نسخة مذيلة من "بلاد فارس والشأن الفارسي" بقلم جورج كرزون، مع أوراق مدرجة [ظ‎‎٥‎٩‎٢] (١٨١٤/١١٩٩)

184
PERSIA
conducting into the tomb . 1 Of this the lower part has been forcibly
broken away , 2 and we can now enter without difficulty. Passing into a
chamber or vestibule with arched vault, hewn out of .the live rock, we
encounter at a distance of nine feet from the door a wall, four feet
high, also in the solid rock, constituting the front of the first of two
cavities or sarcophagi, excavated one behind the other in a recess. A
partition, one foot in width, separates the pair; and the furthest
extends to within three feet of the end of the cutting . 3 They are
four feet in depth, nine and one-third feet long, and four feet broad,
and their broken lids, which formerly were arched at the top, lie across
the openings . 4
At a distance of three hundred yards to the south is the second rock
Middle tomb. It differs only from its predecessor in containing three
tomb arched niches or recesses at the back of the main vestibule,
each containing a rifled cavity or sarcophagus . 5 ^
The most southerly tomb, at some distance from the others, was
first noticed by Niebuhr in 1765. Its lower part is hewn out of the
South rock in the familiar fashion, but its upper portion is built
tomb U p wiph l ar g e rectangular stones to supply the superior limb
of the cross. Nor was this tomb ever finished, as the state of the
sculptures sufficiently shows. The king, and Ormuzd, and the fire-
altar, and the terrace, are there ; but immediately below the cornice of
1 The lower limb of the cross does not, therefore, exist in this case, being built
up by the polygonal wall.
2 Chardin declared that the door was always a sham door forming part of the
natural rock, and thought that the real entry to the tomb must have been gained
by a subterranean passage. There is no evidence in support of this, and analogy
is against it.
3 Flandin, both in his text and plates (vol. iii. pis. 161-6), has committed the
curious error of representing only one sarcophagus, in this tomb.
4 Near this tomb Herbert, in 1627, described as being ‘ sculptured the Image of
their grand Pagotha, a Dgemon of as uncouth and ugly a Shape as well could be
imagined; and if reverenced by those wretches, sure it was not in love, but rather
with a Ne noceat, base fear too often drawing dastardly spirits into vile subjec
tion. It is of a gigantish size or magnitude, standing as upright as his deformed
posture will admit, discovering a most dreadful visage twixt man and beast.’ No
one has ever been able to make out what this horrible and purely imaginary
monster (which Herbert’s London artist introduced in fine style into his drawing)
can have been. I fancy that the excellent knight must have carried away an
indistinct recollection of the nondescript creatures with whom the king is so often
represented in combat on the doorways, and must finally have written his account
at home.
5 I am puzzled by the interior of this tomb, upon wTfich my own notes and
recollections do not enlighten me. Ouseley, Johnson, Rich, Binning, and Ussher,
all of whom entered it, concur in the above description. Flandin and Coste,
however (vol. iv. pis. 163-1), depict it as containing six tombs instead of three.
I think they are again wrong.
! fV •