arranged as we build them, one over the other, but in a manner far more consonant with the climate and the state ceremonial to which they were to be devoted. The ground floor thus arranged was composed of rooms of great height, perfectly lighted and perfectly ventilated, while from the immense thickness of their walls they must have been warm in winter and cool in summer; whereas the upper story had a series of inner apartments through which the fresh breeze always blew, and of outer ones which must always have afforded a cool and shady side, for they face every point of the compass, except the south, and either for recreation during the day or sleeping at night, as men sleep in the East, must have formed a suite more suitable to the climate than any to be found in any modern palace I am acquainted with. T 2 ·NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. the floor, I consider 276 Besides this, these galleries would form the indispensable tabsars from which the king might show himself to his subjects without coming in contact with the profanum vulgus. That, for instance, between the two outer entrances of the north-western hall would serve admirably for showing himself to people on the plain, or witnessing reviews or shows enacted there, and it is to admit of this being the case that I have made the terrace so narrow in front of it. The one towards the palace court would be the general audience hall of the palace, the one towards the temple that from which he would assist at religious pomps or ceremonies. All these are indispensable, and if not provided for by this, must be so by other means, for an Eastern monarch cannot walk on the same floor with his subjects, and the floors of the apartments themselves being all on one level would be an anomaly by no means to be got over except by providing an upper story of some sort. With regard to the pillars which I have placed on able, though their number and position are more open to question, and may be different from what I have represented. That they did exist, however, does not seem to me to admit of a doubt; for I do not think it possible to find a beam thirty-three feet long in the clear, that will support a flat-terraced roof. In India, even at this day, rooms, whatever their length, seldom exceed twenty or twenty-five feet in breadth, because of this difficulty: more has sometimes been attempted, but has always ended in the introduction of .

·COLUMNS. 277 columns; and in this instance it must be recollected that the builders have been assisted by all the science of Europeans in burning tiles, in mixing cements and forming concretes, so as to make the whole as light as possible. Of all this the Assyrians were ignorant. Their roofs must have been of mud more or less indurated, and probably plastered or protected in some way on the upper surface. Still in no part do I conceive they could have been less in thickness than three and more probably four feet, and such a mass must have been supported at distances not exceeding ten feet or thereabouts. Besides the calculation of the number of supports requisite to sustain this roof, there are some indications which lead us to guess the number of pillars. In those apartments, for instance, which have one door in the centre of the end, I conceive there must have been two ranges of columns; where the door space occupies one half the end, only one range; when it occupies one third, —two ranges again. Thus, the room No. II. must have had two ranges, because the door at one end is in the centre so as to suit a central aisle, at the other, in a corner, so as to suit a side aisle. No. VI., on the contrary, could for the same reason have had only one range. The width, however, of this apartment almost settles this without these local indications. Their arrangement longitudinally is not so easy a matter, owing principally to the incorrectness of M. Botta's plans; for an arrangement that will fit one plan, so that no pillar shall fall in front of a door, T 3 ·278 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. by no means fits another plan of the same room in another part of the work. I have, therefore, been obliged to select those plans which seem to me most symmetrical and probable, and adapt my system to them; not that I think this of much importance, as at Persepolis the pillars are laterally—as, for instance, in the two tetrastyle halls -- in front of the doorways and niches; but it certainly would be better it should be otherwise, and adopting twelve pillars, it fits exactly to the openings as shown in the best plans; according to this system, the great suite of three rooms would have twelve rows of twelve pillars in each direction, or 144 in all, or just twice the number found in the great hall of Xerxes at Persepolis, – a coincidence which probably was by no means accidental among a people so given to symbolism as the Assyrians were. With regard to the order of the pillars, I have unhesitatingly adopted the Persepolitan model, because I believe that the representation of the fishing temple found on the walls of this palace (woodcut No. 16.) represents just such an order, clumsily indeed, but not the less faithfully; and also because I consider the pillars at Persepolis as a copy in stone of some wooden original which we can only look for in this part of the world, and also because the immense length of the Persepolitan capital appears to be a very clumsy and anomalous feature as used there, but as used here, it becomes not only easily explicable, but singularly appropriate. The plain shaft cuts pleasingly the rich lines of the sculpture, without in- ·HYPÆTHRUM. 279 terfering with them; while the rich capital carries up the exuberant decoration from the line where it ceases on the walls to the roof, which was probably as richly carved and decorated as any other part. As will be observed from the section, woodcut No. 31., I have provided a different class of roof over the central room No. V., but this, I think, is imperatively called for by the circumstances of the case. For I look on this as the principal room of the suite, - the throne room, indeed, if there were any such on the ground floor of the palace. I conceive the throne must have stood in front of the door leading into No.VI., and the small door at the side to have been provided for the nobles, while the lower orders filed past through the great central range of doorways leading through the three rooms; be this, however, as it may, ceive that the room must have had some light of its own, the side lights appearing insufficient. If it had, it must have been a skylight. But if this is not thought necessary, still its roof must have differed from the others, for the position of its central door, as well as the direction of its major axis, show that it could not have had one range of pillars ; it is too narrow for two, and too wide (twenty-one feet six inches) to be altogether unsupported. I have, therefore, adopted a truss or strut, common in India, down even to the time of Ackbar and later, but more important in the older buildings, and which seems to me to answer admirably in the case here; of course its form and style of ornament may have been very different from what I have drawn it, but till some direct I con- T4 ·NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. age: both from its form and the style 280 authority is found, it is better to adopt a known form than to try and invent one for which no authority exists. My own conviction also is, that the upper skylight or hypäthrum did exist here, not only because it seems required by the exigencies of the case under consideration, but because the Persian Talar is too complicated and too perfect a form when we first become acquainted with it, to have been the invention of of its decoration, I think it must have descended certainly from Assyria; but here I do not know where to look for it except in such a custom as this, where meets all the exigencies of the case to a most satisfactory degree. There are of course more details that might be enlarged upon to any extent, but only one on which I shall say more in this place, which is, the mode in which the upper part of the doorways was roofed or closed in. My own impression is, that the great central doorways between the great bulls were not covered at all, but were open to the roof; at least it strikes me that such an arrangement is more consonant with the dignity and grandeur of such an entrance as we now find it. It may have been bridged, and the great gallery carried across it; but this I think improbable; if it was done it could not have been by an arch or masonry structure of any sort, but must have been only by a wooden platform. There is, however, no objection to such an arrangement except its want of dignity.

·DOORWAYS. 281 There was, The lateral doorways, however, as well as all those in the interior, must have been covered over so as to allow a free circulation over them. In India this would have been effected by bracketing forward till one long stone closed the gap. however, no stone used here, and the bricks are too badly made to admit of their being so used. They must, therefore, either have been arched or covered with wooden platforms on brackets. The frequency of arched doorways on the sculptures would fully justify us in adopting that as the expedient used; and for the narrower ones I should be inclined to believe this was certainly the case, but in the wider ones, I think the other expedient must have been adopted; there is not sufficient height for an arch, unless the walls were higher than I make them; and altogether it seems to me more probable and more like the other arrangements of the palace, that the platform should be adopted. Such are, I believe, if not all, at least nearly all, the indications the building itself affords towards determining the ultimate form which it took when complete. It will now, therefore, be time to turn to the neighbouring countries, and see what assistance we can obtain from them, either in illustration or confirmation of the views here put forth. In the standard inscriptions, so often repeated, on the walls of the palace of Khorsabad, the king himself says, “I have built this city near to Nineveh, and after the manner of Egypt." To Egypt, there- * Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol. xii. p. 458.

·282 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. fore, we naturally turn first, to compare its buildings with these ; but at the first glance the difference is so apparent, that it is clear King Ninus's idea of copying must have been very different from ours; but so it is with all nations having a style of their own. Europe, for instance, abounds with churches, said in the middle ages to have been exactly copied from the famous church of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem, but which have scarcely a trace of resemblance to guide us to a fact of which we should have remained ignorant were it not for this tradition. There is perhaps, however, more truth in the assertion made in the inscription than is at first apparent. For though it is clear Ninus did not copy the temples or palaces of Thebes, may he not have copied the royal abodes of Memphis and of Rabek ? (Heliopolis) — cities he was more familiar with, and which were built in a country where brick and wood were more currently used than stone: a supposition that derives considerable confirmation from the representations of buildings on the walls of tombs and other places, where a wooden architecture, not at all unlike this of Nineveh, is frequently represented, and with galleries of dwarf columns, mixed with longer ones standing on the floor, and indeed all the essential peculiarities mentioned here, but of course with Egyptian details. That there was a difference between the architecture of Upper and Lower Egypt is further confirmed by the difference of form the temples of the Ptolemaic period took, as compared with those of the Pharaonic times in Upper Egypt, of which alone traces remain to ·EGYPTIAN TEMPLES. ; on the floor ; 283 us, a difference which, I conceive, could only have arisen from the temples of Lower Egypt being transferred to the upper country; for there are no Hellenisms, or any foreign forms introduced, but merely Egyptian forms, of a class we are not before familiar with. Be this as it may, if we look at the porticoes of the temples of Denderah, Edfou, Kalabsche, or any indeed of that period, we find that they were oblong halls, with three or four ranges of pillars disposed loncentre of the longest side, with an inner door exactly opposite to it, and that the outer range of columns was built up to half their height, so that the light was introduced between the upper parts, exactly as is done here, the only difference being, that in the Egyptian examples all the parts being of stone, the lines of all the columns are carried down to the floor; whereas, in the lighter wooden architecture of the Assyrians, they were placed on the walls; besides that, a tabsar was not wanted in the temple, though it was in the palace. This, however, is the only real difference beyond those alterations which were absolutely necessary to change a solid style of stone masonry into a light and ephemeral one of wood. The mode, too, in which the door is formed in these Egyptian temples, without any lintel, confirms me in my idea that the greater Assyrian doors were open to the roof; and the Isis capital seems to be only an Egyptian translation of the bull capitals of Assyria. Indeed, looking at the essentials only, the one appears ·284 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. to be only an Assyrian or a Coptic translation of the other, and as literal as could well be expected. To this it may of course be objected, that I am assuming that these forms existed some ten or twelve centuries before we find examples of them. The annexed woodcut* (No. 32.), however, will answer No. 32, OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0000000 0001110010 0000 Bas-relief at El Tell Amarna. that objection, as it is copied from a tomb of a mysterious race of kings who obtrude themselves into the middle of the eighteenth dynasty, and who, consequently, reigned between two or three centuries before the building of the Khorsabad palace. I have chosen it in preference to some others which, in an architectural point of view, would have illustrated the point better, because it belongs to a foreign sunworshipping race, who either were a remnant of the * Taken from Nestor l'Hôte's Lettres de l'Egypt, p. 69. I tried very hard, when in France lately, to see the original drawing from which this cut is taken, but in vain. It is said to be in the Bibliothèque National, but nobody knew where to find it.

·EGYPTIAN BUILDINGS. 285 Hyksos, or some eastern Mithraic people, and consequently more likely to be related to our Assyrians, than the pure Egyptians; as it is, it shows a temple on a terrace, to which the ascent is by stairs on either side, with the light introduced between the upper halves of the columns, exactly as at Denderah; and a doorway, also exactly similar in arrangement, though the difficulties of the perspective have induced the artist to place it on the ground instead of at the top of the stairs. The architecture here, too, is of wood, which adds further to the likeness between the two styles.* The next illustration (No. 33.) is taken from that part of the great temple at Karnac, which was built No. 33. 10 20 30 40 50 ft. Palace of Thothmes Thebes. by Thothmes III., a king who himself says † that he conquered Mesopotamia, with Nineveh and Babylon, some four centuries before the time of Ninus, and * I have introduced the whole woodcut to identify it with the Atinre sun-worshipping dynasty; and to show a form of altar, or building, which is very unusual. If it is not a Buddhist tope, I do not know what it is. + See Trans. R. Soc. of Lit., vol. ii. new series.

·286 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. who therefore may be supposed to have known something of Assyrian art. The hall in question is 143 feet long by 53 wide; but, measuring it as an Assyrian would do, that is, allowing the lateral galleries to be considered as the thickness of the walls, the hall is 125 feet by 32; or very nearly the size of the five greater rooms of the Khorsabad palace. In its centre are two rows of ten columns, each arranged as I have placed the twelve in the plan (woodcut No. 30.); I am far from insisting on twelve instead of ten, if the analogy is thought important. There is besides a peculiarity about the capitals of these columns, which are very unlike any thing else found in Egypt, but not unlike—when painted—the lower member of Assyrian or Persian capitals. The principal similarity, however, is in the mode of lighting; for, mutatis mutandis, stone for wood, and an open gallery for a thick wall, they are as nearly as may be identical. Indeed, so similar do they appear that one is almost tempted to ask, did Thothmes build his palace after the manner of the Assyrians, as Ninus did his after that of the Egyptians ? When from Egypt we turn to Syria, we have only the descriptions of the buildings of Solomon; but though it may be hazardous to illustrate the forms of one restoration by those of another, the mode of construction is so accurately described in the Bible, and by Josephus, that we can have no doubt but that the principal halls were like these, supported on rows of cedar columns, and with cedar beams upon the ·PERSEPOLIS. 287 pillars. The spacing too of the pillars seems to have been nearly identical with that I have adopted for the Khorsabad palace, and in other respects the resemblance is striking and complete; but I need not repeat here what I have insisted upon before, as the points of similarity are sufficiently obvious and illustrative as far as they go. Let us turn therefore at once to Persepolis, the lineal descendant of these Assyrian palaces, and see what light these structures throw on the subject of our inquiries. The general resemblance of the details is sufficiently apparent to any one; but here we must guard ourselves against reasoning in a vicious circle, for, as I have borrowed occasionally from one or the other to supply the deficiencies of either, it would not do afterwards to reason on them as facts. The sculptures, however, are facts in both cases; and these, whether we refer to those representing men or to those representing bulls and animals, are so nearly identical, that one naturally would expect the architecture to be so too. The plans also are facts, and they too I conceive to be almost as like one another. It is true, we have yet to discover the actual residence or hareem of the Persian king; but taking the state apartments of either palace, the similarity, though not striking at first sight, is nearly certain. To convert, for instance, the state apartments of Khorsabad into a hall like that of Xerxes, all we have to do is to throw the upper part of the walls into the rooms, as was afterwards done by the fire, ·288 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. so as to fill them up to the height of the tops of the sculptured slabs, and to raise the pillars that stood on the floor to the top of this solid terrace, ekeing out the height of those that stood on the walls with a shaft to correspond. This done, the three tabsars, or covered galleries, on the three faces of the principal apartments at Khorsabad, become, ipso facto, the three porticoes of the Hall at Persepolis. The principal one with its two doors being the one overlooking the plain, the walls being of course set back so as to enclose only the inner apartments. The skylight of the central room becomes the talar, and the only thing necessary to add are stairs to lead up to the solid platform on which the palace now stands. This is done at Persepolis so as to interfere in the least possible extent with the external sculpture, only that the external bulls must give way, and instead of the triumphant air with which they stand before the portals of the Assyrian palaces, they are placed in the angles of the Persian stairs, and represented as conquered by the now all powerful lion. Of course, on comparing the Palace at Khorsabad to the Hall of Xerxes, we are comparing small things with great, the Persepolitan edifice being conceived on a scale of grandeur unknown in the other, whose dimensions much more resemble those of the Palace of the same king, the pillars being spaced at about the same distance in each; so that instead of 230 small columns, as we have at Khorsabad, 72 served at Persepolis for a building covering twice the space of ground. But in all essential respects they certainly ·INDIAN EXAMPLES. 289 resemble each other more than the cathedrals of Cologne or Milan resemble the old basilicas of St. Peter or St. Paul at Rome. Though barring the difference of age and style, the one is not only the lineal descendant of the other, but resembles it in every essential respect. I need not insist on the general resemblance derived from both being placed on terraced mounds of about the same height, —the multitude of pillars used, their thick walls of sun-dried bricks, and their general character and style: after what has been said above, these must strike any one; and every one may judge for himself of their value in elucidation of the theory of either buildings. It would be easy to multiply illustrative examples, No. 34. Section of Mosque at Amedabad. but I must content myself with two more, — the first taken from Guzerat, a province of India, which, both U ·NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. is a section of part of the mosque at Amedabad, fa- 290 from its position and the manners and religion of its inhabitants, belongs as much, if not more, to Persia than to any thing in India within the Aravulli. It mous in eastern story as the one possessing the shaking minarets. Its architecture, though wholly of stone, bears strongly the impress of a wooden original, from which it is very slightly removed. The peculiarity, however, which makes it valuable as an illustration here, is the mode in which the light is admitted, between two rows of dwarf columns, not placed on a solid wall, but on an open gallery, like that of the palace of Thothmes III. It shows, at all events, that such a mode of lighting as that which I have adopted for the palace at Khorsabad is still used in the East; and those who know the habits of the people in that part of the world will admit that what is used so perfectly in this instance, is not so used for the first time, but must have had a long series of antecedents, either in this or in some neighbouring country. The other may be considered as even more pertinent, as it is the Tiyari house, above quoted in illustration of the Persepolitan edifices (p. 127.), which is in every arrangement as like this one as a private dwelling can be to a palace; the only difference being that the walls not being so thick, the upper story is placed over the lower one, not on its walls; but the effect is the same,—the solid and less perfectly lighted basement serving as a cool retreat in summer and warm place of refuge against the cold; and the open upper galleries for sleeping-apartments, for the en-

·TIYARI HOUSE.
291
joyment of the fresh air when the weather permitted
it. In appearance also the two are as like one another
No. 35.
***
A Nestorian House in the District of Tiyari.
as could well be; and altogether, if it is allowable to
draw inferences from buildings of such different
dates, no two examples could illustrate or confirm
one another more than these two must be admitted
to do.
Much more might of course be said about these
extraneous illustrations, but words convey a form so
imperfectly that it will, perhaps, be better to leave
the woodcuts to tell their own tale, which they do
more distinctly than can be done in writing. The
same cause prevents me from adducing many other
examples, which bear almost as directly on the
subject in hand, but which would require a greater
number of woodcuts to render them intelligible
U 2

·than the importance of this branch of the argu- 292 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. ment would justify. What is attempted here is not to prove directly what has been advanced, by examples adduced from other sources, but merely the negative proof of showing that there is nothing absurd in the mode of restoration adopted in the preceding pages, and nothing strikingly incongruous in it from what has been done in those countries with which Assyria was allied, though in other ages, in those instances where contemporary examples do not exist to assist us. The truth or falsehood, however, of any system of restoration that may be proposed, must depend entirely on its capabilities of explaining the phenomena presented by the palaces themselves, either in as far as they are at present known, or as their forms may afterwards be discovered to be: a true theory, however, will be found to be sufficiently flexible to meet any probable exigencies that may arise; and if the above is correct with regard to what we now know, it has not much to fear from any thing that may hereafter be discovered. THE TEMPLE. One building only remains to be described to complete our survey of the royal abode of King Ninus; it is the Temple, situated in the very innermost recesses of the palace, and would be the most interesting of the whole, were it not more completely ruined than any other part of the whole structure;

·TEMPLE AT KHORSABAD. 293 was No. 36. Elevation of Stylobate of Temple. so much so, indeed, that the most interesting part of what now remains is the stylobate on which, like the Persepolitan edifices, it raised. In this instance this is a terrace or platform of about 165 feet in length, by 100 in width, rising, however, only six feet above the general level of the floor of the palace, and is ascended by a flight of steps on its north-eastern face, exactly opposite the line of doorways leading through the three principal apartments. The sustaining wall of the terrace represented in elevation and section in the two annexed woodcuts (Nos. 36, 37.) is one of the most interesting architectural features of the whole palace, as it presents us with the only instance of an Assyrian cornice yet brought to light. At first sight it seems almost purely Egyptian ; but there are peculiarities in which it differs from any found in that country, especially in the curve being continued beyond the vertical tangent, and the consequent projection of the torus giving a second shadow. Whether the effect of this would be pleasant or not in a cornice placed so high that we must look up to it, is not quite clear, but below the level of the eye or slightly above it, the result must have been more pleasing than any form found in Egypt, and where sculpture is not added, might be used with effect anywhere. No. 37. Section of Stylobate of Terarle.

·294 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS, As it is found here, the stylobate is of singular interest, as it is just such a stepping-stone or halfway house between Egypt and Persepolis as we should expect to find in an Assyrian palace of the date of this one, and is one of the most valuable archæological indications the palace affords. At the top of the stairs we find a room forty feet long by thirty-three in width, paved with black basalt, in the centre of which, near its back wall, is a raised square block evidently meant to receive either a statue or the altar, most probably the latter. Except by the extent of the pavement, the walls of the apartment are only indicated by two fragments of sculpture on their south-eastern side, which present the usual group of two winged and mitred figures making offerings to a sacred plant; in this instance very different to any one found in any other of the Assyrian palaces, as it resembles the flower of an agave or American aloe, and really seems a vegetable production; whereas the emblem usually called the sacred tree in other bassi-relievi is in reality not a tree at all, nor even meant, as I shall presently show, to represent one, but is the emblem of some deity, or, at all events, an object of worship, but certainly not a mere vegetable production, as has hitherto been supposed. Behind this room there are traces of one other of about the same width, but extending apparently the whole length of the terrace, or say 120 feet. The whole of one angle of the platform being entirely ruined, it is difficult to say whether this may not ·take of calling the eagle-headed figure Nisroch, from a mere sonal simi- TEMPLE AT KHORSABAD. 295 have been divided into two or three apartments, and there were probably two other square rooms on each side of the one first described, but they must have been residences or private rooms, as, instead of being paved with black basalt, like the other, they have merely brick floors. It is needless, however, to speculate on what they were, as, except the fragments of sculptures before mentioned, not one brick or stone remains on another of the superstructure of this temple. Unlike the rest of the palace, every part of this temple — terrace, pavement, and sculptural slabs — is constructed of black stone, basalt apparently; a circumstance in itself sufficient, I think, to prove that it was dedicated to the Assarac * of the inscriptions, who is apparently the same with the Nisroch of Scripture and the Saturn of classical antiquityt, the prin- Dabistan, vol. i. p. 35., and antè, p. 208. † Major Rawlinson, in a note to his paper on the Assyrian Inscriptions (Journal of the Asiatic Society, vol. xii. p. 426.), has pointed out the mislarity, and at the same time shown satisfactorily, I think, that Assarac, Nisroch, and Saturn are one and the same. But he has thus left the eagleheaded figure without a name; which, however, I do not think it difficult to supply, for he almost certainly was Ormuzd. The Zoroastrian oracle commencing “o de Deoç koru kepadnu exwv iepakos, certainly applies, and applies only, to the chief god of the Persians, or Zoroastrians, and thus only to the last-named god. But if this does not suffice, there is a passage in the Dabistan (vol. i. p. 36.) in itself sufficient to set the question at rest. It is there said, “ The image of the Regent Hormuzd (Jupiter) was of an earthy colour, in the shape of a man, with a vulture's face; on his head a crown, on which were the faces of a cock and a dragon; in his right hand a turban, in his left a silver ewer: pitcher would be a more correct word than ever, to judge from the form of the vessel he carries on the sculptures; but from the same authority we should read fir-cone for U 4 * ·NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. allow of the mud beinah 296 cipal deity of the Assyrians, and the one from whom the country most probably derived its name; all which makes it more to be regretted that so little remains of the temple, for as almost all the architectural remains of other nations that have come down to us are ruins of temples, it would be particularly interesting to have an Assyrian example to compare with the others. Khorsabad, however, will not afford us that satisfaction, and no trace of a temple has yet been found elsewhere, though it is more than probable that such will some day be discovered. We have only to fear that what led to this one being more ruined than any other part of the palace, may have led to an equal extent of destruction among the others. It is, unfortunately, no difficult matter to show what these causes of destruction were here, the first being that it was raised six feet above the general height of the terrace, and consequently on a level with the parapet wall all round, which would levels by the rains, as was the case at Persepolis, and thus leaving the ruins bare would expose them to the depredations of the villagers and country people, for whose purposes the stone of which they were built is far more valuable than the softer slabs of the palaces. Besides this, the temple is placed so immediately on the edge of the plain that its ruins were far more accessible to depredators than those of the centre of turban. Can it be an error of description, by some one mistaking one object for the other ? The fir-cone is not unlike a Persian lamb. skin or a Parsee cap.

·ARMENIAN TEMPLE. 297 the palace. To these causes, perhaps, we may add that the materials of which the temple was built were of a more precious character than those of the palace, and that instead of mere sun-burnt bricks, either baked bricks or stone may have been principally used. But whether all these or any of them were the causes of the almost total disappearance of this most interesting building, is not of so much consequence as the unfortunate result that so little of it now remains, that its place is all that can be made out, and that very imperfectly. Its character and position, however, lead us to hope that others may be found at Nimroud or Koyunjik which may supply to some extent the deficiencies of this specimen, and thus enable us to restore an Assyrian temple as completely as the remains have enabled us to understand what an Assyrian palace was. Although, therefore, this source of information has not proved so prolific as we may hope that it will afterwards become, the bassi-rilievi on the palace walls may perhaps supply to some extent the deficiencies of actual examples. It is true, no bas-relief hitherto discovered on the walls can be identified as representing an Assyrian temple. There is one, however, at Khorsabad* which portrays with very considerable exactness the temple of a place called Mekatsiri, a city of Armenia, and either the modern Diarbekir or some place in its immediate neighbourhood. This temple is hexastyle, with a roof not at all unlike the pedimented roofs of the * Bottn's Monument de Ninive, pl. 141., salle XIII, No. 4.

·208 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. Greek temples, and between and on the pillars are heavy shields, as was apparently the case both at Jerusalem and Athens. Altogether this temple is very unlike anything found in Assyria, and being an Armenian example, cannot be taken as at all illustrative of those of a different and hostile race. No. 38. wanted 380908 ni . M ...WAV . SEF10 Sweden .. X SW. Lord Aberdeen's Black Stone. The bas-relief, however, represented on the annexed woodcut (No. 38.) *, is not open to these objections, as it is taken from an undoubted Assyrian monument, but of what age is not easily determined. Rawlinson * This woodcut is a facsimile in form and size of a bas-relief cut on the end of a block of marble, known as Lord Aberdeen's black stone, from its being in the possession of that nobleman, by whose kind permission I have been allowed to copy it. Unfortunately, it is not known exactly either by whom it was sent home, or in what place it was found.

·LORD ABERDEEN'S BLACK STONE. 299 reads the king's name as Akadunna, and seems to think he lived at an age not long antecedent to that of Nebuchadnezzar. This, however, is by no means certain, and I believe as many arguments might be advanced for his being only slightly subsequent to the age of the older Nimrod dynasty. The point, however, is not of much importance here, as it is sufficient for us to know that he lived between these two periods. Judging from the style of the sculpture only, I should be inclined to place him before the age of Ninus rather than after it, and we know that he reigned over both Assyria and Babylonia, and also over Armenia or Haikee, as I believe it is called on the monument in question. On the upper left-hand corner of the bas-relief in question is represented a temple, and certainly an Assyrian one, because in it - in its cell apparently, is placed the emblem hitherto known as the sacred tree, which in all the sculptures hitherto discovered is the principal, if not indeed the only, object of direct worship; to this a priest is offering the fir-cone or egg, most probably the emblem of the generative power of nature; behind him is the sacred tree, represented this time on a larger scale; and behind this again the sacred bull, executed with a spirit and a power that could not easily be surpassed even at the present day. In the lower compartment are represented a stack or heap of grain, a drill plough of a better form than * Journal of the Asiatic Society, vol. xii. p. 472.

·300 NINEVEIL AND PERSEPOLIS. any used in India or the East at the present day, so far at least as I have seen, and behind this a datetree, so faithfully drawn as to show that it was not for want of power to represent natural objects that the trees in the upper compartment were so conventional in form; and beyond this is an implement, whose use is not easily determined; my own impression is that it is a winnowing machine. The form of the temple at once recalls that of the Kabah at Naksh i Rustam (woodcut No. 22.), both being smallsquare erections with one opening, -in this instance, however, coming down to the ground. The angles of this one are ornamented with volutes, which are wanting in the other; and it also possesses a sort of upper story or crowning member, which, though not found at Istakr, adds to the similarity with the other Kabah at Mecca, as it seems to be covered with curtains, precisely as that one is to the present day; so that altogether the points of resemblance between these three Sabean temples are so striking as to leave very little doubt but that they are mere variations of one and the same form of temple architecture; but whether or not the only form which existed in Assyria at this age, is a question that can only be determined by such an extended experience as would enable us to affirm such a negative proposition with something like certainty. A very important question is – to whom were these square temples dedicated ? or, in other words, what is this emblem that occupies the sanctuary as here represented ? and what also is ·THE ASHEERAH. 301 a more the emblem or object of worship in the temple at Khorsabad ? My own impression is that it is the object so frequently mentioned in the Bible as the Grove or Groves, which the Israelites are so frequently accused of worshipping; a conclusion which seems tolerably evident from the following reasoning:- First, many biblical scholars, among others the learned Gesenius *, scout the idea of the word Asheerah meaning a grove (lucus); he translates it “fortune," or Astarte, "the Star of Venus;" or Asteroth, the companion and wife of Baal, ---anything, in short, but grove. In recent work by an excellent biblical scholar and philologert it is stated, that it is well known to the Jews that the word ought never to have been translated, but remain as a proper name, Asheerah or Asheerim. Though he makes its signification "the blessed,” and points out, without being aware of its resemblance to this Assyrian emblem, that it was a symbolical tree representing the host of heaven. The proof, however, of the matter must rest with the Bible itself; but I think no one can read the passages referring to the worship of the out seeing that they do not mean a group of trees, but just such an emblem or idol as this. A few citations from the Bible will make this more clear, and I shall take them in the order in which they occur, for the sake of easy reference. In Judges (iii. 7.) groves, with * In voce JON. # Dav. Margoliouth. A Pilgrimage to the Land of my Forefathers, vol. i. p. 100.

·66 their God, and served Baalin 302 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. it is said, “The children of Israel forgat the Lord ing that the two were equal objects of adoration, which is, however, more clear from the following: “The prophets of Baal four hundred and fifty, and the prophets of the groves four hundred, which sat at Jezebel's table."* In 1 Kings, xiy. 23., it is said, “ They also built them high places and images and groves on every high hill and under every green tree.” In 2 Kings, xvii. 16., They made them molten images, even two calves (query bulls), and made a grove and worshipped all the host of heaven, and served Baal.” The account, however, of Manasseh's proceedings in the twenty-first chapter, is even more interesting as bearing on this point. For "he built up again the high places;" and "reared up altars to Baal, and made a grove, and worshipped all the host of heaven;" “and built altars for all the host of heaven in the two courts of the house of the Lord;" "and he set up a graven image of the groves that he had made in the house;" that is, in the temple of Solomon, which was afterwards cleared of these abominations by Josiah t, “who brought forth out of the temple of the Lord all the vessels that were made for Baal and for the grove, and for all the host of heaven ;' " and he put down them that burned incense to Baal, and to the sun and to the moon, and to the planets, and to all the host of heaven;" "and he brought out the grove from * 1 Kings, xviii. 19. † 2 Kings, xxii. 4-14.

·THE ASHEERAH. 303 the house of the Lord, without Jerusalem, and burnt it at the brook Kidron," &c.; and “he brake down the house that was by the house where the women wove hangings for the grove;" and "he brake in pieces the images, and cut down the groves, and filled their places with the bones of men." In 2 Chron. xxiv. 18., Xxxiii. 3. and 19., and xxxiv. 3 and 4., and other places in the Bible, the groves are grouped with graven and molten images in a manner that leaves little doubt but that they were considered one and the same thing. But this is even more distinctly stated by Isaiah (xvii. 8.), where he says, “And he shall not look to the altars, the work of his hands, neither shall respect that which his fingers have made, either the groves or the images;" which is again confirmed by the ninth verse of the twentyseventh chapter. It is needless, however, multiplying citations that will occur to every one. The word occurs between thirty and forty times in the Old Testament, and in every instance the sense would justify us in leaving this word untranslated; and in many, besides those quoted above, the passage is unintelligible, unless we substitute Asheerah, or Asheerim, for grove or groves. The only remaining question is, what is the precise object meant to be represented by this emblem ? The similarity of the name long inclined me to think it must be Assarac *, the chief god of the Assyrians, * The Persian intensitive, ac, being added.

·304 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. it the Araske of Josephus * ; but the word being feminine, though taking a masculine plural, militates strongly against this idea, and I should rather fancy it was Asteroth †, or Astarte, if a proper name must be applied to it. On the whole, however, I am inclined to read the names in the Bible in this manner :- Baal I consider as Assarac, or Saturn, the principal of the planets, according to the Assyrians; the Baalim as the seven planets collectively; and this Asheerah as representing the host of heaven, or all the stars, except the planets. I Be this, however, as may, we have here, I think indubitably, a representation in the Assyrian sculptures of an object so frequently mentioned in the Bible, and are from that book enabled to apply to it a name, and at least an approximative meaning, with which we shall soon be able to make out all that yet remains obscure about it. To return, however, from this somewhat lengthy digression. Those who have followed the above description will now, I trust, be able to form a tolerably distinct idea of what the palace was which Ninus " built in the neighbourhood of Nineveh, an and after the manner of Egypt;" for though there may be some discrepancy regarding some of the details, there can be none as to * Ant. Jud., x. 1.5. † Judges, ii. 13., X. 6.; 1 Samuel, vii. 4. | I feel convinced that the Yezidee religion will befound to be the lineal descendant of this Saturnian worship; and less altered than might be expected, considering the length of time that has elapsed between its ancient and modern manifestations.

·CHARACTER OF ART. 305 the general plan and disposition of the various parts of the edifice, none with regard to their size, and very little as to the purposes for which they were erected. The mode of decoration of the walls is also perfectly certain ; their being lined with sculptured slabs of alabaster on the lower part, and painted or adorned with enamelled tiles for the rest of their height *; what this last dimension actually was, is however uncertain : I have made it as low as possible, in order to avoid all appearance of exaggeration ; but, perhaps, somewhat too low for truth. Be this as it may, there can, I think, be no doubt but that the roof was supported by wooden, most probably “cedar pillars, and cedar beams upon the pillars ;” all as elaborately carved and coloured as the substructure they were destined to protect. The mode of lighting also, and the arrangement of the galleries, I consider as almost certain; so that, in the main, I do not know any building of nearly its age which I conceive can be restored more completely than this one, or of which we can form a more distinct idea than we can do of it. Its position in the scale of art we shall have a better opportunity of judging of hereafter; in the meanwhile I will merely remark, that though sadly * If any further illustration were required of the love of coloured decorations in this part of the world, I would quote Herodotus' description (lib. i. 98.) of the seven walls of Ecbatana. The first of which was white; the second, black; the third, purple; the fourth, blue; the fifth, red; the sixth had its battlements plated with silver; the seventh, gilt. This may not, perhaps, be literally true; but it points to a love of polychromatic decoration among this people, and could never have been predicated of a Greek or other European people. X ·NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. othon 306 deficient in the elegance and artistic taste displayed in the edifices built by the Greeks, and equally wanting in the solid magnificence and power of those of the Egyptians, it must, I conceive, have formed one of the most elaborately gorgeous edifices ever erected; more like, however, to the works of the Chinese than but as superior to them in artistic merit as it is inferior to the works of the Egyptians or the Greeks. Before leaving this part of the subject I may as well say a few words regarding the mode in which this palace was destroyed. As it was not situated in Nineveh, it was not, of course, the one in which Sardanapalus burnt himself, nor that in which Saracus shared the same fate; for this last either was in the capital also, or it was a Median palace where these kings resided, as I before mentioned, most probably the south-west palace at Nimroud. Notwithstanding this, this palace was certainly destroyed by fire, and every room bears traces of the effects of such a conflagration ; but whether by accident or design is not apparent; most probably the latter, for in the excavations nothing was found among the rubbish, —no bits of bronze or metal of any sort, nothing like earthenware, or any of the more indestructible forms of furniure; as M. Botta says, “pas même un cylindre m'est tombé dans les mains." * All which would lead us to suppose that this palace was gutted before it was burnt ; but whether this was the case or not, there is no difficulty in accounting for the almost universal destruction of these palaces by fire, when we admit * Monument de Ninive, page 167.

·BURNING OF PALACES. for thein 307 the mode of construction explained in the preceding pages. For with wooden pillars standing on the floor, supporting a wooden roof, and galleries floored with wood, and likewise supporting wooden pillars, there are fifty probable surmises which would account be no difficulty in burning them to the ground when the intention existed of so destroying thein. On the other hand, if there were no pillars, no galleries, and only the solid walls clothed with incombustible materials, even with a flat wooden roof, they could no more be burnt than the temples of Egypt or of Greece. So far, therefore, as it goes, this fact is a powerful confirmation of the views set forth above. But besides being burnt they are buried; a fact far more peculiar to Assyria than the other, and deserving, therefore, some further consideration. If we were to suppose the roof to be the only combustible part, its burning and falling on the floor would of course have injured the sculptures, but would have gone only a very slight way towards burying them, unless we suppose it a roof so solid as to require the support of as many pillars at least as I have provided; for the falling of the walls, though certain, must have been slow; and if the sculptures had remained uncovered after the fire, it is more than probable that they would have shown traces of human, as well as of elemental, violence. Restored as I have restored it, the falling roof, with its half-burnt timbers and rubbish, would, as nearly as may be, have filled the rooms up to the height of ·was found buried when M. Both 308 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. the top of the sculptures; of course higher nearer the walls than in the centre. Succeeding rainy seasons would consolidate this, and also bring down the upper portions of the now exposed walls ; and these two elements, taken together, would, as nearly as may be, bury the palace to the extent to which it excavations *; allowing, of course, something for the accumulation of rubbish from the known existence of a village of mud huts on its summit, probably for all the time that has elapsed since the destruction of the palace, till M. Botta removed it to commence his excavations. That this last is not an unimportant element, those know who have seen some of the most gigantic temples of Egypt buried wholly from this cause, without the assistance either of the sands of the desert or the alluvium of the Nile. But even here we may form some idea of its extent, from the circumstance that the gateway of the propylæa is buried to almost the same extent as the gateways of the palace itself, and we cannot suppose that there existed on this lower terrace any buildings of such an extent as to bury at once this outside building, whose concealment, therefore, I suppose to be almost wholly owing to this last cause. Whether or not so much should be ascribed to this, there is now, at all events, no difficulty in comprehending why or how these palaces were destroyed, nor why a fire * Il y avait trois ou quatre mètres de terre au-dessus des bas-reliefs, partout où ceux-ci n'affleurent pas la pente du monticule. Le sommet de la tiare de quelques taureaux saillait seul à la surface entre les maisons du village. (Monument de Ninive, p. 74.) dum ·KOYUNJIK. 309 should have burnt and buried them so entirely that their very existence should have been unsuspected from that time till it was so unexpectedly revealed to the inquiring energy of another race, in a far distant land, after a long sleep of near three thousand years. PART II, SEOTION IT. KOYUNJIK. From Khorsabad we naturally turn to the great metropolitan palace at Koyunjik for further illustration, or to see at least how our theory fits. fortunately, however, that great mound has been only so imperfectly excavated that no deduction can be drawn from what we now know of it. Mr. Layard, however, is understood to be actively engaged in exploring its inmost recesses, so that on his return we may hope to be made as fully acquainted with its plan and details as we are with those he has hitherto laid open to us with such perseverance and sagacity.* In the meanwhile, all we know is, that it was built by the son and successor of the king who built Khorsabad. If therefore I am cor- * If I understand correctly the rumours that have reached this country from these diggings, the palace at Koyunjik of the Khorsabad era is entirely buried in the centre of the mound, and above it has been erected another palace, which, if this is correct, must be of the Medo- Assyrian epoch, and contemporary, in consequence, with the south-west edifice at Nimroud. If this is so, it may also be here that Saracus burned himself; but I still adhere to the idea of the other being Evorita.

·310 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. rect in ascribing that palace to Ninus, it is here we should look for the exploits of Semiramis; as I before hinted, however, I believe her to be as utterly a fabulous being as Queen Homai, who is said to have been so warlike a governor, and so great a builder, at Persepolis ; at all events, no trace of her or of her exploits has been found either here or any where else, and we must therefore relegate to her son Ninyas what the Greeks have recorded of his mother: and to him, therefore, must be ascribed the honour of erecting this great palace, or at least that part of the superstructure of it which has up to this time been laid bare. If however the tradition mentioned above may be depended upon, that Ninus resided at Telane while engaged in building his palace at Nineveh itself, the substructure probably belongs to that monarch; but as the basement or terrace on which these palaces are erected is by far the most important and extensive part of the works, it may have been left unfinished by him, and the sculptures and inscriptions added wholly by his son and successor. When properly excavated, the great mound at Koyunjik promises to extend our ideas of Assyrian palaces far beyond anything which has hitherto been laid bare would lead us to expect. In the first place, the mound itself is 7800 feet in circumference, and consequently about four times the extent of that at Khorsabad, and one at least of the rooms laid bare by Mr. Layard on his last exploration is 45 feet in width, and 180 or 200 feet in length, and consequently more than twice the size of any room ·KOYUNJIK. 311 in the palace at Khorsabad. The sculptures were as usual much damaged by fire, so that it is not quite casy to judge whether or not they were much superior to those we are already acquainted with. Taken altogether, I fully expect that, when properly known, the Khorsabad example will sink into the rank of a mere suburban residence when compared with the great metropolitan palace which is now being og excavated; but on all this it is needless to speculate here, as the proof is being dug out of the bowels of the earth, and will soon, no doubt, be given to the world in an authentic shape. The same remarks apply to the Nebbi Yunus, which seems also to have been a palace belonging to the same dynasty, but of very inferior extent to either the Koyunjik, or even the Khorsabad one. Whether it will be excavated or not during our day is very problematical, as it is held in great veneration by the Mahommedan inhabitants of the country, as the site of the tomb of the Prophet Jonah, and no interference with a spot so sanctified will at present be tolerated; but this is less to be regretted, as it is evident to any one looking at the plan, page 70., that it is not this but the Koyunjik mound that covers the great palaces of Nineveh, and as that is now being freely laid open, we may forego a peep into the other. Nevertheless, if we might hope that either of these palaces belongs to the Nimrod era, I think it will be found that this is the one, for the other seems to belong wholly to the Ninian and subsequent eras. I formerly asserted this to be of the X4 ·312 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. earlier period, and would do so still, were it not that I believe all the fragments discovered at the Nebbi Yunus belong to the later period. Indeed, one of the remarkable facts brought to light by the recent exploration and the decipherment of the inscriptions is, that all the buildings within the enceinte of Nineveh belong to one period,--that of Ninus and his immediate successors; and we naturally ask, can there be no earlier city of that name ? The Bible, the inscriptions of Thothmes, and all tradition point to the fact that there was, as well as the mention of the city by the Khorsabad king himself and also by the earlier kings of the Nimroud edifices;-where then was it? Probably it was not on the same spot as the one we now know, but somewhere close by, and some of the mounds in the immediate neighbourhood, but not within the walls, will probably reveal the existence of an older city and earlier race of kings. Eastern cities are seldom or ever built on exactly the same spot as the old ones, but move about the plain, with a restlessness not a little puzzling to geographers. To quote a parallel instance of the city most like this one in situation and size. The imperial Delhi is now a well defined walled city, on the banks of the river Jumna, in shape very like old Nineveh, and with its palace relatively in exactly the same situation; only it is smaller,--only two and a half miles from north to south; but ten miles to the southward of it is the old Hindu Delhi, and near that an old Patan city, and between these and the present one, two other cities, all now deserted and silent, but each in suc- ·SIZE OF NINEVIH. 66 stadia in one 313 cession queen and capital of the East. The size also of these Indian capitals interests us here, as a means of comparison, for at no period was any one of them so large as the Nineveh whose plan is given in the preceding pages; and no one who knows the relative splendour of the Hindu and Mogul empires, as compared with that of Assyria, and the relative populousness of the two countries will, I think, contend for a larger city than there shown. But how then are we to account for the exaggeration of the Greeks? the city sisty miles in circumference of Diodorus, and three days' journey of the Prophet Jonah? I have before suggested that the latter spoke of the civitas," or lands of the city, but this will not explain the account of the former, who actually describes the walls as of that extent. He says they were 150 about the ratio of the east and west walls to the northern one; but, to make the dimensions at all fit, we must substitute plethra for stadia, and so reduce the circumference from sixty to ten miles; and even this is too large; for, being so much narrower at its southern limit, not only was its circumference less than this, but its internal area must have been very much below that of a regular parallelogram, such as he describes. Whether, however, we adopt this or any other mode of explanation, we must be content to admit that the whole is a gross exaggeration, till at least it can be shown, either from history or from existing remains, that a city larger than the one represented in the woodcut No. 1. ever did exist 9 * Diodorus, lib. ii, cap. 1, ·314 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. between the mouth of the Ganges and the Bosphorus, or that so perfect a form of civilisation erer existed within these limits as would enable half a million of people to exist together and to support themselves crowded within the walls of one city. To this question I must return when examining the ruins of Babylon, and in the meantime must pass by " Nineveh the Great” with this slight notice, though a few years hence I trust it will occupy the principal place in a work like the present, instead of being so nearly a blank as it at present is, while all our information is derived from her suburban, or at least subordinate, remains. NORTH-WEST PALACE AT NIMROUD. From these great works of Ninus and his successors, we must leap back over the long period of near eight centuries, to the next great epoch of Assyrian history and art; and certainly on examining the palaces and sculptures of Nimroud, it does appear that at least as great an interval was required to account for the difference that is found between the works of the two periods. To persons unfamiliar with the details of the art of course it seems all the same, and many cannot perceive the difference between the two. The last generation could not distinguish between the style of Durham Cathedral and Henry VII.'s Chapel ; -- but the more familiar we become with these works, the greater and more important do the differences appear, not only in the style of execution, which is far better in the earlier than ·NORTH-WEST PALACE AT NIMROUD. 315 in the later examples, and in the elaborateness of finish, in which they excel the other to an immense extent, but also in the general forms of the things represented. The great human-headed bulls differ most essentially from those found elsewhere, and the winged lion is peculiar to this age. The king's dress differs immensely ; so does the form of his chariot and its harness; so also does the throne and all the furniture of the palace; but more than this the people around him, the soldiers who fight for him, and the enemies he wars against, all seem of different races, and differently clad and armed, from those we are familiar with as ornamenting the walls of the palaces of Khorsabad and Koyunjik. Were we to attempt a parallel between Egyptian and Assyrian art as bearing on this subject, it would require a far longer period than I have assigned to it, to account for the differences; but change is far more characteristic of the Asiatic than of the African empire, and any such parallels would only lead astray; each must be judged on its own merits, and here nothing further is required to confirm the chronology than such an extent of change as we find. Besides, however, the difference of plan arising from the difference of age, there are other circumstances which will prevent our restoring, for the pre- * All this has already been insisted on by Layard, who, of all men living, is the best qualified to express a decided opinion on the subject; and not only once, but in every part of his book, where he has occasion to refer to the subject.

·NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. by excavating the whole inound? 316 sent at least, the north-west palace at Nimroud with anything like the certainty with which we could proceed at Khorsabad; the principal of these is its want of isolation. It is probable, indeed, that all the sculptured chambers have been laid bare; but we neither know the extent nor the position of the painted ones. It is true we know they existed on the eastern side and also on the southern; but of what form and to what extent could only be ascertained external limits of the whole edifice, -an operation of such extent that it is scarcely likely to be attempted for some time, and certainly will not be undertaken by the English government nor any one they can control; but till it is done, it is impossible to apply correctly our knowledge gained at Khorsabad to the restoration of this edifice. I question also if we even now know the exact orientation of the palace. I dare say it does face very nearly due north and south; but a slight variation either way would probably tell us whether the temple was situated on the ruined side of the court, between it and the plain, or whether the edifice on a higher level to the southward, with three chambers, is to be considered as the pendant to the building bearing that name at Khorsabad. These and fifty other questions can only be satisfactorily answered by further examination of the spot. In the meantime we may easily describe what has already been laid bare, though it is impossible, I fear, to attempt anything like a perfect restoration. The only side of the palace which can here be -- ·PLAN OF N.W. PALACE, NIMROUD. 317 No. 39. VIT V1 11 X1 N to xi XIV XIV 112 COURT. XVI JY XVU XVI XIX 100 XX North West Palace at Nimroua.* regarded as an outside façade is that facing the north. It is, however, situated so near a ravine that the greater part of it has fallen, though not the essential parts, as it is almost certain that those we miss were continuations of those we still find there. There are two portals in it with winged bulls, which at Khorsabad would settle the question; here, however, this test will not apply, as all the important doorways, * The plan, with all the particulars here mentioned, are taken from Layard's work, which is the only authority on the subject, so that it is not necessary to refer to him on every point. The plan is reduced to the usual scale of 100 feet to one inch, for easy comparison with Khorsabad and the Persepolitan and other edifices quoted. ľ ·318 NINEVEII AND PERSEPOLIS. both internal as well as external, are so ornamented in this palace, and the double-bulls back to back, which form so striking a part of the external decoration of the Khorsabad palace, are nowhere to be traced in this one, or as belonging to this age. These two portals lead into the great hall of the palace, thirty-two feet in width by 152 in length, and therefore larger than any at Khorsabad, and ornamented throughout with bassi-relievi of far inore elaborate richness than any thing found there. To the westward of this is a small room with two portals and a block of masonry between, showing, I think, conclusively that on both the northern and western faces there were spaces between the doors, on or between which, as at Persepolis, the throne was erected. The immense thickness of the northern wall (twenty-six feet) points also to the fact that it was meant to support the great tabsar or covered gallery of the palace, and the place where the king generally showed himself to his subjects. The small space over the two doors, at the side of the room No. II., in like manner must have been a smaller tabsar overlooking the plain, and if there was a porch or portico in front of it, a throne may have been placed between them. We know, however, far too little of either the levels of the place or the extent of the ground in front to speak with anything like certainty on this point. At the upper end of this great hall there was found an immense slab, marked on the plan, which at first sight looks like the place for the throne when placed inside. The position, however, of the door so im- ·PLAN OF N. W. PALACE, NIMROUD. 319 mediately on one side of it, and the uncertainty as to whether the throne here was placed inside a room, on the same level with the floor, or nearly so, render this application somewhat doubtful, and I am more inclined to think it was the place of an altar or of some emblem of the divinity. Chamber No. III. is of much smaller dimensions than No. I., but architecturally presents no peculiarities requiring remark, except the position of its doorways, – the one leading from the great hall being placed as unsymmetrically as possible with all the others, though the opposite one leading into the court is placed exactly in the centre both of the room and court; thus leading us to the surmise that the court was that of the hareem or private apartments of the palace, and that the position of the door between the two rooms was owing to the desire to conceal the view of the court from those in the great hall. Proceeding either through a small door at the upper end of room No. III., or by a door unsymmetrically placed on the eastern side of the court, we come to a suite of ten rooms, two of which (v. and vi.) are of tolerable size, the first being 25 feet by 90, the inner one 20 feet wide by upwards of 100 in length. The latter is surrounded by five small narrow chambers on three sides and one towards the west, all these partitioned by such narrow walls from one another, that it is extremely improbable that any of them supported galleries ; thus leading again to the idea of their being devoted to the monarch's privacy, which is further confirmed by the character of the sculptures on their ·320 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. walls, which are all of a religious class. No battles, no war pieces, are here represented, no scenes of the chase, as in the great hall. The outer one (No. v.) represents the king seated on his throne, attended by eunuchs and winged figures. On the inner chamber, however, even the eunuchs disappear, and the king is the only human being represented, all the rest being either gods, or their emblems, or representations, such subjects, in short, as a religious monarch would choose for his own contemplation, but such as neither magnify his state nor record his prowess, which seems to have been the motive of all the representations of the public halls both here and elsewhere. This view is further confirmed by the fact that in the innermost recesses of this wing, on the north and south walls of chambers VIII. and ix., winged female deities are represented as performing some mysterious act of worship; a representation that occurs nowhere else, and is only appropriate for a gynæceum. Taking this view of the matter, I may as well, before going further, state my belief that the rooms here numbered I. and 11. are equivalent to the state rooms II., IV., V., VII., and VIII. at Khorsabad; that room III. and perhaps IV., at Nimroud, represent rooms VI., IX., XI., and xII. at that palace; and that the rooms V. to xiv. here were the hareem or private apartments of the sovereign, and are represented at Khorsabad by the painted apartments surrounding the hareem court. These two, the northern and Layard, vol. ii. p. 5.

·NORTH-WEST PALACE, NIMROUD. 321 eastern wings, thus seem to have been in themselves a complete palace, designed, it is true, on a much smaller scale than the one at Khorsabad, and on an infinitely smaller one than that at Koyunjik, but adorned with infinitely more care and elaboration than either of these. Nor do I think its smallness should astonish us when we consider its much greater antiquity, and that it is probable that when it was built the empire was comparatively new, and the country far less populous than at the time of its culminating point of glory under King Ninus.* Returning, however, to the court, we find, exactly opposite the door leading from the court to chamber III., another door, at the distance of about 120 feet, leading to a suite of five or six apartments, whose use it is not easy to guess or define, as they certainly are not completely excavated, and we have nothing at Khorsabad that at all resembles them; at least, nothing that has been excavated, though from the similarity of the two courts, (they both being nearly of the same size, having two doorways, north and south, opposite one another, the third placed unsymmetrically on the eastern face, and the fourth Toons * It has been objected to my proposal for placing pillars on the floor of the apartments at Khorsabad and elsewhere, that some of the in this palace are paved with alabaster slabs, with inscriptions on them, on which it consequently is very improbable that pillars should be placed. The only rooms, however, mentioned by Layard as so adorned are the four small ones marked as Nos. IV., X., XII., and XII, on my plan, which are just such as, according to my theory, should have no pillars, being too narrow for such a purpose. The argument, therefore, tells in my favour; for as far as it goes, it shows that the Assyrians only paved in this manner such rooms as had no pillars; all the larger ones being paved with bricks. Y ·322 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. side being wanting in both,) perhaps we are justified in assuming that towards the southern angle of the Khorsabad palace there was a suite similar to this one. As neither Khorsabad nor Persepolis affords us any analogy to guide us in determining what these apartments were, we must turn to Solomon's House, as the only remaining source of information available; and I feel very much disposed to assume that these were the rooms for feasting and recreation which are described by Josephus as so important and splendid in that palace *, but which we miss entirely at Persepolis, and, if existing at Khorsabad, were probably among the unexcavated chambers on the side of the court corresponding with this. There is nothing in the sculptures either to militate against, or to confirm, this view of the room No. xv. being the banqueting hall of the palace; but there were found in it, and throughout this part of the palace, a number of vessels of copper and bronze, which, as far as I can judge from description, (they all perished on being exposed to the air,) could only have been applied to culinary or to feasting purposes. These circumstances, added to the general probabilities of the case, should, I think, justify us in assuming this to be the case, till at least some new fact is discovered to throw further light on the subject. If it were so, it completes our knowledge of an Assyrian palace, by adding the one part that was missing before. It was in the innermost rooms of this wing (those * Vide antè, page 230.

·BANQUETING HALL. 323 most towards the west,) that the ivory objects were found, which display such strong evidence of the influence of Egyptian workmanship; and in the room next to them that the name of the Khorsabad king was discovered, added to the older sculptures, and differing from them in the form of many of the characters *; two circumstances singularly confirmatory of the view I have taken of the history of this palace, which is, that it t was built long before the Egyptian invasion, but never having suffered from fire, it probably was habitable during the time of their supremacy, and may have been inhabited by an Egyptian satrap or viceroy, who caused these decorations to be made after his designs, but by Assyrian workmen, -just as we find the sun-worshippers in Egypt (woodcut No. 32.) expressing their Asiatic ideas in Egyptian forms; and that when these invaders were obliged to recede before the rising influence of Ninus, the latter engraved his name on these portals to celebrate his recovery of the abode of his forefathers from the hands of the invaders. As I said before, it is needless to speculate on the form and extent of the painted chambers which surrounded the palace on two sides at least; but trusting to the analogy of Khorsabad, we may naturally ask if there was not a temple attached to this palace, and, if so, where was it ? The most natural surmise is, that the three chambers discovered to the southward on an elevated * Layard, vol. ii. p. 11. Y 2 ·NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. ascertain whether such a thing ever existed as ap- 324 terrace were the edifice in question. I cannot, however, divest my mind of the idea that this was a tomb, or rather cenotaph, -- the true sepulchre, I conceive, being below them; they look so like in plan to the three chambers of Darius, and the other Persian tombs (woodcut No. 8.), and so like in situation to that of Cyrus and of Nitocris, that I should not willingly suppose them to represent a temple till at least some farther evidence can be brought forward in confirmation of this view. On the other hand, trusting entirely to analogy, I should place the temple in front of the western tabsar, or it may have been a little further to the southward; but here, the total destruction of the buildings on that side of the court prevents us from judging with any thing like certainty of the fact. In either case, however, the degradation of the mound on this side, renders it almost impossible that any important traces of it can now be found, though it might be well worth looking for there, if only to pertaining to this palace or not. CENTRAL AND SOUTH-WEST EDIFICES. In the centre of this great mound at Nimroud there once stood another palace, built by Temenbar II., son and successor of Assaradanpal, the builder of the north-west palace, which we have just been describing. What the form and extent of this building may have been, however, we have now no means of knowing, for of all the Assyrian palaces yet come ·CENTRAL EDIFICE, NIMROUD. 325 to light, it is the one most completely ruined; not, it seems, by fire, any more than the north-west palace, —- for burning does not seem to have been a characteristic of the Egyptian invasion, — but by wilful depredation by those who removed the slabs that adorned the walls, to use them in erecting other edifices. Many of them are found so employed in the south-western or Median palace, but with the sculptures generally turned inwards towards the mud brick walls, and their backs prepared to receive new portrayals of a different race and religion, to whom these representations were foreign and probably abhorrent. Many of the slabs were found packed together, side by side, preparatory to removal, as if the spoiler had been arrested -- not, indeed, in his work of destruction, but before that of reconstruction was finished; and those which were found in the palace were all displaced or disarranged, so that it was impossible to trace either their form, or the position of the rooms. For our purpose, therefore, of trying to understand the arrangement and architectural features of Ninevite palaces, this one is entirely useless, though its interest in an historical point of view can scarcely be overrated, for it was here that the famous black obelisk was found, now in the British Museum, which gives so complete a history of the thirty-two years of the reign of the founder of this palace, and which thus affords us one of the most interesting as well as one of the earliest chapters of human history revealed by the hand of a contemporary king. This, however, and two colossal bulls, Y 3 ·326 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. wo are nearly all that remains on this spot to mark the site of the palace of the king who received tribute from Egypt, and ruled Syria and Assyria more than twenty centuries before the Christian era. From this destroyed palace, therefore, we must now turn to the third great edifice still standing on this mound, usually called the south-west edifice from its being situated near that angle of the great terrace. On looking at its plan (plate II. of Layard's work), it evidently differs from any of those discovered elsewhere, but to what extent is not now quite clear for except one great hall, the whole has been so injured by fire, most probably when Saracus destroyed himself on the invasion of Cyaxares, that it is now difficult to make out even the outlines of the plan of that part which has been excavated; and as it has not been isolated, or nearly so, its general features remain a mystery. I shall therefore confine my remarks to the great hall, whose plan is represented on the annexed woodcut, No. 40. Its general dimensions are 62 feet wide by 165 in length, and consequently considered as a whole, is the largest room we have yet met with in this neighbourhood; it is, however, divided down its centre by a wall about twelve or thirteen feet thick, which separates it into two, or rather four rooms, for its ends being wider and met by projections from the side walls, the ends of the No. 40. O Hall of South-west Palace. Scale 100 feet to 1 inch.

·HALL OF SOUTH-WEST EDIFICE. 327 great hall are practically separated from the centre. In these narrow parts Layard found eight pedestals of stone, which he assumed must have supported pillars, but being in the narrowest parts this seemed an anomaly, and he abandoned the idea, supposing rather that they supported statues. With the knowledge, however, that we have now acquired of the arrangement of Assyrian palaces we cannot doubt but that the centre wall supported a gallery between two rows of dwarf pillars, and these consequently must have supported the bridges by which access was gained to it; and strange though the idea may at first sight appear to a European architect, it was, I believe, from this gallery that the king showed himself to his subjects,--at least I know of one parallel instance of such an arrangement. For in the palace that Akbar built at Futtehpoor Sicri near Agra, the throne was placed on an immense capital of a thick pillar, — if such terms are applicable to such objects. From which four bridges of stone radiated to the four corners of the room, where his four ministers sat, and between them in the lateral galleries were arranged those officers of state whose rank entitled them to such a distinction, while the people were only admitted below, and their petitions handed ир on the points of spears to those above. Such an arrangement would exactly fit this hall, but even without it, the disposition of the hall must have been such as I have described it to be. The position of the two doors in the two end transepts, I think clearly indicates that their roof ·328 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. was supported by a single range of probably four pillars, and the width being the same, a range of ten or twelve pillars supported that of the south aisle. The north aisle, however, is wider, and may have had two rows, but where there is so little to guide us, it had better be left uncertain. To the northward, this hall has the usual thick wall for the deep gallery through which the principal light was admitted; and was apparently preceded by a court, but whether that was enclosed on all sides or open towards the east, is not quite apparent. To the southward there seems to have been ranges of other smaller apartments attached to the side of the hall, but they were situated so near the edge of the mound, that they have fallen, and been so completely ruined, that it is impossible now to ascertain either their extent or destination. If my conjecture is right, that this is the palace in which Saracus destroyed himself, it is here in front of the southern entrance that the funeral pyre must have been erected, as Layard found the entrance almost entirely blocked up with charcoal, and the ravages of the conflagration more distinct here than elsewhere. As I before remarked, those bulls and lions, which seem designed for this palace, and not taken from elsewhere, have four legs like those at Persepolis, instead of five, which is the true Assyrian complement. Here, too, we find sphinxes * of a character * Sphinxes are not, I believe, found in any true Assyrian ruin, but are at Persepolis, or at least in Flandin and Coste's large plates of the ·KALAH SHERGHAT. essential respects from the the Medo-Assyrian dynasty of Arbacidæ, vvho coverned 329 totally different from any found elsewhere, and as far as we can judge from the few specimens published, all the original sculptures of the palace differ in many I think incontestably, besides the wanton destruction of earlier monuments, that Rawlinson's conjecture is right, and that in opposition to the surmise of Layard, the palace may safely be attributed to some monarch belonging to a line distinct from that of the Koyunjik and Khorsabad kings. * I have before given my reasons for ascribing it to the empire on the destruction of Sardanapalus, and lost it under Cyaxares; and the more I think of this, the less reason do I see to doubt the correctness of this determination. KALAH SHERGHAT. A little more than forty miles in a direct line to the southward of Nimroud, but this time on the right bank of the Tigris, there exists a third great mound, covering the ruins of Assyrian palaces. The place is now called Kalah Sherghat; and I think there can be staircases of Darius, and Xerxes' palaces; the lower half of some symbolical figures are shown, which must, I conceive, when complete, have been just such sphinxes as those found here. * Journal of the Asiatic Society, vol. xii. p. 457. Is there not some confusion in Layard's assertion, vol. i, p. 352., that the builder of the north-west palace was the grandson of the Khorsabad king? Is it a misprint for south-west? Is the mistake repeated or corrected by Rawlinson, p. 470. of the memoir above quoted ?

·330 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. little doubt but that it marks the site of the biblical Calah, on the southern limits of the Assyrian empire. This mound, however, is only partially artificial, as it rests on a chain of low hills, which runs down here close to the bank of the river. Extensive explorations have been made into this great mound by Layard, but hitherto without success, in an architectural point of view. One sitting statue --- a rarity in Assyrian art - was disinterred, and he acquired the certainty that the mound contained ruins of the earliest period, or of the first, or Nimrod dynasty; but no chambers have yet been discovered, nor any alabaster slabs in situ, so that for our purposes it is entirely useless. The same is true of the mounds of Karamles, Baasheika, Kara Kush, Baazani, and others, situated, like Khorsabad, near the foot of the chain of low hills that bounds the plain of the Tigris to the northward and eastward; all of these, and many others situated within the limits of the Assyrian kingdom, are no doubt the graves of buried cities; and, judging from the success that has attended the explorations made up to this time, it is scarcely being too sanguine to expect that they may yield as rich a harvest as those already explored. Till this, however, is done they do not come within the province of the architectural restorer; and must, therefore, for the present, be allowed to retain the mystery of their earthen shroud.

·BABYLONIA. darkly mysterious. 331 PART II._SECTION III. BABYLONIA. An account of the ruins of Assyria would be incomplete without some allusion to those of the neighbouring kingdom of Babylonia ; but as no new excavations have been made of late years in that province, and no new light consequently thrown on the subject, a very slight notice of them will suffice in this place; for even the decipherment of the inscriptions has not yet thrown that light on these antiquities which we have every reason to expect it will eventually shed on what has hitherto been so One fact, however, they have brought to light, and a startling one it is, that all the bricks of Babylon, and across all the country from Bagdad to the Birs Nimroud, bear the stamp of Nebuchadnezzar, the son of Nabopolasar; thus fully confirming the expression in the Bible *, “Is not this the great Babylon that I have built,” and the Chaldean account that has reached us through Megasthenes † and Berosus f ; but at once cutting across the controversy on which so much learning and ingenuity have been wasted, as to which were the works of Semiramis, which those of Nitocris, and last, not least, which of the buildings in the neighbourhood of Hillah represents the famous Tower of Babel. The works and exploits of Semi- * Daniel, iv. 30. † Eusebius, Præp. Evan., ix. 41. I Josephus, contra Apion., i. 19.

·332 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. ramis, I think, may now safely be ranked with the chronicles of the Arabian Nights' Tales; but Nitocris, as the protégée of the more trustworthy Herodotus, cannot be so easily disposed of. If she ever lived, however, she certainly was contemporary with Nebuchadnezzar, probably his queen; and all, therefore, that. is requisite to reconcile her to history, is to suppose that the native chroniclers ascribed his works to her, as those of Ninus and Ninyas were ascribed to Semiramis, and those of Darius and Xerxes to the equally apocryphal queen Homai. As for the Tower of Babel, we must look for it elsewhere. That an earlier Babylon did exist somewhere hereabouts, is as certain as that this one is not it, and its discovery may reward some fortunate explorer in these regions; but, till it is found, there is an end of all speculation on the subject, and we must content ourselves with examining a city founded in the end of the seventh and beginning of the sixth century before our era. Still this Babylon is the one the Greeks knew, and regarding which they have handed down to us such monstrous exaggerations ; for the more I think on the subject, the more convinced I am that such a city as they describe never could have existed in so small a country, and that such a mass of people could never have been aggregated together in so short a time. In making such an assertion, we have at least one tolerable analogy to guide us; for the valley of the Ganges is certainly not less fertile, and is ten times more extensive, than that of the Euphrates, yet we know for certain that ·Strabo, 385 ; SIZE OF BABYLON. 333 not one of its capitals, neither Delhi, nor Agra, nor Canouge, Benares, Palibothra, nor the modern Patna, nor Gour, nor Dacca, ever covered more ground than I have above assigned to Nineveh ; nor do any of them now, nor, I believe, did they ever, contain half a million of inhabitants *; nor do I believe it possible for a city dependent on one king, and without all the organisation of roads, canals, and commerce, which are of modern invention, to contain and subsist a greater mass of congregated beings. There must be 10,000 centres instead of one, and immense individual independence of action, to enable such masses to provide themselves with the necessaries of life; this can only be the offspring of freedom through long ages, and no one of these conditions ever existed in Mesopotamia. ,... , Still the accounts of the Greeks are so uniform ř, that it is difficult to disbelieve them all, unless, indeed, we assume that they (accustomed to the little states of Greece, not one of which would make a respectable English county, and their little towns, in like manner, * If we were to trust the loose estimates sent in to the Indian government by its officers, we must of course believe them to be far more populous; but in every instance where a census has been taken, the numbers have been reduced to one fourth or one tenth of what was previously estimated; and when we find such difficulty with Europeans in the nineteenth century, in making estimates, we should be cautious how we receive those of the Greeks, who were so little accustomed to correct statistical knowledge. † Ctesias makes it 360 stadia; Herodotus, 480 ; Clitarchus, 365; and Quintus Curtius, 368. The only concomitant circumstance that enables us at all to check this, is the number of the towers ; 250 according to Ctesias, which, in ordinary circumstances, would give a wall of about ten miles in length. He tries, it is true, to account for their paucity, by the wall being protected by marshes. I would rather accept the naked fact.

·334 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. inferior to our provincial capitals,) were so dazzled by the populousness of an Eastern city, that they translated some Babylonian measure, whose value they did not understand, into stadia, whose number expressed their astonishment at the greatness of this Queen of the East. Be this as it may, I have no doubt but that the walls shown in woodcut No. 1. do represent the extent of the ancient Nineveh and the 480 stadia of Diodorus. So in this instance I believe that those walls which have hitherto been supposed to represent only the inner city, do actually show the whole extent of ancient Babylon. They are now easily traced, and are represented by Rich, Ker Porter, and Flandin and Coste with very slight variations, and are the only walls of which any traces have been found hereabouts. When complete, as shown in the annexed woodcut No. 41.*, they must have formed a square of about two and a half to three miles each side, through the diagonal of which the river ran for between four and five miles; thus enclosing a larger city than is to be found any where in the East-out of China at least, and capable of accommodating within its walls a population of between 4 and 500,000 of souls, which is as large a number as I believe it ever contained. Of the buildings contained within the enceinte, one of the most striking is the most northern, the Mujelibe, a great rectangular mound 200 yards in * Taken from Ker Porter's plan, but drawn to the same scale as the plan of Nineveh, woodcut No. 1.

·www . , . Karin WALLS OF BABYLON. 335 length on its northern and nineteen yards more on its southern face; to the east it measures 182 yards, and to the west, 136. Thus being about the same No. 41. nahon MUJETIBU ---- EUPHRA Het Prime Me wy 11 www AMRAN 1: mit Petri is et 425 XO 4000YARDS Plan of Babylon. size as the upper platform on which the palace at Khorsabad stands. It resembles the latter, however, in another important particular : that it is situated just outside the line of the city wall, which is here broken to make room for it, though it is carried round so as to enclose it, and so may the wall at Khorsabad, though perhaps washed away by the Khausser. Be this as it may, I have little doubt that ·use, nor, who 336 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. it once supported a palace; though, from its height, it must have differed materially from those farther north. For one of the corners of this mound even now reaches the height of 141 feet.* Admitting, however, that part of this represents the superstructure, we still have a mound at least three times as high as those of Nineveh, and probably, therefore, representing a fortified palace more correctly than they do. The great mound of the Kasr may probably represent the great central palace, with the principal temple within its enceinte, and the Amram the hanging gardens; but both of them are so formless at present that the question is much more one for the topographer than the architect; for no form or shape can be detected in these ruins, which would ascertained, to restore their forms; nor I fear is it likely that any such will ever be laid bare by excavation; for the fact is, that these mounds have already been excavated to a far greater extent than those of Nineveh ; not by scientific explorers, but by persons removing the bricks to build the neighbouring cities with ; the consequence is, that their walls and floors are already laid bare; but, as no traces of stone or marble have been found, nor of alabaster slabs lining the wall, we are, I fear, justified in assuming that these edifices will afford us no further information than has been obtained from those parts of the Assyrian palaces which are destitute of the last-named * These dimensions are taken from Rich. Ker Porter's differ slightly from his.

·BIRS NIMROUD. 337 characteristic. Still it is well worth the venture, and a trench through one of the great mounds might reveal to us something of almost as startling interest as any of our previous discoveries. Till, however, this is done, they do not come within the category of buildings to be considered in such a work as this; nor does the celebrated Birs Nimroud, though it is some satisfaction to think that it is no longer necessary to try and reconcile its dimensions with those of the Tower of Babel, nor, consequently, to introduce it within the walls of the city. But still, even as a work of Nebuchadnezzar, which it certainly is, it is scarcely less mysterious or less a subject of vague conjecture. Judging from its extreme similarity to the Tomb of Cyrus at Passargadæ in form, though not, of course, in size, I should feel inclined to suggest that it was the tomb of its founder. But we know so little yet of the form of the tombs of these kings, and of their mode of sepulture, that it is impossible to found any reasoning on such scanty data as are at our command, and these Babylonian remains still require to be re-examined by some one familiar with all the recent discoveries, before any reasoning regarding them is likely to lead to any satisfactory conclusion. Besides this Babylon, there are many ancient sites still unexplored in this part of Mesopotamia; such as Sippara, Cutha, Warka, and, above all, Susa in the neighbouring province, - all marked by immense mounds, burying palaces and edifices of all sorts. It is much to be feared, however, that, owing to the Z ·338 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. absence of any material harder than brick, these explorations — except, perhaps, in the last-named site - will yield but little that will interest the architect or the artist. The whole nation's history, however, lies written there, and numberless illustrations of the manners and customs of the Great of old, all which are certain to reward him who undertakes their examination. Till this, however, is done, we must rest content with the assurance that a fossil world lies buried beneath these mounds, but that we need only to set earnestly about the task, and the secrets of the long forgotten past will again be revealed to us, and we shall know more of this strange people than has been known of them at any period during the last two thousand years.

·CONCLUSION. the other contemporan CONCLUSION. 339 PART II. SEOTION IV. HAVING now touched, at more or less length, on all the principal points connected with the architecture of Assyria and Persia, in as far, at least, as they are at present known to us, it only remains, before concluding this essay, briefly to recapitulate the results arrived at; and with the knowledge obtained from the preceding analysis, to try to ascertain the position this form of art held in ancient times relatively to it is entitled to take among the æsthetic utterances of mankind. It does not fall within the scope of this work to say more than has been said in the previous pages with regard to the importance which these recent discoveries in Assyria have on the political and social history of the world. To me it seems almost impossible to overrate them, so great is the contribution thus afforded to our previous scanty knowledge of one of the most interesting chapters in the world's history; and so immensely is our horizon widened by having obtained a secure footing in a period of such high antiquity, from which we can now look complacently around us on those comparatively modern civilisations which hitherto bounded the limits of our vision. All this, however, is apparent to any earnest thinker; and its elaboration belongs to a different class of works from z 2 ·340 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. one which merely pretends to explain one form of the artistic utterance of the races inhabiting in ancient times the plains of Mesopotamia. The case is different, however, when we turn to the artistic history of the world, and more especially of Greece ; for here at once we light on a class of relations only intelligible through the means of such an analysis as we have just gone through, and which are not only of the utmost importance towards understanding the arts of that country, but throw a stronger light on the affinities of these races than any other circumstance we are acquainted with; and this because it is a fact that it is now impossible to doubt, that all that is Ionic in the arts of Greece is derived from the valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates. In attempting to verify so broad an assertion, it is, of course, necessary to distinguish carefully, not only between the Doric and Ionic orders of architecture, but also between the two affiliated classes of art that belong to them, and which form two distinct genera, if I may use such an expression, though frequently blended together. It is a proposition now, I think, generally admitted, that the Greeks borrowed the idea of the Doric order from Egypt; though, of course, when it fell into their refining hands they altered and improved it, and carried it to a pitch of perfection it probably never could — certainly never did — reach in its native land. Still, the absence of a base, the massive fluted shaft, the abacus, the architrave and cornice, are not only Egyptian features in themselves, but, as first adopted by the Greeks. are so iden.

·GRECIAN DORIC ORDER. 341 tical with some specimens still found in that country, as to leave little or no doubt on the subject.* Shortly, however, after their adoption of it they altered the superstructure to a considerable extent; first, because they could command a supply of fine timber, the want of which is a deficiency always felt in Egyptian art, and secondly, because the flat roofs of the rainless climes of Africa would not suit their climate, which requires a slope to carry off the rain ; but, notwithstanding these necessary alterations, and all the refinements the Greeks introduced into this order, it retained to the last a massiveness and simplicity of outline and arrangement eminently characteristic of the arts of the country whence it was derived, and utterly antagonistic to the arts and feelings of the nations of Asia. Of the Ionic order, on the other hand, no trace is found in Egypt; but everything in Assyria or Persia bears an impress of affinity to it, that it is impossible to mistake. Unfortunately, all the pillars of Assyria having without exception perished, we have no very direct means of comparison beyond the sculptures of the fishing temple at Khorsabad, represented in woodcut No. 16. At Persepolis, however, the lineal descendant of these Assyrian palaces, we have an order, Ionic at least in feeling, in every detail, though differing considerably in general form; this difference, however, appears to have arisen solely from the fact * I have said so much on this subject in the True Principles of Beauty in Art, pp. 369. et seq., that I may be excused from repeating here what is there stated at length. Z 3 ·elegance, in which it surpasses anything the Greeks 342 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. that the Ionic order, as we now know it, is one adopted and used by a people not only familiar with, but almost universally using the Doric order, and who, consequently, always infused into their Asiatic style a certain amount of Doric feeling, so that the two styles should harmonise, as far as circumstances would admit of, with one another. Bearing this in mind, however, it is not difficult to trace every feature of the Greek Ionic back to the Persian original. In the first place, the base of the central phalanx of columns in the great hall of Xerxes is identical with the Greek base, and one at Passargadæ * is almost identical with those found in Ionia, in the temple at Samos. The Greeks never adopted the bell-shaped base, so characteristic of this order; which is to be regretted, as its forin, circular in plan, and the additional height it gives the column, without diminishing either the apparent or real strength of the shaft, are advantages for internal architecture, at least, that it is not easy to overrate, not to mention its own exquisite ever effected for this part of an order. The motive, however, for its omission is evident enough; for the Greeks, in nine cases out of ten, used their orders as external ornaments, not as internal supports; and the square plinth, in consequence, was scarcely an inconvenience, and so far from wanting additional height, their great aim was to prune down the dimensions of * Flandin and Coste, p. 197. † Antiquities of Ionia, chap. V. pls. ii. and v.

·GRECIAN IONIC ORDER 343 the Asiatic order nearer to the standard of their own Doric style. The shaft of the Persepolitan order is Ionic in every respect, not only in the proportion of the diameter to the length, - being from six and a half, with a long capital, to nine diameters in length with a short one, while the number and form of its fluting differ from the Doric in every detail, but are exactly those used in the Greek Ionic, wherever that order is found. As might be expected, the Greeks pared down the extraordinary exuberance of the Persian capital to something more pure and more in accordance with their feelings in art; and instead of what we should call three separate capitals, one above the other, and the upper one with eight to sixteen volutes *, they adopted only the latter, but never admitted of more than two volutes attached to it; though, to compensate in some measure for this deficiency in number, they made them far more important than those found in Persia. The Ionic architrave in three facets is wholly Persian; so is the Zoöphorus, or frieze; so also is the dentil moulding, but here transferred from the architrave to the cornice, so as to make up the latter member, in addition to the other two; which was required, not only to suit the taste of the Greeks, but also to admit of the necessary gutters and drains * I still adhere to the idea that Ker Porter did not wholly invent the capital he drew ; but, till some one else can see it, it will not do to rely too much upon it. z 4 ·344 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. being added which were required to carry off the rain from the sloping roofs of the temples in which it was now to be used. These obvious alterations may, however, be considered as slight and insignificant as bearing on the general question of identity. When we consider that in one instance the order was used principally to support an internal roof, in the other it was adapted to a peristylar temple, and made to harmonise, as far as might be, with a different style of art. When we turn, however, from the columnar forms and ordonnances of this order to its peculiar ornaments, we need no longer confine ourselves to Persepolis, but may wander through the whole range of Assyrian art, for there we are everywhere reminded, both in feeling and detail, of this peculiar form of architecture. In the first place, the honeysuckle with the lotus bud, which in Greece is so peculiarly characteristic of the Ionic order, is the most usual, and, indeed, the typical ornament of Assyrian architecture, and is found everywhere, not only as a mere decoration, but apparently, as a thing to be worshipped, as an emblem of something we cannot quite comprehend. Sometimes it looks like an emblem of fire, or light; but at others it resembles so much a vegetable form, that it is difficult to abandon the common idea that it is so, notwithstanding the difficulty such a theory presents. But be this as it may, it is the Assyrian ornament, par excellence, and as such was introduced into Greece with the Ionic order, to be refined by ·GRECIAN SCULPTURE. 345 them into that exquisite beauty of form with which we find it used in the Erecthæum and other Athenian examples.* The guilloche ornament also, a form of interweaving bands, which is so characteristic of the Ionic, is found in all its varieties, used everywhere in Assyria; and so, too, are the rosettes which ornament the doorways of Persepolis and the Erecthaum, without our being able, almost, to detect the difference between them; and so, indeed, is every part and every feeling of this exquisite and most graceful order, with only this difference, that in Greece it is used with a degree of beauty and taste to which the inhabitants of its native land are, and always were, complete strangers. When we turn from the architecture to the sculpture of the Greeks, we are even more struck with the essential similarity that exists between the two styles; for though Greece borrowed one of the forms of her architecture from Egypt, she never imitated, in any degree, the forms of her sculptural art; nor was it necessary she should do so, for Greece always had an alphabet, and words were consequently always the principal form of her utterance. Sculpture remaining, consequence, merely an illustrative art, did not require the conventional forms which were requisite to enable the Egyptian artist to tell his story; with him it was necessary to introduce into the picture in * As Layard has so strongly insisted on this in his second volume, p. 294., and illustrated it with woodcuts, I need say less regarding it than I should otherwise be inclined to do.

·346 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS, every incident he wished should be made known, and even the relative expressions of greatness and power were expressed by tangible, outward signs; whereas, in Greece, all these were known from the illustrative legend, and the artist was left to select only such incidents as would heighten the effect of his tableaux, totally irrespective of the necessity of telling his story. So it was in Assyria; their use of an alphabet and explanatory inscriptions enabled them to dispense with all those conventionalities which offend so much at first sight the student of Egyptian art. The king here is no bigger than his attendants, nor is he distinguished from them in any way, except as in life, by the richness of his robes and the insignia of his kingly office. His attitude, his actions, and his whole appearance, is, as nearly as the artist could express it, a portrait of the king, or of the person represented, without one vestige of supernatural or conventional art being called to aid, unless, indeed, the immense development of the muscles and of the hair be considered as such. In every respect the Assyrian artist copied nature, and nature only, as essentially and as earnestly as the Greeks did, and as free from the exaggerated size and attitudes of the Egyptians as from the many-armed monstrosities of the Hindu. In their full development the two are separated as widely as it is almost possible to be; not, indeed, in form, but in purpose and in aim; for the Assyrian sought only to express his idea of the mortals he saw around him; the Greek aimed at embodying his idea “ ·CHRYS-ELEPHANTINE STATUES. 347 of the Godhead; and hence a difference of aspiration that led to widely different results; but the origin of their arts, and their strictly imitative adherence to the forms of nature, remained throughout the same. So few statues standing quite free have hitherto been discovered in Assyria, that we have scarcely any means of comparing that form of sculptural art in the two countries ; a circumstance probably owing to the Assyrians having used some more perishable materials for this purpose than either metal or stone, very probably indeed gold and ivory,--- as a people would most naturally do who were only trying to imitate nature, as the Assyrians did, not aiming, like the Greeks, at ideal beauty. For the latter purpose marble is admirably adapted; but it would be difficult to choose a material less suited to the former, to which ivory, with gold and silver ornaments, is as admirably adapted as the other is unsuited. This, too, would at once account for the chrys-elephantine forms of Grecian art, which have hitherto appeared so anomalous in a people so enamoured of purity as the Greeks always were. Be this as it may, however, the bas-relief and the sculptured frieze, which have hitherto been considered such characteristic, and original forms of Grecian art, must now confess themselves mere copies of Assyrian forms, superior, of course, to an almost unlimited extent, but still essentially the same. We have, unfortunately, still fewer materials for comparing the paintings of the Assyrians with those ·NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. have used the honeysuckle in all its varieties, and for the superior bea aking 348 of the Greeks. All we know is, that both painted their architecture; though it is doubtful whether the latter carried this mode of decoration to the same extent as their Asiatic prototypes, at least, when they used marble: when using coarse stone, or stone covered with plaster, it is probable the whole was painted to as great an extent as in Assyria; and probably with as brilliant colours. So far, too, as can be made out from the slight vestiges that remain of this department of Grecian art, the style of ornament was the same in both; at least, both seem to with its usual concomitants, as their principal means of decoration ; and the other ornaments - guilloches, stars, rosettes, and frets of various classes are identical in both styles, making, of course, due allowance exquisite taste of their colouring and design. It is not, however, only the arts of Greece that these Assyrian remains enable us to trace so far backwards and to understand; those of Etruria bear even more directly the impress of an Assyrian origin. It is not, however, either Semetic or Indo-Germanic Assyria, that this time is the type of what we find in Italy, but the third section of the population, be they Tartars or Scythians, or by whatever denomination it may be thought proper to designate them: it will not, therefore, suffice to refer directly either to the palaces of Nineveh or to Persepolis for the forms of art which are to unlock the long hidden mystery of the origin of the Rasenæ. Nor will it probably ·ETRURIA. 349 ever be either a palace or a temple, but some tall conical mound with a circular base, covering the remains of some warrior or lawgiver, who secured for himself the respect of a people who thought the abode of the dead an object more worthy of care and attention than that which they were to inhabit during their transitory sojourn on earth. No such mound has hitherto been dug into in the Mesopotamian plains, so the direct means of comparison are still wanting; but indirectly it is impossible not to perceive in the winged figures, the lions and symbolical animals, and the general style of art and ornament throughout, so close a similarity to Assyria, as to leave no doubt of a common origin; but as it would take me far beyond my present limits, and require voluminous illustrations to make all this clear to others, I shall not do more here than direct attention to it, as one of those points which certainly will be set at rest by the recent discoveries in the mounds of Assyria. The influence of this art, and its connection with the buildings of Solomon in Jerusalem, have already been sufficiently insisted on in the previous pages; and so far at least as we can compare what we only know through the uncertain vehicle of words with what we actually see, the conclusion seems to be that the two styles were, as nearly as may be, identical in all essential respects. In like manner, too, India borrowed her art from the same fertile sources; but in this case it is neither Semetic nor Tartar-Assyria that we must look to, ·350 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. but the Indo-Germanic section of the inhabitants of that country, and Persepolis, in consequence, becomes again the principal type to which we must look for our illustrations. A few of these have been alluded to in the preceding pages, and their connection pointed out in so far as was requisite for illustrating the subject in hand; more and better examples might easily be adduced here, were such either the object or purpose of this work; all, however, that is intended here is to point out that we have now reached the fountain head of that art which spread itself, in very ancient times, from the banks of the Arno and the Tiber to those of the Ganges; and that we now for the first time can understand the origin, and consequently the connection of what have hitherto been mere disjecta membra of some anterior world, whose works had passed away without leaving sufficient traces of their existence, to enable us to identify them with certainty with any of the nations whose names or traditions had been handed down to our more modern times. There is, it is true, no task which to the philosophical inquirer into the theory of art is more pleasing or more instructive than that of tracing from some such a Babel centre as this, the dispersion of a certain type of art through all the neighbouring countries of the world; and no art, it appears, offers such a favourable opportunity for such an inquiry as this. But besides the interest it inspires from this ·RELATIVE VALUE OF ASSYRIAN ART. 351 source, the art of Assyria well deserves consideration from its own intrinsic merit, and some peculiarities which distinguish it from all other known styles; of these, one of the most striking is that the architecture of the country was, in the days of its greatest development, almost wholly a phonetic art; or, in other words, a style dependent on sculpture and animated forms both for its ornament and means of expression. To make this clear, it will be requisite to recur slightly to other styles, and to a mode of nomenclature I have enounced elsewhere.* Taking for instance a Greek temple as an example, its effect depends in nearly equal proportions on three different kinds of merit. The first technic, as comprehending the size of the whole building, and of the materials of which it is composed, — massiveness, solidity, and generally the mechanical fitness and symmetry of the parts as connected one with another, and as to the general effect desired to be produced. The next class of effects, the æsthetic, are beauty in the form of the whole as well as of the parts, such as the pillars, with their capitals and the epistylia, and generally of all the mouldings and decorations of every sort, where form is introduced. To the same class belongs colour, which, without doubt, was introduced to a very great extent, and, with form, made up a second class of equal importance with the first. The third, or phonetic class, was the sculptured deho See introduction to True Principles of Beauty in Art, passim.

·352 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. corations, whether those of the pediments and their acroteria, or of the metopes or the friezes; or, lastly, figures, paintings, and groups, when they were introduced. This last being, in such an example as the Parthenon for instance, perhaps more important than the other two, but generally in other examples of only about equal importance. In Egyptian art the technic assumes a considerably greater degree of importance than the æsthetic effects, from these being but sparingly attended to, and colour used more to heighten phonetic effects, than for its own individual merits. This, however, is compensated for, by the walls and pillars of her temples being virtually great lapidary canvasses prepared for the historical painter; the great national book of chronicles, in short, in which was recorded all that was done of great or r good, that the nation, through her kings, wished to have handed down to posterity. In Gothic art the technic and ästhetic were by far the most important class of effects aimed at, though in some of the greatest and best buildings of the best age, the amount of painting and sculpture introduced entitles them to rank high as phonetic utterances. In modern art, technic expression of size and power, and a certain beauty of form, is all that has yet been attempted; colour is rarely introduced, and phonetic expression is hardly dreamt of except as mere blind imitative art. If from these we turn to Assyria, we find the technic branch of effects almost wholly neglected or ·RELATIVE VALUE OF STYLE. 353 slurred over; for the size of such buildings as have hitherto been found is small, the material of which they are principally composed is absolutely mean, and they neither attained to, nor perhaps ever attempted, any expression of power or durability; indeed, it would be difficult to conceive buildings with less technic merit than they have. In the æsthetic division they seem also to have neglected form to a greater extent than in any other style of art I am acquainted with; but, on the other hand, they compensated for this by the use of a greater amount of coloured decoration than is to be found any where else. For the evidence is complete that the sculptures themselves were not only tinted, as it is probable those of the Greeks were, but that the ornaments and dresses were as fully made out in colour as they are in our most elaborate paintings. The walls, too, above the sculptures were certainly ornamented by scrolls and architectural ornaments, either enamelled or painted on tiles in the richest colours; and probably there also were painted figures, which, however, if not used here, were certainly used in those apartments which have no sculptured slabs for their decoration, and with so much colour on the walls, it is needless to add that the roof and its supports must also have been most richly painted, so as not to destroy the harmony of the effect to be produced. * * In the palace of Ecbatana, above alluded to, page 151., Polybius represents the pillars, walls, and roof as covered with plates of silver and gold. The same assertion is made in the Bible with regard to Α Α.

·354 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. Even this elaborate system of colouring was subordinate to the one great object of these buildings, - the display of phonetic sculpture; or, when this was not employed, of the same ideas conveyed by paintings on the wall. For not only were all the walls of all the apartments, both inside and out, so decorated, but neither doors nor windows, nor even pillars nor pilasters, were ever allowed to interrupt the continuity of the bassi-relievi, which, as I said before, even in the suburban palace of Khorsabad, extend to some thousands of feet in length. To effect this, we find in these palaces that, besides the historical sculptures, the principal doorways are formed by colossal winged bulls, instead of mere squared or moulded blocks of stone, which, in all other styles, are considered the appropriate mode of fitting a door that is to be closed ; and the pylons, which are towers, or some such forms, in other styles, are here double bulls placed back to back, and so sculptured as to hide, as nearly as may be, all the plain parts of the stone to which they are attached. Where these winged bulls are not used, it is either the hawkheaded Ormuzd, or figures with four wings *, which ; Solomon's Temple. It could, in either case, scarcely to plating or gilding, as in the former instance it is said Alexander's soldiers stole some of the plates, and the splendour of the Temple depended almost wholly on this, for otherwise it was a very secondary building. * The circumstance above alluded to, page 214., of Cyrus being represented with four wings and an inscription over his head, stating “I am Cyrus," &c., leads to a curious speculation as to whether these winged kingly figures at Nineveh should not be considered as the embodiments of the souls of departed kings attendant on their successors on earth. The Passargadæan sculpture is evidently a literal translation of these Assyrian ones, and either being explained, the other becomes at once intelligible; : tindi thao wannacant deceased kinos ·CARYATIDES. 355 to form the jambs of the portals, but never plain slabs, nor any common mechanical arrangement; every thing here is animated, and all meant to tell of the king's greatness or power, or to express his religious feelings or aspirations. The same system was, I am convinced, carried much further than we have at present any positive means of ascertaining; and had I been able to find a trace of single Caryatide figures any where, I should certainly have used them to support the roof, at least in the external faces of the palace, where they would not only have been appropriate, but indeed the only really characteristic mode of finishing the building, as I think must be tolerably evident to any one who has familiarised himself with the peculiarities of the style. But besides this, we have the analogy of Greek art, where we find them, in the most typical example, the Erecthæum, used with an Ionic order to support a Persian entablature; and though we do not know with what order those of the Villa Albani* were used, still as they have the honeysuckle ornament, and the Assyrian rosette on their caps, this at once reveals the locale whence the idea was borrowed. The only Caryatide figures I know of in this style, are those so frequently represented in the sculptures at Persepolis, supporting the talars, as shown on woodcuts Nos. 8. and 20., either in two, or three rows, one above another; and, at first, I was inclined so to restore the façade of the Khorsabad Palace, and I especially refer to the one of these now in the Townley Collection in the British Museum. AA 2 ·356 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. even now cannot quite make up my mind to reject the idea altogether ; but the figures are so thickly planted and so numerous, as to take away altogether the idea of the upper story being at the same time a tabsar, from which the king might show himself; and in consequence, I have felt myself constrained instead to use only the angular support of the talar, a column terminating in a lion's paw, and with a double bull or double griffin capital, omitting the intermediate figures, which were probably supplied by curtains, these being “white, green, and blue, fastened with cords of fine linen and purple to silver rings and pillars of marble.” * How much farther this animate style of decoration was carried, we do not know, but in the use of it to the extent we even now find it, Assyrian architecture stands alone, and instead of dividing a perfect specimen of this style into four parts technic, four æsthetic, and four phonetic, as I did with regard to Grecian and Gothic, I should be inclined to classify this one as not more than one or two technic; two, or perhaps (as the sculpture also was painted) three, æsthetic; and certainly more than half, or seven or eight parts, phonetic. Thus taking it almost without the range of architecture properly so called, and classing the Assyrian style rather among the phonetic arts of painting and sculpture, than among the building arts to which we usually refer everything of this class. In thus classifying this style it will be perceived, and perhaps objected, that I am thus placing the Assyrian palaces in a higher grade of art than a * Esther ·CLASSIFICATION OF STYLES. 357 Greek temple; but this is not quite true, for though it belongs to a higher class, it is immeasurably inferior as a result; but it is higher just inasmuch as the sculpture of the pediment of the Parthenon is higher than the masonry that surrounds it, --as the metopes are higher works of art than the triglyphs, and the frieze than the wall it adorns, and inasmuch as these sculptures are nobler works of art than the columns that surround or support them. So I conceive the Assyrian sculptures belong to a higher branch of art than any mere architectural forms were capable of attaining to, and even in themselves are far from contemptible, for they express their story with singular clearness and precision; and though not comparable with the works of the Greeks, form a decoration unsurpassed in completeness and general effect as a whole by anything I am acquainted with; while some parts, — such, for instance, as the great winged bulls, – are actually superior, both in grandeur of conception and in boldness of execution, to anything the Greeks ever did in this style. It is true they are monsters, and what is worse, monsters we are not yet familiar with, but they are not half so monstrous or absurd as the centaurs, which were so favourite a form with the sculptors in the best age of Greek art. These represent the body of a borse nourished through the body of a man, and two complete sets of vital functions under one skin. All the Assyrian form suggests is, the body of a bull nourished through the mouth of a human being; and their wings, though absurdities of course, are so ·358 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. united on to the body as not to be nearly so offensive or absurd as the wings of Greek Victories, or our angels; nor are their five legs half so absurd as the six limbs of the centaur: the one is a mechanical expedient to get over a technical difficulty, the other a monstrous creation, more worthy of a Hindu than of an enlightened Greek. Taken altogether, I rank the conception of the Assyrian as one of the highest and most instructive aspirations towards a perfect style of architecture, though it unfortunately failed entirely in its results, not only from bad drawing and inferior execution, but also from an almost entire absence of a right perception of ideal beauty, which alone can redeem any work of art, to whatever class it may belong; and which raised every thing the Greeks touched, whether it was an earthen jar or a marble temple, to such a pitch of perfection and of beauty. Assyrian art, therefore, is well worthy of our most attentive study, not only as being a form of art entirely new to us, and, as such, tending to extend our knowledge and perception of the forms of which art is capable; but also because it is the highest conception of architectural art to which man has aspired; and though it failed so lamentably in execution, it still remains as a germ, capable of being ripened into greater perfection than anything that has yet been done with this the noblest and most impressive of human arts. Another peculiarity that distinguished this style of art from any of those with which we are most familiar, is the evidently wooden origin of all the ·WOODEN ORIGIN OF STYLE. 359 no parts which are more strictly called architectural. If for proof of this we turn to Nineveh, we have there only the melancholy evidence of a few charred beams, for all being of wood, has either perished from age or by fire; but, that wood must have been extensively used is only too evident, from no stone or more durable material having been employed; but even without this negative proof, the order at Persepolis too evidently betrays its wooden origin in every part to leave any doubt on the subject; for no one can look at the shaft, and much less at the capital, and fancy that any constructive form of stone could ever have given rise to any thing so slight and so capricious as this. The principal proof, however, rests in the absence of the abacus, the inner pillars being framed with their epistylia by a tenon, which, though in stone, is so evidently a carpentry form as to admit of no mistake in this matter; and the external pillars have a Y. shaped capital, as indubitably derived from the same source as the other; both showing that mere weight was not sufficient to secure coherence of the parts, as is the case in all masonic forms, but that they required to be framed into one another, as carpentry is, and always must be. I need hardly refer to the talar above the roof, which is in all its parts so evidently a wooden construction that it is impossible either to mistake it for stone, or to fancy how it could be constructed in that material; at the same time its presence takes off from any idea of improbability that might be supposed to attach to such wooden architecture here, but, on the contrary, Α Α 4 ·360 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. confirms the idea that the whole was originally of wood, though a part afterwards got translated into stone. This certainly was not the case with any one feature of Egyptian art, nor was it with the pillars or more substantial parts of Grecian architecture, though the Doric entablature shows manifest signs of the upper part of it being derived from a carpentry origin. No wooden forms can be traced in the Gothic, nor in any of the cognate styles, which are as free from this defect as the Egyptian ; but, on the contrary, it was characteristic of the Syrian and the Jewish styles, and also of the early Indian, especially the Buddhist ; but these were either parts of the Persian empire or avowedly derived their art from that quarter. As a general rule, indeed, it may be asserted, the Egyptian or African style is the true type and origin of all stone architecture in ancient times; whereas the Asiatic styles, without one single exception, so far at least as I know, show evident traces of a wooden origin; and the Assyrian, in particular, seems to have been the typical wooden style of those days. The Greek style, as might be expected from its position and its relationship to these two, shows evident traces of both styles, but woven together into forms of more beauty than either of its parents could boast of. The high terraces on which the buildings were placed, is another peculiar feature, which must have added immensely to the effect of the palaces; perhaps as a strictly technic feature of the architecture, ·TERRACES AND WALLS. 361 it was the most important of any; for so massive and so broad a base must have given to the whole an expression of power and solidity which the architecture of the palace could in itself lay no claim to; and thus, if we are allowed to consider it as one design, the palace, with the terraced mound on which it stands, must go far to modify the criticism expressed above, as to the want of true technic expression in these Assyrian edifices. The terrace, however, could not have been seen of course from its platform, which is the principal point from which the palace itself must always be regarded; and from the plain the high parapet would so mask the principal part of the palace, that the one would, I fear, rather interfere with than aid the other, --so far, at least, as the соир d'oil was concerned, though the general impression of power and solidity would of course be conveyed to all familiar with the edifice. The last peculiarity it will, perhaps, be necessary to allude to here, is the enormous thickness of the walls, so different from those of any other style with which we are acquainted. The origin of this mode of building has, however, been so fully explained in the preceding pages, that I need scarcely allude more to it here, nor attempt to reiterate that it arose from the exigencies of their mode of lighting, coupled with the necessity of having an upper story to the palaces, which was thus obtained without their being obliged to floor over the lower ones. It, however, gives rise to a subordinate peculiarity of no small interest, that of considering the jambs and sides of the doorways as the fittest place for the disnlay of the orentout w ·362 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. efforts of the sculptor's art. In Assyria the principal winged bulls and lions, or sphinxes, or the principal winged figures, are so placed ; and in this there seems to have been some gradations in style, winged bulls having been used not only for the outer, but also for the inner apartments, at Nimroud, and only for the outer ones, but on a much grander scale, at Khorsabad. This theory hardly holds good, however, at Koyunjik; though we know so little of this palace that nothing very certain can be predicated regarding it. At Persepolis, however, they are used neither for the inner nor the outer doorways, but only in propylæa, or in entrances which may be called gateways rather than doors; but the jambs of all the doorways there are ornamented by bassi-relievi of the king, either seated on his throne, or walking in procession accompanied by attendants, or struggling with those chimæras which symbolically represent his triumph over the evil principle. Indeed, at Persepolis the jambs do duty for all that the walls were destined to display at Nineveh ; they, apparently, being the only part sculptured with figures, the walls being given up to architectural forms instead of being wholly devoted to sculpture, as in the earlier instances. There is, I believe, no instance anywhere else of the principal sculptured ornaments being so placed, — not on the walls, but in their thickness; and even at Persepolis the motive of such an arrangement would have been unintelligible were it not that it becomes so self-evident from the arrangements of these Assyrian palaces. Before concluding, there is still one characteristic ·ASCENDING AND DESCENDING SERIES. 363 that it may be interesting to point out, which is that, as far as the sculpture is concerned, the history of Assyria is written in decay, or, in other words, gradually deteriorates from the first period at which we meet it, till we lose sight of it at Persepolis ; whereas, on the other hand, the architecture seems gradually to have gone on improving from the time of the building of the north-west palace at Nimroud till the epoch of Persepolis ; for, in the first instance, the architecture properly so called seems to have been insignificant in the extreme, whereas the Hall of Xerxes must have been, when complete, the finest building Asia ever produced by its own unassisted efforts. We have thus a descending series of phonetic arts accompanied by an ascending series of technic ones, the æsthetic librating between the two, and remaining nearly at the same level throughout. The Museums of London and Paris already afford the materials of establishing the first part of this proposition ; and no one moderately acquainted with the sculptures of the periods to which these treasures belong, can, I think, remain in doubt but that the eight centuries which elapsed between the epochs of the building of the north-west palace at Nimroud and of that at Khorsabad formed a period of decay in Assyrian art; for there is not only a superior degree of finish and elegance in the works of the earlier epoch, and a higher aim accompanied with more dignity, but, what is strange, the drawing both of men and animals is superior in the first, and has degenerated very much before we reach the second nonina Ruthi AWA ime se ·364 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. we again pass over eight more centuries of time and reach Persepolis, where the sculpture is as much inferior to that at Khorsabad as that is to Nimroud. In this latter period, the artists do not seem to have been equal to attempting the portrayal of an action and scarcely even of a group. There are nothing but long processions or formal bassi-relievi of kingly state. No battle scenes, no landscapes, no scenes from the chase, nor indeed any representation of the life of the king which give such a zest to the earlier sculptures *; and even in such we find that here the drawing of the figures is stiff and bad, and wants all that peculiar expression which the others possess in so marked a degree. If, however, we feel this in comparing the Khorsabad sculptures with those of Persepolis, it is still more evident when we join the extremes; and I am convinced that there is not a greater difference in• degree between the sculptures of the Parthenon and those of a Roman triumphal arch than between those of Nimroud and Persepolis; and the difference seems to me to be nearly in the same direction; the one containing an aspiration towards the loftiest tone of ideal art, the other being content with mere portraiture and common-place prose story-telling With the conventional, or, if I may use the expression, the architectonic sculpture, the case is somewhat different; for the winged bulls of Khorsabad * I speak with some diffidence with regard to the sculptures of Persepolis. Never having seen any original specimens of them, I know them only by drawings, which is a fallacious test when compared with the actual inspection now available for the other two classes.

·IMPROVEMENT IN ARCHITECTURE. 365 and Koyunjik are far superior in size and grandeur of proportion to those of Nimroud; and though those of Persepolis are somewhat smaller, they are, as far as one can judge from drawings, in bolder relief and more truthful to nature than either, while they still retain that powerful muscular development and expression of force which distinguishes these from all other specimens of ancient sculpture that I am acquainted with. It is, however, when we turn to the architecture, that this improvement becomes most clearly evident; for both in conception and detail, the palaces of Persepolis are as superior in this respect to that of Nimroud as their sculptures are inferior. This may be seen at a glance, by comparing the plans of the great Hall of Xerxes with that of the north-west palace at the latter place. Both being drawn to the same scale, it will be seen that the hall covers under one roof a much larger space of ground than the whole palace does, even including its great court; and there is nothing to lead us to suppose that the Assyrians, at that age, could conceive a pillar of marble sixty or sixty-five feet in height, composed of such blocks of stone, and so beautifully ornamented as these are; even one of the smaller palaces at Persepolis, with its great monolithic doorways and massive architecture, far surpasses any thing found in Assyria as an object of architectural art. In this, as in the other instance, the buildings of the Khorsabad and Koyunjik epoch form an exact mean between the two extremes: grander and better in an architectural point of view than the older ones, ·366 NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS. but on the other hand as far inferior to the newer examples. So that making every allowance for the difficulty we now have of judging the question, arising from the perishable nature of the materials they used, and the consequent ignorance in which we remain of many of their forms, still the superiority of Persepolis is so self-evident as not to admit of a moment's doubt. This coincident occurrence of a descending with an ascending scries is, however, far from being peculiar to Assyrian art, but on the contrary is one of the most general laws applicable to all art in all countries; but owing to the length of time over which it is spread, and the peculiar nature of the examples, it is clearer here than in any other class of art I am acquainted with. It has, nevertheless, this strange peculiarity in it, that here it follows a reverse order from what we find in all other countries. Thus, we generally find nations beginning, by raising huge masses of misshapen stones, technically grand from their size and durability; but as men become civilised, they tire of this rude expression of power, and soften down into smaller, but more pleasing forms, and seek to compensate for the lost greatness of mass, by æsthetic forms of sculpture and gorgeousness of colour. These again are generally supplanted by the higher classes of the phonetic arts. The intellect must, among thoroughly civilised men, be appealed to, as well as the senses; and the inferior classes of art are abandoned for those that demand the greatest amount of intellectual power for their elaboration, and which appeal most directly to the higher aspirations of mankind.

·GRADATIONS OF STYLE IN ASSYRIA. If the Assyrians followed the saine gradation of intellectual development as other nations, they must have built Babel towers long before they thought of adorning their palaces and temples with graceful forms and coloured decorations; and it must have been long after they left off climbing towards heaven, and were satiated with mere Sensual splendour, that they conceived that style of decoration which we find them practising when first their forms of art become familiar to us. If this be so, it is evident that we still want the earlier and perhaps the longer half of our history of Assyrian art, and that very much remains to be discovered before we can say we either know or understand what we have already grasped, for as yet we have begun only in the middle, and perhaps after the declining series had commenced; though this is hardly probable, as the Asiatic mind does not seem capable, in its own land at least, of any thing much higher than what we find in our oldest examples. Throughout the whole range of the history of the countries bordering on the Euphrates we find the two series above alluded to occasionally oscillating towards perfection, but never even approaching it; and after a long series of ages we stumble again on such a specimen of art as that represented in the annexed woodcut (No. 42.), --a bas-relief on the rock, cut by order of Futteh Ali Shah, late king of Persia, representing himself slaying a lion; the action being identical with what we find in the earliest sculpture of Nimroud; the grade of art the same, neither much worse nor much better; the form is changed, but the

·368
NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS.
object is the same; for though four thousand yes
have elapsed between the two, the kings of t1
country seem to have had no higher aspirations th
to be represented as slayers of the king of beas
But not only in this, but in every art, in every for
of civilisation and of government, of race or religio.
though ever changing to the superficial eye, they r
main the most unchangeable of all the inhabitants <
this sublunar world. As Nimrod saw them whe
he first rebelled, so we see them now.
No. 42.
CXCHLOS
Bas-relief of Futteh Al Shan.
THE END.
How Dolli
ERARY
Melli
LONDON :
RTTIS WOODES and SHAW
New.street-Square.
U