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 Vitruvius3 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 sÇachat 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 maintenat, 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 rencotree 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’oeuure, et rapportÉs propermet sur le fonds blac 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 fantasie 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 treuueret 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.

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.

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.

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

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.