نسخة مذيلة من "بلاد فارس والشأن الفارسي" بقلم جورج كرزون، مع أوراق مدرجة [ظ‎‎٥‎٦‎٧] (١٨١٤/١١٤٩)

PERSIA
i-Rejeb, is a terrace of white limestone, composed of massive blocks,
ten feet in length by four feet in depth, in two stages or tiers, the
lower of which projects nearly two feet beyond the higher.' The upper
surface is thirty-seven feet square, and rises to an elevation of seven
feet above the plain. It is variously designated by the natives Takht-
i-Rustam, Rustam’s Throne, and Takht-i-Taous or Throne of the
Peacock, a title which appears to have no specific or intelligible
meaning, but is promiscuously applied to many remains of antiquity
Persia. It has been conjectured that this platform may have
formed the base of a fire-altar ; but the hypothesis lacks any corrobo
ration Half a mile from the platform to the north, and not far from
the rocks, is, or was, a stone doorway, consisting of side-jambs and a
lintel with the figures of priests in long robes, chiselled m high re 16
noon’the former, similar to the Persepolitan portals, and to the remains
at Takht-i-Abu Nasr near Shiraz. 2 The third relic has for many years
ceased to exist, though its site is visible. But it was so frequently men
tioned by the older travellers, from Kaempfer and Le Brun downwards,
that its disappearance merits passing notice. This was a solitary column,
that rose among the bases of others, in the plain opposite the south-west
an-le of Persepolis, and formed part of some vanished structure. It
^s thrown down about the year 1803 by wandering Ihats, for the
sake of the iron cramps, by which its drums were held together.
Our survey has now brought us to the palace-platform, which, with
its ruins has for over two centuries been accepted as the Persepo is
that Alexander captured and burned, and in the last quarter
polis 186 ' 0 f that period has been proved, by the inscriptions that
survive upon its buildings, to have been the veritable structure of the
earlier Achsemenian kings. 4 The historical questions, whether heie
1 J V Morier, First Journey, p. 137 ; C.J. Journey to Persepolis,?-^
R. B. Binning, Two Years' Travel, vol. ii. p. 40 ; Flandin and Coste, vol. n. pi- 63 ,
St " K. Porter, vol. i. p. 680; E. B. Binning, vol. ii. p. 27.
3 Ousel'ey Travels, m\. ii. p. 236 ; Flandin and Coste, vol. m. pi. 168.
4 The writers who have described or discussed Persepolis have been so many
w to admit of bare enumeration here. I will divide them into two classes .
m°the travellers who have visited the ruins ; ( 2 ) the scholars and students who
^ ^ -i k t- rl fhp nroblems arising out of the sculptures and inscriptions.
"tf these case"l encumber this footnote by naming the titles of the
neither having already been frequently mentioned in
works alluded to the bidko^ aad a ^ ^ with tMes included , of
these pages. I si - r e 0e ncy or the quality of their labours, deserve to
those “S extent luthoritiel I. Friar Odoricus (circ. 1 325),
be consideied as the p ^ (1698); Don G _ de silva y Figueroa
Josafa Barbaro ( - 1 ’ glr T Herbe rt (1627), J. A. d e Mandelslo (1638),
(1619), P- del a > Th6 enot („j r0 . 1665), H. de Jager (circ. 1665),
j. P. Tavernier (circ. ^ J circ. 1670 , P 6 re Angelo (circ. 1670),