Page:History of Art in Persia.djvu/166

 Decoration. 155 of Dieulafoy have told us how much in vogue they were in the reign of the Achzmenidae, there is no longer room for doubt as to enamel having been introduced as means of ornament in the edifices of Persepolis. But without going farther, and before we examine the ruins at the Takht-i-Jamshid, we can even now affirm, without fear of being contradicted, that their employment was not so large as at Susa. Marked differences arc perceptible between the two groups of palaces. Plans, designs, and materials are alike, but the proportions of the latter vary one from the other. There is more brick at Susa, and more stone at Persepolis. Thus at Susa the entire decoration of the staircase was on enamelled clay ; whilst at the Takht, ornaments and figures were fashioned out of limestone. Here royal guards were carved in a kind of marble ; there they were impressed upon clay, and stone sculpture is conspicuously absent. Comparison of the twin types leads to the conclusion that if enamels were introduced in the buildings of Persia proper, it could only have been in minor parts — the lofts, for example — where heavy stones would have been out of the question, and where they concurred with metal to close the salient parts of the timber frame. Hence it is that, on the authority of the pseudo- architecture of the rock-cut tombs, we have put a lions' frieze, the animals marching in file, in the palaces we have attempted to restore. The royal houses, both of Persia and Susiana, were built for the same princes and by the same architects. What, then, is the reason of the difference we have pointed out ? hy was prefer- ence given in the one place to work done by the chisel, and in the other to metallic oxides fixed on clay impressed into moulds ? As we have said before, the geographical situation of the respective palaces is the best answer as to the preponderance of this or that material and consequent processes. At Susa, stone had to be quarried and transjiorted from a great distance and elevated at the top of the mound, involving considerable mechanical labour. As the capitals now in the Louvre testify, difficulties of this nature were no serious impediment to builders who fetched their cedar and cypress beams from Elburz, Taurus, and Lebanon. Never- theless, there must have been a great temptation to make as large a use of artificial stone as possible, for which clay could be had to any amount in the neighbouring plain, so as to hasten on the w^ork for an impatient master. The necessity imposed upon the builders biassed no doubt the direction of their labours; and, what more than i^i^iu^cd by Google