"معلومات عامة عن بلاد فارس لأي طبعة مستقبلية، ١٨٩٥" [ظ‎‎٤‎٥] (٢١١/٨١)

The R.T.B.A. Journal
20 April 1803
306
grasped the fact that the Persian capital was not
only a double -bracketed capital, but a quadruple
one, by reason of the wood bracket placed on the
back of the bulls. Whilst the projecting bull-heads
lessened the bearing of the architrave beams,
parallel to the facades of their porticoes, the wood
brackets performed a similar task with the cross
beams, and it is really amusing to trace the various
ways in which Coste, Texier, MM. Perrot and
Chipiez, and M. Dieulafoy twist and turn about in
their restoration to get rid of the dilemma. Some
times they destroy any value they might have, by
keeping the front of the wood brackets on the same
face as the columns (M. Dieulafoy, MM. Perrot
and Chipiez, Hall of Xerxes). Sometimes they
actually allow it to project without doing any
duty (Texier). M. Dieulafoy, in his work L'Art
antique dc la Perse, carries the bracket through
to the back wall or range of columns, as if it were
a tie; a function it would certainly be incapable of
fulfilling, as it has no hold on the front column.
Coate, however, carries the absurdity still
further. In order to explain the question at
issue, we have in the Palace of Darius at Perse-
polis the best preserved structure on the platform
there, and it is on this palace that Fergusson
based his restorations. There is only one por
tico, but that will be sufficient for my purpose.
I give a plan (B),* from which it will be seen
that it consists of eight columns, placed in two
rows, with four in each, and flanking walls. The
columns are gone, but their position is shown by
the foundations, and they were copied in the tomb
of Darius carved in the rock which overlooks
the platform. On each side of the first row of
columns is a stone pier, in the side of which is
still preserved the sinking in which the wooden
architrave and cornice of the portico rested.
This is clearly shown in Coste’s work on L'An-
cienne Perse, vol. iii. pi. 118, which is also repro
duced (C).* The pier has a return of about 3' 5",
and in the upper part is cut a sinking which has
various set-offs. In these fitted the architrave
and upper members, which formed an assemblage
of several timber beams. Their form and function
are recognised in the tomb of Darius, of which I
give a section and part of one column (D).* Now
it will be observed that the architrave of this tomb
which is cut in the rock actually projects 23"
in front of the face of the column. What was
the object of so peculiar an arrangement? I
can only conceive of one reason. If, as I am of
opinion, the capital with its wooden bracket was
a quadruple-bracketed capital, it is evident
that while the bull-heads lessened the bearing of
the architrave in one direction, and the wooden
brackets the cross beams at right angles to the
same in order to counterbalance the weight on
the inside, it was necessary to carry the archi
trave out to the end of the bracket on the out
side, and this is one of the reasons why in every
portico a stone pier was necessary at each end to
keep this projection in position. Now applying
this structure in the tomb to the disposition ot
plan (B)* in the palace, it will be seen that the line
of columns is set back to allow of this projection
in front. With these facts before Coste, and with
his own plate, No. 118, before him, it will scarcely
be conceived that in his imaginary restora
tion he should actually have set back the face
of architrave, as shown in drawing E, so as to
bring it back SO" instead of the 10" as shown on
plate 118, and allowed the bracket to project forward
uselessly 14 inches. My own version is shown
in F. Now it is only fair to M. Dieulafoy to say
that in the Palace of Susa no trace of any such
stone piers has been found; but all these palaces
reproduce one another in their features with such
absolute fidelity that it is almost certain that the
same rule which applied to the Palace of Darius,
to his tomb, and to three other tombs in the same
rock, obtained in the Palace of Susa. With
respect to the vertical grooves which M. Dieulafoy
introduces on the exterior walls, there is no