diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/53578-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/53578-0.txt | 2618 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 2618 deletions
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. - |