by ambition; that he saw in the distracted state of Parthia and in
the awakening of hope among the subject races, an occasion of which
he determined to avail himself as far as he could, and that he
was gradually led on to enlarge his views and to effect the great
revolution, which he brought about, by the force of circumstances, the
wishes of others, and the occurrence of opportunities which at first he
neither foresaw nor desired.

It has been observed, that Parthia was, during the whole reign of
Artaxerxes, distracted by the claims of a pretender, Volagases V.
According to Moses of Chorene, two branches of the Arsacid family, both
of them settled in Bactria, were at feud with the reigning prince; and
these offended relatives carried their enmity to such a length as to
consider submission to a foreigner a less evil than subjection to the
_de facto_ head of their house. The success of Artabanus in the war
against Rome had no effect upon his domestic foes; and Artaxerxes
undoubtedly knew that, if he raised the standard of revolt, he might
count on a certain amount of support from discontented Arsacids and
their followers. But his main reliance must have been on the Persians.
The Persians had, in the original arrangements of the Parthian empire,
been treated with a certain amount of favor. They had been allowed to
retain their native monarchs, a concession which naturally involved
the continuance of the nation’s laws, customs, and traditions. Their
religion had not been persecuted, and had even in the early times
attracted a considerable amount of Court favor. But it would seem that
latterly the privileges of the nation had been diminished, while their
prejudices were wantonly shocked. The Magi had ceased to be regarded as
of much account, and, if they still formed nominally a portion of the
king’s council, can have had little influence on the conduct of affairs
by the government. Such a custom as that of burning the dead, which
seems to have been the rule in the later Parthian times, could never
have maintained its ground, if the opinion of the Magi, or their
coreligionists, had been considered of much account.

Encouraged by the dissensions prevailing in the Parthian royal house,
strong in the knowledge of his fellow-countrymen’s discontent, and
perhaps thinking that the losses which Artabanus had sustained in his
three days’ battle against the Romans under Macrinus had seriously
weakened his military strength, Artaxerxes, tributary king of Persia
under Parthia, about A.D. 220, or a little later, took up arms
against his master, and in a little time succeeded in establishing the
independence of Persia Proper, or the modern province of Fars. Artabanus
is said to have taken no steps at first to crush the rebellion, or to
re-establish his authority over his revolted vassal. Thus the Persian
monarch, finding himself unmolested, was free to enlarge his plans, and
having originally, as is probable, designed only the liberation of his
own people, began to contemplate conquests. Turning his arms eastwards
against Carmania (Kerman), he easily reduced that scantily-peopled tract
under his dominion, after which he made war towards the north, and added
to his kingdom some of the outlying regions of Media. Artabanus now at
length resolved to bestir himself, and collecting his forces, took
the field in person. Invading Persia Proper, he engaged in a desperate
struggle with his rival. Three great battles were fought between the
contending powers. In the last, which took place in the plain of
Hormuz, between Bebahan and Shuster, on the course of the Jerahi river,
Artabanus was, after a desperate conflict, completely defeated, and not
only defeated but slain (A.D. 226).

The victory of Hormuz did not, however, absolutely decide the contest,
or determine at once that the Parthian empire should fall, and the new
Persian kingdom succeed into its place. Artabanus had left sons; and
there were not wanting those among the feudatories of the empire, and
even among the neighboring potentates, who were well inclined to embrace
their cause. A certain Artavasdes seems to have claimed the throne, and
to have been accepted as king, at least by a portion of the Parthians,
in the year following the death of Artabanus (A.D. 227), when he
certainly issued coins. The Armenian monarch, who had been set on his
throne by Artabanus, and was uncle to the young princes, was especially
anxious to maintain the Arsacids in power; he gave them a refuge in
Armenia, collected an army on their behalf, and engaging Artaxerxes, is
even said to have defeated him in a battle. But his efforts, and those
of Artavasdes, were unavailing. The arms of Artaxerxes in the end
everywhere prevailed. After a struggle, which cannot have lasted more
than a few years, the provinces of the old Parthian empire submitted;
the last Arsacid prince fell into the hands of the Persian king; and
the founder of the new dynasty sought to give legitimacy to his rule by
taking to wife an Arsacid princess.

Thus perished the great Parthian monarchy after an existence of nearly
five centuries. Its end must be attributed in the main to internal
decay, working itself out especially in two directions. The Arsacid
race, with which the idea of the empire was bound up, instead of
clinging together with that close “union” which is “strength,” allowed
itself to be torn to pieces by dissensions, to waste its force in
quarrels, and to be made a handle of by every foreign invader, or
domestic rebel, who chose to use its name in order to cloak his
own selfish projects. The race itself does not seem to have become
exhausted. Its chiefs, the successive occupants of the throne, never
sank into mere weaklings or faineants, never shut themselves up in their
seraglios, or ceased to take a leading part, alike in civil broils, and
in struggles with foreign rivals. But the hold which the race had on
the population, native and foreign, was gradually weakened by the feuds
which raged within it, by the profusion with which the sacred blood was
shed by those in whose veins it ran, and the difficulty of knowing which
living member of it was its true head, and so entitled to the allegiance
of those who wished to be faithful Parthian subjects. Further, the
vigor of the Parthian soldiery must have gradually declined, and their
superiority over the mass of the nations under their dominion have
diminished. We found reasons for believing that, as early as A.D. 58,
Hyrcania succeeded in throwing off the Parthian yoke, and thus setting
an example of successful rebellion to the subject peoples. The example
may have been followed in cases of which we hear nothing; for the
condition of the more remote portions of the empire was for the most
part unknown to the Romans. When Persia, about A.D. 220, revolted from
Artabanus, it was no doubt with a conviction that the Parthians were no
longer the terrible warriors who under Mithridates I. had driven all
the armies of the East before them like chaff, or who under Orodes and
Phraates IV. had gained signal victories over the Romans. It is true
that Artabanus had contended not unsuccessfully with Macrinus. But the
prestige of Parthia was far from being re-established by the result of
his three days’ battle. Rome retained as her own, notwithstanding his
success, the old Parthian province of Mesopotamia, and was thus, even in
the moment of her weakness, acknowledged by Parthia to be the stronger.
The Persians are not likely to have been braver or more warlike at the
time of their revolt from Artabanus than in the days when they were
subjected by Mithridates. Any alteration, therefore, in the relative
strength of the two peoples must be ascribed to Parthian decline,
since it cannot have been owing to Persian advance and improvement. To
conclude, we may perhaps allow something to the personal qualities of
Artaxerxes, who appears to have possessed all the merits of the typical
Oriental conqueror. Artabanus was among the most able of the later
Parthian monarchs; but his antagonist was more than this, possessing
true military genius. It is quite possible that, if the leaders on the
two sides had changed places, the victory might have rested, not with
the Persians, but with the Parthians.

CHAPTER XXII.

_On the Architecture and Ornamental Art of the Parthians._

The modern historian of Architecture observes, when he reaches the
period with which we have had to deal in this volume, that, with the
advent of Alexander, Oriental architecture disappears, and that its
history is an absolute blank from the downfall of the Achaemenians in
B.C. 331 to the rise of the Sassanians, about A.D. 226. The statement
made involves a certain amount of exaggeration; but still it expresses,
roughly and strongly, a curious and important fact. The Parthians were
not, in any full or pregnant sense of the word, builders. They did not
aim at leaving a material mark upon the world by means of edifices
or other great works. They lacked the spirit which had impelled
successively the Assyrians, the Babylonians, and the Persians to cover
Western Asia with architectural monuments, proofs at once of the wealth,
and the grand ideas, of those who raised them. Parthia, compared to
these pretentious empires, was retiring and modest. The monarchs,
however rich they may have been, affected something of primitive
rudeness and simplicity in their habits and style of life, their
dwellings and temples, their palaces and tombs. It is difficult indeed
to draw the line in every case between pure Parthian work and Sassanian;
but on the whole there is, no doubt, reason to believe that the
architectural remains in Mesopotamia and Persia which belong to the
period between Alexander and the Arab conquest, are mainly the work of
the Sassanian or New Persian kingdom, and that comparatively few of them
can be ascribed with confidence to a time anterior to A.D. 227. Still a
certain number, which have about them indications of greater antiquity
than the rest, or which belong to sites famous in Parthian rather than
in Persian times, may reasonably be regarded as in all probability
structures of the Arsacid period; and from these we may gather at least
the leading characteristics of the Parthian architecture, its aims
and resources, its style and general effect, while from other
remains--scanty indeed, and often mutilated--we may obtain a tolerable
notion of their sculpture and other ornamental art.

The most imposing remains which seem certainly assignable to the
Parthian period are those of Hatra, or El-Hadhr, visited by Mr. Layard
in 1846, and described at length by Mr. Ross in the ninth volume of the
“Journal of the Royal Geographical Society,” as well as by Mr. Fergusson,
in his “History of Architecture.” Hatra became known as a place of
importance in the early part of the second century after Christ. It
successfully resisted Trajan in A.D. 116, and Severus in A.D. 198. It
is then described as a large and populous city, defended by strong
and extensive walls, and containing within it a temple of the Sun,
celebrated for the great value of its offerings. It enjoyed its own
kings at this time, who were regarded as of Arabian stock, and were
among the more important of the Parthian tributary monarchs. By the year
A.D. 363 Hatra had gone to ruin, and is then described as “long since
deserted.” Its flourishing period thus belongs to the space between A.D.
100 and A.D. 300; and its remains, to which Mr. Fergusson assigns the
date A.D. 250, must be regarded as probably at least a century earlier,
and consequently as indicating the character of the architecture
which prevailed under the later Parthians, and which, if Sassanian
improvements had not obliterated them, we should have found upon the
site of Ctesiphon.

The city of Hatra was enclosed by a circular wall of great thickness,
built of large square-cut stones, and strengthened at intervals of
about 170 yards by square towers or bastions. [PLATE IV. Fig. 1.] Its
circumference considerably exceeded three miles. Outside the wall was a
broad and very deep ditch, and on the further side of the ditch was
an earthen rampart of considerable height and thickness. Two detached
forts, situated on eminences, commanded the approaches to the place, one
towards the east, and the other towards the north. The wall was pierced
by four gateways, of which the principal one faced the east.

[Illustration: PLATE 4.]

The circular space within the walls was divided into two portions by a
water-course passing across it from north to south, and running somewhat
east of the centre, which thus divided the circle into two unequal
parts. The eastern portion was left comparatively clear of buildings,
and seems to have been used mainly as a burial-ground; in the
western were the public edifices and the more important houses of the
inhabitants. Of the former by far the most remarkable was one which
stood nearly in the centre of the city, and which has been called by
some a palace, by others a temple, but which may best be regarded as
combining both uses. [PLATE IV. Fig. 2.] This building stood within a
walled enclosure of an oblong square shape, about 800 feet long by 700
broad. The wall surrounding it was strengthened with bastions, like the
wall around the city. The enclosure comprised two courts, an inner and
an outer. The outer court, which lay towards the east, and was first
entered, was entirely clear of buildings, while the inner court
contained two considerable edifices. Of these the less important was
one which stretched from north to south across the entire inclosure, and
abutted upon the outer court; this was confused in plan, and consisted
chiefly of a number of small apartments, which have been regarded as
guard-rooms. The other was a building of greater pretensions. It was
composed mainly of seven vaulted halls, all of them parallel one to
another, and all facing eastward, three being of superior and four of
inferior size. The smaller halls (Nos. I., III., IV., and VI., on the
plan) were about thirty feet long by twenty wide, and had a height of
thirty feet; the larger ones measured ninety feet in length, and were
from thirty-five to forty feet broad, with a height of sixty feet.
All were upon the same plan. They had semicircular vaulted roofs, no
windows, and received their light from the archway at the east end,
which was either left entirely open, or perhaps closed with curtains.

Externally, the eastern facade of the building, which was evidently its
main front, had for ornament, besides the row of seven arches, a series
of pillars, or rather pilasters, from which the arches sprang, some
sculptures on the stones composing the arches, and one or two emblematic
figures in the spaces left between the pilasters. The sculptures on
the stones of the arches consisted either of human heads, or of
representations of a female form, apparently floating in air. [PLATE
IV. Fig. 3.] An emblematic sculpture between the fourth and fifth arch
represented a griffin with twisted tail, raised about 5 feet above the
ground. The entire length of the facade was about 300 feet.

The interior of the smaller halls had no ornament; but the larger ones
were decorated somewhat elaborately. Here the side walls were broken by
three squared pilasters, rising to the commencement of the vaulting, and
terminated by a quasi-capital of ornamental work, consisting of a series
of ovals, each oval containing in its centre a round ball of dark stone.

Underneath these quasi-capitals, at the distance of from two to three
feet, ran a cornice, which crossed the pilasters, and extended the whole
length of the apartment, consisting of flowers and half-ovals, each oval
containing a half-ball of the same dark stone as the capitals. [PLATE
IV. Fig. 4.] Finally, on the pilasters, immediately below the cornice,
were sculptured commonly either two or three human heads, the length of
each head being about two feet, and the faces representing diverse types
of humanity, some old and some young, some male and some female, some
apparently realistic, some idealized and more or less grotesque in their
accompaniments. The drawing of the heads is said to have been full of
spirit, and their general effect is pronounced life-like and striking.

The seven halls, which have been described, were divided into two
groups, of three and four respectively, by a low fence, which ran from
east to west across the inner court, from the partition wall separating
the third and fourth halls to the buildings which divided the inner
court from the outer. It is probable that this division separated the
male and female apartments. The female ornamentation of the large hall
(No. II.) belonging to the southern group is perhaps an indication of
the sex of its inmates; and another sign that these were the female
quarters is to be found in the direct communication existing between
this portion of the building and “the Temple” (No. VIII.), which could
not be reached from the male apartments except by a long circuit round
the building.

The “Temple” itself was an apartment of a square shape, each side being
about forty feet. It was completely surrounded by a vaulted passage,
into which light came from two windows at its south-west and north-west
corners. The Temple was entered by a single doorway, the position of
which was directly opposite an opening leading into the passage from
Hall No. II. Above this doorway was a magnificent frieze, the character
of which is thought to indicate the religious purpose of the structure.
[PLATE V. Fig. 1.] The interior of the Temple was without ornamentation,
vaulted, and except for the feeble light which entered by the single
doorway, dark. On the west side a portal led into the passage from the
outer air.

[Illustration: PLATE 5.]

Besides these main apartments, the edifice which we are describing
contained a certain number of small rooms, lying behind the halls, and
entered by doorways opening from them. One or two such rooms are
found behind each of the smaller halls; and another of somewhat larger
dimensions lay behind the great hall (numbered VII. in the plan),
forming the extreme north-western corner of the building. These rooms
were vaulted and had no windows, receiving their only light from the
small doorways by which they were entered.

It is believed that the entire edifice, or at any rate the greater
portion of it, had an upper story. Traces of such a structure appear
over the halls numbered I and VI.; and it is thought that the story
extended over the entire range of halls. One traveller, on conjectural
grounds, even assigns to the building an elevation of three stories, and
ventures to restore the second and third in the mode represented in the
woodcut. [PLATE V. Fig. 2.] According to this author the upper portion
of the edifice resembled in many respects the great palace of the
Sassanian monarchs, of which splendid remains still exist on the site
of Ctesiphon, where they are known as the Takht-i-Khuzroo, or Palace of
Chosroes. That palace was, however, on a very different plan from the
Hatra one, comprising as it did one hall only, but of a size vastly
superior to any of those at Hatra, and two wings, one on either side of
the hall, made up of dwelling and sleeping apartments.

The few windows which exist at Hatra are oblong square in shape, as in
general are the doorways connecting one apartment with another. In one
case there is an arched doorway, or niche, which has been blocked up.
There are no passages except the one which surrounds “the Temple,” the
apartments generally leading directly one into another. In some cases
the lintel of a doorway is formed of a single stone, and ornamented with
very delicate carving. The doorways are for the most part towards the
corners of apartments; that of the Temple, however, is in the centre of
its eastern wall.

The general style of the buildings at Hatra has been said to be “Roman
or Byzantine;” and it has even been supposed that in the style of the
ornaments and sculptured figures may be traced the corrupt taste and
feeble outline of the artists of Constantinople. But there is abundant
reason to believe that the Hatra Palace was built nearly two centuries
before Constantinople came into existence; and, although the large-use
of the round arch in vaulting may be due to the spread of Roman
architectural ideas, yet there are no grounds for supposing that any but
native artists, Parthian subjects, were employed in the work, or that
it is other than a fair specimen of what was achieved by the Parthian
builders during the later period of the empire. The palace of Volagases
III. at Ctesiphon, which Avidius Cassius destroyed in his invasion, was
most likely of the same general character--a combination of lofty halls
suitable for ceremonies and audiences with small and dark sleeping or
living rooms, opening out of them, the whole placed in the middle of a
paved court, and the male apartments carefully divided from those of the
women.

The remains at Hatra are further remarkable for a considerable number
of reservoirs and tombs. The open space between the town proper and
the eastern wall and gate is dotted with edifices of a square shape,
standing apart from one another, which are reasonably regarded as
sepulchres. These are built in a solid way, of hewn stone, and consist
either of one or two chambers. They vary in size from twenty feet square
to forty, and are generally of about the same height. Some are perfectly
plain, but the exteriors of others are ornamented with pilasters. The
reservoirs occur in the paved court which surrounds the main building;
they have narrow apertures, but expand below the aperture into the shape
of a bell, and are carefully constructed of well-cut stones closely
fitted together.

The material used at Hatra is uniformly a brownish gray limestone; and
the cutting is so clean and smooth that it is doubted whether the stones
have needed any cement. If cement has been employed, at any rate
it cannot now be seen, the stones everywhere appearing to touch one
another.

There are several buildings remaining in Persia, the date of which
cannot be much later than that of the Hatra edifice; but, as it is on
the whole more probable that they belong to the Sassanian than to the
Parthian period, no account of them will be given here. It will be
sufficient to observe that their architecture grows naturally out of
that which was in use at Hatra, and that thus we are entitled to ascribe
to Parthian times and to subjects of the Parthian Empire that impulse
to Oriental architecture which awoke it to renewed life after a sleep
of ages, and which in a short time produced such imposing results as
the Takht-i-Khuzroo at Ctesiphon, the ruins of Shapur, and the triumphal
arch at Takht-i-Bostan.

The decorative and fictile art of the Parthians has received no
inconsiderable amount of illustration from remains discovered, in the
years 1850-1852, in Babylonia. In combination with a series of Parthian
coins were found by Mr. Loftus, on the site of the ancient Erech (now
Warka), a number of objects in clay, plaster, and metal, enabling us
to form a fair idea of the mode in which purely Parthian edifices were
decorated during the best times of the empire, and of the style that
then prevailed in respect of personal ornaments, domestic utensils, and
other objects capable, more or less, of aesthetic handling. The remains
discovered comprised numerous architectural fragments in plaster and
brick; a large number of ornamental coffins; several statuettes in
terra-cotta; jars, jugs, vases, and lamps in earthenware; some small
glass bottles; and various personal decorations, such as beads, rings,
and earrings.

The architectural fragments consisted of capitals of pillars [PLATE
V. Fig. 3], portions of cornices, and specimens of a sort of diapering
which seems to have been applied to screens or thin partitions. The
capitals were somewhat heavy in design, and at first sight struck the
spectator as barbarous; but they exhibited a good deal of ingenious
boldness, an absence of conventionality, and an occasional quaintness
of design not unworthy of a Gothic decorator. One especially, which
combines the upper portion of a human figure, wearing the puffed-out
hair or wig, which the Parthians affected, with an elegant leaf rising
from the neck of the capital, and curving gracefully under the abacus,
has decided merit, and is “suggestive of the later Byzantine style.” The
cornices occasionally reminded the discoverer of the remarkable frieze
at El-Hadhr, and were characterized by the same freedom and boldness
of invention as the capitals. But the most curious remains were the
fragments of a sort of screen work, pieces of plaster covered with
geometric designs upon both sides, the patterns on the two sides
differing. [PLATE V. Fig. 4.] These designs, though unlike in many
respects the arabesques of the Mohammedans, yet seemed on the whole to
be their precursors, the “geometric curves and tracery” appearing
to “shadow forth the beauty and richness of a style which afterwards
followed the tide of Mohammedan conquest to the remotest corners of the
known world.”

The ornamental coffins were of a coarse glazed earthenware, bluish-green
in hue, and belonged to the kind which has been called “slipper-shaped.”
 [PLATE VI. Fig. 1.] They varied in length from three feet to six, and
had a large aperture at their upper end, by means of which the body was
placed in them, and a flat lid to close this aperture, ornamented like
the coffin, and fixed in its place by a fine lime cement. A second
aperture at the lower extremity of the coffin allowed for the escape
of the gases disengaged during decomposition. The ornamentation of the
coffins varied, but consisted generally of small figures of men, about
six or seven inches in length, the most usual figure being a warrior
with his arms akimbo and his legs astride, wearing on his head a
coiffure, like that which is seen on the Parthian coins, and having a
sword hanging from the belt. [PLATE VI. Fig. 2.]

[Illustration: PLATE 6.]

Of the statuettes in terra-cotta, one of the most curious represented a
Parthian warrior, recumbent, and apparently about to drink out of a cup
held in the left hand. [PLATE VI. Fig. 3.] The figure was clad in a
long coat of mail, with greaves on the legs and a helmet upon the
head. Others represented females; these had lofty head-dresses, which
sometimes rose into two peaks or horns, recalling the costume of English
ladies in the time of Henry IV. These figures were veiled and carefully
draped about the upper part of the person, but showed the face, and had
the legs bare from the knee downwards.

The jars, jugs, vases, and lamps greatly resembled those of the Assyrian
and Babylonian periods, but were on the whole more elegant and artistic.
The forms appended will give a tolerable idea of the general character
of these vessels. [PLATE VI. Fig. 4.] They were of various sizes, and
appear to have been placed in the tombs, partly as the offerings of
friends and well-wishers, partly with the more superstitious object of
actually supplying the deceased with the drink and light needful for him
on his passage from earth to the realms of the dead.

The glass bottles were, perhaps, lachrymatories. They had no peculiar
characteristics, but were almost exactly similar to objects of the same
kind belonging to the times of the Assyrian and Babylonian Empires. They
exhibited the same lovely prismatic colors, which have been so admired
in the glass of those kingdoms, an effect of decomposition, which,
elsewhere generally disfiguring, in the case of this material enhances
the original beauty of the object tenfold by clothing it in hues of the
utmost brilliance and delicacy.

The personal decorations consisted chiefly of armlets, bangles, beads,
rings, and ear-rings. They were in gold, silver, copper, and brass. Some
of the smaller gold ornaments, such as earrings, and small plates
or beads for necklaces and fillets, were “of a tasteful and elegant
design.” The finger-rings were coarser, while the toe-rings, armlets,
and bangles, were for the most part exceedingly rude and barbarous.
Head-dresses in gold, tall and pointed, are said to have been found
occasionally; but the museums of Europe have not yet been able to secure
any, as they are usually melted down by the finders. Broad ribbons of
gold, which may have depended like strings from a cap, are commoner, and
were seen by Mr. Loftus. Altogether, the ornaments indicated a strong
love of personal display, and the possession of considerable wealth, but
no general diffusion of a correct taste, nor any very advanced skill in
design or metallurgy.

Of purely aesthetic art--art, that is, into which the idea of the useful
does not enter at all--the Parthians appear scarcely to have had an
idea. During the five centuries of their sway, they seem to have set
up no more than some half dozen bas-reliefs. There is, indeed, only
one such work which can be positively identified as belonging to the
Parthian period by the inscription which accompanies it. The other
presumedly Parthian reliefs are adjudged to the people by art critics
merely from their style and their locality, occurring as they do within
the limits of the Parthian kingdom, and lacking the characteristics
which attach to the art of those who preceded and of those who followed
the Parthians in these countries.

[Illustration: PLATE 7.]

The one certainly Parthian bas-relief is that which still exists on the
great rock of Behistun, at the foot of the mountain, raised but slightly
above the plain. It seems to have contained a series of tall figures,
looking towards the right, and apparently engaged in a march or
procession, while above and between them were smaller figures on
horseback, armed with lances, and galloping in the same direction. One
of these was attended by a figure of Fame or Victory, flying in the air,
and about to place a diadem around his brow. The present condition of
the sculpture is extremely bad. Atmospheric influences have worn away
the larger figures to such an extent that they are discerned with
difficulty; and a recent Governor of Kirmanshah has barbarously inserted
into the middle of the relief an arched niche, in which he has placed
a worthless Arabic inscription. It is with difficulty that we form any
judgment of the original artistic merit of a work which presents itself
to us in such a worn and mutilated form; but, on the whole, we are
perhaps justified in pronouncing that it must at its best have been
one of inferior quality, even when compared only with the similar
productions of Asiatics. The general character is rather that of the
Sassanian than of the Assyrian or Persian period. The human figures have
a heavy clumsiness about them that is unpleasant to contemplate; the
horses are rudely outlined, and are too small for the men; the figure
of Fame is out of all proportion to the hero whom she crowns, and the
diadem which she places on his head is ridiculous, being nearly as large
as herself! On the other hand, there is spirit in the attitudes of both
men and horses; the Fame floats well in air; and the relief is free from
that coarse grotesqueness which offends us in the productions of the
Sassanian artists.

Another, bas-relief, probably, but not quite certainly Parthian, exists
in the gorge of Sir-pul-i-zohab, and has been recently published in
the great work of M. Flandin. [PLATE VIII.] The inscription on this
monument, though it has not yet been deciphered, appears to be written
in the alphabet found upon the Parthian coins. The monument seems to
represent a Parthian king, mounted on horseback, and receiving a chaplet
at the hand of a subject. The king wears a cap bound round with the
diadem, the long ends of which depend over his shoulder. He is clothed
in a close-fitting tunic and loose trowsers, which hang down upon
his boots, and wears also a short cloak fastened under the chin, and
reaching nearly to the knee. The horse which he bestrides is small, but
strongly made; the tail is long, and the mane seems to be plaited.
Thus far the representation, though somewhat heavy and clumsy, is not
ill-drawn; but the remaining figure--that of the Parthian subject--is
wholly without merit. The back of the man is turned, but the legs are in
profile; one arm is ridiculously short, and the head is placed too near
the left shoulder. It would seem that the artist, while he took pains
with the representation of the monarch, did not care how ill he rendered
the subordinate figure, which he left in the unsatisfactory condition
that may be seen in the preceding woodcut.

[Illustration: PLATE 8.]

A set of reliefs, discovered by the Baron de Bode in the year 1841, are
also thought by the best judges to be Parthian. The most important of
them represents a personage of consequence, apparently a Magus, who
seems to be in the act of consecrating a sacred cippus, round which
have been placed wreaths or chaplets. (PLATE IX.) Fifteen spectators are
present, arranged in two rows, one above the other, all except the first
of them standing. The first sits upon a rude chair or stool. The figures
generally are in an advanced stage of decay; but that of the Magus
is tolerably well preserved, and probably indicates with sufficient
accuracy the costume and appearance of the great hierarchs under the
Parthians, The conical cap described by Strabo is very conspicuous.
Below this the hair is worn in the puffed-out fashion of the later
Parthian period. The upper lip is ornamented by moustaches, and the chin
covered by a straight beard. The figure is dressed in a long sleeved
tunic, over which is worn a cloak, fastened at the neck by a round
brooch, and descending a little below the knees. The legs are encased
in a longer and shorter pair of trowsers, the former plain, the latter
striped perpendicularly. Round the neck is worn a collar or necklace;
and on the right arm are three armlets and three bracelets. The conical
cap appears to be striped or fluted.

[Illustration: PLATE 9.]

On the same rock, but in no very evident connection with the main
representation, is a second relief, in which a Parthian cavalier,
armed with a bow and arrows, and a spear, contends with a wild animal,
seemingly a bear. [PLATE X. Fig. 1.] A long flowing robe here takes
the place of the more ordinary tunic and trowsers. On the head is worn a
rounded cap or tiara. The hair has the usual puffed-out appearance. The
bow is carried in the left hand, and the quiver hangs from, the saddle
behind the rider, while with his right hand he thrusts his spear into
the beast’s neck. The execution of the whole tablet seems to have been
rude; but it has suffered so much from time and weather, that no very
decided judgment can be passed upon it.

[Illustration: PLATE 10.]

Another still ruder representation occurs also on another face of the
same rock. This consists of a female figure reclining upon a couch, and
guarded by three male attendants, one at the head of the couch unarmed,
and the remaining two at its foot, seated, and armed with spears. The
female has puffed-out hair, and carries in her right hand, which is
outstretched, a wreath or chaplet. One of the spearmen has a curious
rayed head-dress; and the other has a short streamer attached to
the head of his spear. Below the main tablet are three rudely carved
standing figures, representing probably other attendants.

This set of reliefs may perhaps be best regarded as forming a single
series, the Parthian king being represented as engaged in hunting the
bear, while the queen awaits his return upon her couch, and the chief
Magus attached to the court makes prayer for the monarch’s safety.

Such are the chief remains of Parthian aesthetic art. They convey
an idea of decline below the standard reached by the Persians of the
Achaemenian times, which was itself a decline from the earlier art of
the Assyrians. Had they been the efforts of a race devoid of models,
they might fairly have been regarded as not altogether without promise.
But, considered as the work of a nation which possessed the Achaemenian
sculptures, and which had moreover, to a certain extent, access to Greek
examples, a they must be pronounced clumsy, coarse, and wanting in all
the higher qualities of Fine Art. It is no wonder that they are scanty
and exceptional. The nation which could produce nothing better must have
felt that its vocation was not towards the artistic, and that its powers
had better be employed in other directions, e.g. in conquest and in
organization. It would seem that the Parthians perceived this, and
therefore devoted slight attention to the Fine Arts, preferring to
occupy themselves mainly with those pursuits in which they excelled;
viz. war, hunting, and government.

CHAPTER XXIII.

Customs of the Parthians--in Religion; in War; in their Embassies and
Dealings with Foreign Nations; at the Court; in Private Life. Extent of
the Refinement to which they reached. Their gradual Decline in Taste and
Knowledge.

Very little is known as to the religion of the Parthians. It seems
probable that during the Persian period they submitted to the
Zoroastrian system, which was generally maintained by the Achaemenian
kings, acquiescing, like the great bulk of the conquered nations, in
the religious views of their conquerors; but as this was not their
own religion, we may conclude that they were at no time very zealous
followers of the Bactrian prophet, and that as age succeeded age they
became continually more lukewarm in their feelings, and more lax
in their religious practice. The essence of Zoroastrian belief was
dualism--recognition of Ormazd as the great Principle of Good, and of
Ahriman as the Principle of Evil. We need not doubt that, in word, the
Parthians from first to last admitted this antagonism, and professed
a belief in Ormazd as the supreme god, and a dread of Ahriman and his
ministers. But practically, their religious aspirations rested, not on
these dim abstractions, but on beings whose existence they could better
realize, and whom they could feel to be less remote from themselves.
The actual devotion of the Parthians was offered to the Sun and Moon,
to deities who were supposed to preside over the royal house, and to
ancestral idols which each family possessed, and conveyed with it from
place to place with every change of habitation. The Sun was saluted at
his rising, was worshipped in temples, under the name of Mithra, with
sacrifices and offerings; had statues erected in his honor, and was
usually associated with the lesser luminary. The deities of the royal
house were probably either genii, ministers of Ormazd, to whom was
committed the special protection of the monarchs and their families,
like the _bagaha vithiya_ of the Persians, or else the ancestors of
the reigning monarch, to whom a qualified divinity seems to have been
assigned in the later times of the empire. The Parthians kings usually
swore by these deities on solemn occasions; and other members of the
royal family made use of the same oath. The main worship, however, of
the great mass of the people, even when they were of the royal stock,
was concentrated upon ancestral images, which had a place sacred to them
in each house, and received the constant adoration of the household.

In the early times of the empire the Magi were held in high repute,
and most of the peculiar tenets and rites of the Magian religion
were professed and followed by the Parthians. Elemental worship was
practised. Fire was, no doubt, held sacred, and there was an especial
reverence for rivers. Dead bodies were not burned, but were exposed to
be devoured by birds and beasts of prey, after which the dry bones were
collected and placed in tombs. The Magi formed a large portion of the
great national council, which elected and, if need were, deposed the
kings. But in course of time much laxity was introduced. The Arsacid
monarchs of Armenia allowed the Sacred Fire of Ormazd, which ought
to have been kept continually burning, to go out; and we can scarcely
suppose but that the Parthian Arsacidae shared their negligence. Respect
for the element of fire so entirely passed away, that we hear of the
later Parthians burning their dead. The Magi fell into disrepute, and,
if not expelled from their place in the council, at any rate found
themselves despised and deprived of influence. The later Parthian
religion can have been little more than a worship of the Sun and Moon,
and of the teraphim, or sacred images, which were the most precious
possession of each household.

While thus lax and changeful in their own religious practice, the
Parthians were, naturally, tolerant of a variety of creeds among their
subjects. Fire altars were maintained, and Zoroastrian zeal was allowed
to nourish in the dependent kingdom of Persia. In the Greek cities the
Olympian gods were permitted to receive the veneration of thousands,
while in Babylon, Nearda, and Nisibis the Jews enjoyed the free exercise
of their comparatively pure and elevated religion. No restrictions seem
to have been placed on proselytism, and Judaism certainly boasted many
converts from the heathen in Adiabene, Charax Spasini, and elsewhere.
Christianity also penetrated the Parthian provinces to a considerable
extent, and in one Parthian country, at any rate, seems to have become
the state religion. The kings of Osrhoene are thought to have been
Christians from the time of the Antonines, if not from that of our Lord;
and a nourishing church was certainly established at Edessa before the
end of the second century. The Parthian Jews who were witnesses of the
miraculous events which signalized the day of Pentecost may have, in
some cases, taken with them the new religion to the land where they had
their residence; or the Apostle, St. Thomas, may (as Eusebius declares)
have carried the Gospel into the regions beyond the Euphrates, and have
planted the Christian Church in the countries out of which the Jewish
Church sprang. Besides the nourishing community of Edessa, which was
predominantly, if not wholly, Christian from the middle of the second
century, many converts were, we are told, to be found among the
inhabitants of Persia, Media, Parthia Proper, and even Bactria. The
infusion, however, was not sufficient to leaven to any serious extent
the corrupt mass of heathenism into which it was projected; and we
cannot say that the general character of the Parthian empire, or of the
manners and customs of its subjects, was importantly affected by the new
religion, though it had an extraordinary influence over individuals.

The Parthians were essentially a warlike people; and the chief interest
which attaches to them is connected with their military vigor and
ability. It is worth while to consider at some length the peculiarities
of that military system which proved itself superior to the organization
of the Macedonians, and able to maintain for nearly three hundred years
a doubtful contest with the otherwise irresistible Romans.

We are told that the Parthians had no standing army. When war was
proclaimed and the monarch needed a force, he made his immediate vassals
acquainted with the fact, and requested each of them to marshal their
troops, and bring them to a fixed rendezvous by a certain day. The
troops thus summoned were of two kinds, Parthian and foreign. The
governors of the provinces, whether tributary kings or satraps, called
out the military strength of their respective districts, saw to
their arming and provisioning, and, marching each at the head of his
contingent, brought a foreign auxiliary force to the assistance of
the Great King. But the back-bone of the army, its main strength, the
portion on which alone much reliance was placed, consisted of Parthians.
Each Parthian noble was bound to call out his slaves and his retainers,
to arm and equip them at his own expense, and bring them to the
rendezvous by the time named. The number of troops furnished by each
noble varied according to his position and his means; we bear in one
instance of their amounting to as many as 10,000, while in another
recorded case the average number which each furnished was no more than
125. The various contingents had their own baggage-trains, consisting
ordinarily of camels, in the proportion (as it would seem) of one to
every ten fighting-men.

A Parthian army consisted usually of both horse and foot, but in
proportions unusual elsewhere. The foot soldiers were comparatively few
in number, and were regarded as of small account. Every effort was made
to increase the amount and improve the equipment of the horsemen, who
bore the brunt of every fight, and from whose exertions alone victory
was hoped. Sometimes armies consisted of horsemen only, or rather of
horsemen followed by a baggage train composed of camels and chariots.

The horse were of two kinds, heavy and light. The heavy horsemen wore
coats of mail, reaching to their knees, composed of rawhide covered with
scales of iron or steel, very bright, and capable of resisting a strong
blow. They had on their heads burnished helmets of Margian steel, whose
glitter dazzled the spectator. Their legs seem not to have been
greaved, but encased in a loose trouser, which hung about the ankles
and embarrassed the feet, if by any chance the horseman was forced to
dismount. They carried no shield, being sufficiently defended by their
coats of mail. Their offensive arms were a long spear, which was of
great strength and thickness, and a bow and arrows of unusual size. They
likewise carried in their girdle a short sword or knife, which might be
used in close combat. Their horses were, like themselves, protected by a
defence of scale armor, which was either of steel or bronze.

The light horse was armed with the same sort of bows and arrows as the
heavy, but carried no spear and wore no armor. It was carefully trained
to the management of the horse and the bow, and was unequalled in the
rapidity and dexterity of its movements. The archer delivered his arrows
with as much precision and force in retreat as in advance, and was
almost more feared when he retired than when he charged his foe. Besides
his arrows, the light horseman seems to have carried a sword, and he no
doubt wore also the customary knife in his belt.

We are told by one writer that it was a practice of the Parthians to
bring into battle a number of led horses, and that the riders from time
to time exchanged their tired steeds for fresh ones, thus obtaining a
great advantage over enemies who had no such practice. But the accounts
which we have of Parthian engagements make no reference to this usage,
which we can therefore scarcely suppose to have been adopted to any
large extent. It may be doubted, also, if the practice could ever be
one of much value, since the difficulty of managing led horses amid the
tumult of a battle would probably more than counterbalance the advantage
derivable from relays of fresh steeds.

During the later period of the monarchy, the Parthians, who had always
employed camels largely in the conveyance of stores and baggage, are
said to have introduced a camel corps into the army itself, and to have
derived considerable advantage from the new arm. The camels could bear
the weight of the mailed warrior and of their own armor better than
horses, and their riders were at once more safe in their elevated
position and more capable of dealing effective blows upon the enemy.
As a set-off, however, against those advantages, the spongy feet of
the camel were found to be more readily injured by the _tribulus_, or
caltrop, than the harder feet of the horse, and the corps was thus more
easily disabled than an equal force of cavalry, if it could be tempted
to pass over ground on which caltrops had been previously scattered.

The Parthian tactics were of a simple kind, and differed little from
those of other nations in the same region, which have depended mainly on
their cavalry. To surround their foe, to involve him in difficulties,
to cut off: his supplies and his stragglers, and ultimately to bring him
into a position where he might be overwhelmed by missiles, was the aim
of all Parthian commanders of any military capacity. Their warfare was
suited for defence rather than for attack, unless against contemptible
enemies. They were bad hands at sieges, and seldom ventured to engage in
them, though they would do so if circumstances required it. They wearied
of long campaigns, and if they did not find victory tolerably easy,
were apt to retire and allow their foe to escape, or baffle him by
withdrawing their forces into a distant and inaccessible region. After
their early victories over Crassus and Antony, they never succeeded in
preventing the steady advance of a Roman army into their territory,
or in repulsing a determined attack upon their capital. Still they
generally had their revenge after a short time. It was easy for the
Romans to overrun Mesopotamia, but it was not so easy for them to hold
it; and it was scarcely possible for them to retire from it after an
occupation without disaster. The clouds of Parthian horse hung upon
their retreating columns, straitened them for provisions, galled them
with missiles, and destroyed those who could not keep up with the main
body. The towns upon the line of their retreat revolted and shut their
gates, defying even such commanders as Severus and Trajan. Of the six
great expeditions of Rome against Parthia, one only, that of Avidius
Cassius, was entirely successful. In every other case either the
failure of the expedition was complete, or the glory of the advance was
tarnished by disaster and suffering during the retreat.

The results of invading Parthia would have been even more calamitous
to an assailant but for one weak point in the military system of the
Parthians. They were excessively unwilling to venture near an enemy
at night, and as a general rule abstained from all military movements
during the hours of darkness. As evening approached, they drew off to a
considerable distance from their foe, and left him unmolested to retreat
in any direction that he pleased. The reason of this probably was, not
merely that they did not fortify their camps; but that, depending wholly
on their horses, and being forced to hobble or tether them at night,
they could not readily get into fighting order on a sudden during
darkness. Once or twice in the course of their history, we find them
departing from their policy of extreme precaution, and recommencing
the pursuit of a flying foe before dawn; but it is noted as an unusual
occurrence.

It was also a general principle of Parthian warfare to abstain from
campaigning during the winter. So much depended upon the tension of
their bow-strings, which any dampness relaxed, that their rule was to
make all their expeditions in the dry time of their year, which lasted
from early in the spring until late in the autumn. The rule was,
however, transgressed upon occasions. Phraates II. made his attack
upon Antiochus Sidetes, while the snow was still upon the ground; and
Volagases I. fell upon Paetus after the latter had sent his troops into
winter quarters. The Parthians could bear cold no less than heat; though
it was perhaps rather in the endurance of the latter than of the former
that they surpassed the Romans. The sun’s rays were never too hot for
them; and they did not need water frequently or in large quantities. The
Romans believed that they increased their ability of bearing thirst by
means of certain drugs which they consumed; but it may be questioned
whether they really employed any other remedies than habit and
resolution.

We find no use of chariots among the Parthians, except for the
conveyance of the females, who accompanied the nobles upon their
expeditions. The wives and concubines of the chiefs followed the camp
in great numbers; and women of a less reputable class, singers, dancers,
and musicians, swelled the ranks of the supernumeraries. Many of these
were Greeks from Seleucia and other Macedonian towns. The commissariat
and transport departments are said to have been badly organized; but
some thousands of baggage camels always accompanied an army, carrying
stores and provisions. Of these a considerable portion were laden with
arrows, of which the supply was in this way rendered inexhaustible.

The use of the elephant in war was still more rare in Parthia than that
of the chariot. While the Seleucid kings employed the animal to a large
extent, and its use was also probably known to the Greek princes of
Bactria, the Arsacidae appear to have almost entirely neglected it. On
one occasion alone do we find their employment of it mentioned, and
then we hear of only a single animal, which is ridden by the monarch.
Probably the unwieldy creature was regarded by the Parthians as too
heavy and clumsy for the light and rapid movements of their armies,
and was thus disused during the period of their supremacy, though again
employed, after Parthia had fallen, by the Sassanidse.

The Parthians entered into battle with much noise and shouting. They
made no use of trumpets or horns, but employed instead the kettledrum,
which resounded from all parts of the field when they made their onset.
Their attack was furious. The mailed horsemen charged at speed, and
often drove their spears through the bodies of two enemies at a blow.
The light horse and the foot, when any was present, delivered their
arrows with precision and with extraordinary force. But if the
assailants were met with a stout resistance, the first vigor of the
attack was rarely long maintained. The Parthian warriors grew quickly
weary of an equal contest, and, if they could not force their enemy to
give way, soon changed their tactics. Pretending panic, dispersing, and
beating a hasty retreat, they endeavored to induce their foe to pursue
hurriedly and in disorder, being ready at any moment to turn and take
advantage of the least appearance of confusion. If these tactics failed,
as they commonly did after they came to be known, the simulated flight
was generally converted into a real one; further conflict was avoided,
or at any rate deferred to another occasion.

When the Parthians wished to parley with an enemy, they unstrung their
bows, and advancing with the right hand outstretched, asked for a
conference. They are accused by the Romans of sometimes using treachery
on such occasions, but, except in the single case of Crassus, the charge
of bad faith cannot be sustained against them. On solemn occasions, when
the intention was to discuss grounds of complaint or to bring a war
to an end by the arrangement of terms of peace, a formal meeting
was arranged between their representatives and those of their enemy,
generally on neutral ground, as on an island in the Euphrates, or on a
bridge constructed across it. Here the chiefs of the respective nations
met, accompanied by an equal number of guards, while the remainder of
their forces occupied the opposite banks of the river. Matters were
discussed in friendly fashion, the Greek language being commonly
employed as the vehicle of communication; after which festivities
usually took place, the two chiefs mutually entertaining each other,
or accepting in common the hospitalities of a third party. The terms of
peace agreed upon were reduced to writing; hands were grasped as a
sign that faith was pledged; and oaths having been interchanged,
the conference broke up, and the chiefs returned to their respective
residences.

Besides negotiating by means of conferences, the Parthian monarchs often
sent out to neighboring states, and in return received from them formal
embassies. The ambassadors in every case conveyed, as a matter of
course, gifts to the prince to whom they were accredited, which might
consist of articles of value, or of persons. Augustus included an
Italian slave-girl among the presents which he transmitted to Phraates
IV.; and Artabanus III. sent a Jewish giant to Tiberius. The object
of an embassy was sometimes simply to congratulate; but more often the
ambassadors were instructed to convey certain demands, or proposals,
from their own prince to the head of the other nation, whereto his
assent was required, or requested. These proposals were commonly
formulated in a letter from the one prince to the other, which it was
the chief duty of the ambassadors to convey safely. Free powers to
conclude a treaty at their discretion were rarely, or never, entrusted
to them. Their task was merely to deliver the royal letter, to explain
its terms, if they were ambiguous, and to carry back to their own
monarch the reply of the foreign sovereign. The sanctity of the
ambassadorial character was invariably respected by the Parthians, who
are never even taxed with a violation of it.

As a security for the performance of engagements, or for the permanent
maintenance of a friendly attitude, it was usual in the East during the
Parthian period to require, and give, hostages. The princes who occupied
the position of Parthian feudatories gave hostages to their suzerain,
who were frequently their near relations, as sons or brothers. And a
practice grew up of the Parthian monarchs themselves depositing their
own sons or brothers with the Roman Emperor, at first perhaps merely for
their own security, but afterwards as pledges for their good behavior.
Such hostages lived at the expense of the Roman court, and were usually
treated with distinction. In the event of a rupture between their
country and Rome, they had little to fear. Rome found her advantage in
employing them as rivals to a monarch with whom she had quarrelled,
and did not think it necessary to punish them for his treachery or
inconstancy.

The magnificence of the Parthian court is celebrated in general terms
by various writers, but not very many particulars have come down to us
respecting it. We know that it was migratory, moving from one of the
chief cities of the empire to another at different seasons of the year,
and that owing to the vast number of the persons composing it, there was
a difficulty sometimes in providing for their subsistence upon the road.
The court comprised the usual extensive harem of an Oriental prince,
consisting of a single recognized queen, and a multitude of secondary
wives or concubines. The legitimate wife of the prince was commonly
a native, and in most cases was selected from the royal race of the
Arsacidae but sometimes she was the daughter of a dependent monarch,
and she might even be a slave raised by royal favor from that humble
position. The concubines were frequently Greeks. Both wives and
concubines remained ordinarily in close seclusion, and we have little
mention of them, in the Parthian annals. But in one instance, at any
rate, a queen, brought up in the notions of the West, succeeded in
setting Oriental etiquette at defiance, took the direction of affairs
out of the hands of her husband, and subsequently ruled the empire in
conjunction with her son. Generally, however, the Parthian kings were
remarkably free from the weakness of subservience to women, and managed
their kingdom with a firm hand, without allowing either wives or
ministers to obtain any undue ascendency over them. In particular, we
may note that they never, so far as appears, fell under the baleful
influence of eunuchs, who, from first to last, play a very subordinate
part in the Parthian history.

The dress of the monarch was commonly the loose Median robe, which had
been adopted from the Medes by the Persians. This flowed down to the
feet in numerous folds, enveloping and concealing the entire figure.
Trousers and a tunic were probably worn beneath it, the latter of linen,
the former of silk or wool. As head-dress, the king wore either the mere
diadem, which was a band or ribbon, passed once or oftener round the
head, and terminating in two long ends which fell down behind, or else a
more pretentious cap, which in the earlier times was a sort of Scythian
pointed helmet, and in the later a rounded tiara, sometimes adorned with
pearls or gems. His neck appears to have been generally encircled with
two or three collars or necklaces, and he frequently wore ear-rings in
his ears. The beard was almost always cultivated, and, with the hair,
was worn variously. Generally both hair and beard were carefully curled;
but sometimes they depended in long straight locks, Mostly the beard was
pointed, but occasionally it was worn square. In later times a fashion
arose of puffing out the hair at either side extravagantly, so as to
give it the appearance of a large bushy wig.

In war the monarch seems to have exchanged his Median robe for a short
cloak, reaching half way down the thigh. His head was protected by a
helmet, and he carried the national arm of offence, the bow. He usually
took the field on horseback, but was sometimes mounted on an elephant,
trained to encounter the shock of battle. Gold and silver were
abundantly used in the trappings of his steed and in his arms. He
generally took the command, and mingled freely in the fight, though he
might sometimes shrink without reproach from adventuring his own person.
His guards fought about him; and he was accompanied by attendants, whose
duty it was to assist him in mounting on horseback and dismounting.

The status of the queen was not much below that of her royal consort.
She wore a tiara far more elaborate than his, and, like him, exhibited
the diadem. Her neck was encircled with several necklaces. As the title
of Theos, “God,” was often assumed by her husband, so she was allowed
the title of “Goddess”, or “Heavenly Goddess”.

Separate apartments were of course assigned to the queen, and to the
royal concubines in the various palaces. These were buildings on a
magnificent scale, and adorned with the utmost richness. Philostratus,
who wrote in Parthian times, thus describes the royal palace at Babylon.
“The palace is roofed with brass, and a bright light flashes from it.
It has chambers for the women, and chambers for the men, and porticos,
partly glittering with silver, partly with cloth-of-gold embroideries,
partly with solid slabs of gold, let into the walls, like pictures. The
subjects of the embroideries are taken from the Greek mythology, and
include representations of Andromeda, of Amymone, and of Orpheus, who
is frequently repeated.... Datis is moreover represented, destroying
Naxos with his fleet, and Artaphernes besieging Eretria, and Xerxes
gaining his famous victories. You behold the occupation of Athens, and
the battle of Thermopylae, and other points still more characteristic of
the great Persian war, rivers drunk up and disappearing from the face
of the earth, and a bridge stretched across the sea, and a canal cut
through Athos.... One chamber for the men has a roof fashioned into a
vault like the heaven, composed entirely of sapphires, which are the
bluest of stones, and resemble the sky in color. Golden images of the
gods whom they worship, are set up about the vault, and show like stars
in the firmament. This is the chamber in which the king delivers his
judgments. Four golden magic-wheels hang from its roof, and threaten
the monarch with the Divine Nemesis, if he exalts himself above the
condition of man. These wheels are called ‘the tongues of the gods,’ and
are set in their places by the Magi who frequent the palace.”

The state and pomp which surrounded the monarch seem scarcely to have
fallen short of the Achaemenian standard. Regarded as in some sort
divine during his life, and always an object of national worship after
his death, the “Brother of the Sun and Moon” occupied a position far
above that of the most exalted of his subjects. Tributary monarchs
were shocked, when, in times of misfortune, the “Great King” stooped
to solicit their aid, and appeared before them in the character of a
suppliant, shorn of his customary splendor. Nobles coveted the dignity
of “King’s Friend,” and were content to submit to blows and buffets
at the caprice of their royal master, before whom they prostrated
themselves in adoration after each castigation. The Parthian monarch
dined in solitary grandeur, extended on his own special couch, and
eating from his own special table, which was placed at a greater
elevation than those of his guests. His “friend” sat on the ground at
his feet, and was fed like a dog by scraps from his master’s board.
Guards, ministers, and attendants of various kinds surrounded him,
and were ready at the slightest sign to do his bidding. Throughout the
country he had numerous “Eyes” and “Ears”--officers who watched his
interests and sent him word of whatever touched his safety. The bed on
which the monarch slept was of gold, and subjects were forbidden to take
their repose on couches of this rich material. No stranger could obtain
access to him unless introduced by the proper officer; and it was
expected that all who asked an audience would be prepared with some
present of high value. For the gifts received the monarch made a
suitable return, allowing those whom he especially favored to choose the
presents that they preferred.

The power and dignity of the Parthian nobles was greater than that
usually enjoyed by any subjects of an Oriental king. Rank in Parthia
being hereditary and not simply official, the “megistanes” were no
mere creatures of the monarch, but a class which stood upon its own
indefeasible rights. As they had the privilege of electing to the throne
upon a vacancy, and even that of deposing a duly elected monarch, the
king could not but stand in wholesome awe of them, and feel compelled to
treat them with considerable respect and deference. Moreover, they were
not without a material force calculated to give powerful support to
their constitutional privileges. Each stood at the head of a body
of retainers accustomed to bear arms and to serve in the wars of the
Empire. Together these bodies constituted the strength of the army; and
though the royal bodyguard might perhaps have been capable of dealing
successfully with each group of retainers separately, yet such an
_esprit de corps_ was sure to animate the nobles generally, that they
would make common cause in case one of their number were attacked,
and would support him against the crown with the zeal inspired by
self-interest. Thus the Parthian nobility were far more powerful and
independent than any similar class under the Achaemenian, Sassanian,
Modern Persian, or Turkish sovereigns. They exercised a real control
over the monarch, and had a voice in the direction of the Empire. Like
the great feudal vassals of the Middle Ages, they from time to time
quarrelled with their liege lord, and disturbed the tranquillity of the
kingdom by prolonged and dangerous civil wars; but these contentions
served to keep alive a vigor, a life, and a spirit of sturdy
independence very unusual in the East, and gave a stubborn strength to
the Parthian monarchy, in which Oriental governments have for the most
part been wanting.

There were probably several grades of rank among the nobles. The highest
dignity in the kingdom, next to the Crown, was that of Surena, or
“Field-Marshal;” and this position was hereditary in a particular
family, which can have stood but a little below the royal house in
wealth and consequence. The head of this noble house is stated to have
at one time brought into the field as many as 10,000 retainers and
slaves, of whom a thousand were heavy-armed. It was his right to place
the diadem on the king’s brow at his coronation. The other nobles lived
for the most part on their domains, but took the field at the head
of their retainers in case of war, and in peace sometimes served the
offices of satrap, vizier, or royal councillor. The wealth of the class
was great; its members were inclined to be turbulent, and, like
the barons of the European kingdoms, acted as a constant check and
counterpoise to the royal dignity.

Next to war, the favorite employment of the king and of the nobles
was hunting. The lion continued in the wild state an occupant of the
Mesopotamian river-banks and marshes; and in other parts of the empire
bears, leopards, and even tigers abounded. Thus the higher kinds of
sport were readily obtainable. The ordinary practice, however, of
the monarch and his courtiers seems to have fallen short of the true
sportsman’s ideal. Instead of seeking the more dangerous kinds of
wild beasts in their native haunts, and engaging with them under the
conditions designed by nature, the Parthians were generally content
with a poorer and tamer method. They kept lions, leopards, and bears in
enclosed parks, or “paradises,” and found pleasure in the pursuit and
slaughter of these denaturalized and half-domesticated animals. The
employment may still, even under these circumstances, have contained
an element of danger which rendered it exciting; but it was a poor
substitute for the true sport which the “mighty Hunter before the Lord”
 had first practised in these regions.

The ordinary dress of the Parthian noble was a long loose robe reaching
to the feet, under which he wore a vest and trousers. Bright and
varied colors were affected, and sometimes dresses were interwoven or
embroidered with gold. In seasons of festivity garlands of fresh flowers
were worn upon the head. A long knife or dagger was carried at all
times, which might be used either as an implement or as a weapon.

In the earlier period of the empire the Parthian was noted as a spare
liver; but, as time went on, he aped the vices of more civilized
peoples, and became an indiscriminate eater and a hard drinker. Game
formed a main portion of his diet; but he occasionally indulged in pork,
and probably in other sorts of butcher’s meat. He ate leavened bread,
with his meat, and various kinds of vegetables. The bread, which was
particularly light and porous, seems to have been imported sometimes by
the Romans, who knew it as _panis aquaticus_ or _panis Parthicus_. Dates
were also consumed largely by the Parthians, and in some parts of the
country grew to an extraordinary size. A kind of wine was made from
them; and this seems to have been the intoxicating drink in which
the nation generally indulged too freely. That made from the dates of
Babylon was the most highly esteemed, and was reserved for the use of
the king and the higher order of satraps.

Of the Parthian feasts, music was commonly an accompaniment. The flute,
the pipe, the drum, and the instrument called eambuca, appear to have
been known to them; and they understood how to combine these instruments
in concerted harmony. They are said to have closed their feasts with
dancing--an amusement of which they were inordinately fond--but this was
probably the case only with the lower class of people. Dancing in the
East, if not associated with religion, is viewed as degrading, and,
except as a religious exercise, is not indulged in by respectable
persons.

The separation of the sexes was very decided in Parthia. The women took
their meals, and passed the greater portion of their life, apart from
the men. Veils were commonly worn, as in modern Mohammedan countries;
and it was regarded as essential to female delicacy that women, whether
married or single, should converse freely with no males but either their
near relations or eunuchs. Adultery was punished with great severity;
but divorce was not difficult, and women of rank released themselves
from the nuptial bond on light grounds of complaint, without much
trouble. Polygamy was the established law; and every Parthian was
entitled, besides his chief wife, to maintain as many concubines as he
thought desirable. Some of the nobles supported an excessive number; but
the expenses of the seraglio prevented the generality from taking much
advantage of the indulgence which the law permitted.

The degree of refinement and civilization which the Parthians reached
is difficult to determine with accuracy. In mimetic art their remains
certainly do not show much taste or sense of beauty. There is some
ground to believe that their architecture had merit; but the existing
monuments can scarcely be taken as representations of pure Parthian
work, and may have owed their excellence (in some measure, at any rate)
to foreign influence. Still, the following particulars, for which there
is good evidence, seem to imply that the nation had risen in reality far
above that “barbarism” which it was the fashion of the Greek and Roman
writers to ascribe to it. In the first place, the Parthians had a
considerable knowledge of foreign languages. Plutarch tells us that
Orodes, the opponent of Crassus, was acquainted with the Greek language
and literature, and could enjoy the representation of a play of
Euripides. The general possession of such knowledge, at any rate by the
kings and the upper classes, seems to be implied by the use of the Greek
letters and language in the legends upon coins and in inscriptions.
Other languages were also to some extent cultivated. The later kings
almost invariably placed a Semitic legend upon their coins; and there is
one instance of a Parthian prince adopting an Aryan legend of the
type known as Bactrian. Josephus, moreover, regarded the Parthians as
familiar with Hebrew, or Syro-Chaldaic, and wrote his history of
the Jewish War in his own native tongue, before he put out his Greek
version, for the benefit especially of the Parthians, among whom he
declares that he had many readers.

Though the Parthians had, so far as we can tell, no native literature,
yet writing was familiar to them, and was widely used in matters of
business. Not only were negotiations carried on with foreign powers
by means of despatches, but the affairs of the empire generally were
conducted by writing. A custom-house system was established along the
frontier, and all commodities liable to duty that entered the country
were registered in a book at the time of entry by the custom-house
officer. In the great cities where the Court passed a portion of the
year, account was kept of the arrival of strangers, whose names and
descriptions were placed upon record by the keepers of the gates. The
orders of the Crown were signified in writing to the satraps; and they
doubtless corresponded with the Court in the same way. In the earlier
times the writing material commonly used was linen; but shortly before
the time of Pliny, the Parthians began to make paper from the papyrus,
which grew in the neighborhood of Babylon, though they still employed in
preference the old material.

There was a considerable trade between Parthia and Rome, carried on
by means of a class of merchants. Parthia imported from Rome various
metals, and numerous manufactured articles of a high class. Her
principal exports were textile fabrics and spices. The textile fabrics
seem to have been produced chiefly in Babylonia, and to have consisted
of silks, carpets, and coverlets. The silks were largely used by the
Roman ladies. The coverlets, which were patterned with various colors,
fetched enormous prices, and were regarded as fit adornments of the
Imperial palace. Among the spices exported, the most celebrated wore
bdellium, and the _juncus odoratus_ or odoriferous bulrush.

The Parthians had many liberal usages which imply a fairly advanced
civilization. Their tolerance of varieties in religion has been already
mentioned. Even in political matters they seem to have been free from
the narrowness which generally characterizes barbarous nations. They
behaved well to prisoners, admitted foreigners freely to offices of high
trust, gave an asylum to refugees, and treated them with respect and
kindness, were scrupulous observers of their pledged word, and eminently
faithful to their treaty obligations. On the other hand, it must be
admitted that they had some customs which indicate a tinge of barbarism.
They used torture for the extraction of answers from reluctant persons,
employed the scourge to punish trifling offences, and, in certain
cases, condescended to mutilate the bodies of their dead enemies. Their
addiction to intemperance is also a barbaric trait. They were, no doubt,
on the whole, less civilized than either the Greeks or Romans; but the
difference does not seem to have been so great as represented by the
classical writers.

Speaking broadly, the position that they occupied was somewhat similar
to that which the Turks hold in the system of modern Europe. They had a
military strength which caused them to be feared and respected, a vigor
of administration which was felt to imply many sterling qualities. A
certain coarseness and rudeness attached to them which they found it
impossible to shake off; and this drawback was exaggerated by their
rivals into an indication of irreclaimable barbarity. Except in respect
of their military prowess, it may be doubtful if justice is done them by
any classical writer. They were not merely the sole rival which dared to
stand up against Rome in the interval between B.C. 65 and A.D. 226, but
they were a rival falling in many respects very little below the great
power whose glories have thrown them so much into the shade. They
maintained from first to last a freedom unknown to later Rome;
they excelled the Romans in toleration and in liberal treatment
of foreigners, they equalled them in manufactures and in material
prosperity, and they fell but little short of them in the extent and
productiveness of their dominions. They were the second power in the
world for nearly three centuries, and formed a counterpoise to Rome
which greatly checked Roman decline, and, by forcing the Empire to exert
itself, prevented stagnation and corruption.

It must, however, be confessed, that the tendency of the Parthians
was to degenerate. Although the final blow was struck in an unexpected
quarter, and perhaps surprised the victors as much as the vanquished,
still it is apparent that for a considerable space before the revolt of
Artaxerxes the Parthian Empire had shown signs of failing strength, and
had tended rapidly towards decay and ruin. The constant quarrels among
the Arsacidae and the incipient disintegration of the Empire have been
noticed. It may be added here that a growing barbarism, a decline in art
and letters, is observable in the Parthian remains, such as have usually
been found to accompany the decrepitude of a nation. The coinage has
from first to last a somewhat rude character, which indicates that it
is native, and not the production of Greek artists. But on the earlier
coins the type, though not indicative of high art, is respectable, and
the legends are, with few exceptions, perfectly correct and classical.
Barbarism first creeps in about the reign of Gotarzes, A.D. 42-51. It
increases as time goes on, until, from about A.D. 133, the Greek legend
upon the coins becomes indistinct and finally unintelligible, the
letters being strewn about the surface of the coin, like dead soldiers
over a field of battle. It is, clear that the later directors of
the mint were completely ignorant of Greek, and merely attempted to
reproduce on the coin some semblance of a language which neither they
nor their countrymen understood. Such a condition of a coinage is almost
without parallel, and indicates a want of truth and honesty in the
conduct of affairs which implies deep-seated corruption. The Parthians
must have lost the knowledge of Greek about A.D. 130, yet
still a pretence of using the language was kept up. On the
tetra-drachms--comparatively rare coins--no important mistake was
committed; but on the more usual drachm, from the time of Gotarzes, the
most absurd errors were introduced, and thenceforth perpetuated. The
old inscription was, in a certain sense, imitated, but every word of it
ceased to be legible: the old figures disappeared in an indistinct
haze, and--if we except the head and name of the king (written now in a
Semitic character)--the whole emblazonment of the coin became unmeaning.
A degeneracy less marked, but still sufficiently clear to the numismatic
critic, is observable in the heads of the kings, which, in the earlier
times, if a little coarse, are striking and characteristic; while in the
later they sink to a conventional type, rudely and poorly rendered, and
so uniform that the power of distinguishing one sovereign from
another rests no longer upon feature, but upon mere differences in the
arrangement of hair, or beard, or head-dress.