Page:History of Art in Persia.djvu/267

 General Characteristics of the Palace. 257 must in some respects have differed from a summer one ; it wis better closed, and a shield against oAd and damp. Here was a divergent element, the eflfects of which we should be better able to appreciate were the whole labours of the ro^al architects within reach. Our observations, however, solely bear on the Persepolitan buildings and one exemplar out of those that crowned the mound at Susa. * What helped not a little to prompt essayals that turned to the advantage of art was the personal and ephemeral character of the palace, to which reference was made in a former volume in relation to the royal houses of Assyria.' There the fact was disclosed to us by the sculptures and inscriptions; here, the inscriptions incised on the walls would have permitted us to surmise it, had not Polydetus forestalled and set us on the scent. He was a contemporary of Alexander, and, it would appear, well versed in all things pertaining to Persia.* " On the summit of the mound at Susa," he writes, "every king builds a separate palace for himself, with treasuries and stores, a pile of building set apart for receiving tributes levied in the course of his reign, and which must be kept as a monument of his administration." Excavations have not been carried far enough to permit us to seek here a confirmation of the above testimony, but it coincides with the extent of the ground covered by the fragments of ancient constructions, and the depth of the stratum overlaying them. As to Persepolis, besides anony- mous buildings in a poor state, four kings have left structures signed by them. Amongst all these edifices not two are alike. Those that would seem to have been inhabited differ one from the other both in their orientation and the general character of their arrangement. Some are more spacious than others* Again, neither the plan nor the dimensions of the colossal fabrics, those we should call state apartments, throne-rooms, were uniform.' Every prince had the very natural desire to imbue his work with a character that should single it forth, and outshine his predecessors, or at least produce something quite different. It was seldom, • Polyclctus, cited by Strabo, XV. iii. 21. It is owing to an error of the copyist that Strabo's manuscripts, instead of Polycletus known through otlier citations, havv.* the name of one Polycritus, which never appears anywhere else. The fragments of the latter have been collected by C. Muller {Seriftores rmm Aksmdri Mayn't, pp. 130-132). ' Palaces Nos. 2 and 8 in plan. s L.iyu,^cd by Google
 * IRsi. 9f Art^ torn, it pp. 192, 421.