Charles Bucke - Ruins of Ancient Cities (Vol. 2 of 2)

This city was the capital of Palmyrene, a country on the eastern boundaries of Syria. Its origin is uncertain; but a portion of its history is exceedingly interesting; and its vast assemblage of ruins are beheld with astonishment and rapture by the curious, the learned, and the elegant.

It was situated in the midst of a large plain, surrounded on three sides by a long chain of mountains. It stands in a desert, in the pachalic of Damascus, about forty-eight leagues from Aleppo, and about the same distance from Damascus, eighty-five miles west from the Euphrates, and about one hundred and seventeen from the shores of the Mediterranean.

History is, for the most part, silent in regard to the early history of this city. It is said to have been built by Solomon, after he had conquered the king of Hamathzoba, within whose dominion the country lay, in which the city was afterwards erected. He called it Tadmor 50 50 The persons who visited Palmyra in 1678, found in the neighbourhood “a garden, full of palm-trees;” but when Mr. Wood was there, not a single one remained. “The name of Palmyra,” says Mr. Addison, “is supposed by some to have been derived from the word Palma, indicative of the number of palm-trees that grew here; but that name was given by the Greeks, and, although Palma signifies palm-tree in the Latin, yet in the Greek tongue it has a very different signification. Neither does Tadmor signify palm-tree in the Syrian language, nor in the Arabic; nor does Thadamoura, as the place is called by Josephus, signify palm-tree in the Hebrew. Neither do palms thrive in Syria, as the climate is too severe for them in the winter.” , which some have construed as the place of Palms 51 51 1 Kings, ix. 18. 2 Chron. viii. 4. ; and sometimes “Tadmor in the Wilderness.”

We are assured by Josephus, that this was the city which the Greeks and Romans afterwards called Palmyra. His words are: – “Now, Solomon went in the desert above Syria, and possessed himself of it; and built there a very great city, which was distant two days’ journey from the upper Syria, and one day’s journey from the Euphrates, and six long days’ journey from Babylon the great. Now the reason why this city lay so remote from those parts of Syria, that are inhabited, is this: that below there is no water to be had; and that it is in that place only that there are springs and pits of water. When, therefore, he had built that city, and encompassed it with very strong walls, he gave it the name of Tadmor; and that is the name it is still called by at this day among the Syrians 52 52 It is a well known and very true observation, that is made by Ammianus Marcellinus (lib. xiv.), that the Greek and Roman names of places never took among the natives of Syria; which is the reason why most places retain their first and original names at this day. – Whiston. : but the Greeks name it Palmyra.”

That the city was built by Solomon is most probable; but that the present ruins have any relation to buildings of his erection is very improbable: indeed we must assume it as certain that they are not; they being entirely those of the Greek orders. With the exception of four Ionic half-columns in the Temple of the Sun, and two in one of the mausoleums, the whole architecture of Palmyra is Corinthian. Neither history nor even tradition, moreover, speaks of any other architect than Solomon.

Some have been disposed to give it an earlier existence 53 53 Wood. . The Arabic translator of Chronicles makes Palmyra older than Solomon; John of Antioch, surnamed Melala, says, that he built it on the spot where David slew Goliah, in memory of that action; and Abul-Farai mentions in what year, with the particulars. These and other accounts of the early state of Palmyra, which might be collected from the Arabic authors, bear such evident marks of fable and wild conjecture, that we shall pass them over.

Notwithstanding this, we assume the city to have been founded by the celebrated king to whom the honour is given: who built the temples is totally unknown.

The motives which tempted Solomon to build a city in a plain, now altogether a desert, we copy from Mr. Addison’s Travels to Damascus: – “The astonishment that takes hold of the mind at the strange position of this magnificent city, at one time the capital of the East, on the edge of the great desert, and surrounded for several days’ journey on all sides by naked solitary wilds, is removed by marking well the peculiarity of its geographical position. The great caravans coming to Europe, laden with the rich merchandise of India, would naturally come along the Persian gulf, through the south of Persia, to the Euphrates, the direct line; their object then would be to strike across the great Syrian desert as early as possible, to reach the large markets and ports of Syria. With more than 600 miles of desert without water, between the mouth of the Euphrates and Syria, they would naturally be obliged to keep along the banks of that river, until the extent of desert country became diminished. They would then find the copious springs of Tadmor the nearest and most convenient to make for; and in their direct route from the north of India along the Euphrates. These springs would then immediately become most important, and would naturally attract the attention of a wise prince like Solomon, who would ‘fence them with strong walls.’ Here the caravans would rest and take in water; here would congregate the merchants from adjacent countries and Europe; and from hence the great caravan would be divided into numerous branches, to the north, south, and west 54 54 Ch. ix. ver. 18. . A large mart for the exchange of commodities would be established, and an important city would quickly arise. The choice of this spot by Solomon, we may naturally consider founded on a policy of enriching himself by drawing the commerce of India through his dominions, from which commerce, probably, he derived the wealth for which he is so celebrated. In the chapter, succeeding that in which Solomon is mentioned to have built Tadmor in the wilderness, we read that ‘the weight of gold that came to Solomon in one year, was six hundred three score and six talents of gold 55 55 Ch. x. v. 14 ; besides that he had of the merchantmen, and of the traffic of the spice-merchants, and of all the kings of Arabia, and of the governors of the country.’”

The city which Solomon built was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar; but who rebuilt it is entirely unknown. It is not mentioned by Xenophon, in his history of the expedition of Cyrus the younger, though he gives a very accurate account of the desert, and must have left this place not a great way to the right in his march towards Babylon. Nor is it once alluded to by Diodorus, nor Plutarch, nor Arrian, nor Quintus Curtius, nor, indeed, by any of the biographers or historians of Alexander; although he marched through this desert to Thapsacus.

Nor is it taken any notice of as being in existence even in the time of Seleucus Nicator, he who built so many cities in Syria; nor is it once mentioned in the history of his successor. It is not even mentioned so lately as the time in which Pompey the Great conquered the country in which it is situated. No notice is taken in Roman history of its being in any way existing, till the time of Mark Antony; who, after the battle at Philippi, marched against it, as we are told by Appian, with a view of plundering it; but the inhabitants escaped with their effects over the Euphrates. This very circumstance proves it to have been at that time no very large place; added to which, it seems to be certain, that none of these temples, &c., could have been in existence; for the Romans had, for some time, been alive to the benefits of works of art; especially paintings, sculpture, and architecture. His sole object, in going thither, was to plunder the Palmyrene merchants, who were supposed to have acquired considerable wealth, by selling the commodities of India and Arabia.