Page:History of Art in Persia.djvu/322

3o6 History of Art in Antiquity. is everywhere naked and smooth. The four blocks* arranged in sets of two, which stand between the front porch and the side of the hall turned towards the stairs, are all that is left of its dispositions in this region (Fig. 148). These, however, are no more than substructures, the undefined character of which will lend itself to any conjecture. It would be vain to seek here, at those points where, by analogy with other Persepolitan buildings, we should expect to find remains of those lofty pillars of limestone which c'cryvhere play the part of antse. Nor is there aught to induce the belief that doors^ niches, or windows, foundation stone, lintel, or carved panel ever existed here ; whilst traces of sub- structures made of materials of great size, forming the' continuous base of the stone wall between these minor buildings, are equally non-extant. This the plans, pencil sketches, photoj^raphs, new and old, that have been made of this part of the esplanade plainly show.' ' In this respect Tcfxier (Plates XCIII., XCIV.) and Coste's pUns (Plate XC.) are in perfect agreement ; so is the " photogrammelrical plan " of honest, minute, and scrupulously exact Stobe, obtained, he says, by meant of more dun tliree hundred rUeMt ttkea with die photographic theodolite of A. Mqrdenbauer (Plates CXLVIII.- CL.), in which is reproduced every vestige of structures, every roughness of the ground. Two photographic views in this same collection, representing; the ruins of the hypost}'le hall under consideration, exhibit a number of bases and liogmenis of shafts, but not die remotest trace of door or window. It is the same in Dieu- lafoy's paaiotam^ (L*Ati an/iftie, torn. ii. Plates VI II. -XI.). I find nothing against these witnesses except the note-book of Dieulafoy, To judge from a sketch he obligingly put at my disposal, there would be remains of a window between the main and eastern colonnade. But we may remark that in the chapter dealing with the edifices of theTakht (ite> dt, ii 3X ^ 1^ madi no mention of having observed die said window ; yet it was a discovery of no mean importance, since it was of a nature to raise grave objections against Coste's mode of reconstructing the edifice. There in more ; the notes dotted down in his diary are not reproduced, at least with predsion, in the general plan of the Takht (Pbte II.). In it Dieulafoy puts indeed two openings, but they are between the central cluster and the right wing, whilst the opposite side, where, according to his diary, there should be a window, is left blank. Stic. ice and discrcpanc)' such as these between data obtained on the spot and a restored plan made at home make one suspect that the vestiges Dieulafoy noticed were so faint as to have oounsdled leticenoe. He cannot be offended, therefore, if we make no more of them than he has done himselC Photographs and plans indicate all the substructures situated behind the front colonnade. How are we to credit everybody having failed to sec remains of an opening in the eastern porch akin to those of the other buildings on this same esplanade? Appearances may have deceived Dieuhifof, and caused him to attribute n character, to certain traces, hurriedly dotted down, which could not stand the test of narrower inspection. The traces he discovered may represent a podium, intended to carry an altar or figures — some disposition, in fact, of which we know not the use. What leaves no