diff options
| author | nfenwick <nfenwick@pglaf.org> | 2025-02-06 17:44:04 -0800 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | nfenwick <nfenwick@pglaf.org> | 2025-02-06 17:44:04 -0800 |
| commit | 88417d0c35bdc70e80ceb11429c4b15fbbd03cb2 (patch) | |
| tree | fdabaae448dcb121195dcd8429028a30844050d0 | |
| parent | 081954788e2ef9e850aba469f95827b2d054d365 (diff) | |
| -rw-r--r-- | .gitattributes | 4 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | LICENSE.txt | 11 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | README.md | 2 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/53578-0.txt | 2618 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/53578-0.zip | bin | 51553 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/53578-h.zip | bin | 1687346 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/53578-h/53578-h.htm | 2698 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/53578-h/images/cover.jpg | bin | 64718 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/53578-h/images/frontis.jpg | bin | 94823 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/53578-h/images/i014.jpg | bin | 36495 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/53578-h/images/i015.jpg | bin | 17611 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/53578-h/images/i016.jpg | bin | 19709 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/53578-h/images/i022.jpg | bin | 37787 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/53578-h/images/i029.jpg | bin | 58949 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/53578-h/images/i041.jpg | bin | 21584 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/53578-h/images/p01.jpg | bin | 464871 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/53578-h/images/p02.jpg | bin | 433189 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/53578-h/images/p03.jpg | bin | 454647 -> 0 bytes |
18 files changed, 17 insertions, 5316 deletions
diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d7b82bc --- /dev/null +++ b/.gitattributes @@ -0,0 +1,4 @@ +*.txt text eol=lf +*.htm text eol=lf +*.html text eol=lf +*.md text eol=lf diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6312041 --- /dev/null +++ b/LICENSE.txt @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements, +metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be +in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES. + +Procedures for determining public domain status are described in +the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org. + +No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in +jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize +this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright +status under the laws that apply to them. diff --git a/README.md b/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6a326a1 --- /dev/null +++ b/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ +Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for +eBook #53578 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/53578) diff --git a/old/53578-0.txt b/old/53578-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 0b2d24f..0000000 --- a/old/53578-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,2618 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Mausoleum at Halicarnassus Restored in -Conformity With the Recently Discovered Re, by James Fergusson - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most -other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of -the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have -to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. - -Title: The Mausoleum at Halicarnassus Restored in Conformity With the Recently Discovered Remains - -Author: James Fergusson - -Release Date: November 22, 2016 [EBook #53578] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK MAUSOLEUM AT HALICARNASSUS *** - - - - -Produced by Sonya Schermann, Turgut Dincer and the Online -Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This -file was produced from images generously made available -by The Internet Archive) - - - - - - - -[Illustration: - - James Fergusson, del. - John Murray, Albemarle St. London. - Kell Bro^s. Castle St. Holborn. - -SOUTH EAST VIEW OF THE MAUSOLEUM, - -AS RESTORED.] - - THE - MAUSOLEUM AT HALICARNASSUS - RESTORED - IN CONFORMITY WITH - THE RECENTLY DISCOVERED REMAINS. - - BY JAMES FERGUSSON, - FELLOW ROYAL INSTITUTE OF BRITISH ARCHITECTS. - AUTHOR OF THE ‘HANDBOOK OF ARCHITECTURE;’ ‘ESSAY ON THE - TOPOGRAPHY OF JERUSALEM,’ &c. - - LONDON: - JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET - 1862. - - _The right of Translation is reserved._ - - - LONDON: PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, STAMFORD STREET, - AND CHARING CROSS. - - - - -PREFACE. - - -The Essay contained in the following pages has no pretension to being a -complete account of the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus. All that has been -attempted in the present instance is to recapitulate and explain the -various data which have recently been brought to light for restoring -that celebrated monument of antiquity; and to show in what manner these -may be applied so as to perfect a solution of the riddle which has so -long perplexed the student of classical architecture. - -At some future period it may be worth while to go more fully and with -more careful elaboration into the whole subject; but to do this as it -should be done, would require more leisure and better opportunities -than are at present at the Author’s disposal for such a purpose. - - - 20, LANGHAM PLACE, - _May_, 1862. - - - - -CONTENTS. - - - PAGE. - - INTRODUCTION 5 - - - CHAPTER I. - - SCRIPTA 8 - - RELIQUIÆ 12 - - EXEMPLA 14 - - RATIONES 16 - - - CHAPTER II. - - GREEK MEASURES 20 - - CYMATIUM 22 - - PTERON 24 - - PYRAMID 27 - - VERTICAL HEIGHTS 30 - - ARCHITECTURAL ORDINANCE 33 - - LACUNARIA 36 - - SCULPTURE AND PEDESTALS 38 - - - CONCLUSION 43 - - - - -LIST OF WOODCUTS. - - - 1. LION TOMB, CNIDUS 14 - - 2. TOMB AT DUGGA 15 - - 3. TOMB AT MYLASSA 16 - - 4. CYMATIUM 22 - - 5. SECTION OF CYMATIUM AND OF BASE OF PYRAMID 29 - - 6. PEDESTAL OF MONTE CAVALLO GROUP 41 - - -DIRECTION TO BINDER. - -Place _Plates_ I., II., and III. at the end of the work. - - - - -MAUSOLEUM AT HALICARNASSUS. - - - - -INTRODUCTION. - - -Of all the examples of the wonderful arts of the Greeks, the remains -or the memories of which have come down to us, no one has excited such -curiosity as the far-famed Mausoleum at Halicarnassus, or such regret -that no fragments of it should have existed in our own days. All we -knew of it, till very recently, was that the ancients themselves were -inclined to look upon it as the very best specimen of architectural art -which they possessed. For not only did they rank it as among the seven -wonders of the world, but assigned it that pre-eminence—not because -of its size or durability, but because of the intrinsic beauty of its -design, and the mode in which it was ornamented. - -The Pyramids of Egypt and Walls of Babylon were wonders only because -of their mass or their durability. The Palace of Cyrus or the Hanging -Gardens of Babylon may have been rich in colour and barbaric splendour, -but we know enough of Assyrian and of Persian art to feel convinced -that the taste in which they were designed must at least have been -very questionable. The Colossus at Rhodes, and the Statue of Jupiter -at Elis, whatever their merits,—and of one, at least, of them we can -believe anything,—did not belong to architectural art. The Temple of -Ephesus may have been beautiful in itself, but it became a wonder only -from its size, as the largest of Greek temples. But the Mausoleum, -which covered not more than one-sixth or one-seventh of its area, could -have been remarkable only because it was beautiful, or in consequence -of the elaboration and taste displayed in its ornamentation. - -All that was known of this once celebrated building, till the recent -explorations, was to be gathered from a few laudatory paragraphs in -Pausanias, Strabo, Vitruvius, and other authors of that age; and a -description in Pliny’s Natural History, which we are now justified in -assuming to have been abstracted from a work written by the architects -who originally designed the Mausoleum itself. Probably there were no -diagrams or illustrations with their book, and we may suspect that -Pliny himself did not understand the building he undertook to describe. -At all events, it is certain that he stated its peculiarities in such a -manner as to be utterly unintelligible to future generations. - -Still there were so many facts in his statements, and the building -was so celebrated, that few architects have escaped the temptation of -trying to restore it. What the squaring of the circle is to the young -mathematician, or the perpetual motion to the young mechanician, the -Mausoleum at Halicarnassus was to the young architect; and with the -data at his disposal this problem seemed as insoluble as the other two. - -Some forty or fifty of these restorations have been published, and -a strange and amusing collection they are. Some are round, some -octagonal, some cruciform, some oblong or square in plan, some are -squat, some tall.[1] Every dimension found in Pliny was applied to -every part in succession, but in vain. All these designs had only one -thing in common;—that they were all wrong,—some more, some less so, but -none seizing what now turn out to be the main features of the design. - -In 1846, Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, who was then all-powerful as our -ambassador at Constantinople, obtained from the Porte a firman for the -removal of certain bassi-rilievi which had been built into the walls -of the Castle of Budrum, the ancient Halicarnassus. These arrived in -England in due course, and were at once admitted to be fragments of -the sculpture of the Mausoleum, as it had been previously assumed that -they were. But their beauty only served further to increase the regret -that all traces of the building to which they once belonged should have -been, as it then appeared, for ever lost. - -While things were in this very unsatisfactory position, the public -heard with no small degree of interest that Mr. Charles Newton, -formerly one of the officers of the British Museum, and then -Vice-Consul at Mitylene, had not only discovered the true site of the -Mausoleum on a spot formerly indicated by Professor Donaldson, but had -found considerable remains of the long-lost building. - -Public attention was still further attracted to the subject when it -was announced that the British Government had fitted out an extensive -expedition, to continue the explorations commenced by Mr. Newton at -Budrum and its neighbourhood. From the time that the expeditionary -force commenced its labours in October, 1856, till it was broken up -nearly three years afterwards, in June, 1859, occasional paragraphs -kept up the interest in its proceedings, and latterly the arrival -of the marbles themselves excited expectation to the highest pitch. -Everything seemed to shadow forth a most brilliant success; and, from -the high character which Mr. Newton bore as a Greek scholar, and a -thoroughly educated archæologist, all the Hellenist public rejoiced -that an expedition fitted out on so liberal a scale, and for so -desirable an object, had fallen into what all then believed to be such -competent hands. - -The first published results were not encouraging. They took the form -of Papers presented to Parliament, and published as a Blue Book in -1858, and a second series entitled “Further Papers relating to the -Excavations at Budrum and Cnidus, presented in August, 1859.” - -The diagrams of the Mausoleum which accompanied these Papers -seemed only sufficient to prove one of two things;—either that the -explorations had not resulted in the discovery of a sufficient quantity -of architectural forms to enable a satisfactory restoration to be made, -or that those who conducted the expedition were not sufficiently versed -in the art of putting together architectural fragments to be able to -avail themselves of the information that had been obtained. - -The whole results of the expedition were at last laid before the -public in February last, in a folio volume of plates accompanied by -a volume of text in 8vo. by Mr. Newton. This work contains, among -other things, an elaborate restoration of the Mausoleum by Mr. Pullan, -an architect who was sent out by the Trustees of the British Museum -to join the expedition during the continuance of its labours. This -restoration, however, turns out on examination to be less satisfactory -than those previously published by Lieut. Smith in the parliamentary -papers above alluded to, either as a specimen of Greek art or as a -solution of the difficulties inherent in the problem of reconciling the -recent discoveries with the ancient descriptions of the building. It -is also unfortunate that—owing probably to their author being absent -from the country—the purely architectural plates are so incorrectly -drawn or engraved as to add considerably to the previously existing -difficulties of the question. It is likewise to be regretted that, for -some reason which is not explained, all the best things are omitted -from the collection. The statue of Mausolus is not there, nor that of -the Goddess which accompanied the chariot. The Horses of the Chariot -are also omitted; so is the Torso of the prancing Amazon, the finest -thing found; so are the Castle bassi-rilievi, and the really fine -Lions. There are, in fact, materials left out sufficient to fill, if -not so large a volume as the present, at least one of a far higher -class. Notwithstanding these difficulties and defects, there appear to -be sufficient materials now before the public to effect a restoration -of the building, and as almost all that was discovered on the spot is -now in the British Museum, a reference to them enables us to correct or -verify what has been published. Under these circumstances I have not -hesitated to make the attempt. With what success I must leave it to -others to judge after a perusal of the contents of the following pages. - - - - -CHAPTER I. - - -The materials which now exist for restoring the Mausoleum are of four -different kinds. These are:— - -_First._—The passages in various ancient authors which either describe -the appearance of the building or give its dimensions. - -_Secondly._—The actual remains of the building discovered in the recent -explorations, and the measurements of the ground then obtained. - -_Thirdly._—The several tombs existing in Asia and Africa, evidently of -the same type, and which afford valuable hints for the restoration. - -_Lastly._—The system of definite proportions in Greek architecture, -which is not only most useful in suggesting forms, but also most -valuable in rectifying deductions arrived at from other sources. - - -1. _Scripta._ - -Among the things written with regard to the Mausoleum, by far the most -important is the celebrated passage in Pliny’s Natural History.[2] -It is to the following effect: “Scopas had, as rivals in the same -age, Bryaxis, and Timotheus, and Leochares, who should be mentioned -together, as they were equally employed in the sculptures of the -Mausoleum, a sepulchre erected by his wife Artemisia to Mausolus, -King of Caria, who died in the second year of the hundred and seventh -Olympiad. It was mainly owing to the work of the above-named artists -that this building was considered one of the seven wonders of the -world. It extends on the north and south 63 feet, but is shorter on -the other fronts. The whole circumference is 411 feet. It is raised -in height 25 cubits, and is surrounded by 36 columns. This part was -called the pteron. The sculptures on the east side were by Scopas, on -the north by Bryaxis, on the south by Timotheus, and on the west by -Leochares. Before they had finished their work, the Queen Artemisia, -who had ordered this building to be constructed in honour of her -husband’s memory, died; but they did not on that account cease from -their labours till it was entirely finished, regarding it as a monument -of their own fame and of art; and to this day the work testifies to -their rivalry in merit. A fifth artist was joined to them; for above -the pteron there was a pyramid equal in height to the lower part, with -24 steps, contracting into a summit, like that of a meta. On the top of -all this was a quadriga in marble, made by Pythis. These being added, -the height of the whole work was equal to 140 feet.” - -It is easy to see what difficulties were involved in this description. -How, in the first instance, was it possible that a building which -was only 63 feet in length in plan, and shorter on the other sides, -could be 411 feet in circumference? and, in regard to height, what -substantive was to be supplied after “inferiorem”? If “partem,” it -might apply to the pteron, which is the only part mentioned in the -previous description; but the logic seemed to require “pyramidem,” and -if so, what was it? If either, how was the whole height of 140 feet to -be made up? - -In looking a little carefully into the matter we can now guess how -it was that Pliny came to state these dimensions in so enigmatical a -manner; for we learn from Vitruvius[3] that Satyrus and Phytheus, two -of the architects employed in the building, wrote a description of -their work, which no doubt Pliny had access to; but as he was thinking -more of the sculpture than of the architecture, he jotted down these -dimensions without probably realising the form of the building himself, -and left them as a bewildering enigma for posterity. Now that we have -the means of verifying them, these figures are ten times more valuable -than the most vivid description of the general appearance of the -building would be to us; but it is only now that we feel this. - -The only other author who furnishes us with any dimensions is Hyginus, -a grammarian in the time of Augustus. In enumerating the seven wonders -of the world, he describes the “Monument of King Mausolus, built of -shining (?) (_lychnicis_) stones, 80 feet in height, and 1340 feet -in circumference.” Neither of these dimensions agrees with Pliny’s; -but the latter evidently refers to the peribolus, the wall of which -was found in the recent excavations.[4] The former, for reasons to -be given hereafter, I fancy should be 80 _cubits_, meaning thereby -Halicarnassian or Babylonian cubits of 21 inches each. If so, it is -Pliny’s exact dimension; but the matter is not important, as the text -of Hyginus is avowedly so corrupt, and he is of such low repute, that -his assertion is of little importance in the controversy. - -Vitruvius unfortunately adds very little to our knowledge of the -building. He describes its situation as in the centre of the curve -formed by the town, encircling its bay like a theatre, and with a broad -street, “_platea_,” leading from the _agora_ on the shore up to the -Mausoleum.[5] He adds, “Mausoleum ita egregiis operibus est factum;” -from which we may infer, as in fact we do from all other descriptions, -that the building was more remarkable for its sculpture and its details -than for its dimensions. - -Among the Greek authors, the most amusing account is that given by -Lucian in his ‘Dialogues of the Dead.’ He there makes Mausolus say, -in reply to the scoffing inquiry of Diogenes (after recounting his -exploits), “Besides that personal superiority, I am beautiful, tall -of stature, and of so robust a constitution as enabled me to sustain -all the hardships and fatigues of war; but, to be brief, the principal -point is, I have a prodigious monument raised over me at Halicarnassus, -which for magnitude and beauty has not its equal in the whole world. -It is decorated with the most exquisite figures of men and horses, all -carried to such a degree of perfection, and in such exceedingly fine -marbles, as you will not easily find even in a Temple.” Further on, -Diogenes remarks, “As to your monument and the costly marble of which -it is built, the inhabitants of Halicarnassus may certainly have reason -to show it to strangers, and to think much of themselves for possessing -so costly a work within their walls; but, my handsome friend, I do not -see what sort of enjoyment you should have in it. You should only say -that you bear a heavier load than the rest of us, since you have such -an enormous heap of stones lying on you!” - -The few words found in Pausanias add little to our knowledge, but -serve to show the estimation in which the Mausoleum was held. He -says, “Although there are many sepulchres worthy of admiration, two -may especially be mentioned; one at Halicarnassus, the other that of -Helena of Adiabene at Jerusalem.” With regard to the first he adds, -“It was erected for Mausolus, who reigned at Halicarnassus, and was so -wonderful, not only on account of the magnitude of the work, but also -from the magnificence of its ornaments, that the Romans considered it -among the wonders of the world, and called all their most magnificent -tombs _mausolea_, after it.”[6] - -Strabo merely mentions that it was considered one of the wonders of the -world. - -From this time to that of its final demolition by the Knights of St. -John between 1402 and 1522 A.D., the Mausoleum is mentioned as still -standing by Gregory of Nazianzum in the fourth century, and later -by Nicetus of Cappadocia and by Constantine Porphyrogenitus in the -tenth century; but the most important fact is the mention of it by -Eustathius, two centuries afterwards, who, in his commentary on the -‘Iliad,’ says of the Mausoleum, that “it was _and is_ a wonder.”[7] - -From all this we are justified in assuming that down to the twelfth -century the Mausoleum was at least sufficiently perfect to convey a -correct idea of its original magnificence. Between this period and the -year 1402, when the city was taken possession of by the Knights of St. -John, we are led to infer that the building must have been ruined, -most probably by the shock of an earthquake,—the position of many of -the fragments found being such as to be explicable only on such an -hypothesis. - -The Knights, it seems, immediately set about erecting the present -Castle, and the remains of the Mausoleum supplied not only stone, -but lime for the building. Still the materials were far from being -exhausted by this process in the first instance, for in 1472 Cepio -mentions the remains as remarkable, and a certain Coriolanus speaks of -them with more marked admiration. By far the most detailed account, -however, is found in the following extract from Guichard’s ‘Funerailles -des Rommains,’ printed at Lyons, 1581, and for which, as for all the -above mediæval information, we are indebted to the researches of Mr. -Newton, from whose work I have abstracted it. The passage runs as -follows in the old French, and is quoted entire, as it is almost as -important to the restoration of the monument as that of Pliny itself:— - - - “L’an 1522, lors que Sultan Solyman se préparoit pour - venir assaillir les Rhodiens, le Grand Maistre sçachāt - l’importance de ceste place, et que le Turc ne faudrait - point de l’empieter de premiere abordee, s’il pouuoit, - y ennoya quelques cheualiers pour la remparer et mettre - ordre à tout ce qui estoit necessaire soustenir l’ennemi, - du nombre desquels fut le Commandeur de la Tourette - Lyonnois, lequel se treuua depuis à la prise de Rhodes, - et vint en France, où il fit, de ce que ie vay dire - maintenāt, le recit à Monsieur d’Alechamps, personnage - assez recognu par ses doctes escrits, et que ie nomme - seulement à fin qu’on sçache de qui ie tien vne histoire - si remarcable. Ces cheualiers estans arriués à Mesy, - se mirent incontinent en deuoir de faire fortifier le - chasteau, et pour auoir de la chaux, ne treuuans pierre - aux enuirons plus propre pour en cuire, ni qui leur vinst - plus aisee, que certaines marches de marbre blanc, qui - s’esleuoyent en forme de perron emmy d’un champ près du - port, là où iadis estoit la grande place d’Halycarnasse, - ils les firêt abattre et prendre pour cest effect. La - pierre s’estant rencōtree bonne, fut cause, que ce peu de - maçonnerie, qui parroissoit sur terre, ayant esté demoli, - ils firent fouiller plus bas en esperance d’en treuuer - d’auantage. Ce qui leur succeda fort heureusement: - car ils recognurent en peu d’heure, que de tant plus - qu’on creusoit profond, d’autant plus s’eslargissoit - par le bas la fabrique, qui leur fournit par apres de - pierres, non seulement à faire de la chaux, mais aussi - pour bastir. Au bout de quatre ou cinque iours, apres - auoir faict vne grande descouuerte, par vne apres disnee - ils virent ouverture comme pour entrer dans vne caue: - ils prirent de la chandelle, et deualerent dedans, où - ils treuuerent vne belle grande salle carree, embellie - tout au tour de colonnes de marbre, avec leur bases, - chapiteaux, architraues, frises et cornices grauees - et taillees en demy bosse: l’entredeux des colonnes - estait reuestu de lastres, listeaux ou plattes bandes - de marbre de diuerses couleurs ornees de moulures et - sculptures conformes au reste de l’œuure, et rapportés - propermēt sur le fonds blāc de la muraille, où ne se - voyait qu’histoires taillees, et toutes battailles à demy - relief. Ce qu’ayans admiré de prime face, et apres avoir - estimé en leur fantāsie la singularite de l’ouurage, en - fin ils defirent, briserent, et rompirent, pour s’en - seruir comme ils auoyent faicte du demeurant. Outre - ceste sale ils treuuerent apres vne porte fort basse, - qui conduisoit à une autre, comme antichambre, ou il y - auoit vn sepulcre auec son vase et son tymbre de marbre - blanc, fort beau et reluisant à merueilles, lequel, pour - n’avoir pas eu assez de temps, ils ne descouurirent, la - retraicte estant desia sonnee. Le lendemain, apres qu’ils - y furent retournés, ils treuuerēt la tombe descouuerte, - et la terre semee autour de force petits morceaux de drap - d’or, et paillette de mesme metal: qu leur fit penser, - que les corsaires, qui escumoyent alors le long de toute - ceste coste, ayans eu quelque vent de ce qui auoit - esté descouuert en ce lieu là, y vindrent de nuict, et - osterent le couuercle du sepulcre, et tient on qu’ils y - treuuerent des grandes richesses et thresors. Ainsi ce - superbe sepulcre, compté pour l’un des sept miracles, - et ouurages merueilleux du monde, apres auoir eschappé - la fureur des Barbares, et demeuré l’espace de 2247 ans - debout, du moins enseueli dedans les ruines de la ville - d’Halycarnasse, fut descouuert et aboli pour remparer - le chasteau de S. Pierre, par les cheualiers croisés de - Rhodes, lesquels en furent incontinent apres chassés par - le Turc, et de toute l’Asie quant et quant.” - - -The demolition at that period seems to have been nearly complete, -though it is probable that from that time to this, the Turks may have -been in the habit of using such blocks of marble as may have remained -above ground, to make lime. At all events, so completely was all -trace of it above ground obliterated, that even so experienced an -observer as Captain Spratt failed, after the most minute survey of the -neighbourhood, to fix on the site where this wonder of the world had -once stood. - - -2. _Reliquiæ._ - -The one redeeming point in the conduct of these barbarian Knights was -that, instead of burning all the sculptures into lime, they built some -thirteen slabs of one of the friezes, and some of the lions, into -the walls of their castle. These had early attracted the attention -of travellers, and a view of them _in situ_ was published by the -Dilettante Society in their second volume of ‘Ionian Antiquities’ in -1797. In 1846, Lord Stratford de Redcliffe obtained a firman for their -removal, and they were sent home to the British Museum in Her Majesty’s -ship _Siren_. - -Nothing further was done till the explorations commenced, as before -mentioned, by Mr. Newton, in 1855, and the establishment of the -expedition there in the following year; though, from various causes, it -was not till the 1st of January, 1857, that they were really able to -commence excavations on the site of the Mausoleum. - -The principal discoveries which rewarded their exertions were:— - -_First._—Some thirty or forty blocks which formed part of the steps -of the pyramid mentioned by Pliny. These all (with two exceptions) -showed, by the weather marks on their upper surface, that they had -been constructed of two breadths only—the tread, or upper exposed part -of the steps, being always either 1 ft. 5 in. or 1 ft. 9 in. English, -according to Messrs. Smith, Pullan, or Newton. The real dimension, -however, as we shall see presently, was probably in inches and decimals -of an inch 17·01 and 21·2526. - -Even more important than these were four or five angle-stones of the -pyramid, showing the same dimensions in juxtaposition on their two -faces. It is much to be regretted that the exact number of these -stones which were found was not noted. If there had been three, and -they had all been found together, which seems to have been the case, -they might,—probably would,—all have belonged to one course. With four -this is less probable, but it still leaves it open to any one who has -a theory such as that of Mr. Cockerell or Mr. Falkener, or who might -suggest a curvilinear one (as I once did), to assert that this was -so, and thus leave the whole question still in doubt. If there were -five this would be impossible, and it would simplify the argument to a -considerable extent. - -The truth of the matter seems to be that Lieutenant Smith’s business -there was to take charge of the Sappers and Miners under his command; -Mr. Newton was only anxious to procure specimens of sculpture for the -National Museum; and before Mr. Pullan arrived, a great deal that had -been discovered was covered up again and no record left. Many points -that might then have been easily cleared up must now, therefore, be -left in doubt, unless some one will take the trouble of doing over -again what has been so carelessly done once. - -_Secondly._—Almost equally important with these were some portions of -the cymatium of the order. Like the greater steps, this was composed of -pieces, 21 inches in length, and on each alternate one, covering the -joint, was a lion’s head—thus 3 ft. 6 in. apart from centre to centre. -From this we get, with almost absolute certainty, the width of the -intercolumniations as twice, thrice, or four times 3 ft. 6 in. - -_Thirdly._—A capital and base of a column, very nearly perfect were -found, and fragments of several others;—a considerable number of -frustra of the columns and fragments of the architrave and cornice. The -frieze we assume that we knew before from the sculptures already in -the Museum. In fact, a sufficient number of fragments were recovered -to enable us to restore the whole “order” with very tolerable -approximative certainty. All these parts are more or less chipped and -broken, so that minute differences still exist; but on the whole we may -feel tolerably certain that it reached, as nearly as may be, the height -of 25 cubits or 37 ft. 6 in. Greek, mentioned by Pliny. - -_Fourthly._—Some stones of the lacunaria of the roof were found, but -not in a sufficiently perfect state to enable us to be certain of any -dimensions from them. Mr. Pullan makes them fit an intercolumniation -of 10 feet,—Professor Cockerell, it is understood, applies them to one -of 8·75; and they would be found equally applicable to various other -dimensions. - -_Fifthly._—No other strictly architectural fragments were found, but -portions of the wheel of the quadriga, and a nearly perfect statue, -which was almost certainly that of Mausolus, together with portions -of two at least of the horses of the chariot. These enable us to -restore that most important group with very tolerable certainty, and to -ascertain that its height was somewhere about 13 or 14 feet. - -_Sixthly._—Portions of three different friezes were found, two of which -appear to have been external; the third, from being less weather-worn, -may have been situated under the pteron, or may have adorned the -interior of the building. - -_Seventhly._—Fragments of some panels of sculpture, but where situated -is not clear. - -_Eighthly._—In addition to these, fragments of a considerable number of -statues, a little more than life-size, were discovered; and fragments, -more or less perfect, of some 20 lions, principally of two dimensions, -viz., either about 5 ft. 0 in. or 5 ft. 3 in. in length, and about the -same in height; and one torso of what was either an Amazon or a young -man on horseback in violent action. - -_Ninthly._—But perhaps the most important discovery of all, in so -far as the restoration is concerned, was that the rock on which the -building stood was excavated to a depth of 8 or 9 feet over an area -measuring some 107 feet by 127. As the explorers were not aware of the -value of these dimensions, they quote them loosely in round numbers; -but they almost certainly were 105 by 126 Greek feet, or 106·31 English -by 127·575, as will be explained hereafter. - - -3. _Exempla._ - -By far the best corroborative example that has yet been brought to -light is one discovered by Mr. Newton and his associates at Cnidus, and -by them called the Lion Tomb. - -[Illustration: 1.—LION TOMB, CNIDUS. (From Mr. Newton’s work.)] - -Whether it is a Tomb at all, or whether the restoration can be depended -upon, will not be known till the second part of Mr. Newton’s text -is published. The plates in his work fail, in this and every other -instance, in giving the remotest idea of the remains _in situ_; and the -architectural plates do not distinguish between what was found and what -is restored. Still it must be near enough to the truth to be allowed -to suggest what was the meaning of the “metæ cacumen,” or the pedestal -on which the sculpture was placed on the top of the Pyramid, which is -the key to the whole mystery of the Mausoleum. It may also probably be -quoted as suggesting the mode in which the Pyramid was placed on the -order. - -2. A Tomb is found at Dugga in Africa, which is singularly suggestive -of the appearance of the Mausoleum, with only such difference as the -very much smaller scale would necessitate. - -[Illustration: 2.—TOMB AT DUGGA. (From a Drawing by Mr. Catherwood.)] - -3. A third, at Souma near Constantina, is published by Ravoisé in -elevation, and in perspective by Mr. Falkener in his Museum of -Classical Antiquities, No. 2, p. 172. This consists first of a solid -podium or basement, with steps. Over this is a storey with a doorway or -opening on each face, and above this a pteron of eight Doric columns, -disposed three on each face, but without any cella or chamber, the -space being too small to admit of any. There is, in this instance, no -pyramid of steps on the top, but a small pediment on each face. - -4. At page 174 of the same volume there is a still more suggestive -design restored by Mr. Falkener from some remains he found at Denzili -in Phrygia. The base of this monument was entirely concealed by -rubbish; but above ground were found six square steles or piers, -arranged three and three, with a figure sculptured in bas-relief on -each face. Above the entablature was a pyramid of steps supporting a -couchant figure of a lion. - -5. There is a well known Tomb at Mylassa, published by the Dilettante -Society in their volume on ‘Ionia;’ which, though of late Roman times, -is evidently copied from the Mausoleum. - -[Illustration: 3.—TOMB AT MYLASSA.] - -6. There are several other smaller examples, which, if they do not -suggest much, are at least interesting, as showing how widely the fame -of this building was extended, and how generally it was imitated, not -only in Asia but in Africa. - -7. There is also the Trophy Monument discovered by Sir Charles Fellows -at Xanthus, which, though hardly bearing directly on the subject, is -still sufficiently near it in design to suggest several peculiarities -which, without its authority, we might hesitate to adopt. - - -4. _Rationes._ - -The last mode of investigation which has been mentioned as open to us, -yields results which, though not so obvious at first sight, are quite -as satisfactory as those obtained from any of the previously mentioned -sources of information. - -As will be explained in the sequel, we find that, by the application -of the formula of simple ratios, we are enabled to fix the dimensions -of almost every part of the Mausoleum with almost absolute certainty; -and at the same time it is found that the Mausoleum is one of the most -complete and interesting examples of a building designed wholly on a -scheme of simple definite ratios. Thus the very science which assists -materially in solving the problem, is at the same time illustrated and -confirmed by the discoveries it aids in making. - -The first attempt to explain the peculiarities of buildings by a scheme -of definite ratios seems to be that expounded by Cæsar Cæsarini, in -his edition of Vitruvius, published in 1521. In this work he shows -by diagrams how a series of equilateral triangles explains all the -dimensions and peculiarities of design in Milan Cathedral; and in this -he probably was right, for, being a foreign work, it is very probable -that the Italian architects, not understanding the true principles of -the art, squeezed the design into this formal shape and so spoiled -it. The success of this attempt of Cæsarini, however, has induced -numberless other architects to apply the same principle to other Gothic -Cathedrals, but without success in a single instance. Those which -approach nearest to it are such buildings as Westminster Abbey,—a -French church built in England; Cologne Cathedral, which is a French -example in Germany; and in like manner all foreign examples approximate -to definite proportions; but it may safely be asserted that no truly -native example of Gothic art was so arranged. - -It has, however, long been suspected that the Greeks proceeded on -a totally different principle; but materials did not exist for a -satisfactory elucidation of the question till Mr. Penrose published -his exquisite survey of the Parthenon and other buildings at Athens -made for the Society of Dilettanti, and Mr. Cockerell the result of his -explorations at Bassæ and Egina. In the first-named work, its author -pointed out with sufficient clearness some of the principal ratios of -that celebrated building, which his survey enabled him to verify, and -for others he supplied dimensions which for completeness and accuracy -left nothing to be desired. With these new materials, Mr. Watkiss -Lloyd undertook the investigation, and by a long and careful series -of comparisons he has proved that the time-honoured doctrine of the -Vitruvian school—that the lower diameter of a column was the modulus -of every other part of a building—had no place in Greek art; on the -contrary, that every part of a Greek building was proportioned to those -parts in juxtaposition or analogy to it, in some such ratio as 3 to 4, -4 to 5, 5 to 6, and so on,—not by accident, but by careful study; and -the whole design was evolved from a nexus of proportions as ingenious -in themselves as they were harmonious in their result. - -In the Parthenon, for instance, he found that the entire building is -set out with the minutest accuracy, by the application of a few ratios -which involve no higher number than 16, and in no case have a higher -difference between them than 5. - -The greatest ingenuity and refinement were exercised in embracing the -entire design in a network of proportional relations, in such a way -that every division had a special dependence upon some other that was -particularly contrasted or connected with it; and at the same time -every member was implicated in more than one such comparison by what -might seem happy accident, were it not that on trial it is proved how -much study is required to effect such a result. At the same time, when -the clue is once gained, it is easy to see how study was competent to -effect it. - -Among the proportional applications affecting the present subject, -which may be considered axiomatic are these:— - - -The establishment of proportions of low numbers between— - -1. The length and breadth of the basement, either upon its upper or -lower step, or both. - -2. The breadth of front and full height of the building; in most cases, -also, the length of flank and full height. - -3. The length and breadth of any other conspicuous rectangle, such as -in the present case would be the plans of the cella, of the pyramid, of -the base or pedestal of the statue. - -4. The division of the grand height of the structure into a pair of -well-contrasted parts, having a ratio to each other of which the terms -differ by unity, as 2 to 3, 3 to 4, &c. The further subdivision of -these parts is effected again by definite proportions, and a favourite -scheme here, as elsewhere, is for an intermediate section of a -vertical line to have a simple proportion to the joint dimensions of -sections above and below it, these upper and lower sections being then -proportioned independently. Thus in the entablature of the Mausoleum -the frieze is just half the joint height of architrave and cornice; -that is, one-third of the height is given to the frieze. - -5. The lower diameter of the Ionic column has usually a ratio to the -upper diameter expressible in low numbers with a difference of unity. -In the Mausoleum the ratio is 5 to 6, the same as at Priene. In the -columns at Branchidæ, which were more than double the height, the -difference is slighter, viz., 7 to 8. - -6. The height of the column is usually, but by no means invariably, -commensurable with the lower diameter, or at least semi-diameter, and -the columns are spaced in one or other of the schemes that supply -a symmetry with their height; that is to say, the height of the -column will be found invariably to measure off a space laterally that -coincides with centre and centre of columns, centre and margin, or -margin and margin of the foot of the shaft or base. This symmetry was -of more importance than the commensurability of height by diameter. - -7. In the architecture of temples, at least, the height either of the -shaft or of the full column compares with the complementary height of -the order, or of the front, in a ratio of which the terms differ by -unity, and the larger term pertains to the columns. For example, the -height of the Parthenon column is two parts out of three into which the -full height of the order at the flank of the temple is divisible; the -remaining part being divided between the entablature and the steps.[8] - - -Mr. Lloyd first publicly explained his theory of the system of -proportions used in Greek architecture in a lecture he delivered at the -Institute of British Architects in June, 1859, and he afterwards added -an appendix to Mr. Cockerell’s work on Egina and Bassæ, explaining -specially the proportions of those temples; but the full development of -his views, and particularly their relation to the Parthenon, which it -appears surpassed all known works in refined and exact application of -the system, still unfortunately remains in manuscript. - -The more direct application of this theory to the design of the -Mausoleum will be explained as we proceed, but in the meanwhile it may -be asserted that without it many of the dimensions of this celebrated -monument might for ever have remained matters of dispute. With its -assistance there is scarcely one that may not be ascertained with -almost absolute certainty. - -Another and quite distinct set of ratios was discovered by Colonel -Howard Vyse and his architect Mr. Perring, in their explorations of the -Pyramids of Egypt. They found, for instance, in the Great Pyramid that -the distance - - Cubits. - From the ground-line to the floor of the Queen’s chamber was 40 - From the floor of the Queen’s to the floor of the King’s chamber 40 - From the floor of the King’s chamber to the apex of the discharging roof 40 - From that point to the apex of the pyramid, 40 × 4 160 - ——— - Making up exactly 280 - - -They also found that the length of the base line was to this dimension -in the ratio of 8 to 5, making it 448 cubits or 767·424 feet English -exactly. With these two dimensions all the other parts of so simple a -figure follow as a matter of course. - -The bearing of this also on the Mausoleum will be seen in the sequel, -though a much more complicated system of ratios was of course necessary -either to such a building or to even the very simplest Greek temples. - - - - -CHAPTER II. - -_Greek Measures._ - - -There is one other point which must be carefully attended to in any -attempt to restore the Mausoleum, which is the ratio between Greek and -English measures. Those quoted by Pliny are in the former, of course; -those obtained by the excavations are in the latter; and every result -is vitiated and worthless without due attention to the difference. - -The length of a Greek foot may be attained most directly by comparison -with the Roman. From the researches of the best antiquaries as summed -up by Niebuhr, the length of the Roman foot was ·972 English—a result -confirmed by Mr. Penrose’s careful independent investigation. Now, as -it is known that the ratio between the Greek foot and the Roman was as -25 to 24, we arrive at the result of 101·25 English feet equal to 100 -Greek. - -Mr. Penrose obtained a slightly different result from his measurement -of the upper step of the Parthenon. The front was known or assumed to -be exactly 100 Greek feet; it gave 101·341, or about one inch in excess -in 1200. As the flanks were to the front in the ratio of 4 to 9, this -ought to have given 228·019. It was found to be 228·166, or nearly two -inches in excess. But, on the other hand, it is admitted that the term -Hecatompedon in Greek authors seems always to apply to the Naos and -not to the step; and this, as measured by Mr. Penrose, including the -transverse wall, gave 101·222, or a little under the other—the mean -between the two being almost exactly identical with the measure derived -from the Roman foot. In consequence of this the preference will be -given throughout the following pages to the ratio of 101·25, or 101 ft. -3 in. English, as being equal to 100 Greek feet. - -Turning from this to the measurement of the steps of the Pyramid, -which, as mentioned above, is one of the most important elements -for the restoration which have been brought to light by the recent -excavations, we find their dimensions quoted throughout by Lieut. -Smith, Mr. Pullan, and Mr. Newton as 1´ 9´´, or 21 inches English for -the wider, and 1´ 5´´, or 17 English inches for the narrower step. -The first thing that strikes one on considering this is, that it is a -most wonderful coincidence that these dimensions should come out so -exactly in English measures, without any fraction either way. On any -moderate calculation of chances the odds are at least 100 to 1 against -this being the case. The suspicion that there is an error somewhere -is confirmed by observing that, though so very nearly in the ratio of -4 to 5, they are not exactly so; but if we try with the lower number -we find 4 : 5 :: 17 : 21·25, or within the minutest fraction of 21 -Greek inches. If we adopt 17·01 English inches for the shorter, we have -21·2625, or exactly 21 Greek inches, for the latter. - -It would be needless to attempt by measurement to attain such minute -accuracy as this; as it must in fairness be stated that it is extremely -difficult to ascertain minute differences in the present state of the -remains. Where two stones or steps are _in situ_, the one over the -other, it is very easy to measure the distance from the face of the -one to the face of the other; but when, as in this instance, we are -dependent on the weather-marks or a position assumed from the details -of other examples, we must be content with approximations, and without -the guidance of some system of definite proportions can never be sure -we are right. - -The determination of this point was so essential that I have carefully -measured all the angle and roofing stones I could get access to in the -Museum, and find that, as nearly as can be ascertained, the dimension -of 17 inches is correct; but the longer one is, it may be, 2/10ths—it -may be 3/10ths—of an inch in excess. Any one can verify this for -himself; but I am so convinced of its correctness by my measurements, -that I shall use the longer step as a dimension of 21 Greek, or 21·2625 -English, inches. - -Assuming this for the present, the next thing that suggests itself is, -that 21 inches is the acknowledged length of the Babylonian cubit. We -know that after the captivity, the Jews added a handbreadth to their -cubit, so as to make it up to this then fashionable measure; and as we -know that Caria had been so long under the domination of the Persians, -ruling from Babylon, there is no _à priori_ improbability in this -measure being current there.[9] - -The well known tablets at Mylassa, given in Böckh, prove incontestably -that Mausolus acknowledged himself a satrap of Artaxerxes as late as -355, or only two years before his death. If it is contended that he -afterwards emancipated himself from the Persian yoke—of which there is -no proof—it is by no means clear that he did not commence his own tomb -himself some time before his death. At least it is nearly certain that -no other man ever had a tomb of any great magnificence who did not in -his lifetime take measures to secure its erection. - -All this does not, it is true, prove that the Babylonian cubit was used -in Caria; but it makes it so probable that it may have been that there -will be nothing shocking in calling the length of the longer step by -this name; and as this measure was the modulus of the whole building, -and occurs over and over again, it will be convenient, and avoid -circumlocution, if—of course, without prejudging the fact—we call the -measure of 21 Greek inches as equal to 1 Babylonian or Halicarnassean -cubit. If it could be proved that such a measure was never known in -Caria, this would not in the least affect the result. All that is -wanted here is a name which shall express a measure of 21 Greek inches. -If any other can be suggested it will answer equally well. But it seems -necessary that some definite term should be used in the sequel; and, -till some other is found, I may perhaps be allowed to employ this. - - -_Cymatium._ - -Next in importance to the steps of the Pyramid, for the purposes of -restoration, are the fragments of the Cymatium which were discovered in -the excavations. Of these some six or seven were found, and on each was -either a Lion’s head covering the joint, or the mark of a Lion’s head -on the further edge of the stone next the joint. - -[Illustration: _3 f^t. 6 in. greek_ >] - -4.—CYMATIUM.] - -Each of these pieces was, like the steps of the Pyramid, 21 inches, or -1 cubit, in length;[10] and, according to the evidence we now have, the -Lions’ heads were consequently spaced 2 cubits, or 3 feet 6 inches, -from the centre of one to the centre of another. - -The interest of this measurement lies in the certainty that the -inter-columniation was somehow commensurate with it. The usual -arrangement in Greek architecture would have been that there should -be one Lion’s head over the centre of each column, and one half-way -between. This certainly was not the arrangement here, as the columns, -which are 3 ft. 6 in. Greek, or exactly 2 cubits in width, in their -lower diameter, would then have been only one diameter apart. - -It has been suggested that, as the Lions’ heads are so unusually -close, the pillars may have been so arranged that one column had a -Lion’s head over its centre, and those on each side stood between two -Lions’ heads—thus making the intercolumniation 8 ft. 9 in. The first -objection that occurs to this view is, that it is unknown in any other -examples; that it is contrary to the general principles of the art, and -introduces an unnecessary complication; and is, therefore, unlikely. -But the great objection is, that it cannot be made to fit in with any -arrangement of the Pyramid steps. Let it be assumed, for instance, -that the thirty-six columns of the Pteron were so arranged as to give -an uneven number each way, so as to have eleven intercolumniations -on one side by seven on the other; this would give a dimension of -96 feet 3 inches by 61 feet 3 inches from centre to centre of the -angle columns, to which it would be impossible to fit the Pyramid, -assuming, from the evidence of the steps, that its sides were in -ratio 4 to 5, or nearly so at all events. If, on the contrary, it is -assumed that there were 10 intercolumniations by 8, this would give -a dimension of 87·6 by 70; and adding 2 ft. 9 in. each way, which we -shall presently see was the projection of the first step of the Pyramid -beyond the centre of the angle column, we should have for its base 93 -feet by 75 feet 6 inches, within which it is impossible to compress -it, unless we adopt a tall pyramid, as was done by Mr. Cockerell and -Mr. Falkener before the discovery of the pyramid steps, or unless we -admit of a curvilinear-formed pyramid, as was suggested by myself. -With the evidence that is now before us, neither of these suggestions -seems to be for one moment tenable; and as we cannot, with this -intercolumniation, stretch the dimensions of the Pteron beyond what is -stated above, it must be abandoned. - -Advancing 1 cubit beyond this, we come to 6 cubits, or 10 feet 6 inches -Greek, as the distance from the centre of one column to the centre of -the next;[11] and the Lions’ heads then range symmetrically, one over -each pillar, and two between each pair. - -At first sight there seems to be no objection to the assumption that -one plain piece of the Cymatium may have been inserted between each -of the pieces to which were attached the Lions’ heads, or the impress -of them. It is true none were found; but as there could be only one -plain piece in three, and as only six or seven fragments were found -altogether, the chances against this theory are not sufficient to cause -its rejection. The real difficulty is, that a Lion’s head exists on -a stone 1 cubit from the angle; and, unless the architects adopted a -different arrangement at the angles from what they did in the centre, -which is, to say the least of it, extremely improbable, it cannot be -made to fit with the arrangement. If one plain piece had been found, it -would have fixed the distance between centre and centre of column at 10 -ft. 6 in. absolutely. As none, however, were found, or at least brought -home, we must look for our proofs elsewhere. - -The first of these is a very satisfactory one, on the principle of -definite proportions above explained. As we have just found that six -pyramid steps, or 6 cubits, are equal to one intercolumniation, so -six intercolumniations, or 36 cubits, is exactly 63 Greek feet—the -“sexagenos ternos pedes,” which Pliny ascribes to the cella or tomb; -it is further proved that this was not accidental, by our finding that -twice the length of the cella, or 126 Greek feet, or 72 cubits, is, or -ought to be, the total length of the building, measured on its lowest -step. This, as before mentioned, Mr. Newton quotes, in round numbers, -as 127 feet English; but as neither he nor any of those with him had -any idea that any peculiar value was attached to this dimension, they -measured carelessly and quoted loosely. My own conviction is, that -it certainly was 127 ft. 6-3/4 in. English, which would be the exact -equivalent of 126 Greek feet. At all events, I feel perfectly certain -that the best mode of ascertaining the exact length of the pyramid step -would be to divide this dimension, whatever it is, by 72. - - -_Pteron._ - -Returning to the Pteron: if the columns were ranged in a single row—and -no other arrangement seems possible with the evidence now before -us—there must have been eleven columns on the longer faces and nine at -the ends, counting the angle columns twice, and consequently a column -in the centre of each face. This, at least, is the resultant of every -conceivable hypothesis that I have been able to try. No other will, -even in a remote degree, suit the admitted forms and dimensions of the -pyramid: it is that adopted by Lieutenant Smith and Mr. Pullan; and, -according to the evidence before us, seems the only one admissible. - -Adopting it for the present, the first difficulty that arises is that -10 intercolumniations at 10 ft. 6 in. give 105 feet; to which if we -add as before 5 ft. 6 in., or twice 2 ft. 9 in., for the projection of -the first step of the pyramid beyond the centres of the columns, we -have 110 ft. 6 in., a dimension to which it is almost impossible to -extend the pyramid; and, what is worse, with a cella only 63 feet in -its longest dimension, it leaves 21 feet at either end, from the centre -of the columns to the wall, a space which it is almost impossible could -be roofed by any of the expedients known to the Greeks; and the flanks -are almost equally intractable. It was this that rendered Lieutenant -Smith’s restoration so unacceptable. He boldly and honestly faced the -difficulty, and so far he did good service, and deserves all praise. -Mr. Pullan’s expedient of cutting 6 inches off each intercolumniation -is not so creditable, nor is the result much more satisfactory. - -After trying several others, the solution appears to me to lie in the -hypothesis that the angle columns were coupled,—or, in other words, -half an intercolumniation (5 feet 3 inches) apart from centre to centre. - -Should it be asked if there are any other examples of this arrangement, -the answer must probably be that there are not; but there is also no -other building known with a pyramidal roof, or which, from its design, -would so much require strengthening at the angles. The distance between -the columns and the front must necessarily be so great,—the height at -which they are placed is so considerable,—and the form of the roof -so exceptional, that I feel quite certain any architect will admit -that this grouping together of the angle columns is æsthetically an -improvement.[12] - -Although this arrangement may not be found in any Ionic edifice, it is -a well-known fact that in every Doric Temple the three columns at the -angles are spaced nearer to each other than those intermediate between -them, either in the flanks or front. The usual theory is that this was -done to accommodate the exigencies of the triglyphs. It may be so, but -the Greeks were too ingenious a people to allow any such difficulty -to control their designs if they had not thought it an improvement -to strengthen the angles of their buildings. We may also again -refer to the Lion Tomb at Cnidus (Woodcut, No. 1), where the angle -intercolumniations are less than the centre ones, for no conceivable -reason but to give apparent strength to that part. - -The proof, however, must depend on how it fits with the other parts. - -Taking first the flanks, we have 8 whole and 2 half intercolumniations, -equal to 94 feet 6 inches Greek, or 48 cubits, or just once and a half -the length of the cella; which is so far satisfactory. At the back of -the gutter behind the cymatium there is a weather mark which certainly -indicates the position of the first step of the pyramid, and, according -to Mr. Pullan’s restoration of the order, this mark is 2 ft. 8-1/2 in. -beyond the centre of the columns. As there are a great many doubtful -elements in this restoration, and as, from the fragmentary nature of -the evidence, it is impossible to be certain within half an inch or -even an inch either way, let us, for the nonce, assume this dimension -to be 2 ft. 9 in. Twice this for the projection either way, or 5 ft. -6 in., added to 94 ft. 6 in., gives exactly 100 Greek feet for the -dimension of the lowest step of the pyramid. So far nothing could be -more satisfactory; but, if it is of any value, the opposite side ought -to be 80 feet,—or in the ratio of 5 to 4. - -On this side we have 6 whole and 2 half intercolumniations, or 73 ft. -6 in.,—to which adding, as before, 5 ft. 6 in. for the projection of -the step, we obtain 79 feet! If this is really so, there is an end of -this theory of restoration on a system of definite proportions; and so -for a long time I thought, and was inclined to give up the whole in -despair. The solution, however, does not seem difficult when once it -is explained. It probably is this: the steps of the Pyramid being in -the ratio of 4 to 5, or as 16·8 in. to 21 inches Greek, the cymatium -gutter must be in the same ratio, or the angle would not be in the same -line with the angles of the steps or of the pedestals, or whatever was -used to finish the roof. In Mr. Newton’s text this dimension is called -1 ft. 10 in. throughout; according to Mr. Day’s lithographer it is -1´·88, which does not represent 1 ft. 10 in. by any system of decimal -notation I am acquainted with. According to Mr. Pullan’s drawing it -scales 2 feet.[13] From internal evidence, I fancy the latter is the -true dimension. Assuming it to be so, and that it is the narrowest of -the two gutters, the other was of course as 4 is to 5, or as 2 feet to -2 feet 6 inches, which gives us the exact dimensions we are seeking, -or 6 inches each way. This I feel convinced is the true explanation, -but the difficulty is that, if it is so, there must be some error in -Mr. Pullan’s restoration of the order. If we assume that we have got -the wider gutter, the other would be 19·2 in., which would be easily -adjusted to the order, but would give only 4·8 in. each way, or 1-2/10 -in. less than is wanted. It is so unlikely that the Greeks would have -allowed their system to break down for so small a quantity as one inch -and one-fifth in 40 feet, that we may feel certain—if this difficulty -exists at all—that it is only our ignorance that prevents our -perceiving how it was adjusted. If it should prove that the cymatium -we have got is the larger one, and that consequently this difference -does exist, the solution will probably be found in the fact of the -existence of two roof stones, with the abnormal dimensions quoted by -Mr. Pullan as 10-1/2 inches and 9 respectively. It may be they were -9´´ and 10´´·2, which would give the quantity wanted. But, whatever -their exact dimensions, it is probable that they were the lowest steps -of the pyramid; and, if the discrepancy above alluded to did exist, -they may have been used as the means of adjusting it. Be all this as -it may, I feel convinced that whenever the fragments can be carefully -re-examined, it will be found that the exact dimension we are seeking -was 80 Greek feet.[14] - -There is another test to which this arrangement of the columns must be -submitted before it can be accepted, which is, the manner in which it -can be made to accord with the width of the cella. - -The first hypothesis that one naturally adopts is that the peristyle -should be one intercolumniation in width, in other words that the -distance between the centres of the columns and the walls of the cella -should be 10 feet 6 inches. Assuming this, or deducting 21 Greek feet -from the extreme width we have just found above of 73 feet 6 inches, -it leaves 52 feet 6 inches for the width, which is a very reasonable -explanation of Pliny’s expression, “brevius a frontibus.” It is also -satisfactory, as it is in the proportion of 5 to 6, with 63 feet, which -is Pliny’s dimension, for the length of the cella. But the “instantia -crucis” must be that it should turn out—like the longer sides—just one -half the lower step, or rock-cut excavation. What this is, is not so -easily ascertained. In his letter to Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, of -3rd April, 1857, Mr. Newton calls it 110 feet; in the text (p. 95) it -is called 108; while Lieut. Smith, who probably made the measurement, -calls it 107 (Parl. Papers, p. 20). The latter, therefore, we may -assume is the most correct. If the above hypothesis is correct, it -ought to have been 106·31 English or 105 Greek feet, which most -probably was really the dimension found; but as it did not appear to -the excavators that anything depended upon it, they measured it, as -before, carelessly and recorded it more so. - -In the meanwhile, therefore, we may assume that the width of the cella -was 52 feet 6 inches, or 30 Babylonian cubits. The width of the lower -step on the east and west fronts was 105 Greek feet, or 60 cubits -exactly. - -Of course this is exactly in the proportion of 5 to 6 with the longer -step, which, as we found above, was 72 cubits or 126 Greek feet; and -this, as we shall presently see, was the exact height of the building -without the quadriga, the total height being 80 cubits or 140 Greek -feet. - - -_Pyramid._ - -Having now obtained a reasonable proportion for the lower step of the -Pyramid, 100 by 80 Greek feet, the remaining dimensions are easily -ascertained. - -Mr. Pullan, using the nearly correct measure of 17 English inches for -the shorter step, obtained 32 feet 6 inches English for the spread of -the pyramid in one direction. It need hardly be remarked that when -there were 24 joints, and each stone sloped slightly backwards instead -of having its face perpendicular to its bed, it is impossible now to -attain any minute accuracy in this dimension; but 32·5 ft. English -is so nearly 32 Greek feet (it ought to have been 32´·4) that we may -fairly assume that that was the dimension intended, the difference -being very slightly in excess of one inch. - -In the other direction Mr. Pullan obtained 39´ 11-1/2´´ English; but -as it is impossible, for the reasons just stated, to ascertain to half -an inch what this dimension really was, we may assume this to be 40 -English feet; and as Mr. Pullan used the erroneous measurement of 21 -English instead of 21 Greek inches, we at once obtain 40 Greek feet -for the spread in the longer direction, or again in the ratio of 4 to 5. - -This leaves a platform on the summit of 20 Greek feet by 16, on which -to erect the pedestal or meta, which is to support the quadriga. The -question is,—is it sufficient? - -According to Mr. Pullan’s drawings (Plates XVIII. and XX.), the group -measures 15 feet English in length by 13´ 6´´ across, and 12´ 6´´ from -the extreme hoof on one side to that on the other. This, however, -hardly accords with the facts stated in the text.[15] It is stated -at page 162, that the horses measure each 3 feet 6 inches across the -chest, which alone makes 14 feet, supposing them to stand with their -shoulders touching each other. Between the two central horses was the -pole, which may have measured 9 inches, and as it could hardly be -supported otherwise, if of marble, probably touched the shoulder of the -horse on either side; and, allowing the same distance between the two -outer horses, we get 16´ 3´´ English, or, as near as may be, 16 Greek -feet for the extreme width of the group. This, however, is probably -overstating the matter; 3´ 6´´ seems an extreme measurement, in so -far as I can ascertain. There is no proof that they were all so, and -6 inches is sufficient for the width between the outer horses. This -dimension may therefore be stated as between 15 and 16 Greek feet. -The width of the plinth would be less than either, for a horse stands -considerably within his extreme breadth, and I need hardly say that -anywhere, but more especially at such a height as this, a sculptor -would bring the hoof as near the edge of the plinth as possible. In the -Museum, there is one hoof of one of the chariot-horses placed within 2 -inches of the edge of the stone on which it stands; but this does not -seem to have been an outside stone; though the same dimensions would be -ample if it were. There is no difficulty, therefore, in this dimension; -the plinth probably may have been 15 Greek feet, which would allow 6 -inches either way for the projection of the step. - -In the other direction, the length seems somewhat excessive. From -the front to the rear hoofs of the horses, there may have been about -10 feet; the chariot-wheel is said to have been 7 ft. 7 in., and the -length of the pedestal required would consequently be about that -dimension, or 17 ft. 7 in. English. It is probable, however, that the -figure of the Goddess stood outside the chariot behind, and this would -easily fill up the whole. But at the same time, is it quite clear -that the chariot stood as assumed above, or parallel to the longer -axis of the building? The principal approach, we know from Vitruvius, -was from the south. The pyramid was steepest on that side, and there -would be infinitely more symmetry in the principal group facing in -that direction than in the other. In that case, we must assume that -the horses that have been recovered are the central ones, and in -comparative repose. The outer ones would be in more violent action, -and spread wider. This is, perhaps, more a sculptor’s question than -an architect’s: but my own feeling is strongly in favour of the last -hypothesis. It seems more in accordance with what we know of Greek art, -and artistically I cannot help fancying it would look better from every -point of view than if the chariot group was placed, as in Plate II., -facing towards the longer sides of the building.[16] - -Before leaving the pyramid, there is one little matter which requires -adjustment. Two steps were found differing from the others, and -measuring 9 inches and 10-1/2 inches in width respectively. Mr. Pullan -places these at the top of the pyramid, where it appears they must have -made a very unpleasing break in the uniformity of the lines. I fancy -they were the lowest steps of all. - -[Illustration: 5.—SECTION OF CYMATIUM AND OF BASE OF PYRAMID.] - -As will be observed from the diagram (Woodcut No. 5) the lowest step -of the pyramid is buried to half its height in the gutter behind the -cymatium; and with that projecting 2 feet beyond, it could not be seen -anywhere within - -400 feet of the building,—practically not at all. At the same time I am -inclined to believe that the lowest visible step was at least twice as -high as the others. The authority for this is, of course, the Lion Tomb -(Woodcut No. 1); but I think every architect will agree that a pyramid -fading away behind a cymatium, without any marking line, would be most -unpleasing architecturally; and especially when the pyramid slopes -upwards at so low an angle, and is placed so high, the arrangement -seems especially wanted. Assuming this, the 9-inch step is just what is -required to bring the taller step perpendicular over the frieze, and -preventing the cymatium at the same time appearing to have too great a -projection at such points as it could be seen from. Mr. Pullan makes -the whole height of the twenty-four steps equal to 25 feet English. -If this were added it would be 26, or about 25 feet 9 inches Greek; -leaving thus 11 feet 9 inches for the height of the meta or pedestal of -the quadriga. - -In so far as any accordance with Pliny’s dimensions is concerned, -the height of the pyramid steps is not of the smallest consequence. -Whatever is added to the pyramid must be taken from the meta; whatever -is taken from the meta, which there is nothing to govern, must be added -to the pyramid. What its height really was, can only be ascertained -when some system of definite proportions for the vertical heights of -the building shall have been satisfactorily settled, which, as will -be explained farther on, is rather difficult to establish absolutely, -though easy to fix within certain tolerably narrow limits. - - -_Vertical Heights._ - -With regard to the vertical heights, there is absolutely no difficulty -in making them agree with those found in Pliny. The pyramid,—“in metæ -cacumen se contrahens,”—was 25 Greek cubits, or 37 ft. 6 in. The order -was the same in height exactly, and if we choose to assume that the -expression “pyramis altitudine inferiorem æquavit” referred to the -pteron as the “lower part,” it comes out correctly. If we add to the -pyramid the quadriga, estimating that at 13´ 9´´, we have 51´ 3´´, and -taking the same quantity for the basement, we have - - - Greek Ft. In. - For the pyramid and quadriga 51 3 - For the basement 51 3 - For the pteron 25 cubits 37 6 - —————— - 140 0 - - -or exactly the dimensions found in Pliny. - -All this is so clear and so satisfactory, that there the matter might -rest. There is no real necessity to look further, were it not that one -or two peculiarities come out in the investigation which seem worthy of -being noted. - -In restoring the basement, after making its entablature of such -proportions as seemed to me most appropriate, I was surprised to find, -on applying a scale, that I had obtained exactly 37 ft. 6 in. for the -height from the ground line to the soffit over the piers. Though I -have tried several other dimensions since, this seems so appropriate -that, as very little depends on it, we may allow it to stand. - -Assuming this, therefore, we find the height dividing itself into -three portions, each of which was 37 ft. 6 in., and two which seem to -be 13 ft. 9 in. each. But if this were so, we come to the difficulty -that there is no very obvious rule of proportion between these parts, -which there certainly ought to be. Even if we add the two smaller ones -together we obtain 27 ft. 6 in., which, though nearly, is not quite in -the ratio of 3 to 4 to the larger dimension of 37 ft. 6 in. If we add -to the first 9 inches we get the exact ratio we require; but by this -process increase the height of the building by that dimension, which is -impossible. - -The explanation of the difficulty may perhaps be found in the fact -that the order overlaps the pyramid nearly to that extent, as is seen -in the diagram (Woodcut No. 5.) It is by no means improbable that the -architects made the pyramid 37 ft. 6 in. from the bottom of the bottom -step,—as they naturally would,—and measured the order to the top of the -cymatium; and consequently these two dimensions added together did not -make 75 feet, but 74 ft. 3 in., or something very near to it. - -There is a curious confirmation of this in another dimension which -must not be overlooked. At page 24 we found the extreme length of the -building to be 126 feet, or 72 Babylonian cubits. This ought to be the -height; and so it is, to an inch, if we allow the quadriga to have -measured 14 Greek feet. Mr. Newton, it is true, makes it only 13 ft. 3 -in. English, but it was necessary for his theory of restoration to keep -it as low as possible; and, though it may have been only that height, -there are no data to prevent its being higher, nor indeed to fix its -dimensions within the margin of a foot. Considering the height at which -it was seen, there is everything to confirm the latter dimension, which -has besides the merit of being exactly one-tenth of the total height of -the building. - -From these data we obtain for the probable height of the different -parts of the building the following:— - - - Ft. In. - Height of basement to soffit 37 6 - Entablature of ditto 14 0 - Pteron, to top of cymatium 37 6 - Pyramid 37 6 - Quadriga 14 0 - ——— - 140 6 - Deduct for overlap 6[17] (9?) - ——— - 140 0 - - -or exactly 80 Babylonian cubits, which is probably the dimension Hyginus -copied out, though either he or some bungling copier wrote “feet” for -“cubits,” just as the lithographers have altered all Mr. Pullan’s -decimals of a foot into inches, because they did not understand the -unusual measures which were being made use of. - -There is still another mode in which this question may be looked at. -It appears so strange that the architects should have used one modulus -for the plan and another for the height, that I cannot help suspecting -that in Satyrus’s work the dimensions were called 21 Babylonian or 25 -Greek cubits, or some such expression. The difference is not great (9 -inches), and it seems so curious that Greek cubits should have been -introduced at all that we cannot help trying to find out how it was. - -In the previous investigation it appeared that the only two vertical -dimensions obtained beyond those quoted by Pliny which were absolutely -certain were 126 feet or 72 cubits for the height of the building, -and 8 cubits or 14 feet for the quadriga. Now, if we assume thrice -21 cubits for the height, we have 63 cubits, and this with 8 cubits -for the quadriga, and 9 for the entablature of the basement, making -together 17 cubits, complete the 80 we are looking for. In other words, -we return to the identical ratios from which we started, of 17´´ and -21´´, if these figures represented in inches the dimensions of the -steps, as they are always assumed to be by Messrs. Newton, and Pullan, -and Smith. If it were so, nothing could be more satisfactory; but, to -make the ratio perfect, the last dimension, instead of 9 cubits, ought -to be 8·8; so that we should get a total of 4 inches too short, instead -of being in excess, as it was by the last calculation. - -It would, of course, be easy to apportion this as one inch to each of -the four parts; but that is inadmissible in a building planned with -such exactitude as this, and I therefore merely state it in order to -draw to it the attention of some one cleverer at ratios than I am, -confessing that I am beaten, though only by an inch. - -Personally I feel inclined to believe that the architects were content -to use the figures of their plan in determining their heights, and -made them 8, 9, 21, 63, 72, 80 cubits, &c., and to obtain this were -content with the imperfect ratio of 17 to 21. By this process it will -be observed that they obtained the ratio that the first figure should -be 1/8 and 1/10 of the two last respectively, and the second figure 1/7 -and 1/8 of 63 and 72 respectively; and there may be other ratios which -I have failed to detect. The real difficulty is, that this involves -abandoning to a certain extent Pliny’s figures, which at present I -do not feel inclined to agree to. All this, however, is mere idle -speculation, in no way affecting the scheme of restoration, though -amusing as a problem in Greek art. - -_Architectural Ordinance._ - -Having now obtained all the dimensions of the building, except the -411 feet as the “totus circuitus” mentioned by Pliny, to which we -shall come presently, the next point is to explain the architectural -peculiarities of the structure. - -Unfortunately neither Pliny nor any other ancient author gives us the -smallest hint as to how the interior of the building was arranged, and -were it not for Guichard’s narrative we should have nothing but the -analogy of other buildings to guide us. His account of the remains, -and of the discovery of the chamber in the basement, is so clear, so -circumstantial, and in every respect so probable, that there does not -seem any reason to doubt that it was substantially correct, and no -restoration can be accepted which does not admit of and explain its -details. - -Although it is true no such catastrophe is expressly mentioned by any -author, the position in which the horses of the quadriga were found -renders it almost certain that the upper part of the building had been -shaken down by an earthquake prior to the year 1402. - -Had the building been perfect, it is hardly probable that even such -barbarians as the Knights of St. John would have knocked it down; but, -be this as it may, in 1522 it seems that the basement was covered up -by the _débris_ of the upper part and other rubbish, probably also by -the sand and dust entangled in the heap. In consequence of this it was -not till after a considerable quantity of the ruins had been removed -that the Knights “saw an opening such as would lead into a cellar, and, -taking a candle, let themselves down into the interior, where they -found a beautiful large square hall, ornamented all round with columns -of marble, with their bases, capitals, friezes, cornices, engraved and -sculptured in half-relief. The space between the columns was lined with -slabs and bands or fillets of marble of different colours, ornamented -with mouldings and sculptures in harmony with the rest of the work, -and inserted in the white ground of the wall, where battle-scenes were -represented sculptured in half-relief.”[18] - -It is not quite clear whether the hole the Knights found was in the -roof of the apartment or in its side, at some height above the floor. -I strongly suspect the latter, but of this more hereafter. From -the description it is quite clear that this hall was not the cella -surrounded by the pteron as described by Pliny; for on any theory of -restoration the floor of that must have been 50 feet from the ground, -and it could consequently neither have been buried nor could the -Knights have descended into it. It must have been in the basement, -and if so must have been lighted. For it need hardly be stated that -the Greeks would never have applied such an amount of ornamentation -to a hall where it could not have been perfectly seen.[19] It could -not have been lighted by windows in the ordinary sense of the term, -as its walls could not be less than 21 feet thick, but there seems no -difficulty in introducing any amount of light required by the mode -suggested in the accompanying plan and sections.[20] As shown there, -there are four openings on each side, 17 feet high by about 6-1/2 wide, -opening into a corridor 8 ft. 6 in. in width, which was separated from -the outer air by piers 4 feet in width. It was, in fact, a _peristele_ -under a _peristyle_. As these words exactly express the difference -between the two corridors, they will be so used in future—peristele -(from περι and στήλη, a stele) being used for the lower, and peristyle -(from στυλος, a column) for the colonnade which it supported. If more -light was wanted, it could be introduced to any desired extent at the -end opposite the door, but the eight openings shown in the plan are, it -is conceived, more than sufficient. By this arrangement, too, the light -is introduced in the most pleasing manner. The direct rays of the sun -could never penetrate the sepulchral chamber, but a diffused high light -was introduced sufficient to show all its beauties without disturbing -its repose. - -The existence of some such arrangement as this appears indispensable in -order to understand the passage in Martial:— - - “Aere nec vacuo pendentia Mausolea - Laudibus immodicis Cares ad astra ferant.” - -It is absurd to suggest that this might refer to some little structural -difficulties about a roof, as no roof was ever less seen than that -of this building. Besides, a roof is not a mausoleum; but the upper -chamber here was so called, according to Pliny; and the fact, -therefore, of people being able to walk round the building and see the -town on one side, or the shipping and the sea on the other, through it, -_under its floor_, may well have led the Halicarnassians to boast that -their great tomb was supported in the air. This would in those days be -even more striking than at present, inasmuch as there was not, so far -as we now know, a single two-storied temple or tomb of any importance -then existing. - -With regard to the dimensions of the chamber, we found above that -the upper one was, externally, 63 Greek feet by 52 ft. 6 in., or in -the ratio of 5 to 6; and if we deduct half an intercolumniation, or -3 cubits, for the thickness of the walls, we attain 52 ft. 6 in. by -42 feet for the internal dimensions; which is probable, inasmuch as -it comes out in the ratio of 4 to 5, and is besides a very probable -constructive dimension with reference to the mass of the roof, which -was almost wholly supported on these walls. The dimensions of the lower -apartment were in all probability identical with those of the upper -room. With regard to the mode in which the upper chamber was lighted -there can be no difficulty. Four windows are introduced in each side, -similar in design to those of the Temple of Minerva Polias at Athens. -Less would do; but as it is easier to subdue than to increase the -light, it probably was thus. - -Both these rooms probably had flat marble roofs. The lower one almost -certainly had; and if so, there must have been columns in the centre, -as it would have been impossible to throw a marble beam across an -apartment 42 feet in width. These pillars would not only add very -considerably to their beauty architecturally, but may also to a certain -extent have been useful in steadying the external roof; not indeed that -this was required, for, whether it was constructed on the principle -of a horizontal or of a radiating arch, the abutment and walls are -quite sufficient for its support. At this day we should certainly -employ a radiating construction; the architects may have preferred the -horizontal arch in those days. - -For the upper chamber I have suggested a niche at the upper end, -opposite the door, where an altar probably was placed; and on either -side I fancy there would be sarcophagi, not to contain bodies, but to -suggest rites. Such at least is the usual arrangement in all the great -tombs I know. - -If this apartment was as magnificent as I suppose it to have been, -there was, of course, easy access to it, which may without difficulty -be attained by the means suggested on the plan (Plate I.). According to -this scheme, as a visitor entered the building between the two great -piers in the eastern front, he might either ascend by the stairs on his -right hand or his left to the peristele; or by the great door in front -of him, beyond the stairs, he might enter the lower chamber. From the -peristele a second flight of equal extent led to a landing from which a -third flight gave access to the peristyle in such a manner as to leave -the entrance to the chamber as unencumbered as possible, as probably an -altar was placed there. - -It will be observed that each of the flights of stairs was perfectly -lighted, the lower and upper being open above, and the intermediate -flight open from the side. Their existence here will also explain why -the intercolumniation was deeper by one-half in front of the cella than -in the flanks. But for this difference, the stairs, instead of being 5 -ft. 6 in. in width, could barely have been 2 feet wide. - -The only other apartment for which it is necessary to find a place in -the building is the tomb itself. This fortunately is no difficulty, as -the excavated stairs at the west end of the building, and the big stone -which was found there, certainly indicate its whereabouts, even if they -do not actually fix the spot. Besides this, the expressions used by -Guichard in themselves almost suffice—“It was situated beyond a low -doorway, after the manner of an antechamber.” This cannot, of course, -apply to a vault under the hall first discovered by the Knights, but -describes accurately such a chamber as the wider intercolumniations -at the further end would fully admit of, while the fact of the stairs -being excavated[21] gives the requisite height without interfering with -the peristele above. - -In the plan and sections I have suggested stairs leading down to it; -and even if it is insisted that the Tomb of Mausolus, on the right, was -walled up,[22] and the stones let down immediately after the interment, -it does not follow that the Tomb of Artemisia, which probably was on -the left, may not have been accessible long afterwards; and there may -have been other vaults beneath to which it was desirable to give means -of access. - -There may also have been recesses for sarcophagi or urns in the -thickness of the walls on either side of the principal chamber, as -represented in the plan; but these are details it is hardly worth while -entering into at present. There is no authority for them, so every one -may supply or reject them as suits his own fancy. - - -_Lacunaria._ - -One further merit of the restoration just described is, that it -entirely gets over the difficulty of the Lacunaria of the peristyle, -which rendered Lieut. Smith’s proposal so inadmissible. With the -arrangement of the columns here suggested, and the dimensions obtained -for the cella, the greatest width to be spanned in front and rear is -only 14 Greek feet—2 feet 8 inches less than Mr. Pullan makes it. -Although it is just such an increase as this that makes the difficulty -in most cases, neither of these dimensions ought to be considered -insuperable, inasmuch as in the Propylæa at Athens a marble roof is -thrown over a clear space of 18 feet 6 inches English; and though it -may be suggested that the roof over these Lacunaria was lighter, that -does not alter the case. No part of the external roof of the Mausoleum -rested on these beams, and they therefore were not affected by its -weight. - -It is not necessary here to go into a detailed examination of the one -lacunar stone that has been found and brought home. Mr. Pullan thinks -it requires a 10 feet intercolumniation, Mr. Cockerell one of 8 feet -9 inches; but neither know, or can know, what part of the building it -comes from, or whether it was placed lengthways or transversely to -the beams. Under these circumstances there would be no difficulty in -finding it a place, either in the long lacunaria at either end of the -cella, or the shorter ones in the flanks, or in the square ones which -are found at each angle of the building; or, if none of these will do, -one may be provided internally to suit any shape. There is, in fact, -no direct evidence bearing on this subject; but my impression is, that -the arrangement of the roof, as suggested by the intercolumniation -here adopted, must have been a singularly pleasing one. The four great -lacunaria at the angles, being exactly square, would not only be very -grand in themselves, but form a pleasing transition between the two -other forms which ornament the flanks and front. - -As all these points will be more easily understood by an inspection of -the plans and sections, it is unnecessary to add more verbally about -them here; and it only remains to say a few words about the sculpture -and the pedestals on which it stood, before concluding the description -of the building. - -Before doing so it may be as well to recapitulate some of the principal -measures obtained from the preceding investigation. - -Basing the whole on the width of the principal step, or 21 Greek -inches, equal to 1 Babylonian cubit, we found 2 cubits, or 3 ft. 6 -in., equal to the distance between one Lion’s head and the next; -three Lions’ heads, or 6 cubits, equal to one intercolumniation; six -intercolumniations, or 36 cubits, equal to 63 feet, or the length of -the cella; twice that, 126 feet, or 72 cubits, equal to the length -of the lower step, which is also the height of the building without -the quadriga. The lower step of the pyramid was 100 feet by 80, its -spread 40 feet in one direction by 32 in the other, the meta 20 feet -by 16—all in the ratio of 5 to 4; the cella internally, 42 feet by 52 -ft. 6 in., or as 4 is to 5; externally, 52 ft. 6 in. by 63 ft., or as 5 -is to 6—these three dimensions being in the ratio of 4, 5, and 6; the -peristyle one intercolumniation on the flanks, one and a half in front. -Measured transversely across the base, we found— - - - Ft. In. Cubits. - For the width of the cella 42 0 or 24 - Twice 21 for the width of the peristele is 42 0 ” 24 - 5 ft. 3 in. × 2 equal to 10 ft. 6 in. for the pedestals 10 6 ” 6 - 5 ft. 3 in. × 2 ” ” for the steps 10 6 ” 6 - ——————— —— - Length of lower step 105 0 = 60 - - -Lengthways we found— - - Ft. In. Cubits. - For the length of the cella 63 0 or 36 - Width of the stairs or sepulchral chamber 21 ft. × 2 42 0 ” 24 - Width of pedestals and steps as above 21 0 ” 12 - ——————— —— - Length of lower step 126 0 72[23] - - -The total circumference, measured on the lower step, was— - - - Feet. Cubits. - 126 feet, or 72 cubits × 2 = 252 or 144 - 105 ” 60 ” × 2 = 210 ” 120 - ——— ——— - 462 264[24] - - -It is not necessary to say anything further with regard to the vertical -heights. Till the system of definite proportions of the monument are -more fully worked out than they can be in such a work as this, it will -be better to adhere literally to Pliny’s measurements as they stand -in the text. They explain and fix all the vertical dimensions with -sufficient precision for all practical purposes, though I cannot help -suspecting that even he was wrong to the extent of an inch or two here -or there, from not exactly understanding the subject he was treating. -All this, however, is of no consequence in so far as the design is -concerned, and therefore of secondary interest here. - - -_Sculpture and Pedestals._ - -Of the three friezes that were found in the excavations, two are -so similar that they were generally mistaken for parts of the same -composition. The reasons, however, assigned by Mr. Newton for believing -that they were different are so cogent as to leave very little doubt -of the fact that they were so. The first of these, of which the Museum -possesses 16 slabs, represents a combat of Amazons, and may therefore -be called the Amazon frieze. The second, which is very similar, in like -manner represents a combat of Lapithæ and Centaurs, and may therefore -be called by their name. The last, which is in lower relief and less -weather-worn, represents, principally at least, a chariot race. - -The two first are so similar in dimensions and style that they were -evidently parts of the same system of decoration. One, there can be -little doubt, belonged to the order, the other to the basement; but -there do not seem to be any sufficient data for ascertaining which; -and, as it is not of the least consequence for the purposes of the -restoration, I shall not enter upon the question at present. They are -so similar in dimensions as well as in design and in relief that either -may be taken. - -To us, who only think of getting the full value of our money in -whatever we do, it seems difficult to understand why so much labour and -such careful art should have been bestowed on a frieze which was to be -placed at a height of 80 feet from the spectator’s eye.[25] But the -Greeks slurred nothing, and seemed to have felt an innate satisfaction -in knowing that a work was perfect and true, even if the eye could -not grasp it, which must have been the case with many of the minuter -proportional ratios which they considered so important. - -In estimating this, we must not lose sight of the beauty of the -climate and clearness of the atmosphere, which rendered things sharply -visible at distances whence all would be hazy confusion in our grey -atmosphere. Nor must we forget that all the principal features of the -architecture were certainly accentuated by colour, and even if it is -contended that the figures themselves were not painted, no one now -hardly will deny that they were relieved by a painted background; and -it is very difficult to believe that the colour could have stopped -there. When new, the white marble, relieved and surrounded by coloured -architecture, must have been a most painful and intolerable discord; -and although the figures may not have been painted to look like life, -it hardly seems doubtful but that the flesh was tinted and the robes -coloured, at least to such an extent as to distinguish them, not only -from the flesh, but from one another. - -Traces of colour have been found on some of the bassi-rilievi of the -Mausoleum. The lions certainly were painted, and with no sparing hand; -and the colours found on the architecture were strong and distinct, as -they generally are. - -With such adjuncts and in such a climate, even at a distance of 80 -feet, all the principal features of the frieze could easily have been -distinguished, and the effect of it, in so far as we can judge, must -have been something worthy of all the admiration lavished on this -building. - -The chariot-race frieze may either have been placed in one of the -interior halls of the building, or it may have encircled the cella -immediately under the roof, like the celebrated Panathenaic frieze of -the Parthenon. On the doctrine of chances some fragments ought to have -been found of the internal sculpture described by Guichard; and for -myself I feel inclined to fancy this may be a part; but if not, its -position was almost certainly the one hinted at just now, and shown in -the plates. - -The square tablets in like manner were also probably internal; but if -not, their position would, I fancy, certainly be the back wall of the -cella, under the peristyle. There being no windows there, some relief -would be required, and these seem appropriate for the position, which -is that suggested by Mr. Pullan; though he marred his suggestion by the -position of his frieze, and by giving no access to either. - -Besides these a considerable number of statues were found larger -than life; namely, some 7 or 8 feet in height. These, following the -suggestion of the Xanthian monument discovered by Sir Charles Fellows, -I have placed in the peristele,—not the peristyle. I cannot fancy any -position in which statues would either be more appropriate, or seen -to greater advantage. Their dimensions require that they should be -placed at some height above the eye. It is here 17 feet, and no niche -could be better than the plain surface of the stele on either side, -with the subdued shadow behind. In no building, ancient or modern, do -I know any situation where statues would be so advantageous to the -architecture, and on the other hand where the architecture would assist -so advantageously in heightening the effect of the sculpture.[26] - -In the tomb discovered by Mr. Falkener at Denzili, and which is -evidently a copy of the Mausoleum, the pyramid is supported by just -such a range of steles as have been introduced here, but with this -curious peculiarity, that instead of the statues being placed between -the piers, one is sculptured in mezzo rilievo on each face of the -stele. The reason of this is obvious enough: there being no cella in -that small monument (there are only 6 steles altogether), there would -have been a strong light behind the statues and in the spectator’s -eyes, which would have rendered the expression of the statues -invisible. As it is, it is one of those instances of intelligent -copying so common in ancient and so rare in modern times. - -We next come to the Lions. Fragments of some 20 of these were -discovered. From their weather-worn appearance, and the general -exigencies of the case, it is certain that they were placed on -pedestals outside the building. There is no difficulty in providing -these:—the design requires that there should be 7 such on the south, -and as many on the north face of the building, each 5 feet 3 inches in -length; and 5 pedestals on the west, and 2 on the east, in like manner -5 ft. 3 in. long. These dimensions are exactly suited to the dimensions -of the Lions found, which, as far as can be ascertained, were about 4 -feet 6 inches long, from head to hind-quarter, though some seemed about -3 inches longer than the others, probably those on the longer faces of -the building. - -According to the evidence of Mr. Newton’s book, all these were -standing. As an architect I should have liked them better if they had -been couchant, and it seems probable that some at least were sitting. -Two are represented in that attitude in the Dilettante Society’s plate -of the Castle at Budrum, and I cannot help thinking that a more careful -examination would show an attitude of more repose in the others. In -all that concerns sculpture, however, I bow to Mr. Newton’s authority, -and accept the facts as he states them. Their being standing seems to -necessitate pedestals for the statues of the peristele, which otherwise -it might have been better to have dispensed with. Taking them either -as sitting, standing, or couchant, they give life to and relieve the -basement to a very great extent. - -Besides these 21 I have added two Lions of larger size on each side of -the portal, where the larger pedestals seem to require their presence. -These I have made couchant, their length thus ranging with the standing -lions on either side. - -I have also taken the liberty of suggesting 4 couchant lions on -pedestals at the 4 angles of the roof. The authority for this -suggestion is the monument at Dugga (Woodcut, No. 2), where four corner -stones cut into the pyramidal roof at the angles in this manner, and -were evidently surmounted by sculpture or ornament of some similar -character; but more than this, I feel that something is necessary here -in order to support the central pedestal that carried the quadriga. -Without this it would look isolated and hardly a part of the general -design. Besides this, the grouping of the columns at the angles seems -to suggest something of the sort, while on the other hand an architect -would probably introduce some such arrangement in order to justify the -grouping. - -Altogether these roof pedestals seem to me so essential to the design -that I have no hesitation in saying I believe they must have been -there; but as there has been nothing found to suggest them,—though -nothing either to contradict their existence,—the suggestion must be -taken only for what it is worth, and it is quite open to any one to say -that he thinks them superfluous. - -Having proceeded so far with the restoration, it is found that there -are two pedestals at each angle waiting for occupants. These measure -each 12 feet in front, by 5 ft. 3 in. on the sides. When I first found -these dimensions, it struck me that they were those of the pedestals -of the celebrated Monte Cavallo groups, and finding on inquiry that -I was correct in this, I jumped at once to the conclusion that these -beautiful sculptures once adorned this wonder of the world! Personally -I am still inclined to adhere to this opinion, but I feel so little -competent to decide such a question that I have not introduced them in -the perspective restoration, though I have suggested them on Plate II., -and shall await with interest the opinions of others on the subject. - -[Illustration: THE FIGURE - -THE HORSE - -6.—PEDESTAL OF MONTE CAVALLO GROUP.] - -There can be no doubt but that they belong to the age of the Mausoleum -and no one seems to know where they came from, while the arrangement -of the group is certainly very peculiar (Woodcut, No. 6). It is true -it is quite impossible that the angle line of the building could have -been lost behind such a pedestal as this; and the two, if belonging -to the Mausoleum, must have stood on separate pedestals; but this I -think would have been an improvement; certainly so in that situation; -but when placed where no architectural exigencies suggested their -arrangement, nothing could be so easy as to bring them together as we -now find them by simply sawing through their pedestals on the dotted -line. At all events the coincidence is most remarkable, and it is -also a curious coincidence that Cicero should accuse Verres of robbing -Halicarnassus of its statues. Why not of these? We know how Mummius -plundered Corinth more than a century before that time. There seems no -inherent improbability in the case. - -Assuming for the moment that these sculptures came from the Mausoleum, -there is no reason to suppose that there ever were more than two such -groups, and they would therefore have adorned the southern face, and -the figures would in consequence have been the work of Timotheus. There -would consequently be still four pedestals, which were almost certainly -occupied by men or Amazons on horseback, such as the torso in the -Museum, which is avowedly the most beautiful thing which was found in -the excavations. These pedestals, both from their position and size, -are just such as are required for this kind of sculpture, and such as -would show it off to the greatest advantage. The one question seems -to be, were all the eight pedestals adorned with similar sculptures, -or were four occupied by the Monte Cavallo groups, and four by the -prancing Amazons?[27] - -It only now remains to refer to one of Pliny’s dimensions, which -could not be explained till these pedestals and their uses were -established. The great puzzle of his description always was, that with -the dimensions given for other parts, the “totus circuitus” should be -411 feet. This is evidently no loose measurement or mere guess, but -a dimension copied out of the book of the architects, and unless it -can be absolutely incorporated with the design, no restoration can -for one moment be allowed to pass muster. The plain meaning, as I -understand it, is that this was the girth of the building; it is such -a measurement as a man would take of the bole of a tree, or, in other -words, of any object of which he wished to know what the length of a -tape or rope would be which he could bind round it,—in this instance on -the upper step. - -Turning to the plan (Plate I.) and to the measurements (page 37), we -find the north and south faces measure 105 Greek feet, the east and -west 84 feet—together, 378 feet; each angle measures across 7 ft. 6 -in., and adding this 30 feet to the above, we obtain the total of -408, or 3 feet too short. This slight difference, however, is easily -accounted for. That dimension is taken over the waist of the pedestals, -and by allowing 4 inches for the projection of the plinth, which is -a very probable amount of projection, we get the exact dimension of -411 feet we are seeking for, as measured on the upper step of the -building, which is where we should naturally look for it. Not only, -therefore, does this offer no difficulty, but it is a most satisfactory -confirmation of all that has been urged before. - - - - -CONCLUSION. - - -On some future occasion it may be worth while to go more fully into all -the minor details of this important building, and to illustrate it to a -greater extent than has been attempted in this short treatise; not only -because it was the building which the ancients, who ought to have been -the best judges, admired most of all their architectural treasures, but -because it is the one which illustrates best the principles on which -their great buildings were designed. - -It might, therefore, be well worth while to treat it as a typical -example and use it to illustrate not only the principles of Greek -design in general, but more particularly to explain the doctrine of -harmonic proportions in accordance with which they all were designed, -and of which it is, in so far as we at present know, the most perfect -example the knowledge of which has come down to our times. - -All that has been attempted on the present occasion is, to point out -the main broad features of harmonic proportion which governed the -principal dimensions of the building; but the “order” was also full -of minute and delicate harmonies worthy of the most intense study. -To elucidate these something more is required than a hap-hazard -restoration, such as that which is found in the plates attached to Mr. -Newton’s work, with the superinduced confusion of the lithographers’ -inaccuracies. Every fragment requires re-examination, and every part -re-measurement; but to do this requires not only unlimited access to -the remains, but power to move and examine, which would not, of course, -be granted, to me at least. But if it were done, and if the details -were published, with the really good specimens of the sculpture, all -of which are omitted from Mr. Newton’s present publication, the public -might then come to understand what the Mausoleum really was, and why -the ancients admired it so much. - -The building is also especially interesting, because it is more -complicated in its parts and more nearly approaches the form of civil -architecture than anything that has yet come to our knowledge. Almost -all the Greek buildings hitherto explored are Temples, generally -formal and low in their outline. For the first time, we find a genuine -two-storied building, which, though covering only half the area of the -Parthenon, is twice its height, and contains a variety of lessons and -suggestions it would be in vain to try to extract from mere templar -buildings. - -This building seems also to have a special interest at the present -moment, inasmuch as we are now looking everywhere for the design -of some Memorial which should worthily commemorate the virtues of -the Prince whose loss the nation is still deploring. It would be -difficult to suggest anything more appropriate for this purpose than a -reproduction of the Monument which excited so much the admiration of -the ancient world, and rendered the grief of Artemisia famous through -all succeeding generations. - - -[Illustration: PLATE I - - ROOF PLAN. UPPER STOREY. - - STAIRS EXCAVATED - IN THE ROCK. - - PLAN - of the - MAUSOLEUM - - SHEWING ITS ARRANGEMENTS ON - FOUR DIFFERENT LEVELS. - - BASEMENT PLAN. LOWER STOREY. - - Scale of Greek Feet. - - Scale of Babylonian Cubits, each of 21 Greek Inches. - - J. FERGUSSON, DEL. - JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE ST. LONDON. - KELL BRO^S. LITH^{RS}, CASTLE ST. HOLBORN.] - - -[Illustration: PLATE II - - HALF SECTION. HALF ELEVATION. - - EAST FRONT OF MAUSOLEUM. - - Scale of Greek Feet. - - Scale of Babylonian Cubits, each of 21 Greek Inches. - - J. FERGUSSON, DEL. - JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE ST. LONDON. - KELL BRO^S. LITH^{RS}, CASTLE ST. HOLBORN.] - - -[Illustration: PLATE III - - HALF SECTION. HALF ELEVATION. - - SOUTH SIDE OF MAUSOLEUM. - - Scale of Greek Feet. - - Scale of Babylonian Cubits, each of 21 Greek Inches. - - J. FERGUSSON, DEL. - JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE ST. LONDON. - KELL BRO^S. LITH^{RS}, CASTLE ST. HOLBORN.] - - - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[1] Of this class one of the best known is the steeple of St. George’s -Church, Bloomsbury, which its architect supposed was a correct -restoration of the Mausoleum. - -[2] xxxvi. v. “Scopas habuit æmulos eadem ætate Bryaxim et Timotheum -et Leocharen, de quibus simul dicendum est, quoniam pariter cœavere -Mausoleum; sepulchrum hoc est ab uxore Artemisia factum Mausolo Cariæ -regulo, qui obiit Olympiadis cvii anno secundo: opus id ut esset -inter septem miracula, hi maxime fecere artifices. Patet ab austro et -septemtrione sexagenos ternos pedes, brevius a frontibus, toto circuitu -pedes quadringentos undecim; attollitur in altitudinem viginti quinque -cubitis; cingitur columnis triginta sex; pteron vocavere circuitum. Ab -oriente cœlavit Scopas, a septentrione Bryaxis, a meridie Timotheus, -ab occasu Leochares, priusque quam peragerent regina obiit; non tamen -recesserunt nisi absoluto jam, id gloriæ ipsorum artisque monimentum -judicantes; hodieque certant manus. Accessit et quintus artifex; namque -supra pteron pyramis altitudine inferiorem æquavit, viginti quatuor -gradibus in metæ cacumen se contrahens. In summo est quadriga marmorea, -quam fecit Pythis; hæc adjecta centum quadraginta pedum altitudine -totum opus includit.” - -[3] vii. Pref. - -[4] The dimensions of the walls of this peribolus, as found in these -excavations, accord with tolerable accuracy with those here given. - -[5] Vitruvius, II. viii. 37 and 37. - -[6] Pausanias, viii. 16. - -[7] Newton, page 73. - -[8] These seven axioms or canons were furnished to me by Mr. Lloyd as -leading results of his researches, after I had explained to him my -theory of the mode in which the Mausoleum ought to be restored. - -[9] If we can depend on Mr. Perring’s determination, the Egyptian -cubit used in fixing the dimensions of the Great Pyramid was more -than half an inch shorter than the Babylonian or Halicarnassean cubit -used for that purpose in the Mausoleum. As far as can be ascertained, -the Egyptian equalled 1·713 foot English, while the other was 1·771; -the difference being fifty-eight thousandths of a foot, or nearly -two-thirds of an inch. - -[10] They are so much broken and so carelessly put together in the -Museum, that, if we had no other evidence, it might be contended they -were either 20-1/2 inches or 21-1/2; but on a fair average measurement -there can be no doubt that 21 Greek inches is the correct modulus. - -[11] It is hardly worth while to allude to Mr. Pullan’s dimension of -10 English feet from centre to centre. It agrees with no fact and no -theory. - -[12] As I first restored the building I placed a square anta in the -angles, with pilasters on each face, as are found in the angles of the -Erectheium at Athens. I had overlooked the fact that a capital was -found with an angular volute, which settles the question; but I still -think that architecturally the square pier arrangement would have been -the best. - -[13] Nothing can be more unsatisfactory than the system of scales -used in Mr. Newton’s work. They are in feet and decimals of a foot; a -mode of notation very rarely used for any purpose, and never, so far -as I know, adopted by any architect in his professional practice. The -consequence is that such scales are not to be purchased; and if ordered -there is the greatest possible difficulty in getting them made. The -inconvenience is aggravated in this case by the slovenly practice of -not putting scales to the plates: all the information the engraver -condescends to is “Scale 1 ÷ 30,” or “1 ÷ 10,” &c., as the case may be. -The consequence is that not one person in a hundred understands to what -scale the drawings are made, and not one in a thousand will take the -trouble to construct the scales which are indispensably necessary to -enable him to study the plates. - -[14] As a proper punishment for the introduction of so troublesome a -novelty as these decimal scales, either the draftsman or lithographer -has separated by a dot all the first figures of the decimals in the -plate of the restored order (Plate xxii.). A dimension, therefore, -which reads 2·96 or two feet eleven inches and a fraction in plate -xxi., reads 2 ft. 9·6, or two feet nine inches and a fraction, in -plate xxii. The lower diameter, which scales three feet six inches and -one-third, reads three feet five inches and one-third, and so on. In -fact, nine-tenths of the dimensions are absolutely wrong. The remaining -tenth are right by accident; but most of these are so, simply because -the lithographer has been too lazy or too inaccurate to put any sign by -which they can be read. All this not only increases tenfold the labour -of consulting the plates, but renders it doubtful whether frequently -it is not a mere fighting with shadows to contest any theory on such -documents. - -[15] In a note in p. 162 it is stated that “the wheel is made somewhat -smaller than its true scale, as if drawn in strict elevation it would -convey a false impression of the effect of the original group.” On what -theory, it is difficult to understand; but there is nothing to intimate -that the figures or horses are not to the scale 1 ÷ 10, which is marked -on the plate. Either, however, the text or the drawing is wrong; unless -both are so, which seems probable. - -[16] In Plate II. of this work the chariot group is represented as -facing transversely, in the Frontispiece and Plate III. as facing -longitudinally to the building. It may be as well to mention here that -I have introduced several such discrepancies into the plates, which are -neither oversights nor errors. This is one; another is that, in Plate -II., the lions at the angles of the pyramid are omitted, but inserted -in the other three plates: a cymatium has been introduced as crowning -the order of the base in one plate, and another moulding substituted -in the others. The Monte Cavallo groups have been introduced in Plates -I. and III. and omitted elsewhere. The object of these alterations -is that, as these are mere suggestions, they are offered as such in -order that the reader may exercise his own judgment regarding them. -The dimensions, and all those parts which are certain, are repeated -throughout; but, unless some further discoveries are made, there must -always be some details which must be left to the taste or the knowledge -of the restorer. - -[17] There is a discrepancy of three inches in this dimension, which -must be apportioned somewhere. I fancy it is to be found in the -cymatium gutter, but this could only be ascertained from a thorough -re-examination of the fragments themselves. - -[18] See page 11 ante. - -[19] The mode of lighting Greek temples and Greek buildings generally -has never fully been investigated by architects. I read a short paper -on the subject at the Royal Institute of British Architects on the 18th -of November last; and though that is an amplification of my remarks in -the True Principles of Beauty in Art some fourteen years ago, it is far -from exhausting the subject. But it is enough to prove that the mode of -introducing light was as perfect and as beautiful as every other part -and every other contrivance of Greek architecture. - -[20] Plates I. II. and III. - -[21] These stairs, indicated by dotted lines in the plan (Plate -I.) being on one side, clearly indicate that the sepulchre was not -symmetrically placed to occupy the centre of the building. Curiously -enough, the Tomb at Mylassa (Woodcut No. 3) has a doorway placed -unsymmetrically, for no reason that can be guessed, unless it were in -imitation of its celebrated prototype. What also is curious is that -at Mylassa a pillar stands directly over the centre of the doorway -leading into the principal chamber of the tomb, exactly as occurs -at Halicarnassus, and that chamber has a flat stone-roof, as here -suggested, for the Mausoleum. - -[22] The ease with which the Knights got access to this tomb would -entirely contradict the supposition of its being walled up, if it was -the Tomb of Mausolus they reached. It may have been that of the Queen. - -[23] The building that most resembles the Mausoleum in design and -dimensions among the products of modern art is probably the Arc de -l’Etoile at Paris. Its length (rejecting fractions) is 150 feet -English, its width 75. Its “totus circuitus” is therefore 450 as -compared with the 416 of the Mausoleum. But, on the other hand, the -area covered by the latter building is more than 2000 feet in excess of -that covered by the former. The height of the Arc de l’Etoile is 150 -feet to the cornice of the attic, and therefore considerably in excess, -and it was intended to have been crowned with a quadriga, which, with -its low pedestal, would have added 45 feet to this dimension, thus -making up 195 feet as compared with 141·7, which was the total height -of the Mausoleum. It is, however, one of the peculiarities and one of -the principal beauties of the design of the Mausoleum, that it would -have looked very much larger and probably even higher than the “Arc,” -had it occupied its situation; and it is quite certain that a chariot -group 14 feet high would look larger and more dignified on a pedestal -raised on a pyramid, as at Halicarnassus, than would one twice that -height on the great flat roof of the “Arc.” In the one case the group -compares with a base of 20 feet by 16, in the other with a great flat -measuring 150 feet by 75. At Halicarnassus one-tenth of the whole -height was quite sufficient for the crowning group; at Paris one-fifth -would hardly have sufficed to produce the same effect. - -[24] It may be accident, but it is a curious coincidence, that the -number of feet read backwards gives the number of cubits,—the number of -cubits read backwards, the number of feet. - -[25] The upper frieze of St. Paul’s Cathedral is 95 feet from the -ground. - -[26] In St. George’s Hall, Liverpool, the architect provided situations -for statues in nearly a similar manner. As compared with these, the -defects of his arrangement are that the spaces are too large and the -shadows behind not deep enough. - -[27] In the perspective drawing forming the title-page, these pedestals -seem to break up the base of the building too much. If seen more in -front either way this effect would have been avoided. As explained -above, the dimensions necessitate a projection between the top step -and the face of the peristele of 5·3. This must either have been a -shelf or broken up as here suggested. I cannot conceive that it was the -former for many obvious reasons, while the latter seems to me not only -appropriate architecturally, but to be indispensable to the display of -the sculpture. They exactly fulfil the part that is performed by the -buttresses in Gothic architecture. - - - - - -End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Mausoleum at Halicarnassus -Restored in Conformity With th, by James Fergusson - -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK MAUSOLEUM AT HALICARNASSUS *** - -***** This file should be named 53578-0.txt or 53578-0.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/5/3/5/7/53578/ - -Produced by Sonya Schermann, Turgut Dincer and the Online -Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This -file was produced from images generously made available -by The Internet Archive) - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive -specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this -eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook -for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, -performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given -away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks -not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the -trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country outside the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you - are located before using this ebook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The -Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - - - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the -mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its -volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous -locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt -Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to -date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and -official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -For additional contact information: - - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. - diff --git a/old/53578-0.zip b/old/53578-0.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 0e0d25f..0000000 --- a/old/53578-0.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/53578-h.zip b/old/53578-h.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index a0278f8..0000000 --- a/old/53578-h.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/53578-h/53578-h.htm b/old/53578-h/53578-h.htm deleted file mode 100644 index 7e335ce..0000000 --- a/old/53578-h/53578-h.htm +++ /dev/null @@ -1,2698 +0,0 @@ -<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" - "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> -<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en"> - <head> - <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=utf-8" /> - <meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css" /> - <title> - The Project Gutenberg eBook of Mausoleum at Halicarnassus by James Fergusson. - </title> -<link rel="coverpage" href="images/cover.jpg" /> - <style type="text/css"> - -body { - margin-left: 10%; - margin-right: 10%; -} - - h1 { font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: -3px; - text-align: center; /* all headings centered */ - clear: both; -} - h2 { font-weight: normal; font-size: 1.2em; - text-align: center; /* all headings centered */ - clear: both; -} - h3 { font-weight: normal; font-size: 1em; margin-top: 2em; - text-align: center; /* all headings centered */ - clear: both; -} -p { - margin-top: .51em; - text-align: justify; - margin-bottom: .49em; -} - -p.indent { - margin-top: 0em; margin-left: 1.5em; text-indent: -1.5em; - text-align: justify; - margin-bottom: 0em; -} -.padl05 {padding-left: .5em;} -.padl2 {padding-left: 2em;} -.padl4 {padding-left: 4em;} -.padl6 {padding-left: 6em;} -.padl8 {padding-left: 8em;} -.padr2 {padding-right: 2em;} -.padr1 {padding-right: 1em;} -.f15 {font-size: 1.5em;} -.f06 {font-size: .6em;} -.f07 {font-size: .7em;} -.f085 {font-size: .85em;} -.h {visibility: hidden;} -.vertb {vertical-align: bottom;} -hr { - width: 34%; - margin-top: 2em; - margin-bottom: 2em; - margin-left: 33%; - margin-right: 33%; - clear: both; -} - -table { - margin-left: auto; font-size: .9em; - margin-right: auto; -} - - .tdl {text-align: left;} - .tdr {text-align: right;} - .tdc {text-align: center;} - -.pagenum { /* uncomment the next line for invisible page numbers */ - /* visibility: hidden; */ - position: absolute; - left: 93%; - font-size: smaller; - text-align: right; -} /* page numbers */ - -.center {text-align: center;} - -.right {text-align: right;} - -.smcap {font-variant: small-caps;} - -.caption {font-weight: normal; margin-top: 1em; text-align: center; font-size: .85em;} - -img { - max-width: 100%; /* no image to be wider than screen or containing div */ - height:auto; /* keep height in proportion to width */ -} - -div.figcenter { - clear: both; - margin: 2em auto; - text-align: center; - max-width: 100%; /* div no wider than screen, even when screen is narrow */ -} -div.figcenter2 { - clear: both; - margin: 2em auto; - text-align: center; - max-width: 70%; /* div no wider than screen, even when screen is narrow */ -} -.figright { - float: right; max-width: 30%; - clear: right; - margin-left: 1em; - margin-bottom: - 1em; - margin-top: 1em; - margin-right: 0; - padding: 0; - text-align: center; -} -@media handheld {.figright { - float: right; max-width: 30%; - clear: right; - margin-left: 1em; - margin-bottom: - 1em; - margin-top: 1em; - margin-right: 0; - padding: 0; - text-align: center; -}} -/* Footnotes */ - -.footnote {margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-size: 0.9em;} - -.footnote .label {position: absolute; right: 84%; text-align: right;} - -.fnanchor { - vertical-align: super; - font-size: .8em; - text-decoration: - none; -} - -.poetry-container - { - text-align: center; - font-size: 90%; -} - -.poetry - { - display: inline-block; - text-align: left; - } - -.poetry .stanza -{ - margin: 0em 0em 0em 0em; -} - -.poetry .line -{ - margin: 0; - text-indent: -3em; - padding-left: 3em; -} - -.poetry .i05 {margin-left: -.4em;} -/* Transcriber's notes */ -.transnote {background-color: #E6E6FA; - color: black; - font-size:smaller; - padding:0.5em; - margin-bottom:5em; - font-family:sans-serif, serif; } - </style> - </head> -<body> - - -<pre> - -The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Mausoleum at Halicarnassus Restored in -Conformity With the Recently Discovered Re, by James Fergusson - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most -other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of -the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have -to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. - -Title: The Mausoleum at Halicarnassus Restored in Conformity With the Recently Discovered Remains - -Author: James Fergusson - -Release Date: November 22, 2016 [EBook #53578] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK MAUSOLEUM AT HALICARNASSUS *** - - - - -Produced by Sonya Schermann, Turgut Dincer and the Online -Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This -file was produced from images generously made available -by The Internet Archive) - - - - - - -</pre> - - -<div class="transnote">Numbers showing the dimensions of the bulding in the Plates has been improved for better reading.</div> -<div class="figcenter" style="width: 1000px;"> -<img src="images/frontis.jpg" width="1000" height="766" alt="Mausoleum as restored." /> -<table summary="Mausoleum" width="100%" border="0"><tr> -<td class="tdl f07">James Fergusson, del.</td> -<td class="tdc f07">John Murray, Albemarle St. London.</td> -<td class="tdr f07">Kell Bro<sup>s</sup>. Castle St. Holborn.</td> -</tr><tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="3"><big>SOUTH EAST VIEW OF THE MAUSOLEUM,</big></td> -</tr><tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="3">AS RESTORED.</td></tr></table></div> - -<hr /> -<h1> -<small><small>THE</small></small><br /><br /> -MAUSOLEUM AT HALICARNASSUS<br /><br /> -<small>R E S T O R E D</small><br /><br /></h1> - -<p class="center"><small><small>IN CONFORMITY WITH</small></small><br /><br /> -THE RECENTLY DISCOVERED REMAINS.<br /><br /></p> - -<p class="center">BY JAMES FERGUSSON,<br /> -<small><small>FELLOW ROYAL INSTITUTE OF BRITISH ARCHITECTS.<br /> -AUTHOR OF THE ‘HANDBOOK OF ARCHITECTURE;’ ‘ESSAY ON THE TOPOGRAPHY OF JERUSALEM,’ &c.</small></small><br /><br /></p> - -<p class="center">LONDON:<br /> -JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET<br /> -1862.<br /> -<br /> -<small><small><i>The right of Translation is reserved.</i></small></small><br /> -</p> -<hr /> -<p class="center"> -LONDON: PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, STAMFORD STREET,<br /> -AND CHARING CROSS.<br /> -</p> - -<hr /> - -<h2>PREFACE.</h2> - -<p><span class="smcap">The</span> Essay contained in the following pages has no pretension to being a -complete account of the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus. All that has been -attempted in the present instance is to recapitulate and explain the various data -which have recently been brought to light for restoring that celebrated -monument of antiquity; and to show in what manner these may be applied -so as to perfect a solution of the riddle which has so long perplexed the -student of classical architecture.</p> - -<p>At some future period it may be worth while to go more fully and with -more careful elaboration into the whole subject; but to do this as it should be -done, would require more leisure and better opportunities than are at present -at the Author’s disposal for such a purpose.<br /><br /></p> - -<p class="p padl2"><small>20, <span class="smcap">Langham Place</span>,</small></p> -<p class="p padl6"><small><i>May</i>, 1862.</small></p> -<hr /> - -<h2>CONTENTS.</h2> - -<table summary="contents" border="0"><tr> -<td class="tdr" colspan="2">PAGE.</td></tr><tr> -<td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Introduction</span></td><td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_5">5</a></td> -</tr><tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="2">CHAPTER I.</td> -</tr><tr> -<td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Scripta</span></td><td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_8">8</a></td></tr><tr> -<td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Reliquiæ</span></td><td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_12">12</a></td></tr><tr> -<td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Exempla</span></td><td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_14">14</a></td></tr><tr> -<td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Rationes</span></td><td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_16">16</a></td></tr><tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="2">CHAPTER II.</td></tr><tr> -<td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Greek Measures</span></td><td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_20">20</a></td></tr><tr> -<td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Cymatium</span></td><td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_22">22</a></td></tr><tr> -<td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Pteron</span></td><td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_24">24</a></td></tr><tr> -<td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Pyramid</span></td><td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_27">27</a></td></tr><tr> -<td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Vertical Heights</span></td><td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_30">30</a></td></tr><tr> -<td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Architectural Ordinance</span></td><td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_33">33</a></td></tr><tr> -<td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Sculpture and Pedestals</span></td><td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_38">38</a></td></tr><tr> -<td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Conclusion</span></td><td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_43">43</a></td></tr><tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="2">LIST OF WOODCUTS.</td></tr><tr> -<td class="tdl">1. <span class="smcap">Lion Tomb, Cnidus</span></td><td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_14">14</a></td></tr><tr> -<td class="tdl">2. <span class="smcap">Tomb at Dugga</span></td><td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_15">15</a></td></tr><tr> -<td class="tdl">3. <span class="smcap">Tomb at Mylassa</span></td><td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_16">16</a></td></tr><tr> -<td class="tdl">4. <span class="smcap">Cymatium</span></td><td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_22">22</a></td></tr><tr> -<td class="tdl padr2">5. <span class="smcap">Section of Cymatium and of Base of Pyramid</span></td><td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_29">29</a></td></tr><tr> -<td class="tdl">6. <span class="smcap">Pedestal of Monte Cavallo Group</span></td><td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_41">41</a></td></tr></table> - -<p class="center"><br /><br /><small>DIRECTION TO BINDER.<br /> - -<a href="#Page_45">Place <i>Plates</i> I., II., and III. at the end of the work.</a></small></p> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_5" id="Page_5"> </a></span></p> - -<p class="center f15">MAUSOLEUM AT HALICARNASSUS.<br /><br /></p> - -<h2>INTRODUCTION.<br /><br /></h2> - -<p><span class="smcap">Of</span> all the examples of the wonderful arts of the Greeks, the remains or the -memories of which have come down to us, no one has excited such curiosity -as the far-famed Mausoleum at Halicarnassus, or such regret that no fragments -of it should have existed in our own days. All we knew of it, till very recently, -was that the ancients themselves were inclined to look upon it as the very -best specimen of architectural art which they possessed. For not only did they -rank it as among the seven wonders of the world, but assigned it that pre-eminence—not -because of its size or durability, but because of the intrinsic -beauty of its design, and the mode in which it was ornamented.</p> - -<p>The Pyramids of Egypt and Walls of Babylon were wonders only because -of their mass or their durability. The Palace of Cyrus or the Hanging Gardens -of Babylon may have been rich in colour and barbaric splendour, but we know -enough of Assyrian and of Persian art to feel convinced that the taste in which -they were designed must at least have been very questionable. The Colossus at -Rhodes, and the Statue of Jupiter at Elis, whatever their merits,—and of one, -at least, of them we can believe anything,—did not belong to architectural art. -The Temple of Ephesus may have been beautiful in itself, but it became a -wonder only from its size, as the largest of Greek temples. But the Mausoleum, -which covered not more than one-sixth or one-seventh of its area, could -have been remarkable only because it was beautiful, or in consequence of the -elaboration and taste displayed in its ornamentation.</p> - -<p>All that was known of this once celebrated building, till the recent -explorations, was to be gathered from a few laudatory paragraphs in Pausanias, -Strabo, Vitruvius, and other authors of that age; and a description in Pliny’s -Natural History, which we are now justified in assuming to have been abstracted -from a work written by the architects who originally designed the Mausoleum -itself. Probably there were no diagrams or illustrations with their book, and -we may suspect that Pliny himself did not understand the building he undertook -to describe. At all events, it is certain that he stated its peculiarities in such -a manner as to be utterly unintelligible to future generations.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_6" id="Page_6">6</a></span></p> - -<p>Still there were so many facts in his statements, and the building was so -celebrated, that few architects have escaped the temptation of trying to restore -it. What the squaring of the circle is to the young mathematician, or the perpetual -motion to the young mechanician, the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus was -to the young architect; and with the data at his disposal this problem seemed -as insoluble as the other two.</p> - -<p>Some forty or fifty of these restorations have been published, and a -strange and amusing collection they are. Some are round, some octagonal, some -cruciform, some oblong or square in plan, some are squat, some tall.<a name="FNanchor_1_1" id="FNanchor_1_1"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_1" class="fnanchor">1</a> Every -dimension found in Pliny was applied to every part in succession, but in vain. -All these designs had only one thing in common;—that they were all wrong,—some -more, some less so, but none seizing what now turn out to be the main -features of the design.</p> - -<p>In 1846, Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, who was then all-powerful as our -ambassador at Constantinople, obtained from the Porte a firman for the removal -of certain bassi-rilievi which had been built into the walls of the Castle of -Budrum, the ancient Halicarnassus. These arrived in England in due course, -and were at once admitted to be fragments of the sculpture of the Mausoleum, -as it had been previously assumed that they were. But their beauty only served -further to increase the regret that all traces of the building to which they once -belonged should have been, as it then appeared, for ever lost.</p> - -<p>While things were in this very unsatisfactory position, the public heard -with no small degree of interest that Mr. Charles Newton, formerly one of the -officers of the British Museum, and then Vice-Consul at Mitylene, had not only -discovered the true site of the Mausoleum on a spot formerly indicated by -Professor Donaldson, but had found considerable remains of the long-lost -building.</p> - -<p>Public attention was still further attracted to the subject when it was announced -that the British Government had fitted out an extensive expedition, to -continue the explorations commenced by Mr. Newton at Budrum and its neighbourhood. -From the time that the expeditionary force commenced its labours -in October, 1856, till it was broken up nearly three years afterwards, in June, -1859, occasional paragraphs kept up the interest in its proceedings, and latterly -the arrival of the marbles themselves excited expectation to the highest pitch. -Everything seemed to shadow forth a most brilliant success; and, from the -high character which Mr. Newton bore as a Greek scholar, and a thoroughly -educated archæologist, all the Hellenist public rejoiced that an expedition fitted -out on so liberal a scale, and for so desirable an object, had fallen into what -all then believed to be such competent hands.</p> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_7" id="Page_7">7</a></span></p> -<p>The first published results were not encouraging. They took the form -of Papers presented to Parliament, and published as a Blue Book in 1858, -and a second series entitled “Further Papers relating to the Excavations at -Budrum and Cnidus, presented in August, 1859.”</p> - -<p>The diagrams of the Mausoleum which accompanied these Papers seemed -only sufficient to prove one of two things;—either that the explorations had -not resulted in the discovery of a sufficient quantity of architectural forms to -enable a satisfactory restoration to be made, or that those who conducted the -expedition were not sufficiently versed in the art of putting together architectural -fragments to be able to avail themselves of the information that had -been obtained.</p> - -<p>The whole results of the expedition were at last laid before the public in -February last, in a folio volume of plates accompanied by a volume of text in -8vo. by Mr. Newton. This work contains, among other things, an elaborate -restoration of the Mausoleum by Mr. Pullan, an architect who was sent out by -the Trustees of the British Museum to join the expedition during the continuance -of its labours. This restoration, however, turns out on examination -to be less satisfactory than those previously published by Lieut. Smith in the -parliamentary papers above alluded to, either as a specimen of Greek art or as -a solution of the difficulties inherent in the problem of reconciling the recent -discoveries with the ancient descriptions of the building. It is also unfortunate -that—owing probably to their author being absent from the country—the -purely architectural plates are so incorrectly drawn or engraved as to add -considerably to the previously existing difficulties of the question. It is likewise -to be regretted that, for some reason which is not explained, all the best -things are omitted from the collection. The statue of Mausolus is not there, -nor that of the Goddess which accompanied the chariot. The Horses of the -Chariot are also omitted; so is the Torso of the prancing Amazon, the finest -thing found; so are the Castle bassi-rilievi, and the really fine Lions. There -are, in fact, materials left out sufficient to fill, if not so large a volume as the -present, at least one of a far higher class. Notwithstanding these difficulties -and defects, there appear to be sufficient materials now before the public to -effect a restoration of the building, and as almost all that was discovered on the -spot is now in the British Museum, a reference to them enables us to correct or -verify what has been published. Under these circumstances I have not -hesitated to make the attempt. With what success I must leave it to others to -judge after a perusal of the contents of the following pages.</p> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_8" id="Page_8">8</a></span></p> - -<h2>CHAPTER I.</h2> - -<p><span class="smcap">The</span> materials which now exist for restoring the Mausoleum are of four -different kinds. These are:—</p> - -<p><i>First.</i>—The passages in various ancient authors which either describe the -appearance of the building or give its dimensions.</p> - -<p><i>Secondly.</i>—The actual remains of the building discovered in the recent -explorations, and the measurements of the ground then obtained.</p> - -<p><i>Thirdly.</i>—The several tombs existing in Asia and Africa, evidently of the -same type, and which afford valuable hints for the restoration.</p> - -<p><i>Lastly.</i>—The system of definite proportions in Greek architecture, which -is not only most useful in suggesting forms, but also most valuable in rectifying -deductions arrived at from other sources.</p> - -<h3>1. <i>Scripta.</i></h3> - -<p>Among the things written with regard to the Mausoleum, by far the most -important is the celebrated passage in Pliny’s Natural History.<a name="FNanchor_2_2" id="FNanchor_2_2"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_2" class="fnanchor">2</a> It is to the -following effect: “Scopas had, as rivals in the same age, Bryaxis, and Timotheus, -and Leochares, who should be mentioned together, as they were equally -employed in the sculptures of the Mausoleum, a sepulchre erected by his -wife Artemisia to Mausolus, King of Caria, who died in the second year of the -hundred and seventh Olympiad. It was mainly owing to the work of the -above-named artists that this building was considered one of the seven wonders -of the world. It extends on the north and south 63 feet, but is shorter on the -other fronts. The whole circumference is 411 feet. It is raised in height 25 -cubits, and is surrounded by 36 columns. This part was called the pteron. -The sculptures on the east side were by Scopas, on the north by Bryaxis, on the -south by Timotheus, and on the west by Leochares. Before they had finished -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_9" id="Page_9">9</a></span>their work, the Queen Artemisia, who had ordered this building to be constructed -in honour of her husband’s memory, died; but they did not on that account -cease from their labours till it was entirely finished, regarding it as a monument -of their own fame and of art; and to this day the work testifies to their rivalry -in merit. A fifth artist was joined to them; for above the pteron there was a -pyramid equal in height to the lower part, with 24 steps, contracting into a -summit, like that of a meta. On the top of all this was a quadriga in marble, -made by Pythis. These being added, the height of the whole work was equal -to 140 feet.”</p> - -<p>It is easy to see what difficulties were involved in this description. How, -in the first instance, was it possible that a building which was only 63 feet -in length in plan, and shorter on the other sides, could be 411 feet in circumference? -and, in regard to height, what substantive was to be supplied after -“<span lang="la" xml:lang="la">inferiorem</span>”? If “<span lang="la" xml:lang="la">partem,</span>” it might apply to the pteron, which is the only -part mentioned in the previous description; but the logic seemed to require -“<span lang="la" xml:lang="la">pyramidem,</span>” and if so, what was it? If either, how was the whole height -of 140 feet to be made up?</p> - -<p>In looking a little carefully into the matter we can now guess how it was -that Pliny came to state these dimensions in so enigmatical a manner; for we -learn from Vitruvius<a name="FNanchor_3_3" id="FNanchor_3_3"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_3" class="fnanchor">3</a> that Satyrus and Phytheus, two of the architects -employed in the building, wrote a description of their work, which no doubt -Pliny had access to; but as he was thinking more of the sculpture than of -the architecture, he jotted down these dimensions without probably realising -the form of the building himself, and left them as a bewildering enigma for -posterity. Now that we have the means of verifying them, these figures are -ten times more valuable than the most vivid description of the general appearance -of the building would be to us; but it is only now that we feel this.</p> - -<p>The only other author who furnishes us with any dimensions is Hyginus, -a grammarian in the time of Augustus. In enumerating the seven wonders of -the world, he describes the “Monument of King Mausolus, built of shining (?) -(<em>lychnicis</em>) stones, 80 feet in height, and 1340 feet in circumference.” Neither -of these dimensions agrees with Pliny’s; but the latter evidently refers to the -peribolus, the wall of which was found in the recent excavations.<a name="FNanchor_4_4" id="FNanchor_4_4"></a><a href="#Footnote_4_4" class="fnanchor">4</a> The former, -for reasons to be given hereafter, I fancy should be 80 <i>cubits</i>, meaning thereby -Halicarnassian or Babylonian cubits of 21 inches each. If so, it is Pliny’s exact -dimension; but the matter is not important, as the text of Hyginus is avowedly -so corrupt, and he is of such low repute, that his assertion is of little importance -in the controversy.</p> - -<p>Vitruvius unfortunately adds very little to our knowledge of the building. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_10" id="Page_10">10</a></span>He describes its situation as in the centre of the curve formed by the town, -encircling its bay like a theatre, and with a broad street, “<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">platea</i>,” leading from -the <em>agora</em> on the shore up to the Mausoleum.<a name="FNanchor_5_5" id="FNanchor_5_5"></a><a href="#Footnote_5_5" class="fnanchor">5</a> He adds, “<span lang="la" xml:lang="la">Mausoleum ita -egregiis operibus est factum;</span>” from which we may infer, as in fact we do from -all other descriptions, that the building was more remarkable for its sculpture -and its details than for its dimensions.</p> - -<p>Among the Greek authors, the most amusing account is that given by -Lucian in his ‘Dialogues of the Dead.’ He there makes Mausolus say, in reply -to the scoffing inquiry of Diogenes (after recounting his exploits), “Besides -that personal superiority, I am beautiful, tall of stature, and of so robust a -constitution as enabled me to sustain all the hardships and fatigues of war; -but, to be brief, the principal point is, I have a prodigious monument raised -over me at Halicarnassus, which for magnitude and beauty has not its equal in -the whole world. It is decorated with the most exquisite figures of men and -horses, all carried to such a degree of perfection, and in such exceedingly fine -marbles, as you will not easily find even in a Temple.” Further on, Diogenes -remarks, “As to your monument and the costly marble of which it is built, the -inhabitants of Halicarnassus may certainly have reason to show it to strangers, -and to think much of themselves for possessing so costly a work within their -walls; but, my handsome friend, I do not see what sort of enjoyment you -should have in it. You should only say that you bear a heavier load than the -rest of us, since you have such an enormous heap of stones lying on you!”</p> - -<p>The few words found in Pausanias add little to our knowledge, but serve -to show the estimation in which the Mausoleum was held. He says, “Although -there are many sepulchres worthy of admiration, two may especially be -mentioned; one at Halicarnassus, the other that of Helena of Adiabene at -Jerusalem.” With regard to the first he adds, “It was erected for Mausolus, -who reigned at Halicarnassus, and was so wonderful, not only on account of the -magnitude of the work, but also from the magnificence of its ornaments, that -the Romans considered it among the wonders of the world, and called all their -most magnificent tombs <em>mausolea</em>, after it.”<a name="FNanchor_6_6" id="FNanchor_6_6"></a><a href="#Footnote_6_6" class="fnanchor">6</a></p> - -<p>Strabo merely mentions that it was considered one of the wonders of the -world.</p> - -<p>From this time to that of its final demolition by the Knights of St. John -between 1402 and 1522 <span class="smcap lowercase">A.D.</span>, the Mausoleum is mentioned as still standing by -Gregory of Nazianzum in the fourth century, and later by Nicetus of Cappadocia -and by Constantine Porphyrogenitus in the tenth century; but the most important -fact is the mention of it by Eustathius, two centuries afterwards, who, in his -commentary on the ‘Iliad,’ says of the Mausoleum, that “it was <em>and is</em> a -wonder.”<a name="FNanchor_7_7" id="FNanchor_7_7"></a><a href="#Footnote_7_7" class="fnanchor">7</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_11" id="Page_11">11</a></span></p> - -<p>From all this we are justified in assuming that down to the twelfth century -the Mausoleum was at least sufficiently perfect to convey a correct idea of its -original magnificence. Between this period and the year 1402, when the city -was taken possession of by the Knights of St. John, we are led to infer that the -building must have been ruined, most probably by the shock of an earthquake,—the -position of many of the fragments found being such as to be explicable only -on such an hypothesis.</p> - -<p>The Knights, it seems, immediately set about erecting the present Castle, -and the remains of the Mausoleum supplied not only stone, but lime for the -building. Still the materials were far from being exhausted by this process in -the first instance, for in 1472 Cepio mentions the remains as remarkable, and a -certain Coriolanus speaks of them with more marked admiration. By far the -most detailed account, however, is found in the following extract from Guichard’s -‘<span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Funerailles des Rommains,</span>’ printed at Lyons, 1581, and for which, as for all -the above mediæval information, we are indebted to the researches of Mr. -Newton, from whose work I have abstracted it. The passage runs as follows in -the old French, and is quoted entire, as it is almost as important to the -restoration of the monument as that of Pliny itself:—</p> - -<p class="p f085">“<span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">L’an 1522, lors que Sultan Solyman se préparoit pour venir assaillir les Rhodiens, le -Grand Maistre sçachāt l’importance de ceste place, et que le Turc ne faudrait point de -l’empieter de premiere abordee, s’il pouuoit, y ennoya quelques cheualiers pour la remparer -et mettre ordre à tout ce qui estoit necessaire soustenir l’ennemi, du nombre desquels fut le -Commandeur de la Tourette Lyonnois, lequel se treuua depuis à la prise de Rhodes, et vint -en France, où il fit, de ce que ie vay dire maintenāt, le recit à Monsieur d’Alechamps, -personnage assez recognu par ses doctes escrits, et que ie nomme seulement à fin qu’on -sçache de qui ie tien vne histoire si remarcable. Ces cheualiers estans arriués à Mesy, -se mirent incontinent en deuoir de faire fortifier le chasteau, et pour auoir de la chaux, ne -treuuans pierre aux enuirons plus propre pour en cuire, ni qui leur vinst plus aisee, que -certaines marches de marbre blanc, qui s’esleuoyent en forme de perron emmy d’un champ -près du port, là où iadis estoit la grande place d’Halycarnasse, ils les firêt abattre et -prendre pour cest effect. La pierre s’estant rencōtree bonne, fut cause, que ce peu de -maçonnerie, qui parroissoit sur terre, ayant esté demoli, ils firent fouiller plus bas en -esperance d’en treuuer d’auantage. Ce qui leur succeda fort heureusement: car ils -recognurent en peu d’heure, que de tant plus qu’on creusoit profond, d’autant plus -s’eslargissoit par le bas la fabrique, qui leur fournit par apres de pierres, non seulement -à faire de la chaux, mais aussi pour bastir. Au bout de quatre ou cinque iours, apres -auoir faict vne grande descouuerte, par vne apres disnee ils virent ouverture comme pour -entrer dans vne caue: ils prirent de la chandelle, et deualerent dedans, où ils treuuerent -vne belle grande salle carree, embellie tout au tour de colonnes de marbre, avec leur -bases, chapiteaux, architraues, frises et cornices grauees et taillees en demy bosse: -l’entredeux des colonnes estait reuestu de lastres, listeaux ou plattes bandes de marbre -de diuerses couleurs ornees de moulures et sculptures conformes au reste de l’œuure, et -rapportés propermēt sur le fonds blāc de la muraille, où ne se voyait qu’histoires -taillees, et toutes battailles à demy relief. Ce qu’ayans admiré de prime face, et apres -avoir estimé en leur fantāsie la singularite de l’ouurage, en fin ils defirent, briserent, et -rompirent, pour s’en seruir comme ils auoyent faicte du demeurant. Outre ceste sale ils -treuuerent apres vne porte fort basse, qui conduisoit à une autre, comme antichambre, ou -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_12" id="Page_12">12</a></span>il y auoit vn sepulcre auec son vase et son tymbre de marbre blanc, fort beau et reluisant -à merueilles, lequel, pour n’avoir pas eu assez de temps, ils ne descouurirent, la retraicte -estant desia sonnee. Le lendemain, apres qu’ils y furent retournés, ils treuuerēt la tombe -descouuerte, et la terre semee autour de force petits morceaux de drap d’or, et paillette de -mesme metal: qu leur fit penser, que les corsaires, qui escumoyent alors le long de toute -ceste coste, ayans eu quelque vent de ce qui auoit esté descouuert en ce lieu là, y vindrent -de nuict, et osterent le couuercle du sepulcre, et tient on qu’ils y treuuerent des grandes -richesses et thresors. Ainsi ce superbe sepulcre, compté pour l’un des sept miracles, et -ouurages merueilleux du monde, apres auoir eschappé la fureur des Barbares, et demeuré -l’espace de 2247 ans debout, du moins enseueli dedans les ruines de la ville d’Halycarnasse, -fut descouuert et aboli pour remparer le chasteau de S. Pierre, par les cheualiers croisés de -Rhodes, lesquels en furent incontinent apres chassés par le Turc, et de toute l’Asie quant -et quant.</span>”</p> - -<p>The demolition at that period seems to have been nearly complete, though -it is probable that from that time to this, the Turks may have been in the habit -of using such blocks of marble as may have remained above ground, to make -lime. At all events, so completely was all trace of it above ground obliterated, -that even so experienced an observer as Captain Spratt failed, after the most -minute survey of the neighbourhood, to fix on the site where this wonder of the -world had once stood.</p> - -<h3>2. <i>Reliquiæ.</i></h3> - -<p>The one redeeming point in the conduct of these barbarian Knights was -that, instead of burning all the sculptures into lime, they built some thirteen -slabs of one of the friezes, and some of the lions, into the walls of their castle. -These had early attracted the attention of travellers, and a view of them <em>in situ</em> -was published by the Dilettante Society in their second volume of ‘Ionian -Antiquities’ in 1797. In 1846, Lord Stratford de Redcliffe obtained a -firman for their removal, and they were sent home to the British Museum in -Her Majesty’s ship <em>Siren</em>.</p> - -<p>Nothing further was done till the explorations commenced, as before -mentioned, by Mr. Newton, in 1855, and the establishment of the expedition -there in the following year; though, from various causes, it was not till the 1st -of January, 1857, that they were really able to commence excavations on the -site of the Mausoleum.</p> - -<p>The principal discoveries which rewarded their exertions were:—</p> - -<p><i>First.</i>—Some thirty or forty blocks which formed part of the steps of the -pyramid mentioned by Pliny. These all (with two exceptions) showed, by the -weather marks on their upper surface, that they had been constructed of two -breadths only—the tread, or upper exposed part of the steps, being always -either 1 ft. 5 in. or 1 ft. 9 in. English, according to Messrs. Smith, Pullan, or -Newton. The real dimension, however, as we shall see presently, was probably -in inches and decimals of an inch 17·01 and 21·2526.</p> - -<p>Even more important than these were four or five angle-stones of the -pyramid, showing the same dimensions in juxtaposition on their two faces. It is<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_13" id="Page_13">13</a></span> -much to be regretted that the exact number of these stones which were found -was not noted. If there had been three, and they had all been found together, -which seems to have been the case, they might,—probably would,—all have -belonged to one course. With four this is less probable, but it still leaves it -open to any one who has a theory such as that of Mr. Cockerell or Mr. Falkener, -or who might suggest a curvilinear one (as I once did), to assert that this was so, -and thus leave the whole question still in doubt. If there were five this would -be impossible, and it would simplify the argument to a considerable extent.</p> - -<p>The truth of the matter seems to be that Lieutenant Smith’s business there -was to take charge of the Sappers and Miners under his command; Mr. Newton -was only anxious to procure specimens of sculpture for the National Museum; -and before Mr. Pullan arrived, a great deal that had been discovered was -covered up again and no record left. Many points that might then have been -easily cleared up must now, therefore, be left in doubt, unless some one will take -the trouble of doing over again what has been so carelessly done once.</p> - -<p><i>Secondly.</i>—Almost equally important with these were some portions of the -cymatium of the order. Like the greater steps, this was composed of pieces, -21 inches in length, and on each alternate one, covering the joint, was a lion’s -head—thus 3 ft. 6 in. apart from centre to centre. From this we get, with almost -absolute certainty, the width of the intercolumniations as twice, thrice, or four -times 3 ft. 6 in.</p> - -<p><i>Thirdly.</i>—A capital and base of a column, very nearly perfect were found, -and fragments of several others;—a considerable number of frustra of the -columns and fragments of the architrave and cornice. The frieze we assume -that we knew before from the sculptures already in the Museum. In fact, a -sufficient number of fragments were recovered to enable us to restore the whole -“order” with very tolerable approximative certainty. All these parts are -more or less chipped and broken, so that minute differences still exist; but on -the whole we may feel tolerably certain that it reached, as nearly as may be, -the height of 25 cubits or 37 ft. 6 in. Greek, mentioned by Pliny.</p> - -<p><i>Fourthly.</i>—Some stones of the lacunaria of the roof were found, but not in -a sufficiently perfect state to enable us to be certain of any dimensions from -them. Mr. Pullan makes them fit an intercolumniation of 10 feet,—Professor -Cockerell, it is understood, applies them to one of 8·75; and they would be -found equally applicable to various other dimensions.</p> - -<p><i>Fifthly.</i>—No other strictly architectural fragments were found, but portions -of the wheel of the quadriga, and a nearly perfect statue, which was almost -certainly that of Mausolus, together with portions of two at least of the horses -of the chariot. These enable us to restore that most important group with very -tolerable certainty, and to ascertain that its height was somewhere about 13 -or 14 feet.</p> - -<p><i>Sixthly.</i>—Portions of three different friezes were found, two of which -appear to have been external; the third, from being less weather-worn, may<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_14" id="Page_14">14</a></span> -have been situated under the pteron, or may have adorned the interior of the -building.</p> - -<p><i>Seventhly.</i>—Fragments of some panels of sculpture, but where situated is -not clear.</p> - -<p><i>Eighthly.</i>—In addition to these, fragments of a considerable number of -statues, a little more than life-size, were discovered; and fragments, more or -less perfect, of some 20 lions, principally of two dimensions, viz., either about -5 ft. 0 in. or 5 ft. 3 in. in length, and about the same in height; and one torso of -what was either an Amazon or a young man on horseback in violent action.</p> - -<p><i>Ninthly.</i>—But perhaps the most important discovery of all, in so far as the -restoration is concerned, was that the rock on which the building stood was -excavated to a depth of 8 or 9 feet over an area measuring some 107 feet -by 127. As the explorers were not aware of the value of these dimensions, -they quote them loosely in round numbers; but they almost certainly were 105 -by 126 Greek feet, or 106·31 English by 127·575, as will be explained hereafter.</p> - -<h3>3. <i>Exempla.</i></h3> - -<p>By far the best corroborative example that has yet been brought to light -is one discovered by Mr. Newton and his associates at Cnidus, and by them -called the Lion Tomb.</p> - -<div class="figcenter" style="width: 400px;"> -<img src="images/i014.jpg" width="400" height="597" alt="Lion Tomb, Cnidus." /> -<p class="caption">1.—<span class="smcap">Lion Tomb, Cnidus.</span> (From Mr. Newton’s work.)</p></div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_15" id="Page_15">15</a></span></p> - -<p>Whether it is a Tomb at all, or whether the restoration can be depended -upon, will not be known till the second part of Mr. Newton’s text is published. -The plates in his work fail, in this and every other instance, in giving the -remotest idea of the remains <em>in situ</em>; and the architectural plates do not -distinguish between what was found and what is restored. Still it must be near -enough to the truth to be allowed to suggest what was the meaning of the -“<span lang="la" xml:lang="la">metæ cacumen,</span>” or the pedestal on which the sculpture was placed on the top -of the Pyramid, which is the key to the whole mystery of the Mausoleum. -It may also probably be quoted as suggesting the mode in which the Pyramid -was placed on the order.</p> - -<p>2. A Tomb is found at Dugga in Africa, which is singularly suggestive -of the appearance of the Mausoleum, with only such difference as the very -much smaller scale would necessitate.</p> - -<div class="figcenter" style="width: 300px;"> -<img src="images/i015.jpg" width="300" height="398" alt="Tomb at Dugga." /> -<p class="caption">2.—<span class="smcap">Tomb at Dugga.</span><br />(From a Drawing by Mr. Catherwood.)</p></div> - -<p>3. A third, at Souma near Constantina, is published by Ravoisé in elevation, -and in perspective by Mr. Falkener in his Museum of Classical Antiquities, -No. 2, p. 172. This consists first of a solid podium or basement, with steps. -Over this is a storey with a doorway or opening on each face, and above this -a pteron of eight Doric columns, disposed three on each face, but without any -cella or chamber, the space being too small to admit of any. There is, in -this instance, no pyramid of steps on the top, but a small pediment on each face.</p> - -<p>4. At page 174 of the same volume there is a still more suggestive design -restored by Mr. Falkener from some remains he found at Denzili in Phrygia.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_16" id="Page_16">16</a></span> -The base of this monument was entirely concealed by rubbish; but above ground -were found six square steles or piers, arranged three and three, with a figure -sculptured in bas-relief on each face. Above the entablature was a pyramid of -steps supporting a couchant figure of a lion.</p> - -<p>5. There is a well known Tomb at Mylassa, published by the Dilettante -Society in their volume on ‘Ionia;’ which, though of late Roman times, is -evidently copied from the Mausoleum.</p> - -<div class="figcenter" style="width: 300px;"> -<img src="images/i016.jpg" width="300" height="381" alt="Tomb at Mylassa." /> -<p class="caption">3.—<span class="smcap">Tomb at Mylassa.</span></p></div> - -<p>6. There are several other smaller examples, which, if they do not suggest -much, are at least interesting, as showing how widely the fame of this building -was extended, and how generally it was imitated, not only in Asia but in -Africa.</p> - -<p>7. There is also the Trophy Monument discovered by Sir Charles Fellows -at Xanthus, which, though hardly bearing directly on the subject, is still -sufficiently near it in design to suggest several peculiarities which, without its -authority, we might hesitate to adopt.</p> - -<h3>4. <i>Rationes.</i></h3> - -<p>The last mode of investigation which has been mentioned as open to us, -yields results which, though not so obvious at first sight, are quite as satisfac<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_17" id="Page_17">17</a></span>tory -as those obtained from any of the previously mentioned sources of -information.</p> - -<p>As will be explained in the sequel, we find that, by the application of the -formula of simple ratios, we are enabled to fix the dimensions of almost every -part of the Mausoleum with almost absolute certainty; and at the same time -it is found that the Mausoleum is one of the most complete and interesting -examples of a building designed wholly on a scheme of simple definite ratios. -Thus the very science which assists materially in solving the problem, is at the -same time illustrated and confirmed by the discoveries it aids in making.</p> - -<p>The first attempt to explain the peculiarities of buildings by a scheme of -definite ratios seems to be that expounded by Cæsar Cæsarini, in his edition -of Vitruvius, published in 1521. In this work he shows by diagrams how a -series of equilateral triangles explains all the dimensions and peculiarities of -design in Milan Cathedral; and in this he probably was right, for, being a -foreign work, it is very probable that the Italian architects, not understanding -the true principles of the art, squeezed the design into this formal shape and so -spoiled it. The success of this attempt of Cæsarini, however, has induced -numberless other architects to apply the same principle to other Gothic Cathedrals, -but without success in a single instance. Those which approach nearest -to it are such buildings as Westminster Abbey,—a French church built in -England; Cologne Cathedral, which is a French example in Germany; and -in like manner all foreign examples approximate to definite proportions; but -it may safely be asserted that no truly native example of Gothic art was so -arranged.</p> - -<p>It has, however, long been suspected that the Greeks proceeded on a -totally different principle; but materials did not exist for a satisfactory elucidation -of the question till Mr. Penrose published his exquisite survey of the -Parthenon and other buildings at Athens made for the Society of Dilettanti, -and Mr. Cockerell the result of his explorations at Bassæ and Egina. In the -first-named work, its author pointed out with sufficient clearness some of the principal -ratios of that celebrated building, which his survey enabled him to verify, -and for others he supplied dimensions which for completeness and accuracy left -nothing to be desired. With these new materials, Mr. Watkiss Lloyd undertook -the investigation, and by a long and careful series of comparisons he has -proved that the time-honoured doctrine of the Vitruvian school—that the lower -diameter of a column was the modulus of every other part of a building—had -no place in Greek art; on the contrary, that every part of a Greek building -was proportioned to those parts in juxtaposition or analogy to it, in some such -ratio as 3 to 4, 4 to 5, 5 to 6, and so on,—not by accident, but by careful -study; and the whole design was evolved from a nexus of proportions as -ingenious in themselves as they were harmonious in their result.</p> - -<p>In the Parthenon, for instance, he found that the entire building is set<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_18" id="Page_18">18</a></span> -out with the minutest accuracy, by the application of a few ratios which -involve no higher number than 16, and in no case have a higher difference -between them than 5.</p> - -<p>The greatest ingenuity and refinement were exercised in embracing the -entire design in a network of proportional relations, in such a way that every -division had a special dependence upon some other that was particularly contrasted -or connected with it; and at the same time every member was implicated -in more than one such comparison by what might seem happy accident, -were it not that on trial it is proved how much study is required to effect such -a result. At the same time, when the clue is once gained, it is easy to see how -study was competent to effect it.</p> - -<p>Among the proportional applications affecting the present subject, which -may be considered axiomatic are these:—</p> - -<p>The establishment of proportions of low numbers between—</p> - -<p>1. The length and breadth of the basement, either upon its upper or -lower step, or both.</p> - -<p>2. The breadth of front and full height of the building; in most cases, -also, the length of flank and full height.</p> - -<p>3. The length and breadth of any other conspicuous rectangle, such as in -the present case would be the plans of the cella, of the pyramid, of the base or -pedestal of the statue.</p> - -<p>4. The division of the grand height of the structure into a pair of -well-contrasted parts, having a ratio to each other of which the terms differ by -unity, as 2 to 3, 3 to 4, &c. The further subdivision of these parts is effected -again by definite proportions, and a favourite scheme here, as elsewhere, is -for an intermediate section of a vertical line to have a simple proportion to the -joint dimensions of sections above and below it, these upper and lower sections -being then proportioned independently. Thus in the entablature of the -Mausoleum the frieze is just half the joint height of architrave and cornice; -that is, one-third of the height is given to the frieze.</p> - -<p>5. The lower diameter of the Ionic column has usually a ratio to the -upper diameter expressible in low numbers with a difference of unity. In the -Mausoleum the ratio is 5 to 6, the same as at Priene. In the columns at -Branchidæ, which were more than double the height, the difference is slighter, -viz., 7 to 8.</p> - -<p>6. The height of the column is usually, but by no means invariably, commensurable -with the lower diameter, or at least semi-diameter, and the columns -are spaced in one or other of the schemes that supply a symmetry with their -height; that is to say, the height of the column will be found invariably to -measure off a space laterally that coincides with centre and centre of columns, -centre and margin, or margin and margin of the foot of the shaft or base. This -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_19" id="Page_19">19</a></span>symmetry was of more importance than the commensurability of height by -diameter.</p> - -<p>7. In the architecture of temples, at least, the height either of the shaft or -of the full column compares with the complementary height of the order, -or of the front, in a ratio of which the terms differ by unity, and the larger term -pertains to the columns. For example, the height of the Parthenon column is -two parts out of three into which the full height of the order at the flank -of the temple is divisible; the remaining part being divided between the -entablature and the steps.<a name="FNanchor_8_8" id="FNanchor_8_8"></a><a href="#Footnote_8_8" class="fnanchor">8</a></p> - -<p>Mr. Lloyd first publicly explained his theory of the system of proportions -used in Greek architecture in a lecture he delivered at the Institute of British -Architects in June, 1859, and he afterwards added an appendix to Mr. -Cockerell’s work on Egina and Bassæ, explaining specially the proportions of -those temples; but the full development of his views, and particularly their -relation to the Parthenon, which it appears surpassed all known works in -refined and exact application of the system, still unfortunately remains in -manuscript.</p> - -<p>The more direct application of this theory to the design of the Mausoleum -will be explained as we proceed, but in the meanwhile it may be asserted that -without it many of the dimensions of this celebrated monument might for -ever have remained matters of dispute. With its assistance there is scarcely -one that may not be ascertained with almost absolute certainty.</p> - -<p>Another and quite distinct set of ratios was discovered by Colonel Howard -Vyse and his architect Mr. Perring, in their explorations of the Pyramids -of Egypt. They found, for instance, in the Great Pyramid that the distance</p> - -<table summary="Great Pyramid"><tr> -<td class="tdr" colspan="2">Cubits.</td></tr><tr> -<td class="tdl"><p class="indent">From the ground-line to the floor of the Queen’s chamber was</p></td><td class="tdr vertb">40</td></tr><tr> -<td class="tdl"><p class="indent">From the floor of the Queen’s to the floor of the King’s chamber</p></td><td class="tdr vertb">40</td></tr><tr> -<td class="tdl padr1"><p class="indent">From the floor of the King’s chamber to the apex of the discharging roof</p></td><td class="tdr vertb">40</td></tr><tr> -<td class="tdl"><p class="indent">From that point to the apex of the pyramid, 40×4</p></td><td class="tdr vertb">160</td></tr><tr> -<td class="tdr" colspan="2">——</td></tr><tr> -<td class="tdl padl6">Making up exactly,</td><td class="tdr">280</td></tr></table> - -<p>They also found that the length of the base line was to this dimension in the -ratio of 8 to 5, making it 448 cubits or 767·424 feet English exactly. With -these two dimensions all the other parts of so simple a figure follow as a matter -of course.</p> - -<p>The bearing of this also on the Mausoleum will be seen in the sequel, -though a much more complicated system of ratios was of course necessary -either to such a building or to even the very simplest Greek temples.</p> -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_20" id="Page_20">20</a></span></p> - -<h2>CHAPTER II.</h2> - -<h3><i>Greek Measures.</i></h3> - -<p><span class="smcap">There</span> is one other point which must be carefully attended to in any attempt to -restore the Mausoleum, which is the ratio between Greek and English measures. -Those quoted by Pliny are in the former, of course; those obtained by the -excavations are in the latter; and every result is vitiated and worthless without -due attention to the difference.</p> - -<p>The length of a Greek foot may be attained most directly by comparison -with the Roman. From the researches of the best antiquaries as summed up -by Niebuhr, the length of the Roman foot was ·972 English—a result confirmed -by Mr. Penrose’s careful independent investigation. Now, as it is known that -the ratio between the Greek foot and the Roman was as 25 to 24, we arrive at -the result of 101·25 English feet equal to 100 Greek.</p> - -<p>Mr. Penrose obtained a slightly different result from his measurement of -the upper step of the Parthenon. The front was known or assumed to be -exactly 100 Greek feet; it gave 101·341, or about one inch in excess in 1200. -As the flanks were to the front in the ratio of 4 to 9, this ought to have given -228·019. It was found to be 228·166, or nearly two inches in excess. But, on -the other hand, it is admitted that the term Hecatompedon in Greek authors -seems always to apply to the Naos and not to the step; and this, as measured -by Mr. Penrose, including the transverse wall, gave 101·222, or a little under -the other—the mean between the two being almost exactly identical with the -measure derived from the Roman foot. In consequence of this the preference -will be given throughout the following pages to the ratio of 101·25, or 101 ft. -3 in. English, as being equal to 100 Greek feet.</p> - -<p>Turning from this to the measurement of the steps of the Pyramid, which, -as mentioned above, is one of the most important elements for the restoration -which have been brought to light by the recent excavations, we find their -dimensions quoted throughout by Lieut. Smith, Mr. Pullan, and Mr. Newton -as 1′ 9″, or 21 inches English for the wider, and 1′ 5″, or 17 English inches -for the narrower step. The first thing that strikes one on considering this is, -that it is a most wonderful coincidence that these dimensions should come out -so exactly in English measures, without any fraction either way. On any -moderate calculation of chances the odds are at least 100 to 1 against this -being the case. The suspicion that there is an error somewhere is confirmed by -observing that, though so very nearly in the ratio of 4 to 5, they are not -exactly so; but if we try with the lower number we find 4 : 5 :: 17 : 21·25,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_21" id="Page_21">21</a></span> -or within the minutest fraction of 21 Greek inches. If we adopt 17·01 English -inches for the shorter, we have 21·2625, or exactly 21 Greek inches, for the latter.</p> - -<p>It would be needless to attempt by measurement to attain such minute -accuracy as this; as it must in fairness be stated that it is extremely difficult to -ascertain minute differences in the present state of the remains. Where two -stones or steps are <em>in situ</em>, the one over the other, it is very easy to measure -the distance from the face of the one to the face of the other; but when, as in -this instance, we are dependent on the weather-marks or a position assumed -from the details of other examples, we must be content with approximations, -and without the guidance of some system of definite proportions can never be -sure we are right.</p> - -<p>The determination of this point was so essential that I have carefully -measured all the angle and roofing stones I could get access to in the Museum, -and find that, as nearly as can be ascertained, the dimension of 17 inches is -correct; but the longer one is, it may be, 2/10ths—it may be 3/10ths—of an inch in -excess. Any one can verify this for himself; but I am so convinced of its -correctness by my measurements, that I shall use the longer step as a dimension -of 21 Greek, or 21·2625 English, inches.</p> - -<p>Assuming this for the present, the next thing that suggests itself is, -that 21 inches is the acknowledged length of the Babylonian cubit. We -know that after the captivity, the Jews added a handbreadth to their cubit, so -as to make it up to this then fashionable measure; and as we know that Caria -had been so long under the domination of the Persians, ruling from Babylon, -there is no <em>à priori</em> improbability in this measure being current there.<a name="FNanchor_9_9" id="FNanchor_9_9"></a><a href="#Footnote_9_9" class="fnanchor">9</a></p> - -<p>The well known tablets at Mylassa, given in Böckh, prove incontestably -that Mausolus acknowledged himself a satrap of Artaxerxes as late as 355, or -only two years before his death. If it is contended that he afterwards emancipated -himself from the Persian yoke—of which there is no proof—it is by no -means clear that he did not commence his own tomb himself some time before -his death. At least it is nearly certain that no other man ever had a tomb of -any great magnificence who did not in his lifetime take measures to secure its -erection.</p> - -<p>All this does not, it is true, prove that the Babylonian cubit was used in -Caria; but it makes it so probable that it may have been that there will be -nothing shocking in calling the length of the longer step by this name; and -as this measure was the modulus of the whole building, and occurs over and -over again, it will be convenient, and avoid circumlocution, if—of course, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_22" id="Page_22">22</a></span>without prejudging the fact—we call the measure of 21 Greek inches as equal -to 1 Babylonian or Halicarnassean cubit. If it could be proved that such a -measure was never known in Caria, this would not in the least affect the -result. All that is wanted here is a name which shall express a measure -of 21 Greek inches. If any other can be suggested it will answer equally well. -But it seems necessary that some definite term should be used in the sequel; -and, till some other is found, I may perhaps be allowed to employ this.</p> - -<h3><i>Cymatium.</i></h3> - -<p>Next in importance to the steps of the Pyramid, for the purposes of -restoration, are the fragments of the Cymatium which were discovered in the -excavations. Of these some six or seven were found, and on each was either -a Lion’s head covering the joint, or the mark of a Lion’s head on the further -edge of the stone next the joint.</p> - -<div class="figcenter" style="width: 400px;"> -<img src="images/i022.jpg" width="400" height="133" alt="Cymatium." /> -<p class="caption">4.—<span class="smcap">Cymatium.</span></p></div> - -<p>Each of these pieces was, like the steps of the Pyramid, 21 inches, or -1 cubit, in length;<a name="FNanchor_10_10" id="FNanchor_10_10"></a><a href="#Footnote_10_10" class="fnanchor">10</a> and, according to the evidence we now have, the Lions’ -heads were consequently spaced 2 cubits, or 3 feet 6 inches, from the centre -of one to the centre of another.</p> - -<p>The interest of this measurement lies in the certainty that the inter-columniation -was somehow commensurate with it. The usual arrangement -in Greek architecture would have been that there should be one Lion’s head -over the centre of each column, and one half-way between. This certainly was -not the arrangement here, as the columns, which are 3 ft. 6 in. Greek, or exactly -2 cubits in width, in their lower diameter, would then have been only one -diameter apart.</p> - -<p>It has been suggested that, as the Lions’ heads are so unusually close, the -pillars may have been so arranged that one column had a Lion’s head over its -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_23" id="Page_23">23</a></span>centre, and those on each side stood between two Lions’ heads—thus making -the intercolumniation 8 ft. 9 in. The first objection that occurs to this view is, -that it is unknown in any other examples; that it is contrary to the general -principles of the art, and introduces an unnecessary complication; and is, therefore, -unlikely. But the great objection is, that it cannot be made to fit in with -any arrangement of the Pyramid steps. Let it be assumed, for instance, that -the thirty-six columns of the Pteron were so arranged as to give an uneven -number each way, so as to have eleven intercolumniations on one side by seven -on the other; this would give a dimension of 96 feet 3 inches by 61 feet 3 inches -from centre to centre of the angle columns, to which it would be impossible to -fit the Pyramid, assuming, from the evidence of the steps, that its sides were in -ratio 4 to 5, or nearly so at all events. If, on the contrary, it is assumed that there -were 10 intercolumniations by 8, this would give a dimension of 87·6 by 70; and -adding 2 ft. 9 in. each way, which we shall presently see was the projection of the -first step of the Pyramid beyond the centre of the angle column, we should have -for its base 93 feet by 75 feet 6 inches, within which it is impossible to compress -it, unless we adopt a tall pyramid, as was done by Mr. Cockerell and Mr. -Falkener before the discovery of the pyramid steps, or unless we admit of a curvilinear-formed -pyramid, as was suggested by myself. With the evidence that is -now before us, neither of these suggestions seems to be for one moment tenable; -and as we cannot, with this intercolumniation, stretch the dimensions of the -Pteron beyond what is stated above, it must be abandoned.</p> - -<p>Advancing 1 cubit beyond this, we come to 6 cubits, or 10 feet 6 inches -Greek, as the distance from the centre of one column to the centre of the next;<a name="FNanchor_11_11" id="FNanchor_11_11"></a><a href="#Footnote_11_11" class="fnanchor">11</a> -and the Lions’ heads then range symmetrically, one over each pillar, and two -between each pair.</p> - -<p>At first sight there seems to be no objection to the assumption that one -plain piece of the Cymatium may have been inserted between each of the pieces -to which were attached the Lions’ heads, or the impress of them. It is true -none were found; but as there could be only one plain piece in three, and as -only six or seven fragments were found altogether, the chances against this -theory are not sufficient to cause its rejection. The real difficulty is, that a -Lion’s head exists on a stone 1 cubit from the angle; and, unless the architects -adopted a different arrangement at the angles from what they did in the centre, -which is, to say the least of it, extremely improbable, it cannot be made to fit -with the arrangement. If one plain piece had been found, it would have fixed -the distance between centre and centre of column at 10 ft. 6 in. absolutely. As -none, however, were found, or at least brought home, we must look for our -proofs elsewhere.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_24" id="Page_24">24</a></span></p> - -<p>The first of these is a very satisfactory one, on the principle of definite -proportions above explained. As we have just found that six pyramid steps, or -6 cubits, are equal to one intercolumniation, so six intercolumniations, or 36 -cubits, is exactly 63 Greek feet—the “<span lang="la" xml:lang="la">sexagenos ternos pedes,</span>” which Pliny -ascribes to the cella or tomb; it is further proved that this was not accidental, -by our finding that twice the length of the cella, or 126 Greek feet, or 72 cubits, -is, or ought to be, the total length of the building, measured on its lowest step. -This, as before mentioned, Mr. Newton quotes, in round numbers, as 127 feet -English; but as neither he nor any of those with him had any idea that any -peculiar value was attached to this dimension, they measured carelessly and -quoted loosely. My own conviction is, that it certainly was 127 ft. 6-3/4 in. -English, which would be the exact equivalent of 126 Greek feet. At all events, -I feel perfectly certain that the best mode of ascertaining the exact length of -the pyramid step would be to divide this dimension, whatever it is, by 72.</p> - -<h3><i>Pteron.</i></h3> - -<p>Returning to the Pteron: if the columns were ranged in a single row—and -no other arrangement seems possible with the evidence now before us—there must -have been eleven columns on the longer faces and nine at the ends, counting -the angle columns twice, and consequently a column in the centre of each -face. This, at least, is the resultant of every conceivable hypothesis that I have -been able to try. No other will, even in a remote degree, suit the admitted -forms and dimensions of the pyramid: it is that adopted by Lieutenant Smith -and Mr. Pullan; and, according to the evidence before us, seems the only one -admissible.</p> - -<p>Adopting it for the present, the first difficulty that arises is that 10 intercolumniations -at 10 ft. 6 in. give 105 feet; to which if we add as before 5 ft. 6 in., -or twice 2 ft. 9 in., for the projection of the first step of the pyramid beyond the -centres of the columns, we have 110 ft. 6 in., a dimension to which it is almost -impossible to extend the pyramid; and, what is worse, with a cella only 63 feet -in its longest dimension, it leaves 21 feet at either end, from the centre of the -columns to the wall, a space which it is almost impossible could be roofed by -any of the expedients known to the Greeks; and the flanks are almost equally -intractable. It was this that rendered Lieutenant Smith’s restoration so -unacceptable. He boldly and honestly faced the difficulty, and so far he did -good service, and deserves all praise. Mr. Pullan’s expedient of cutting 6 inches -off each intercolumniation is not so creditable, nor is the result much more -satisfactory.</p> - -<p>After trying several others, the solution appears to me to lie in the -hypothesis that the angle columns were coupled,—or, in other words, half an -intercolumniation (5 feet 3 inches) apart from centre to centre.</p> - -<p>Should it be asked if there are any other examples of this arrangement, the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_25" id="Page_25">25</a></span> -answer must probably be that there are not; but there is also no other building -known with a pyramidal roof, or which, from its design, would so much require -strengthening at the angles. The distance between the columns and the front -must necessarily be so great,—the height at which they are placed is so -considerable,—and the form of the roof so exceptional, that I feel quite certain -any architect will admit that this grouping together of the angle columns is -æsthetically an improvement.<a name="FNanchor_12_12" id="FNanchor_12_12"></a><a href="#Footnote_12_12" class="fnanchor">12</a></p> - -<p>Although this arrangement may not be found in any Ionic edifice, it is a -well-known fact that in every Doric Temple the three columns at the angles -are spaced nearer to each other than those intermediate between them, either in -the flanks or front. The usual theory is that this was done to accommodate the -exigencies of the triglyphs. It may be so, but the Greeks were too ingenious a -people to allow any such difficulty to control their designs if they had not -thought it an improvement to strengthen the angles of their buildings. We -may also again refer to the Lion Tomb at Cnidus (Woodcut, No. 1), where the -angle intercolumniations are less than the centre ones, for no conceivable reason -but to give apparent strength to that part.</p> - -<p>The proof, however, must depend on how it fits with the other parts.</p> - -<p>Taking first the flanks, we have 8 whole and 2 half intercolumniations, -equal to 94 feet 6 inches Greek, or 48 cubits, or just once and a half the length -of the cella; which is so far satisfactory. At the back of the gutter behind the -cymatium there is a weather mark which certainly indicates the position of the -first step of the pyramid, and, according to Mr. Pullan’s restoration of the order, -this mark is 2 ft. 8-1/2 in. beyond the centre of the columns. As there are a great -many doubtful elements in this restoration, and as, from the fragmentary nature -of the evidence, it is impossible to be certain within half an inch or even an inch -either way, let us, for the nonce, assume this dimension to be 2 ft. 9 in. Twice -this for the projection either way, or 5 ft. 6 in., added to 94 ft. 6 in., gives -exactly 100 Greek feet for the dimension of the lowest step of the pyramid. So -far nothing could be more satisfactory; but, if it is of any value, the opposite -side ought to be 80 feet,—or in the ratio of 5 to 4.</p> - -<p>On this side we have 6 whole and 2 half intercolumniations, or 73 ft. 6 in.,—to -which adding, as before, 5 ft. 6 in. for the projection of the step, we obtain 79 -feet! If this is really so, there is an end of this theory of restoration on a system of -definite proportions; and so for a long time I thought, and was inclined to give up -the whole in despair. The solution, however, does not seem difficult when once it -is explained. It probably is this: the steps of the Pyramid being in the ratio of -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_26" id="Page_26">26</a></span>4 to 5, or as 16·8 in. to 21 inches Greek, the cymatium gutter must be in the same -ratio, or the angle would not be in the same line with the angles of the steps or of -the pedestals, or whatever was used to finish the roof. In Mr. Newton’s text this -dimension is called 1 ft. 10 in. throughout; according to Mr. Day’s lithographer it -is 1′·88, which does not represent 1 ft. 10 in. by any system of decimal notation I -am acquainted with. According to Mr. Pullan’s drawing it scales 2 feet.<a name="FNanchor_13_13" id="FNanchor_13_13"></a><a href="#Footnote_13_13" class="fnanchor">13</a> From -internal evidence, I fancy the latter is the true dimension. Assuming it to be -so, and that it is the narrowest of the two gutters, the other was of course as -4 is to 5, or as 2 feet to 2 feet 6 inches, which gives us the exact dimensions we -are seeking, or 6 inches each way. This I feel convinced is the true explanation, -but the difficulty is that, if it is so, there must be some error in Mr. Pullan’s -restoration of the order. If we assume that we have got the wider gutter, the -other would be 19·2 in., which would be easily adjusted to the order, but would -give only 4·8 in. each way, or 1-2/10 in. less than is wanted. It is so unlikely -that the Greeks would have allowed their system to break down for so small a -quantity as one inch and one-fifth in 40 feet, that we may feel certain—if this -difficulty exists at all—that it is only our ignorance that prevents our perceiving -how it was adjusted. If it should prove that the cymatium we have got is the -larger one, and that consequently this difference does exist, the solution will -probably be found in the fact of the existence of two roof stones, with the -abnormal dimensions quoted by Mr. Pullan as 10-1/2 inches and 9 respectively. -It may be they were 9″ and 10″·2, which would give the quantity wanted. -But, whatever their exact dimensions, it is probable that they were the lowest -steps of the pyramid; and, if the discrepancy above alluded to did exist, they -may have been used as the means of adjusting it. Be all this as it may, I feel -convinced that whenever the fragments can be carefully re-examined, it will be -found that the exact dimension we are seeking was 80 Greek feet.<a name="FNanchor_14_14" id="FNanchor_14_14"></a><a href="#Footnote_14_14" class="fnanchor">14</a></p> - -<p>There is another test to which this arrangement of the columns must be -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_27" id="Page_27">27</a></span>submitted before it can be accepted, which is, the manner in which it can be -made to accord with the width of the cella.</p> - -<p>The first hypothesis that one naturally adopts is that the peristyle should be -one intercolumniation in width, in other words that the distance between the -centres of the columns and the walls of the cella should be 10 feet 6 inches. -Assuming this, or deducting 21 Greek feet from the extreme width we have just -found above of 73 feet 6 inches, it leaves 52 feet 6 inches for the width, which is a -very reasonable explanation of Pliny’s expression, “<span lang="la" xml:lang="la">brevius a frontibus.</span>” It is -also satisfactory, as it is in the proportion of 5 to 6, with 63 feet, which is -Pliny’s dimension, for the length of the cella. But the “<span lang="la" xml:lang="la">instantia crucis</span>” must -be that it should turn out—like the longer sides—just one half the lower step, -or rock-cut excavation. What this is, is not so easily ascertained. In his -letter to Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, of 3rd April, 1857, Mr. Newton calls it -110 feet; in the text (p. 95) it is called 108; while Lieut. Smith, who probably -made the measurement, calls it 107 (Parl. Papers, p. 20). The latter, therefore, -we may assume is the most correct. If the above hypothesis is correct, it ought -to have been 106·31 English or 105 Greek feet, which most probably was really -the dimension found; but as it did not appear to the excavators that anything -depended upon it, they measured it, as before, carelessly and recorded it more so.</p> - -<p>In the meanwhile, therefore, we may assume that the width of the cella was -52 feet 6 inches, or 30 Babylonian cubits. The width of the lower step on the -east and west fronts was 105 Greek feet, or 60 cubits exactly.</p> - -<p>Of course this is exactly in the proportion of 5 to 6 with the longer step, -which, as we found above, was 72 cubits or 126 Greek feet; and this, as we -shall presently see, was the exact height of the building without the quadriga, -the total height being 80 cubits or 140 Greek feet.</p> - -<h3><i>Pyramid.</i></h3> - -<p>Having now obtained a reasonable proportion for the lower step of the -Pyramid, 100 by 80 Greek feet, the remaining dimensions are easily ascertained.</p> - -<p>Mr. Pullan, using the nearly correct measure of 17 English inches for the -shorter step, obtained 32 feet 6 inches English for the spread of the pyramid -in one direction. It need hardly be remarked that when there were 24 joints, -and each stone sloped slightly backwards instead of having its face perpendicular -to its bed, it is impossible now to attain any minute accuracy in this dimension; -but 32·5 ft. English is so nearly 32 Greek feet (it ought to have been 32′·4) that -we may fairly assume that that was the dimension intended, the difference -being very slightly in excess of one inch.</p> - -<p>In the other direction Mr. Pullan obtained 39′ 11-1/2″ English; but as it is -impossible, for the reasons just stated, to ascertain to half an inch what this -dimension really was, we may assume this to be 40 English feet; and as Mr. -Pullan used the erroneous measurement of 21 English instead of 21 Greek<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_28" id="Page_28">28</a></span> -inches, we at once obtain 40 Greek feet for the spread in the longer direction, -or again in the ratio of 4 to 5.</p> - -<p>This leaves a platform on the summit of 20 Greek feet by 16, on which -to erect the pedestal or meta, which is to support the quadriga. The question -is,—is it sufficient?</p> - -<p>According to Mr. Pullan’s drawings (Plates XVIII. and XX.), the group -measures 15 feet English in length by 13′ 6″ across, and 12′ 6″ from the extreme -hoof on one side to that on the other. This, however, hardly accords with the -facts stated in the text.<a name="FNanchor_15_15" id="FNanchor_15_15"></a><a href="#Footnote_15_15" class="fnanchor">15</a> It is stated at page 162, that the horses measure each -3 feet 6 inches across the chest, which alone makes 14 feet, supposing them to -stand with their shoulders touching each other. Between the two central horses -was the pole, which may have measured 9 inches, and as it could hardly be supported -otherwise, if of marble, probably touched the shoulder of the horse on either -side; and, allowing the same distance between the two outer horses, we get 16′ 3″ -English, or, as near as may be, 16 Greek feet for the extreme width of the group. -This, however, is probably overstating the matter; 3′ 6″ seems an extreme -measurement, in so far as I can ascertain. There is no proof that they were -all so, and 6 inches is sufficient for the width between the outer horses. This -dimension may therefore be stated as between 15 and 16 Greek feet. The width -of the plinth would be less than either, for a horse stands considerably within -his extreme breadth, and I need hardly say that anywhere, but more especially -at such a height as this, a sculptor would bring the hoof as near the edge of -the plinth as possible. In the Museum, there is one hoof of one of the chariot-horses -placed within 2 inches of the edge of the stone on which it stands; but -this does not seem to have been an outside stone; though the same dimensions -would be ample if it were. There is no difficulty, therefore, in this dimension; -the plinth probably may have been 15 Greek feet, which would allow 6 inches -either way for the projection of the step.</p> - -<p>In the other direction, the length seems somewhat excessive. From the -front to the rear hoofs of the horses, there may have been about 10 feet; the -chariot-wheel is said to have been 7 ft. 7 in., and the length of the pedestal -required would consequently be about that dimension, or 17 ft. 7 in. English. -It is probable, however, that the figure of the Goddess stood outside the chariot -behind, and this would easily fill up the whole. But at the same time, is it -quite clear that the chariot stood as assumed above, or parallel to the longer axis -of the building? The principal approach, we know from Vitruvius, was -from the south. The pyramid was steepest on that side, and there would be -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_29" id="Page_29">29</a></span>infinitely more symmetry in the principal group facing in that direction than -in the other. In that case, we must assume that the horses that have been -recovered are the central ones, and in comparative repose. The outer ones -would be in more violent action, and spread wider. This is, perhaps, more a -sculptor’s question than an architect’s: but my own feeling is strongly in favour -of the last hypothesis. It seems more in accordance with what we know of -Greek art, and artistically I cannot help fancying it would look better from -every point of view than if the chariot group was placed, as in Plate II., -facing towards the longer sides of the building.<a name="FNanchor_16_16" id="FNanchor_16_16"></a><a href="#Footnote_16_16" class="fnanchor">16</a></p> - -<p>Before leaving the pyramid, there is one little matter which requires -adjustment. Two steps were found differing from the others, and measuring -9 inches and 10-1/2 inches in width respectively. Mr. Pullan places these at the -top of the pyramid, where it appears they must have made a very unpleasing -break in the uniformity of the lines. I fancy they were the lowest steps of all.</p> - -<div class="figcenter2" style="width: 1017px;"> -<img src="images/i029.jpg" width="1017" height="1113" alt="Section of Cymatium and of Base of Pyramid." /> -<p class="caption">5.—<span class="smcap">Section of Cymatium and of Base of Pyramid.</span></p></div> - -<p>As will be observed from the diagram (Woodcut No. 5) the lowest step of -the pyramid is buried to half its height in the gutter behind the cymatium; -and with that projecting 2 feet beyond, it could not be seen anywhere within</p> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_30" id="Page_30">30</a></span></p> -<p>400 feet of the building,—practically not at all. At the same time I am -inclined to believe that the lowest visible step was at least twice as high as the -others. The authority for this is, of course, the Lion Tomb (Woodcut No. 1); -but I think every architect will agree that a pyramid fading away behind a -cymatium, without any marking line, would be most unpleasing architecturally; -and especially when the pyramid slopes upwards at so low an angle, and is -placed so high, the arrangement seems especially wanted. Assuming this, the -9-inch step is just what is required to bring the taller step perpendicular over -the frieze, and preventing the cymatium at the same time appearing to have -too great a projection at such points as it could be seen from. Mr. Pullan -makes the whole height of the twenty-four steps equal to 25 feet English. If -this were added it would be 26, or about 25 feet 9 inches Greek; leaving thus -11 feet 9 inches for the height of the meta or pedestal of the quadriga.</p> - -<p>In so far as any accordance with Pliny’s dimensions is concerned, the height -of the pyramid steps is not of the smallest consequence. Whatever is added to -the pyramid must be taken from the meta; whatever is taken from the meta, -which there is nothing to govern, must be added to the pyramid. What its -height really was, can only be ascertained when some system of definite proportions -for the vertical heights of the building shall have been satisfactorily -settled, which, as will be explained farther on, is rather difficult to establish -absolutely, though easy to fix within certain tolerably narrow limits.</p> - -<h3><i>Vertical Heights.</i></h3> - -<p>With regard to the vertical heights, there is absolutely no difficulty in -making them agree with those found in Pliny. The pyramid,—“<span lang="la" xml:lang="la">in metæ -cacumen se contrahens,</span>”—was 25 Greek cubits, or 37 ft. 6 in. The order was the -same in height exactly, and if we choose to assume that the expression “<span lang="la" xml:lang="la">pyramis -altitudine inferiorem æquavit</span>” referred to the pteron as the “lower part,” it -comes out correctly. If we add to the pyramid the quadriga, estimating that at -13′ 9″, we have 51′ 3″, and taking the same quantity for the basement, we have</p> - -<table summary="Measurements" border="0"><tr> -<td> </td><td class="tdc">Greek Ft.</td><td class="tdc">In.</td></tr><tr> -<td class="tdl">For the pyramid and quadriga</td><td class="tdc">51</td><td class="tdc">3</td></tr><tr> -<td class="tdl">For the basement</td><td class="tdc">51</td><td class="tdc">3</td></tr><tr> -<td class="tdl">For the pteron 25 cubits</td><td class="tdc">37</td><td class="tdc">6</td></tr><tr> -<td class="tdr" colspan="3">————</td></tr><tr> -<td> </td><td class="tdc">140</td><td class="tdc">0</td></tr></table> - -<p>or exactly the dimensions found in Pliny.</p> - -<p>All this is so clear and so satisfactory, that there the matter might rest. -There is no real necessity to look further, were it not that one or two peculiarities -come out in the investigation which seem worthy of being noted.</p> - -<p>In restoring the basement, after making its entablature of such proportions -as seemed to me most appropriate, I was surprised to find, on applying a scale, -that I had obtained exactly 37 ft. 6 in. for the height from the ground line to the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_31" id="Page_31">31</a></span> -soffit over the piers. Though I have tried several other dimensions since, this -seems so appropriate that, as very little depends on it, we may allow it to stand.</p> - -<p>Assuming this, therefore, we find the height dividing itself into three -portions, each of which was 37 ft. 6 in., and two which seem to be 13 ft. 9 in. -each. But if this were so, we come to the difficulty that there is no very -obvious rule of proportion between these parts, which there certainly ought to -be. Even if we add the two smaller ones together we obtain 27 ft. 6 in., which, -though nearly, is not quite in the ratio of 3 to 4 to the larger dimension of -37 ft. 6 in. If we add to the first 9 inches we get the exact ratio we require; -but by this process increase the height of the building by that dimension, which -is impossible.</p> - -<p>The explanation of the difficulty may perhaps be found in the fact that the -order overlaps the pyramid nearly to that extent, as is seen in the diagram (Woodcut -No. 5.) It is by no means improbable that the architects made the pyramid -37 ft. 6 in. from the bottom of the bottom step,—as they naturally would,—and -measured the order to the top of the cymatium; and consequently these two -dimensions added together did not make 75 feet, but 74 ft. 3 in., or something -very near to it.</p> - -<p>There is a curious confirmation of this in another dimension which must -not be overlooked. At page 24 we found the extreme length of the building -to be 126 feet, or 72 Babylonian cubits. This ought to be the height; and so -it is, to an inch, if we allow the quadriga to have measured 14 Greek feet. -Mr. Newton, it is true, makes it only 13 ft. 3 in. English, but it was necessary -for his theory of restoration to keep it as low as possible; and, though it may -have been only that height, there are no data to prevent its being higher, nor -indeed to fix its dimensions within the margin of a foot. Considering the -height at which it was seen, there is everything to confirm the latter dimension, -which has besides the merit of being exactly one-tenth of the total height of the -building.</p> - -<p>From these data we obtain for the probable height of the different parts of -the building the following:—</p> - -<table summary="Measurements" border="0"><tr> -<td> </td><td class="tdc">Ft.</td><td class="tdr">In.</td><td> </td></tr><tr> -<td class="tdl">Height of basement to soffit</td><td class="tdr">37</td><td class="tdr">6</td><td> </td></tr><tr> -<td class="tdl">Entablature of ditto</td><td class="tdr">14</td><td class="tdr">0</td><td> </td></tr><tr> -<td class="tdl">Pteron, to top of cymatium</td><td class="tdr">37</td><td class="tdr">6</td><td> </td></tr><tr> -<td class="tdl">Pyramid</td><td class="tdr">37</td><td class="tdr">6</td><td> </td></tr><tr> -<td class="tdl">Quadriga</td><td class="tdr">14</td><td class="tdr">0</td><td> </td></tr><tr> -<td class="tdr" colspan="3">———</td><td> </td></tr><tr> -<td> </td><td class="tdr">140</td><td class="tdr">6</td><td> </td></tr><tr> -<td class="tdl padl4 padr2">Deduct for overlap</td><td class="tdr" colspan="2">6</td><td><a name="FNanchor_17_17" id="FNanchor_17_17"></a><a href="#Footnote_17_17" class="fnanchor">17</a> (9?)</td></tr><tr> -<td class="tdr" colspan="3">———</td><td> </td></tr><tr> -<td> </td><td class="tdr">140</td><td class="tdr">0</td><td> </td></tr></table> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_32" id="Page_32">32</a></span></p> -<p>or exactly 80 Babylonian cubits, which is probably the dimension Hyginus -copied out, though either he or some bungling copier wrote “feet” for -“cubits,” just as the lithographers have altered all Mr. Pullan’s decimals of a -foot into inches, because they did not understand the unusual measures which -were being made use of.</p> - -<p>There is still another mode in which this question may be looked at. It -appears so strange that the architects should have used one modulus for the -plan and another for the height, that I cannot help suspecting that in Satyrus’s -work the dimensions were called 21 Babylonian or 25 Greek cubits, or some -such expression. The difference is not great (9 inches), and it seems so curious -that Greek cubits should have been introduced at all that we cannot help trying -to find out how it was.</p> - -<p>In the previous investigation it appeared that the only two vertical -dimensions obtained beyond those quoted by Pliny which were absolutely certain -were 126 feet or 72 cubits for the height of the building, and 8 cubits or 14 feet -for the quadriga. Now, if we assume thrice 21 cubits for the height, we have -63 cubits, and this with 8 cubits for the quadriga, and 9 for the entablature of -the basement, making together 17 cubits, complete the 80 we are looking for. -In other words, we return to the identical ratios from which we started, of -17″ and 21″, if these figures represented in inches the dimensions of the steps, -as they are always assumed to be by Messrs. Newton, and Pullan, and Smith. -If it were so, nothing could be more satisfactory; but, to make the ratio -perfect, the last dimension, instead of 9 cubits, ought to be 8·8; so that we -should get a total of 4 inches too short, instead of being in excess, as it was by -the last calculation.</p> - -<p>It would, of course, be easy to apportion this as one inch to each of the -four parts; but that is inadmissible in a building planned with such exactitude -as this, and I therefore merely state it in order to draw to it the attention of -some one cleverer at ratios than I am, confessing that I am beaten, though only -by an inch.</p> - -<p>Personally I feel inclined to believe that the architects were content to use -the figures of their plan in determining their heights, and made them 8, 9, 21, -63, 72, 80 cubits, &c., and to obtain this were content with the imperfect ratio -of 17 to 21. By this process it will be observed that they obtained the ratio -that the first figure should be 1/8 and 1/10 of the two last respectively, and the -second figure 1/7 and 1/8 of 63 and 72 respectively; and there may be other ratios -which I have failed to detect. The real difficulty is, that this involves -abandoning to a certain extent Pliny’s figures, which at present I do not -feel inclined to agree to. All this, however, is mere idle speculation, in -no way affecting the scheme of restoration, though amusing as a problem in -Greek art.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_33" id="Page_33">33</a></span></p> - -<h3><i>Architectural Ordinance.</i></h3> - -<p>Having now obtained all the dimensions of the building, except the -411 feet as the “<span lang="la" xml:lang="la">totus circuitus</span>” mentioned by Pliny, to which we shall come -presently, the next point is to explain the architectural peculiarities of the -structure.</p> - -<p>Unfortunately neither Pliny nor any other ancient author gives us the -smallest hint as to how the interior of the building was arranged, and were it -not for Guichard’s narrative we should have nothing but the analogy of other -buildings to guide us. His account of the remains, and of the discovery of the -chamber in the basement, is so clear, so circumstantial, and in every respect so -probable, that there does not seem any reason to doubt that it was substantially -correct, and no restoration can be accepted which does not admit of -and explain its details.</p> - -<p>Although it is true no such catastrophe is expressly mentioned by any -author, the position in which the horses of the quadriga were found renders it -almost certain that the upper part of the building had been shaken down by an -earthquake prior to the year 1402.</p> - -<p>Had the building been perfect, it is hardly probable that even such barbarians -as the Knights of St. John would have knocked it down; but, be this as it may, -in 1522 it seems that the basement was covered up by the <em lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">débris</em> of the upper -part and other rubbish, probably also by the sand and dust entangled in the -heap. In consequence of this it was not till after a considerable quantity of -the ruins had been removed that the Knights “saw an opening such as would -lead into a cellar, and, taking a candle, let themselves down into the interior, -where they found a beautiful large square hall, ornamented all round with -columns of marble, with their bases, capitals, friezes, cornices, engraved and -sculptured in half-relief. The space between the columns was lined with slabs -and bands or fillets of marble of different colours, ornamented with mouldings -and sculptures in harmony with the rest of the work, and inserted in the -white ground of the wall, where battle-scenes were represented sculptured in -half-relief.”<a name="FNanchor_18_18" id="FNanchor_18_18"></a><a href="#Footnote_18_18" class="fnanchor">18</a></p> - -<p>It is not quite clear whether the hole the Knights found was in the roof -of the apartment or in its side, at some height above the floor. I strongly -suspect the latter, but of this more hereafter. From the description it is quite -clear that this hall was not the cella surrounded by the pteron as described by -Pliny; for on any theory of restoration the floor of that must have been 50 feet -from the ground, and it could consequently neither have been buried nor could -the Knights have descended into it. It must have been in the basement, and if -so must have been lighted. For it need hardly be stated that the Greeks -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_34" id="Page_34">34</a></span>would never have applied such an amount of ornamentation to a hall where -it could not have been perfectly seen.<a name="FNanchor_19_19" id="FNanchor_19_19"></a><a href="#Footnote_19_19" class="fnanchor">19</a> It could not have been lighted by -windows in the ordinary sense of the term, as its walls could not be less than -21 feet thick, but there seems no difficulty in introducing any amount of light -required by the mode suggested in the accompanying plan and sections.<a name="FNanchor_20_20" id="FNanchor_20_20"></a><a href="#Footnote_20_20" class="fnanchor">20</a> As -shown there, there are four openings on each side, 17 feet high by about -6-1/2 wide, opening into a corridor 8 ft. 6 in. in width, which was separated from -the outer air by piers 4 feet in width. It was, in fact, a <em>peristele</em> under a -<em>peristyle</em>. As these words exactly express the difference between the two -corridors, they will be so used in future—peristele (from περι and στήλη, -a stele) being used for the lower, and peristyle (from στυλος, a column) for -the colonnade which it supported. If more light was wanted, it could be -introduced to any desired extent at the end opposite the door, but the eight -openings shown in the plan are, it is conceived, more than sufficient. By -this arrangement, too, the light is introduced in the most pleasing manner. -The direct rays of the sun could never penetrate the sepulchral chamber, but a -diffused high light was introduced sufficient to show all its beauties without -disturbing its repose.</p> - -<p>The existence of some such arrangement as this appears indispensable -in order to understand the passage in Martial:—</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> -<div class="stanza"> -<div class="line i05">“<span lang="la" xml:lang="la">Aere nec vacuo pendentia Mausolea</span></div> -<div class="line"><span lang="la" xml:lang="la">Laudibus immodicis Cares ad astra ferant.</span>”</div> -</div></div></div> - -<p>It is absurd to suggest that this might refer to some little structural difficulties -about a roof, as no roof was ever less seen than that of this building. Besides, -a roof is not a mausoleum; but the upper chamber here was so called, according -to Pliny; and the fact, therefore, of people being able to walk round the -building and see the town on one side, or the shipping and the sea on the -other, through it, <em>under its floor</em>, may well have led the Halicarnassians to boast -that their great tomb was supported in the air. This would in those days be -even more striking than at present, inasmuch as there was not, so far as we -now know, a single two-storied temple or tomb of any importance then existing.</p> - -<p>With regard to the dimensions of the chamber, we found above that the upper -one was, externally, 63 Greek feet by 52 ft. 6 in., or in the ratio of 5 to 6; and -if we deduct half an intercolumniation, or 3 cubits, for the thickness of the walls, -we attain 52 ft. 6 in. by 42 feet for the internal dimensions; which is probable, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_35" id="Page_35">35</a></span>inasmuch as it comes out in the ratio of 4 to 5, and is besides a very probable -constructive dimension with reference to the mass of the roof, which was almost -wholly supported on these walls. The dimensions of the lower apartment were -in all probability identical with those of the upper room. With regard to the -mode in which the upper chamber was lighted there can be no difficulty. Four -windows are introduced in each side, similar in design to those of the Temple -of Minerva Polias at Athens. Less would do; but as it is easier to subdue than -to increase the light, it probably was thus.</p> - -<p>Both these rooms probably had flat marble roofs. The lower one almost -certainly had; and if so, there must have been columns in the centre, as it -would have been impossible to throw a marble beam across an apartment 42 feet -in width. These pillars would not only add very considerably to their beauty -architecturally, but may also to a certain extent have been useful in steadying the -external roof; not indeed that this was required, for, whether it was constructed -on the principle of a horizontal or of a radiating arch, the abutment and walls -are quite sufficient for its support. At this day we should certainly employ -a radiating construction; the architects may have preferred the horizontal arch -in those days.</p> - -<p>For the upper chamber I have suggested a niche at the upper end, opposite -the door, where an altar probably was placed; and on either side I fancy there -would be sarcophagi, not to contain bodies, but to suggest rites. Such at least -is the usual arrangement in all the great tombs I know.</p> - -<p>If this apartment was as magnificent as I suppose it to have been, there -was, of course, easy access to it, which may without difficulty be attained by the -means suggested on the plan (Plate I.). According to this scheme, as a visitor -entered the building between the two great piers in the eastern front, he might -either ascend by the stairs on his right hand or his left to the peristele; or by the -great door in front of him, beyond the stairs, he might enter the lower chamber. -From the peristele a second flight of equal extent led to a landing from which -a third flight gave access to the peristyle in such a manner as to leave the -entrance to the chamber as unencumbered as possible, as probably an altar was -placed there.</p> - -<p>It will be observed that each of the flights of stairs was perfectly lighted, -the lower and upper being open above, and the intermediate flight open from -the side. Their existence here will also explain why the intercolumniation was -deeper by one-half in front of the cella than in the flanks. But for this -difference, the stairs, instead of being 5 ft. 6 in. in width, could barely have been -2 feet wide.</p> - -<p>The only other apartment for which it is necessary to find a place in the -building is the tomb itself. This fortunately is no difficulty, as the excavated -stairs at the west end of the building, and the big stone which was found there, -certainly indicate its whereabouts, even if they do not actually fix the spot.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_36" id="Page_36">36</a></span> -Besides this, the expressions used by Guichard in themselves almost suffice—“It -was situated beyond a low doorway, after the manner of an antechamber.” -This cannot, of course, apply to a vault under the hall first discovered by the -Knights, but describes accurately such a chamber as the wider intercolumniations -at the further end would fully admit of, while the fact of the stairs being excavated<a name="FNanchor_21_21" id="FNanchor_21_21"></a><a href="#Footnote_21_21" class="fnanchor">21</a> -gives the requisite height without interfering with the peristele above.</p> - -<p>In the plan and sections I have suggested stairs leading down to it; and -even if it is insisted that the Tomb of Mausolus, on the right, was walled up,<a name="FNanchor_22_22" id="FNanchor_22_22"></a><a href="#Footnote_22_22" class="fnanchor">22</a> -and the stones let down immediately after the interment, it does not follow that -the Tomb of Artemisia, which probably was on the left, may not have been -accessible long afterwards; and there may have been other vaults beneath to -which it was desirable to give means of access.</p> - -<p>There may also have been recesses for sarcophagi or urns in the thickness -of the walls on either side of the principal chamber, as represented in the plan; -but these are details it is hardly worth while entering into at present. There -is no authority for them, so every one may supply or reject them as suits his -own fancy.</p> - -<h3><i>Lacunaria.</i></h3> - -<p>One further merit of the restoration just described is, that it entirely gets -over the difficulty of the Lacunaria of the peristyle, which rendered Lieut. -Smith’s proposal so inadmissible. With the arrangement of the columns here -suggested, and the dimensions obtained for the cella, the greatest width to be -spanned in front and rear is only 14 Greek feet—2 feet 8 inches less than Mr. -Pullan makes it. Although it is just such an increase as this that makes the -difficulty in most cases, neither of these dimensions ought to be considered -insuperable, inasmuch as in the Propylæa at Athens a marble roof is thrown -over a clear space of 18 feet 6 inches English; and though it may be suggested -that the roof over these Lacunaria was lighter, that does not alter the case. -No part of the external roof of the Mausoleum rested on these beams, and they -therefore were not affected by its weight.</p> - -<p>It is not necessary here to go into a detailed examination of the one -lacunar stone that has been found and brought home. Mr. Pullan thinks it -requires a 10 feet intercolumniation, Mr. Cockerell one of 8 feet 9 inches; but -neither know, or can know, what part of the building it comes from, or whether -it was placed lengthways or transversely to the beams. Under these circumstances<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_37" id="Page_37">37</a></span> -there would be no difficulty in finding it a place, either in the long lacunaria -at either end of the cella, or the shorter ones in the flanks, or in the -square ones which are found at each angle of the building; or, if none of these -will do, one may be provided internally to suit any shape. There is, in fact, -no direct evidence bearing on this subject; but my impression is, that the -arrangement of the roof, as suggested by the intercolumniation here adopted, -must have been a singularly pleasing one. The four great lacunaria at the -angles, being exactly square, would not only be very grand in themselves, but -form a pleasing transition between the two other forms which ornament the -flanks and front.</p> - -<p>As all these points will be more easily understood by an inspection of the -plans and sections, it is unnecessary to add more verbally about them here; and -it only remains to say a few words about the sculpture and the pedestals on -which it stood, before concluding the description of the building.</p> - -<p>Before doing so it may be as well to recapitulate some of the principal -measures obtained from the preceding investigation.</p> - -<p>Basing the whole on the width of the principal step, or 21 Greek inches, -equal to 1 Babylonian cubit, we found 2 cubits, or 3 ft. 6 in., equal to the distance -between one Lion’s head and the next; three Lions’ heads, or 6 cubits, equal to one -intercolumniation; six intercolumniations, or 36 cubits, equal to 63 feet, or the -length of the cella; twice that, 126 feet, or 72 cubits, equal to the length of the -lower step, which is also the height of the building without the quadriga. The -lower step of the pyramid was 100 feet by 80, its spread 40 feet in one direction -by 32 in the other, the meta 20 feet by 16—all in the ratio of 5 to 4; the cella -internally, 42 feet by 52 ft. 6 in., or as 4 is to 5; externally, 52 ft. 6 in. by -63 ft., or as 5 is to 6—these three dimensions being in the ratio of 4, 5, and 6; -the peristyle one intercolumniation on the flanks, one and a half in front. -Measured transversely across the base, we found—</p> - -<table summary="Measurements" border="0"><tr> -<td> </td><td class="tdc f07">Ft.</td><td class="tdr f07">In.</td><td class="tdc"> </td><td class="tdc f07">Cubits.</td></tr><tr> -<td class="tdl">For the width of the cella</td><td class="tdc">42</td><td class="tdc">0</td><td class="tdc"> or </td><td class="tdc">24</td></tr><tr> -<td class="tdl">Twice 21 for the width of the peristele is</td><td class="tdc">42</td><td class="tdc">0</td><td class="tdc">”</td><td class="tdc">24</td></tr><tr> -<td class="tdl padr2">5 ft. 3 in. × 2 equal to 10 ft. 6 in. for the pedestals</td><td class="tdc">10</td><td class="tdc">6</td><td class="tdc">”</td><td class="tdc padl05">6</td></tr><tr> -<td class="tdl">5 ft. 3 in. × 2<span class="h">equ</span>”<span class="h">to 10 ft</span>”<span class="h">6 in.xx</span>for the steps</td><td class="tdc">10</td><td class="tdc">6</td><td class="tdc">”</td><td class="tdc padl05">6</td></tr><tr> -<td> </td><td class="tdr" colspan="2">———</td><td> </td><td class="tdc">—</td></tr><tr> -<td class="tdl padl8">Length of lower step</td><td class="tdc">105</td><td class="tdc">0</td><td class="tdc">=</td><td class="tdc">60</td></tr></table> - -<p>Lengthways we found—</p> - -<table summary="Measurements" border="0"><tr> -<td> </td><td class="tdc f07">Ft.</td><td class="tdr f07">In.</td><td class="tdc"> </td><td class="tdc f07">Cubits.</td></tr><tr> -<td class="tdl">For the length of the cella</td><td class="tdc">63</td><td class="tdc">0</td><td class="tdc"> or </td><td class="tdc">36</td></tr><tr> -<td class="tdl padr2">Width of the stairs or sepulchral chamber 21 ft. × 2</td><td class="tdc">42</td><td class="tdc">0</td><td class="tdc">”</td><td class="tdc">24</td></tr><tr> -<td class="tdl padr2">Width of pedestals and steps as above</td><td class="tdc">21</td><td class="tdc">0</td><td class="tdc">”</td><td class="tdc">12</td></tr><tr> -<td> </td><td class="tdr" colspan="2">———</td><td> </td><td class="tdc">—</td></tr><tr> -<td class="tdl padl8">Length of lower step</td><td class="tdc vertb">126</td><td class="tdc vertb">0</td><td class="tdc">=</td><td class="tdc">72<a name="FNanchor_23_23" id="FNanchor_23_23"></a><a href="#Footnote_23_23" class="fnanchor">23</a></td></tr></table> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_38" id="Page_38">38</a></span></p> -<p>The total circumference, measured on the lower step, was—</p> - -<table summary="Measurements" border="0"><tr> -<td> </td><td class="tdc f07">Feet.</td><td> </td><td class="tdl f07" colspan="2">Cubits.</td></tr><tr> -<td class="tdl">126 feet, or 72 cubits × 2 =</td><td class="tdc">252</td><td class="tdc"> or </td><td class="tdc">144</td><td> </td></tr><tr> -<td class="tdl">105<span class="h"> fe</span>”<span class="h">or 72</span>60<span class="h">cu</span>”<span class="h">xxi</span>× 2 =</td><td class="tdc">210</td><td class="tdc">”</td><td class="tdc">120</td><td> </td></tr><tr> -<td> </td><td>—–</td><td> </td><td>—–</td><td> </td></tr><tr> -<td> </td><td class="tdc">462</td><td> </td><td class="tdc">264</td><td><a name="FNanchor_24_24" id="FNanchor_24_24"></a><a href="#Footnote_24_24" class="fnanchor">24</a></td></tr> -</table> - -<p>It is not necessary to say anything further with regard to the vertical -heights. Till the system of definite proportions of the monument are more fully -worked out than they can be in such a work as this, it will be better to adhere -literally to Pliny’s measurements as they stand in the text. They explain and -fix all the vertical dimensions with sufficient precision for all practical purposes, -though I cannot help suspecting that even he was wrong to the extent of an -inch or two here or there, from not exactly understanding the subject he was -treating. All this, however, is of no consequence in so far as the design is -concerned, and therefore of secondary interest here.</p> - -<h3><i>Sculpture and Pedestals.</i></h3> - -<p>Of the three friezes that were found in the excavations, two are so similar -that they were generally mistaken for parts of the same composition. The -reasons, however, assigned by Mr. Newton for believing that they were different -are so cogent as to leave very little doubt of the fact that they were so. The -first of these, of which the Museum possesses 16 slabs, represents a combat of -Amazons, and may therefore be called the Amazon frieze. The second, which is -very similar, in like manner represents a combat of Lapithæ and Centaurs, and -may therefore be called by their name. The last, which is in lower relief and -less weather-worn, represents, principally at least, a chariot race.</p> - -<p>The two first are so similar in dimensions and style that they were evidently -parts of the same system of decoration. One, there can be little doubt, belonged -to the order, the other to the basement; but there do not seem to be any -sufficient data for ascertaining which; and, as it is not of the least consequence -for the purposes of the restoration, I shall not enter upon the question at -present. They are so similar in dimensions as well as in design and in relief -that either may be taken.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_39" id="Page_39">39</a></span></p> - -<p>To us, who only think of getting the full value of our money in whatever -we do, it seems difficult to understand why so much labour and such careful art -should have been bestowed on a frieze which was to be placed at a height of 80 -feet from the spectator’s eye.<a name="FNanchor_25_25" id="FNanchor_25_25"></a><a href="#Footnote_25_25" class="fnanchor">25</a> But the Greeks slurred nothing, and seemed to -have felt an innate satisfaction in knowing that a work was perfect and true, -even if the eye could not grasp it, which must have been the case with many of -the minuter proportional ratios which they considered so important.</p> - -<p>In estimating this, we must not lose sight of the beauty of the climate and -clearness of the atmosphere, which rendered things sharply visible at distances -whence all would be hazy confusion in our grey atmosphere. Nor must we -forget that all the principal features of the architecture were certainly accentuated -by colour, and even if it is contended that the figures themselves were not -painted, no one now hardly will deny that they were relieved by a painted -background; and it is very difficult to believe that the colour could have -stopped there. When new, the white marble, relieved and surrounded by -coloured architecture, must have been a most painful and intolerable discord; and -although the figures may not have been painted to look like life, it hardly seems -doubtful but that the flesh was tinted and the robes coloured, at least to such -an extent as to distinguish them, not only from the flesh, but from one another.</p> - -<p>Traces of colour have been found on some of the bassi-rilievi of the -Mausoleum. The lions certainly were painted, and with no sparing hand; and -the colours found on the architecture were strong and distinct, as they -generally are.</p> - -<p>With such adjuncts and in such a climate, even at a distance of 80 feet, all -the principal features of the frieze could easily have been distinguished, and -the effect of it, in so far as we can judge, must have been something worthy of -all the admiration lavished on this building.</p> - -<p>The chariot-race frieze may either have been placed in one of the interior -halls of the building, or it may have encircled the cella immediately under the -roof, like the celebrated Panathenaic frieze of the Parthenon. On the doctrine -of chances some fragments ought to have been found of the internal sculpture -described by Guichard; and for myself I feel inclined to fancy this may be a -part; but if not, its position was almost certainly the one hinted at just now, -and shown in the plates.</p> - -<p>The square tablets in like manner were also probably internal; but if not, -their position would, I fancy, certainly be the back wall of the cella, under the -peristyle. There being no windows there, some relief would be required, and -these seem appropriate for the position, which is that suggested by Mr. Pullan; -though he marred his suggestion by the position of his frieze, and by giving no -access to either.</p> - -<p>Besides these a considerable number of statues were found larger than life; -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_40" id="Page_40">40</a></span>namely, some 7 or 8 feet in height. These, following the suggestion of the -Xanthian monument discovered by Sir Charles Fellows, I have placed in the -peristele,—not the peristyle. I cannot fancy any position in which statues -would either be more appropriate, or seen to greater advantage. Their -dimensions require that they should be placed at some height above the eye. -It is here 17 feet, and no niche could be better than the plain surface of the -stele on either side, with the subdued shadow behind. In no building, ancient -or modern, do I know any situation where statues would be so advantageous to -the architecture, and on the other hand where the architecture would assist so -advantageously in heightening the effect of the sculpture.<a name="FNanchor_26_26" id="FNanchor_26_26"></a><a href="#Footnote_26_26" class="fnanchor">26</a></p> - -<p>In the tomb discovered by Mr. Falkener at Denzili, and which is evidently -a copy of the Mausoleum, the pyramid is supported by just such a range of -steles as have been introduced here, but with this curious peculiarity, that -instead of the statues being placed between the piers, one is sculptured in mezzo -rilievo on each face of the stele. The reason of this is obvious enough: there -being no cella in that small monument (there are only 6 steles altogether), there -would have been a strong light behind the statues and in the spectator’s eyes, -which would have rendered the expression of the statues invisible. As it is, it -is one of those instances of intelligent copying so common in ancient and so rare -in modern times.</p> - -<p>We next come to the Lions. Fragments of some 20 of these were -discovered. From their weather-worn appearance, and the general exigencies -of the case, it is certain that they were placed on pedestals outside the building. -There is no difficulty in providing these:—the design requires that there should -be 7 such on the south, and as many on the north face of the building, each 5 -feet 3 inches in length; and 5 pedestals on the west, and 2 on the east, in like -manner 5 ft. 3 in. long. These dimensions are exactly suited to the dimensions -of the Lions found, which, as far as can be ascertained, were about 4 feet -6 inches long, from head to hind-quarter, though some seemed about 3 inches -longer than the others, probably those on the longer faces of the building.</p> - -<p>According to the evidence of Mr. Newton’s book, all these were standing. -As an architect I should have liked them better if they had been couchant, and -it seems probable that some at least were sitting. Two are represented in -that attitude in the Dilettante Society’s plate of the Castle at Budrum, and I -cannot help thinking that a more careful examination would show an attitude of -more repose in the others. In all that concerns sculpture, however, I bow to -Mr. Newton’s authority, and accept the facts as he states them. Their being -standing seems to necessitate pedestals for the statues of the peristele, which -otherwise it might have been better to have dispensed with. Taking them -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_41" id="Page_41">41</a></span>either as sitting, standing, or couchant, they give life to and relieve the basement -to a very great extent.</p> - -<p>Besides these 21 I have added two Lions of larger size on each side of -the portal, where the larger pedestals seem to require their presence. These I -have made couchant, their length thus ranging with the standing lions on -either side.</p> - -<p>I have also taken the liberty of suggesting 4 couchant lions on pedestals -at the 4 angles of the roof. The authority for this suggestion is the monument -at Dugga (Woodcut, No. 2), where four corner stones cut into the pyramidal -roof at the angles in this manner, and were evidently surmounted by sculpture -or ornament of some similar character; but more than this, I feel that something -is necessary here in order to support the central pedestal that carried the -quadriga. Without this it would look isolated and hardly a part of the general -design. Besides this, the grouping of the columns at the angles seems to -suggest something of the sort, while on the other hand an architect would -probably introduce some such arrangement in order to justify the grouping.</p> - -<p>Altogether these roof pedestals seem to me so essential to the design that I -have no hesitation in saying I believe they must have been there; but as there -has been nothing found to suggest them,—though nothing either to contradict -their existence,—the suggestion must be taken only for what it is worth, and -it is quite open to any one to say that he thinks them superfluous.</p> - -<p>Having proceeded so far with the restoration, it is found that there are two -pedestals at each angle waiting for occupants. These measure each 12 feet in -front, by 5 ft. 3 in. on the sides. When I first found these dimensions, it struck -me that they were those of the pedestals of the celebrated Monte Cavallo groups, -and finding on inquiry that I was correct in this, I jumped at once to the conclusion -that these beautiful sculptures once adorned this wonder of the world! -Personally I am still inclined to adhere to this opinion, but I feel so little -competent to decide such a question that I have not introduced them in the -perspective restoration, though I have suggested them on Plate II., and shall -await with interest the opinions of others on the subject.</p> - -<p>There can be no doubt but that they belong to the age of the Mausoleum -and no one seems to know where they came from, while the arrangement of -<span class="figright" style="width: 512px;"> -<img src="images/i041.jpg" width="512" height="508" alt="Pedestal of Monte" /> -<span class="caption">6.—<span class="smcap">Pedestal of Monte<br /> -Cavallo Group.</span></span></span> -the group is certainly very peculiar (Woodcut, No. 6). -It is true it is quite impossible that the angle line of the -building could have been lost behind such a pedestal as -this; and the two, if belonging to the Mausoleum, must -have stood on separate pedestals; but this I think would -have been an improvement; certainly so in that situation; -but when placed where no architectural exigencies suggested -their arrangement, nothing could be so easy as to bring -them together as we now find them by simply sawing -through their pedestals on the dotted line. At all events the coincidence is<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_42" id="Page_42">42</a></span> -most remarkable, and it is also a curious coincidence that Cicero should accuse -Verres of robbing Halicarnassus of its statues. Why not of these? We know -how Mummius plundered Corinth more than a century before that time. There -seems no inherent improbability in the case.</p> - -<p>Assuming for the moment that these sculptures came from the Mausoleum, -there is no reason to suppose that there ever were more than two such groups, -and they would therefore have adorned the southern face, and the figures would -in consequence have been the work of Timotheus. There would consequently -be still four pedestals, which were almost certainly occupied by men or Amazons -on horseback, such as the torso in the Museum, which is avowedly the most -beautiful thing which was found in the excavations. These pedestals, both from -their position and size, are just such as are required for this kind of sculpture, -and such as would show it off to the greatest advantage. The one question seems -to be, were all the eight pedestals adorned with similar sculptures, or were four -occupied by the Monte Cavallo groups, and four by the prancing Amazons?<a name="FNanchor_27_27" id="FNanchor_27_27"></a><a href="#Footnote_27_27" class="fnanchor">27</a></p> - -<p>It only now remains to refer to one of Pliny’s dimensions, which could not -be explained till these pedestals and their uses were established. The great -puzzle of his description always was, that with the dimensions given for other -parts, the “<span lang="la" xml:lang="la">totus circuitus</span>” should be 411 feet. This is evidently no loose -measurement or mere guess, but a dimension copied out of the book of the -architects, and unless it can be absolutely incorporated with the design, no -restoration can for one moment be allowed to pass muster. The plain meaning, -as I understand it, is that this was the girth of the building; it is such a -measurement as a man would take of the bole of a tree, or, in other words, of -any object of which he wished to know what the length of a tape or rope would -be which he could bind round it,—in this instance on the upper step.</p> - -<p>Turning to the plan (Plate I.) and to the measurements (page 37), we find -the north and south faces measure 105 Greek feet, the east and west 84 feet—together, -378 feet; each angle measures across 7 ft. 6 in., and adding this -30 feet to the above, we obtain the total of 408, or 3 feet too short. This slight -difference, however, is easily accounted for. That dimension is taken over the -waist of the pedestals, and by allowing 4 inches for the projection of the plinth, -which is a very probable amount of projection, we get the exact dimension of -411 feet we are seeking for, as measured on the upper step of the building, -which is where we should naturally look for it. Not only, therefore, does this -offer no difficulty, but it is a most satisfactory confirmation of all that has been -urged before.</p> -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_43" id="Page_43">43</a></span></p> - -<h2>CONCLUSION.</h2> - -<p>On some future occasion it may be worth while to go more fully into all -the minor details of this important building, and to illustrate it to a greater -extent than has been attempted in this short treatise; not only because it was -the building which the ancients, who ought to have been the best judges, -admired most of all their architectural treasures, but because it is the one -which illustrates best the principles on which their great buildings were designed.</p> - -<p>It might, therefore, be well worth while to treat it as a typical example and -use it to illustrate not only the principles of Greek design in general, but more -particularly to explain the doctrine of harmonic proportions in accordance with -which they all were designed, and of which it is, in so far as we at present know, -the most perfect example the knowledge of which has come down to our times.</p> - -<p>All that has been attempted on the present occasion is, to point out the -main broad features of harmonic proportion which governed the principal -dimensions of the building; but the “order” was also full of minute and -delicate harmonies worthy of the most intense study. To elucidate these something -more is required than a hap-hazard restoration, such as that which is -found in the plates attached to Mr. Newton’s work, with the superinduced -confusion of the lithographers’ inaccuracies. Every fragment requires re-examination, -and every part re-measurement; but to do this requires not only -unlimited access to the remains, but power to move and examine, which would -not, of course, be granted, to me at least. But if it were done, and if the details -were published, with the really good specimens of the sculpture, all of which -are omitted from Mr. Newton’s present publication, the public might then come -to understand what the Mausoleum really was, and why the ancients admired -it so much.</p> - -<p>The building is also especially interesting, because it is more complicated -in its parts and more nearly approaches the form of civil architecture than -anything that has yet come to our knowledge. Almost all the Greek -buildings hitherto explored are Temples, generally formal and low in their -outline. For the first time, we find a genuine two-storied building, which, -though covering only half the area of the Parthenon, is twice its height, and -contains a variety of lessons and suggestions it would be in vain to try to -extract from mere templar buildings.</p> - -<p>This building seems also to have a special interest at the present moment, -inasmuch as we are now looking everywhere for the design of some Memorial -which should worthily commemorate the virtues of the Prince whose loss the -nation is still deploring. It would be difficult to suggest anything more -appropriate for this purpose than a reproduction of the Monument which -excited so much the admiration of the ancient world, and rendered the grief of -Artemisia famous through all succeeding generations.</p> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_45" id="Page_45"> </a></span></p> -<p class="right">PLATE I</p> - -<div class="figcenter" style="width: 1500px;"><a href="images/p01.jpg"> -<img src="images/p01.jpg" width="1500" height="1175" alt="PLATE I" /></a> -<table summary="references" width="100%" border="0"><tr> -<td class="tdl f06">J. FERGUSSON, DEL.</td> -<td class="tdc f06">JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE ST. LONDON.</td> -<td class="tdr f06">KELL BRO<sup>S</sup>. LITH<sup>RS</sup>, CASTLE ST. HOLBORN.</td> -</tr></table></div> - -<p class="right">PLATE II</p> - -<div class="figcenter" style="width: 1000px;"><a href="images/p02.jpg"> -<img src="images/p02.jpg" width="1000" height="1498" alt="PLATE II" /></a> -<table summary="references" width="100%"><tr> -<td class="tdl f06">J. FERGUSSON, DEL.</td> -<td class="tdc f06">JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE ST. LONDON.</td> -<td class="tdr f06">KELL BRO<sup>S</sup>. LITH<sup>RS</sup>, CASTLE ST. HOLBORN.</td> -</tr></table></div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_48" id="Page_48">48</a></span></p> - -<p class="right">PLATE III</p> - -<div class="figcenter" style="width: 1000px;"><a href="images/p03.jpg"> -<img src="images/p03.jpg" width="1000" height="1354" alt="PLATE III" /></a> -<table summary="references" width="100%"><tr> -<td class="tdl f06">J. FERGUSSON, DEL.</td> -<td class="tdc f06">JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE ST. LONDON.</td> -<td class="tdc f06">KELL BRO<sup>S</sup>. LITH<sup>RS</sup>, CASTLE ST. HOLBORN.</td> -</tr></table></div> - -<hr /> - -<h2>FOOTNOTES:</h2> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_1_1" id="Footnote_1_1"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_1"><span class="label">1</span></a> Of this class one of the best known is the steeple of St. George’s Church, Bloomsbury, which its architect -supposed was a correct restoration of the Mausoleum.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_2_2" id="Footnote_2_2"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_2"><span class="label">2</span></a> xxxvi. v. “<span lang="la" xml:lang="la">Scopas habuit æmulos eadem ætate -Bryaxim et Timotheum et Leocharen, de quibus simul -dicendum est, quoniam pariter cœlavere Mausoleum; -sepulchrum hoc est ab uxore Artemisia factum Mausolo -Cariæ regulo, qui obiit Olympiadis cvii anno secundo: -opus id ut esset inter septem miracula, hi maxime -fecere artifices. Patet ab austro et septemtrione sexagenos -ternos pedes, brevius a frontibus, toto circuitu -pedes quadringentos undecim; attollitur in altitudinem -viginti quinque cubitis; cingitur columnis triginta -sex; pteron vocavere circuitum. Ab oriente cœlavit -Scopas, a septentrione Bryaxis, a meridie Timotheus, -ab occasu Leochares, priusque quam peragerent regina -obiit; non tamen recesserunt nisi absoluto jam, id -gloriæ ipsorum artisque monimentum judicantes; -hodieque certant manus. Accessit et quintus artifex; -namque supra pteron pyramis altitudine inferiorem -æquavit, viginti quatuor gradibus in metæ cacumen se -contrahens. In summo est quadriga marmorea, quam -fecit Pythis; hæc adjecta centum quadraginta pedum -altitudine totum opus includit.</span>”</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_3_3" id="Footnote_3_3"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_3"><span class="label">3</span></a> vii. Pref.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_4_4" id="Footnote_4_4"></a><a href="#FNanchor_4_4"><span class="label">4</span></a> The dimensions of the walls of this peribolus, as -found in these excavations, accord with tolerable accuracy -with those here given.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_5_5" id="Footnote_5_5"></a><a href="#FNanchor_5_5"><span class="label">5</span></a> Vitruvius, <span class="smcap">II.</span> viii. 37 and 37.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_6_6" id="Footnote_6_6"></a><a href="#FNanchor_6_6"><span class="label">6</span></a> Pausanias, viii. 16.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_7_7" id="Footnote_7_7"></a><a href="#FNanchor_7_7"><span class="label">7</span></a> Newton, page 73.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_8_8" id="Footnote_8_8"></a><a href="#FNanchor_8_8"><span class="label">8</span></a> These seven axioms or canons were furnished -to me by Mr. Lloyd as leading results of his researches, -after I had explained to him my theory -of the mode in which the Mausoleum ought to be -restored.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_9_9" id="Footnote_9_9"></a><a href="#FNanchor_9_9"><span class="label">9</span></a> If we can depend on Mr. Perring’s determination, -the Egyptian cubit used in fixing the dimensions of -the Great Pyramid was more than half an inch shorter -than the Babylonian or Halicarnassean cubit used for -that purpose in the Mausoleum. As far as can be ascertained, -the Egyptian equalled 1·713 foot English, -while the other was 1·771; the difference being fifty-eight -thousandths of a foot, or nearly two-thirds of an -inch.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_10_10" id="Footnote_10_10"></a><a href="#FNanchor_10_10"><span class="label">10</span></a> They are so much broken and so carelessly put -together in the Museum, that, if we had no other evidence, -it might be contended they were either 20-1/2 -inches or 21-1/2; but on a fair average measurement -there can be no doubt that 21 Greek inches is the correct -modulus.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_11_11" id="Footnote_11_11"></a><a href="#FNanchor_11_11"><span class="label">11</span></a> It is hardly worth while to allude to Mr. Pullan’s dimension of 10 English feet from centre to centre. -It agrees with no fact and no theory.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_12_12" id="Footnote_12_12"></a><a href="#FNanchor_12_12"><span class="label">12</span></a> As I first restored the building I placed a square -anta in the angles, with pilasters on each face, as are -found in the angles of the Erectheium at Athens. I -had overlooked the fact that a capital was found with -an angular volute, which settles the question; but I -still think that architecturally the square pier arrangement -would have been the best.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_13_13" id="Footnote_13_13"></a><a href="#FNanchor_13_13"><span class="label">13</span></a> Nothing can be more unsatisfactory than the -system of scales used in Mr. Newton’s work. They are -in feet and decimals of a foot; a mode of notation very -rarely used for any purpose, and never, so far as I know, -adopted by any architect in his professional practice. -The consequence is that such scales are not to be purchased; -and if ordered there is the greatest possible -difficulty in getting them made. The inconvenience -is aggravated in this case by the slovenly practice of -not putting scales to the plates: all the information -the engraver condescends to is “Scale 1 ÷ 30,” or -“1 ÷ 10,” &c., as the case may be. The consequence -is that not one person in a hundred understands to -what scale the drawings are made, and not one in -a thousand will take the trouble to construct the scales -which are indispensably necessary to enable him to -study the plates.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_14_14" id="Footnote_14_14"></a><a href="#FNanchor_14_14"><span class="label">14</span></a> As a proper punishment for the introduction of -so troublesome a novelty as these decimal scales, -either the draftsman or lithographer has separated by -a dot all the first figures of the decimals in the plate -of the restored order (Plate xxii.). A dimension, -therefore, which reads 2·96 or two feet eleven inches -and a fraction in plate xxi., reads 2 ft. 9·6, or two feet -nine inches and a fraction, in plate xxii. The lower -diameter, which scales three feet six inches and one-third, -reads three feet five inches and one-third, and -so on. In fact, nine-tenths of the dimensions are absolutely -wrong. The remaining tenth are right by accident; -but most of these are so, simply because the -lithographer has been too lazy or too inaccurate to put -any sign by which they can be read. All this not -only increases tenfold the labour of consulting the -plates, but renders it doubtful whether frequently it -is not a mere fighting with shadows to contest any -theory on such documents.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_15_15" id="Footnote_15_15"></a><a href="#FNanchor_15_15"><span class="label">15</span></a> In a note in p. 162 it is stated that “the wheel is -made somewhat smaller than its true scale, as if -drawn in strict elevation it would convey a false impression -of the effect of the original group.” On -what theory, it is difficult to understand; but there is -nothing to intimate that the figures or horses are not -to the scale 1 ÷ 10, which is marked on the plate. -Either, however, the text or the drawing is wrong; -unless both are so, which seems probable.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_16_16" id="Footnote_16_16"></a><a href="#FNanchor_16_16"><span class="label">16</span></a> In Plate II. of this work the chariot group is -represented as facing transversely, in the Frontispiece -and Plate III. as facing longitudinally to the building. -It may be as well to mention here that I have introduced -several such discrepancies into the plates, which -are neither oversights nor errors. This is one; another -is that, in Plate II., the lions at the angles of the -pyramid are omitted, but inserted in the other three -plates: a cymatium has been introduced as crowning -the order of the base in one plate, and another moulding -substituted in the others. The Monte Cavallo groups -have been introduced in Plates I. and III. and omitted -elsewhere. The object of these alterations is that, as -these are mere suggestions, they are offered as such in -order that the reader may exercise his own judgment -regarding them. The dimensions, and all those parts -which are certain, are repeated throughout; but, unless -some further discoveries are made, there must always -be some details which must be left to the taste or the -knowledge of the restorer.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_17_17" id="Footnote_17_17"></a><a href="#FNanchor_17_17"><span class="label">17</span></a> There is a discrepancy of three inches in this -dimension, which must be apportioned somewhere. I -fancy it is to be found in the cymatium gutter, but -this could only be ascertained from a thorough re-examination -of the fragments themselves.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_18_18" id="Footnote_18_18"></a><a href="#FNanchor_18_18"><span class="label">18</span></a> See page <a href="#Page_11">11</a> ante.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_19_19" id="Footnote_19_19"></a><a href="#FNanchor_19_19"><span class="label">19</span></a> The mode of lighting Greek temples and Greek -buildings generally has never fully been investigated -by architects. I read a short paper on the subject at -the Royal Institute of British Architects on the 18th -of November last; and though that is an amplification -of my remarks in the True Principles of Beauty -in Art some fourteen years ago, it is far from exhausting -the subject. But it is enough to prove that the -mode of introducing light was as perfect and as beautiful -as every other part and every other contrivance of -Greek architecture.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_20_20" id="Footnote_20_20"></a><a href="#FNanchor_20_20"><span class="label">20</span></a> Plates I. II. and III.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_21_21" id="Footnote_21_21"></a><a href="#FNanchor_21_21"><span class="label">21</span></a> These stairs, indicated by dotted lines in the plan -(Plate I.) being on one side, clearly indicate that the -sepulchre was not symmetrically placed to occupy the -centre of the building. Curiously enough, the Tomb at -Mylassa (Woodcut No. 3) has a doorway placed unsymmetrically, -for no reason that can be guessed, unless it -were in imitation of its celebrated prototype. What -also is curious is that at Mylassa a pillar stands directly -over the centre of the doorway leading into the principal -chamber of the tomb, exactly as occurs at -Halicarnassus, and that chamber has a flat stone-roof, -as here suggested, for the Mausoleum.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_22_22" id="Footnote_22_22"></a><a href="#FNanchor_22_22"><span class="label">22</span></a> The ease with which the Knights got access to -this tomb would entirely contradict the supposition of -its being walled up, if it was the Tomb of Mausolus -they reached. It may have been that of the Queen.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_23_23" id="Footnote_23_23"></a><a href="#FNanchor_23_23"><span class="label">23</span></a> The building that most resembles the Mausoleum -in design and dimensions among the products of modern -art is probably the Arc de l’Etoile at Paris. Its length -(rejecting fractions) is 150 feet English, its width 75. -Its “<span lang="la" xml:lang="la">totus circuitus</span>” is therefore 450 as compared with -the 416 of the Mausoleum. But, on the other hand, -the area covered by the latter building is more than -2000 feet in excess of that covered by the former. -The height of the Arc de l’Etoile is 150 feet to the -cornice of the attic, and therefore considerably in excess, -and it was intended to have been crowned with a quadriga, -which, with its low pedestal, would have added -45 feet to this dimension, thus making up 195 feet as -compared with 141·7, which was the total height of -the Mausoleum. It is, however, one of the peculiarities -and one of the principal beauties of the design -of the Mausoleum, that it would have looked very much -larger and probably even higher than the “Arc,” had -it occupied its situation; and it is quite certain that a -chariot group 14 feet high would look larger and more -dignified on a pedestal raised on a pyramid, as at Halicarnassus, -than would one twice that height on the -great flat roof of the “Arc.” In the one case the group -compares with a base of 20 feet by 16, in the other -with a great flat measuring 150 feet by 75. At Halicarnassus -one-tenth of the whole height was quite -sufficient for the crowning group; at Paris one-fifth -would hardly have sufficed to produce the same effect.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_24_24" id="Footnote_24_24"></a><a href="#FNanchor_24_24"><span class="label">24</span></a> It may be accident, but it is a curious coincidence, -that the number of feet read backwards gives the number -of cubits,—the number of cubits read backwards, -the number of feet.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_25_25" id="Footnote_25_25"></a><a href="#FNanchor_25_25"><span class="label">25</span></a> The upper frieze of St. Paul’s Cathedral is 95 feet from the ground.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_26_26" id="Footnote_26_26"></a><a href="#FNanchor_26_26"><span class="label">26</span></a> In St. George’s Hall, Liverpool, the architect provided -situations for statues in nearly a similar manner. -As compared with these, the defects of his arrangement -are that the spaces are too large and the shadows behind -not deep enough.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_27_27" id="Footnote_27_27"></a><a href="#FNanchor_27_27"><span class="label">27</span></a> In the perspective drawing forming the title-page, -these pedestals seem to break up the base of the building -too much. If seen more in front either way this -effect would have been avoided. As explained above, -the dimensions necessitate a projection between the -top step and the face of the peristele of 5·3. This -must either have been a shelf or broken up as here -suggested. I cannot conceive that it was the former -for many obvious reasons, while the latter seems to me -not only appropriate architecturally, but to be indispensable -to the display of the sculpture. They exactly -fulfil the part that is performed by the buttresses in -Gothic architecture.</p></div> - - - - - - - - -<pre> - - - - - -End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Mausoleum at Halicarnassus -Restored in Conformity With th, by James Fergusson - -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK MAUSOLEUM AT HALICARNASSUS *** - -***** This file should be named 53578-h.htm or 53578-h.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/5/3/5/7/53578/ - -Produced by Sonya Schermann, Turgut Dincer and the Online -Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This -file was produced from images generously made available -by The Internet Archive) - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive -specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this -eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook -for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, -performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given -away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks -not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the -trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country outside the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you - are located before using this ebook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The -Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - - - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the -mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its -volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous -locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt -Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to -date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and -official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -For additional contact information: - - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. - - - -</pre> - -</body> -</html> diff --git a/old/53578-h/images/cover.jpg b/old/53578-h/images/cover.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index e86ad7b..0000000 --- a/old/53578-h/images/cover.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/53578-h/images/frontis.jpg b/old/53578-h/images/frontis.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 9b037f9..0000000 --- a/old/53578-h/images/frontis.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/53578-h/images/i014.jpg b/old/53578-h/images/i014.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index db60eef..0000000 --- a/old/53578-h/images/i014.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/53578-h/images/i015.jpg b/old/53578-h/images/i015.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index b7bdf2b..0000000 --- a/old/53578-h/images/i015.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/53578-h/images/i016.jpg b/old/53578-h/images/i016.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index cea5f24..0000000 --- a/old/53578-h/images/i016.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/53578-h/images/i022.jpg b/old/53578-h/images/i022.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 5141335..0000000 --- a/old/53578-h/images/i022.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/53578-h/images/i029.jpg b/old/53578-h/images/i029.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index b7a60c6..0000000 --- a/old/53578-h/images/i029.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/53578-h/images/i041.jpg b/old/53578-h/images/i041.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index cae9246..0000000 --- a/old/53578-h/images/i041.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/53578-h/images/p01.jpg b/old/53578-h/images/p01.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index f4a1b73..0000000 --- a/old/53578-h/images/p01.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/53578-h/images/p02.jpg b/old/53578-h/images/p02.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index dca5696..0000000 --- a/old/53578-h/images/p02.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/53578-h/images/p03.jpg b/old/53578-h/images/p03.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 333ca30..0000000 --- a/old/53578-h/images/p03.jpg +++ /dev/null |
