Page:History of Architecture in All Countries Vol 1.djvu/412

 380 SASSANIAX ARCHITECTURE. Part I. carried round all the archivolts of the arches. The only thing known at all similar is the celebrated arch at Volterra Avith three masks ; but here these are infinitely more numerous over all the arches, and form, in fact, the principal features of the decorations. Even tradition is silent regarding the date of these remarkable ruins. The style of architecture, however, certainly points to a period anterior to the age of Constantine, but not so early as the time of Aurelian and the flourishing days of Palmyra. It is difficult, however, to speak at all confidently, as we are so entirely ignorant of the local circumstances of the place at the time the buildings were erected ; and local peculi- arities often influence a style as much as the age in which it flourished. Another building which merits more atljution than has hitherto been bestowed upon it is now used as the great mosque at Diarbekr. Neither its history nor even its date is correctly known ; but judging from its style, in so far as it can be made out from such drawings as exist, it may originally have been erected as early as the age of Tiri- dates (a.d. 286-342). The palace — for such it was originally — consists of an oblong courtyard, at either end of which a building with open arcades in two stories facing one another — as in the palace of the Hebdomon at Constantinople — and between the two, facing the en- trance, is the fa9ade of a church standing on the east side of the court.^ The principal of the two wing-buildings is represented on Woodcut No. 254. The framework of a debased Roman style of architecture similar to parts of the buildings of Diocletian or Constantine at Si)alatro or Jerusalem, but, being far removed from the influence of the capital, the details display a wildness which is not to be found in any contem- porary example in Italy or the further Avest. One of the most puzzling eccentricities connected with this building is that the architecture of the upper story is much more classical than that of the lower. There is no feature in it — .barring the Cutic inscription — that indicates an age subsequent to the time of Constantine. With the lower story, hoM'ever, the case is different. The pointed arches and the details of the openings generally are those of a much later period, though of course from their position they must have been erected before the upper. On the whole there seems little doubt that the building we now see was erected, as it now stands, at the age of the Cufic inscriptiohs,2 whatever that may be, but that the remains of some more ancient edifice was most skilfully worked up in the new. Till, however, the building is carefully examined by some thoroughly competent person, this must remain ' For the principal part of the infor- mation rescarding this building I am in- d('I)t<'d to^M. C. Toxier. He possessed detailed drawings of eveiy part, but they have never been published. '^ These inscriptions were all copied by Consul Taylor, and brought home to this country. I never could learn, how- ever, that they were translated. I feel certain they were never pid)lished, and cannot find out what has become of them.