Page:History of Art in Persia.djvu/522

 498 History of Art in Antiquity. at PefsepoHs bear some analogy to those of Greece. No sign of hurry or neglect is to be detected anywhere ; the utmost nicety and care extend to the minutest detail, and ever3rthing combines to convey the idea that they were the creation of an omnipotent will, served by intelligent and pliant instruments. On the other hand, Persian art lacks variety and the inventive faculty. Strictly speaking, its tomb, palace, and temple have but one type apiece; it has but one cornice, one entablature, one column, and one capital. The variations it introduced in the plans and the elements composing its elevations never modify to any great extent the appearance of the building. It repeated without a break, from first to last, the forms it took up when, in the reign of Darius, it finally constituted itself Unlike the arts of Egypt and Greece, which kept their ground in face of national defeats, and survived many centuries after the peoples who had created them had lost their independence, that of Persia ceased to be or to produce, and disappeared from the world's annals along with the royal family whose nod had called it into being. It never had but one idea at its command, and the treatment of its themes bore upon one series alone ; hence it is that, despite its grandeur, the effect is somewhat poor, tame, and monotonous. One might almost imagine that it emerged full grown from the bold initiative of the resolute man to whom Darius entrusted the direction of his monumental works, and that he retained the situation in the following reign. This "superintendent of the royal buildings,'' this Eastern Lebrun, guided by great taste and intelligence, examined with critical eye the vast store of forms which the repertory of previous or contemporaneous arts offered to him, out of which he selected those best suited for his purpose, and with them he deftly composed a well-jointed system, a harmonious whole. This great artist, whose name history has forgotten, worked out so well the programme submitted to him, he so far fulfilled the expectations of his employers, that his successors thought they could do no better than continue in die path opened by him. They enlarged or diminished the proportions of the building to suit the will of their masters. In matters of detail they sometimes even ventured on slight innovations. In essentials, however, whether of arrangement, principle, or spirit, their work remained unchanged. They adhered to the rules laid down by the architect in the models he transmitted to his continuators, be uiyiu^LU by Google