'Persia and the Persian Question by the Hon. George Nathaniel Curzon, M.P.' [‎78] (121/748)

78
PERSIA
I have said that the Persians entitle this edifice the Tomb of the
Mother of Solomon ; and such appears to have been the tradition
Persian throughout the Mussulman epoch. Barbaro, the Venetian,
tradition j n 1474 a.d ., calls it by that name, and mentions the Arabic
inscription in the interior. Mandelslo's description in 1638 might
answer for its present condition ; whilst his natural bewilderment as to
the origin of the legend was solved for him by the Carmelite Friars of
Shiraz, who explained that the Solomon in question was doubtless the
fourteenth Khalif of that name, who reigned in 715 a.d . Father
Angelo, a little later, corroborates Mandelslo. John Struys, in 1672,
mentions that it was already a place of pilgrimage for £ many devout
women, who pushed the tomb with their head three times, and as often
stooped to kiss it, then muttered out a short prayer, and so departed.'
LeBrun in 1706 found it difficult to understand why Bathsheba should
be there interred ; there being no record in Holy Writ of Solomon
having left the Holy Land. The superstition as to an exclusively
female place of worship has survived 'till the present, century, when
Morier, in 1809, was not allowed to enter. Later travellers have either
disregarded the natives' protests, or have entered, as I did, without let
or hindrance.
Morier, in 1809, has received the universal credit of being the first
to opine that this was the Tomb of Cyrus, which was found despoiled by
Alexander, as narrated by Arrian, Strabo, and other classical
Sfication 1 writers. And yet, strange to say, on referring to his pages I
with Tomb that he only made the suggestion in order to reject it. 1
of Cylu Ouseley, who was there in the same year, adopted a similar
attitude. Ker Porter was, I believe, the first Englishman to adopt the
identification ; but I fancy that its original author was Professor
Orotefend. 2 The acceptance or rejection of this theory depends upon
a collation of the passages relating to the actual Tomb of Cyrus in
classical writers with the allusions to Pasargadse in the Bisitun inscrip
tion, and with the local indications which I have described on the plain
of Murghab. For this purpose the first essential is a correct reproduc
tion of what the Greek and Latin historians actually did say ; and here
1 These are his words (First Journey, p. 148): 'If the position of the place
had corresponded with the site of Pasargadas as well as the form of this structure
accords with the description of the tomb of Cyrus near that city, I should have
been tempted to assign to the present building so illustrious an origin.' On the
occasion of his second visit in 1811 he says nothing whatever about the identity,
but merely that 4 the whole of the remains at Moorghaub attest the site of some
considerable city, and furnish a subject the investigation of which will be well
worthy the labours of an antiquary ' {Second Journey, p. 119).
2 HallisGlie Allgevi. Litt. Zeitung, No. 140, June 1820 ; and App. III. to vol, if.
of Heeren's Historical Researches.