'Persia and the Persian Question by the Hon. George Nathaniel Curzon, M.P.' [‎170] (231/748)

170
PERSIA
cerns equally all the edifices upon the platform. Firstly, then, what
was the character and object of this building ? It is too small to have
Character been a public hall of audience. On the other hand, the sur-
of building rounding chambers and apartments appear to suggest the
attributes of a residence. Those only who entertain the outworn
fallacy that Persepolis was a collection of sanctuaries or palace-temples,
will agree with Fergusson that they may have been ' devoted to priestly
mysteries, perhaps chapels.' There is no ground whatsoever for such
a belief. On the other hand, if, as is now generally supposed, this was
the private residence of the king, on the occasion of his annual visits
to Persepolis (and we can well understand the advantages of a southern
outlook in the doubtful warmth of an early Persian spring-tide), I
nevertheless cannot credit, from what I have seen or read of Eastern
modes of life, that anything like sufficient accommodation can have
existed here both for the monarch, for his necessary guards and
attendants, and for the royal harem. 1 I should feel disposed therefore
to think that it must have been the official residence of the sovereign,
where he transacted his private business, ate his meals, or enjoyed
repose ; but that the manifold equipage and accompaniment of the
seraglio the wives, concubines, female slaves, nurses, children and
eunuchs—must have been accommodated in some other and neighbour
ing building. 2
The second and wider question is that of the nature and material
of the walls, that must unquestionably have united the still surviving
Question doorways, niches, and windows, not in this palace only, but
of walls ^e other edifices on the platform that present similar
features. I say unquestionably, not merely on grounds, but
because on the inner sides and surfaces of the stone monoliths just
mentioned are unmistakable traces of their original juncture with walls
1 Texier, in his plates and text, boldly so describes it. ^
2 That the 4 house of the women ' and the ' king's house' were separate in the
time of the Achsemenian kings is evident from Esther ii. 13 and v. 1. We are
reminded very forcibly by the arrangement of the building on the Persepolitan
platform of another Scriptural analogy—viz. the House of the Forest of Lebanon,
which was built as a palace, or succession of palaces, by another great Asiatic
monarch 500 years before. '(He built it) upon four rows of cedar pillars, with
cedar beams upon the pillars. And it was covered with cedar above upon the
beams, that lay on forty-five pillars, fifteen in a row. 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 he made a porch of pillars, and the
porch was before them, and the other pillars and the thick beam were before
them. Then he made a porch for 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. And his house where he dwelt had another court within the porch,
which was of the like work. Solomon made, also, an house for Pharaoh's
daughter, whom he had taken to wife, like unto this porch' (1 Kings vii. 1-8).