Annotated Copy of Persia and the Persian Question by George Curzon, with Inserted Papers [‎528v] (1069/1814)

Empire of Persia, and was King- of Asia. Grudge me not therefore this monu
ment.’
Alexander (for it had been an object of great care to him, when he should
take Persia, to come to the tomb of Cyrus) found all the other things carried away
save only the coffin and the couch. Nay, they had outraged the very body of Cyrus,
having carried off the lid of the coffin, and had cast forth the corpse; and the
coffin itself they had tried to make light of burden for themselves, and in this
wise light to carry, cutting part of it in pieces, and battering part of it in. But
when this work of theirs did not fare well, then they had left the coffin and gone.
And Aristobulus says that he himself was appointed by Alexander to adorn anew
the tomb of Cyrus, and to put back such parts of the body as still remained in
the coffin, and to put the lid upon it, and to repair such parts of the coffin as had
been injured ; and to tie fillets upon the couch, and to restore all the other things
that had been placed there for adornment, both in number and likeness to those
of old time; and to do away with the door by building it up with stone and
plastering it over with mortar, and to stamp upon the mortar the royal signet.
And Alexander seized the Magi who were guardians of the tomb, and tortured
them, so that they should confess the doers of the deed. But they, albeit
tortured, confessed nothing, neither against themselves nor any other, nor were
convicted in any other way of being privy to the deed. And upon this they were
let go by Alexander. 1
1 In connection with the Egyptian attributes of the bas-relief of Cyrus, and
with the suggestion concerning Nitetis that has already been made, and in
explanation of the above passage, which appears to indicate a form of sepulture
strictly Egyptian in character—in fact, no less than the mummification of Cyrus'
corpse Mr. Cecil Smith sends me the following interesting note : ‘ In contrast
with the usual mode of interment practised by the Achasmenian kings, whose
bodies were laid in sarcophagi of stone, the ™eAos of Cyrus was evidently of some
light material, for it stood upon a and was easily breakable, for the
plunderers had cut and battered it to make it portable. It was valuable (other
wise they would not have wished to carry it off)—“ golden,” according to Strabo
(though not of gold, as it would have been too heavy for the kKivt]). Presumably
the “ gold ” was principally on the lid, because they carried that off, leaving the
lower part of the coffin behind. Further, the actual body was still in a condition
to be broken up, t< 3 (rw,ua being the expression employed, whereas one would
expect r& offrea. These facts are intelligible, if we suppose that the body had
been mummified. In accordance with the usual practice, the mummy wmuld be
enclosed in a cedarwood case following the outline of the mummy, with lid
richly decorated and gilt. The natural Greek word for this would be irveXos,
as opposed to <ropds, a sarcophagus. Such a lid would be worth carrying-
off. * This would account, too, for the breaking-up of the “body,” in the
search for ornaments, &c., among the mummy-cloths. The mummy in its case
would have stood (as usual in the Egyptian rite) upon a couch, with feet in
the form of lions’ claws {ff^vpiXaiov, the term employed by Arrian, is the
natural word for the usual Egyptian method of decorating wooden furniture with
sheets of rejwusse metal, nailed on) ; and in front of this couch (analogous to the
banqueting couch) would have stood the table of offerings (the rpcbreCa of Arrian).
It is in keeping with this idea that the monument should have taken the general
form of a pyramid, the natural shape for the tomb of an Egyptian sovereign.
Finally, the “gold inlaid with stones,” mentioned both by Arrian and Strabo, may