This, we think, is one reason why the building burned must have been a temple, and not a palace. The Persians had burned the temples of Greece, therefore Alexander burned the temple of the Persians. Besides, as the feast was held in the palace, it is not very likely that the master of the feast should have burned the place, in which he was not only then feasting, but in which he was to sleep on the very night of the conflagration; and that it was not destroyed is evident from the circumstance, recorded by Strabo and Arrian—that Alexander inhabited the royal palace at Persepolis after his return from India. Added to which, it is certain that there is, at this time, no appearance or marks of fire on any part of the ruins.
In respect to these ruins, it has been well observed, that magnificent columns, portals, and other architectural decorations, mark this spot as the site of a splendid “palace;” while the style of the sculptures and the inscriptions, many of them in the single-headed character, found only at this place, Nineveh, Babylon, Susa, and Ván, proves them to be of a very high antiquity. Mr. Kinneir, however, says they are generally admitted to be the remains of the “palace,” destroyed by Alexander; and the striking resemblance of the building, as it exists, to the account given of Persepolis by Diodorus, is, in his opinion, sufficient to remove any doubt, that may exist upon the subject. We confess that such is not our impression.
Those who regard the ruins as being the remains of a Persian temple, insist that the sculptured subjects, as well as the style of architecture, resemble, in many particulars, those of Egypt: among which may be mentioned the figures, divided by trees, the sphinxes, the vases and chains, the domes and architraves, the subterranean passages in the tombs, the sarcophagi and urns, and the well, twenty-five feet deep and fifteen square. The sculpture at Persepolis was also painted mostly in blue, a favourite colour in Egypt; but sometimes in black and in yellow. For these remarks we are indebted to Mr. Buckingham.
According to Arrian, it was the castle of Persepolis which Alexander burned. In Mr. Buckingham’s opinion, however, the ruins now seen correspond neither with those of a palace, nor of a castle; they were, therefore, according to him, not those of the edifice burned by Alexander at all; for on all these remains, as we have before stated, no mark of fire is to be traced, which could not be the case if this had been the principal agent used in its destruction.
The opinion, that these ruins are the remains of the palace, is not on the authority of all history, but on the assertion merely of Quintus, Curtius and Diodorus. The whole story as to the burning, is said to have been copied from a Greek writer, named Clitarchus[83].
Though there are no remains of a city now at Persepolis, nor in any part of the plain in which it is situated; certain it is, that the city was not destroyed by Alexander; for it was a very important place for many centuries after.
Curtius, therefore, is guilty of an error in saying that the city was so far from being rebuilt, that unless the river Araxes ran near it, there are no signs to guess where it stood; for neither Arrian nor Strabo, nor even Diodorus, whom Curtius commonly copies, acquaint us with any thing but the burning of the palace.
The first book of Maccabees says that there was a rich temple at Persepolis; and, the second, that Antiochus Epiphanes determined to pillage it. Alexander, therefore, could not have destroyed it; for it is highly improbable, from the history of those times, that so laboured and magnificent a work should have been rebuilt and restored in the short period between Alexander and the Syrian king; viz.—160 years. That prince formed the design of pillaging both “a temple,” and the city.
Though Persepolis long survived the palace of Jemsheed, its inhabitants are said to have regarded with unextinguishable hatred the people by whom they were conquered; and, as if inspired by those fragments of former glory, with which they were surrounded, they maintained a character for pride and courage, that was not entirely subdued, till several centuries after the Arabians first overran Persia.
Its subsequent history has been summed up by Mr. Fraser. “It was among the earliest conquests of Ardeshir Babegan; Shepoor II. made it his residence; Yesdigird I. held his court there; and Hoormuz II., who reigned at the close of the sixth century, passed two months every year in it. In the succeeding age, however, it ceased to be a royal residence; for Khoosroo Purveez bestowed the government on one of his favourites; and it was here that the last of the Sassanian kings lay concealed, when called to the throne, A. D. 632. Twelve years afterwards, it capitulated to the Mohammedans; but the people, having slain their foreign governor, were all put to the sword. The city was ultimately destroyed by Sumcaneah-u-Dowlan, and the fanatical Arabs, A. D. 982. Such,” concludes Mr. Fraser, “is the sketch of the latter days of Istakhar[84], (the only name by which the city is recognised by the native Persian historians); but the question, who was its founder? and who raised the mighty fabrics, of which the ruins still astonish the traveller? yet remain unanswered.”