366 History op Art in Antiquity. Persian columns appear in exactly the same situations. If we only considered the two arrangements respecting which no doubt . exists, we should be tempted to believe that the two edifices were copied one from the other. But who shall say which served as model ? fncised upon the base of four pillars appears the trilingual cunei- form inscription of Artaxerxes Mnemon; and it records at the same time the completion of the edifice, which had been commenced by Darius Hystaspes.' How much did Artaxerxes add to the Fig. 17S.— Upper put of puiqpet wall of ituicMe, Sunu Loame. original building ? Are we to believe, as some have deduced from the Assyrian version, that he rebuilt the palace destroyed by fire in the reign of Artaxerxes Longomanus ? ' It is beyond our province to discuss the question here. That which, however, tends to confirm the hypothesis that the palace was entirely rebuilt by Artaxerxes Mnemon is not only because he has affixed his name to the work, but also because of the inequality of manipula- tion observable about the capitals. Thus, sometimes the execution is excellent, the relief frankly accentuated ; whilst at other times the form is incised and the effect obtained mediocre in die extreme. Hence the inference that the beautifully wrought > Spiegel, Du aUfer»ukm KtUinstkri/ttnt p. 69. '.Spi^d connden the bteiptetation proposed by Oppert as open to doubt (p^ tsS). Digitized by Google
