DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.4327#0027
MAUSOLEUM AND TROPHY TOMB. 19
that these may have been removed by Imperial Roman robbers, long before the decay of the monument. But
unless something of this sort did occur we must be allowed to hesitate before admitting that this building,
though no doubt very beautiful in itself, was entitled to rank as one of the seven most remarkable monuments
of the ancient world.1
A very beautiful copy on a small scale of the Mausoleum,—if in fact it is not the original,—was found at
Xanthus by Sir Charles Fellows in 1833, and all its architectural and sculptured features were removed by him
and are now in the British Museum. In conjunction with Mr. Rhode Hawkins, who assisted him in the
removal, he prepared a model on the scale of one inch to a foot, of the mode in which he supposed the
building was originally arranged. This, however, cannot be said to be a satisfactory attempt at restoration.
A better one was made by Mr. Falkener and published by him in the Museum of Classical Antiquities, vol. i.
p. 256, et seq. Even it, though certainly nearer the mark, cannot be said to have solved all the difficulties of
the problem.2 It suffices, however, to convey a very fair idea of what this building was when complete. Its
dimensions were very small, only 22 feet by 33 at the base, and about 40 feet in height. It consisted of a plain
solid podium, adorned apparently by two lines of sculpture, and supporting a small Ionic temple of sixteen or
twenty columns, each only nine feet in height. The order had no architrave, but a sculptured frieze of great
beauty, and statues of very considerable elegance stood between the pillars.
The most disappointing matter in connexion with this little gem is, that, though so evidently a counterpart
of the general design of the Mausoleum, it throws no new light on the construction of that more celebrated
building. The same would be true if we assume that it is the model which suggested the design of the Mausoleum
instead of a copy of it, which, from the style of its sculptures and other indications, seems to be most probably
the case. Recent authorities, indeed, suppose it to have been erected in the first half of the fourth century B.C.
in honour of a native satrap or ruler of Lycia, probably the satrap Pericles, who, as we learn from a fragment of
Theopompus, attacked and captured the town of Telmessos.3 If, however, we were to trust to its teaching, we
should restore the podium at Halicarnassus as a solid mass, without any architectural features, and only two
friezes let into it, without any framing or any obvious connexion with the design, which is almost impossible.
If, however, the upper parts were satisfactorily restored, it might be useful in confirming, even if it did not
suggest, any arrangement that might be suitable for the larger building.
It is much to be regretted that a few more buildings of abnormal design, like the Mausoleum and the
Erechthcum, have not come down to modern times, inasmuch as if that had been the case they would have conveyed
a very different idea of the principles of Grecian design from that generally prevalent. It has frequently been
urged, as a reproach, that Greek temples are all alike, and that if you have seen one side of one of them, you have
seen the other three. To those who are not sufficiently initiated in the delicate gradations, which form the especial
charm of the style, this may to a certain extent appear true, but, to those Avho are familiar with its peculiarities,
these apparently small differences are recognised as effecting marked diversity of graceful or dignified expression,
and afford far more pleasure than the rude contrasts by which the mediaeval architects forced their varieties on the
attention of the vulgar. Even then if the reproach could be admitted it applies to the Doric style only. The
Ionic order was treated with far more freedom by the Greeks, and the Erechtheum, at Athens, and the Mausoleum,
coupled with the smaller tombs and temples found everywhere, show that when they chose they could use
contrasts with as much facility and grace as was at all desirable. The Doric was, in fact, the sacred order of the
Greeks, and the forms of the temples to which it was chiefly applied were sanctified by long use, as much as any
part of their liturgy or religious observances. The Ionic never—in Greece at least—attained to that eminence,
and was used as the taste or caprice of the architect might dictate. This, however, with a people so artistic as
the Greeks always were, both at home and in their colonies, led to such happy results that a few more examples
would be a boon, the value of which, from an artistic point of view, it would be difficult to over-estimate.
1 In 1862 I published a restoration of the Mausoleum, in which I attempted to combine the discoveries of Mr. Newton with the accounts of
Pliny and of a curious record of its final destruction by the Knights of St. John in 1402. With regard to the upper part of the monument I hare
seen nothing to alter. The pyramid with its meta supporting the chariot seem quite certain, so too does the ptcron ; hut below that the details of
the podium do not admit of equal certainty. No architectural details were found that seem certainly to belong to it; and though its dimensions
are nearly certain, it is still open to anyone to show how it could be made more worthy of its reputation.
a Strange to say, neither in the Museum model nor in Mr. Falkener's restoration is there any suggestion of a doorway in the basement, but
that such existed is nearly certain. In all the attempts at restoration I have seen the only means of access to the upper temple for cleanino- even
or repair would have been by a ladder outside, which is nearly impossible. It is curious it never occurred to anyone that the two missing slabs of
the lower frieze are missing because their place was occupied by a doorway S loot in width, over the mouldings. Its position would be no difficulty,
inasmuch as a building at Mylassa, which is also an avowed copy of the Mausoleum, though of the Corinthian order and much later date, has its
doorway on one side, and considerably out of the centre of the face, in which it is placed. The doorway too in the west front of the Erechthcum is
quite unsymmetrieal, being out of the centre and under one of the pillars of the portico above it.
'■' Fragmenla Historicorum Grarorum, Muller, Paris 1841, vol. i. p. 295.
that these may have been removed by Imperial Roman robbers, long before the decay of the monument. But
unless something of this sort did occur we must be allowed to hesitate before admitting that this building,
though no doubt very beautiful in itself, was entitled to rank as one of the seven most remarkable monuments
of the ancient world.1
A very beautiful copy on a small scale of the Mausoleum,—if in fact it is not the original,—was found at
Xanthus by Sir Charles Fellows in 1833, and all its architectural and sculptured features were removed by him
and are now in the British Museum. In conjunction with Mr. Rhode Hawkins, who assisted him in the
removal, he prepared a model on the scale of one inch to a foot, of the mode in which he supposed the
building was originally arranged. This, however, cannot be said to be a satisfactory attempt at restoration.
A better one was made by Mr. Falkener and published by him in the Museum of Classical Antiquities, vol. i.
p. 256, et seq. Even it, though certainly nearer the mark, cannot be said to have solved all the difficulties of
the problem.2 It suffices, however, to convey a very fair idea of what this building was when complete. Its
dimensions were very small, only 22 feet by 33 at the base, and about 40 feet in height. It consisted of a plain
solid podium, adorned apparently by two lines of sculpture, and supporting a small Ionic temple of sixteen or
twenty columns, each only nine feet in height. The order had no architrave, but a sculptured frieze of great
beauty, and statues of very considerable elegance stood between the pillars.
The most disappointing matter in connexion with this little gem is, that, though so evidently a counterpart
of the general design of the Mausoleum, it throws no new light on the construction of that more celebrated
building. The same would be true if we assume that it is the model which suggested the design of the Mausoleum
instead of a copy of it, which, from the style of its sculptures and other indications, seems to be most probably
the case. Recent authorities, indeed, suppose it to have been erected in the first half of the fourth century B.C.
in honour of a native satrap or ruler of Lycia, probably the satrap Pericles, who, as we learn from a fragment of
Theopompus, attacked and captured the town of Telmessos.3 If, however, we were to trust to its teaching, we
should restore the podium at Halicarnassus as a solid mass, without any architectural features, and only two
friezes let into it, without any framing or any obvious connexion with the design, which is almost impossible.
If, however, the upper parts were satisfactorily restored, it might be useful in confirming, even if it did not
suggest, any arrangement that might be suitable for the larger building.
It is much to be regretted that a few more buildings of abnormal design, like the Mausoleum and the
Erechthcum, have not come down to modern times, inasmuch as if that had been the case they would have conveyed
a very different idea of the principles of Grecian design from that generally prevalent. It has frequently been
urged, as a reproach, that Greek temples are all alike, and that if you have seen one side of one of them, you have
seen the other three. To those who are not sufficiently initiated in the delicate gradations, which form the especial
charm of the style, this may to a certain extent appear true, but, to those Avho are familiar with its peculiarities,
these apparently small differences are recognised as effecting marked diversity of graceful or dignified expression,
and afford far more pleasure than the rude contrasts by which the mediaeval architects forced their varieties on the
attention of the vulgar. Even then if the reproach could be admitted it applies to the Doric style only. The
Ionic order was treated with far more freedom by the Greeks, and the Erechtheum, at Athens, and the Mausoleum,
coupled with the smaller tombs and temples found everywhere, show that when they chose they could use
contrasts with as much facility and grace as was at all desirable. The Doric was, in fact, the sacred order of the
Greeks, and the forms of the temples to which it was chiefly applied were sanctified by long use, as much as any
part of their liturgy or religious observances. The Ionic never—in Greece at least—attained to that eminence,
and was used as the taste or caprice of the architect might dictate. This, however, with a people so artistic as
the Greeks always were, both at home and in their colonies, led to such happy results that a few more examples
would be a boon, the value of which, from an artistic point of view, it would be difficult to over-estimate.
1 In 1862 I published a restoration of the Mausoleum, in which I attempted to combine the discoveries of Mr. Newton with the accounts of
Pliny and of a curious record of its final destruction by the Knights of St. John in 1402. With regard to the upper part of the monument I hare
seen nothing to alter. The pyramid with its meta supporting the chariot seem quite certain, so too does the ptcron ; hut below that the details of
the podium do not admit of equal certainty. No architectural details were found that seem certainly to belong to it; and though its dimensions
are nearly certain, it is still open to anyone to show how it could be made more worthy of its reputation.
a Strange to say, neither in the Museum model nor in Mr. Falkener's restoration is there any suggestion of a doorway in the basement, but
that such existed is nearly certain. In all the attempts at restoration I have seen the only means of access to the upper temple for cleanino- even
or repair would have been by a ladder outside, which is nearly impossible. It is curious it never occurred to anyone that the two missing slabs of
the lower frieze are missing because their place was occupied by a doorway S loot in width, over the mouldings. Its position would be no difficulty,
inasmuch as a building at Mylassa, which is also an avowed copy of the Mausoleum, though of the Corinthian order and much later date, has its
doorway on one side, and considerably out of the centre of the face, in which it is placed. The doorway too in the west front of the Erechthcum is
quite unsymmetrieal, being out of the centre and under one of the pillars of the portico above it.
'■' Fragmenla Historicorum Grarorum, Muller, Paris 1841, vol. i. p. 295.