Page:History of Art in Persia.djvu/138

 Secondary Forms. 127 . M « U O — J3 [1 £ •£ -a <^ 3 z a O • e 'a a. u O o .S -£ (Fig. 58)/ The monumental gateways at Persepolis, whether built or rock-cut, offer a certain analogy both to the Lycian and the Greek portals ; but here again, as at Pasaradgoe, the coincidence may be explained on a basis other than the imitation hy- , pothesis. It is, we think, sufficiently accounted for from the fact that the stone door-frame was modelled on the dispositions proper to the carpentry work of a former age, in general use all over these regions. M. Dieulafoy next compares the door of the Erechtheum with that of the Persian tomb.' The juxtaposition is unfor- tunate, and tells against its author, since differences are by a long way more striking than resemblances. In the Athenian portal the five deli- cate listels are happily op- posed to a platband, over the surface of which rosettes are sown with a discreet hand. On the contrary, at Perse- polis the three bands are nearly of equal size, and the surface disappears under somewhat heavy forms, just as would be expected in an Assyrian doorway.^ We can detect here nothing of that subtle knowledge of contrasts and balance of forms which make of the doorway to the Grecian temple a masterpiece of art. Will it be urged that the • Flandin and Coste, Perse ancienne, Plate CLXVI. - Dieulafoy, he. ci(., pp. 33. 34, Figs. 17 a, 18. « Hhf, of Art, om. ii. Fig. 136. u c: - o 1 o .c cj '* -= 8 S-' 8 c o C c OS -2 3-5 5 'J ->
 * U 00