MAUSOLE´UM
MAUSOLE´UM The tomb of Mausolus or Maussolus, ruler
of Caria under the Persian king, is usually known to us as the Mausoleum,
and this name was in later times applied to other tombs remarkable for
greatness of scale, beauty of design, or exceeding sumptuousness. Greek
writers sometimes call Mausolus prince or dynast of Caria, but he was in
reality a satrap under the King of Persia, and ruled in Caria from B.C. 377
to B.C. 353, succeeding his father Hecatomnus in a dominion which under the
feeble rule of the Great King became hereditary in his family, till the
victories of Alexander put an end to the dynasty. The seat of government of
these princes had up to the time of Mausolus been at Mylasa, in the interior
of Caria, but was transferred by him to Halicarnassus (now Budrum), on the
coast. This city, the birthplace of Herodotus, was greatly enlarged and
embellished by Mausolus, who rebuilt it on a plan the symmetry and beauty of
which is described by Vitruvius. The successor of Mausolus in his dominions
was his sister and consort, Artemisia, who during her short reign (B.C.
353-351) erected the magnificent tomb which commemorated for all time the
fame of her husband and her own sorrow. For the construction and decoration
of this tomb
[p. 2.145]the most renowned architects and
sculptors of her time were employed by Artemisia. The architects, as we
learn from Vitruvius, were Satyrus and Pythius; the sculptures which adorned
the sides of the monument were the work of four artists of the later
Athenian School--Scopas, Leochares, Bryaxis, and Timotheus. The sculptor of
the chariot group which crowned the pyramid of the Mausoleum is called
Pythis by Pliny, but this name is probably a mistake for Pythius, one of the
two architects mentioned by Vitruvius. The sculpture and architecture were
executed in Parian marble of the finest quality, and the exceeding
costliness of the material employed and the perfection of the execution
contributed not a little to the world--wide fame of the monument. (
Paus. 8.16,
4; Lucian,
Infer. Dialog. xxiv.;
Vitr.
2.8.)
In searching for the site of the Mausoleum, our first guide is the following
well-known passage in Vitruvius (
2.8):
“Mausolus perceiving that Halicarnassus was a place naturally
fortified, favourable for trade and with a convenient harbour, made it
the seat of his government. As the form of the site was curved, like
that of a theatre, on the shore near the port was placed the forum.
Along the curve, about half-way up its height, was made a broad
street,--as it were, a
praecinctio. In the
centre of this street stood the Mausoleum, constructed with such
wonderful works, that it is considered one of the seven wonders of the
world.” Vitruvius goes on to notice the temple of Mars in the
centre of the fortified heights above, and the temple of Venus and Mercury
on the extremity of the right-hand curve, and on the left the palace of
Mausolus himself.
On turning to the plan (Plate 1 of Newton's
History of
Discoveries), it will be seen that the shore of the harbour at
Budrum bends round in a curve, terminating in two horns, on one of which,
the ancient Salmacis, stands the Turkish arsenal, on the other the Castle of
St. Peter. On the site of this castle the foundations of an ancient citadel
may still be traced. On examining the ground overlooking the harbour, many
fragments of shafts of columns, volutes, and other ornaments of an Ionic
edifice in white marble, rivalling in beauty and finish the finest examples
of Athenian architecture, were remarked by Professor T. L. Donaldson many
years ago; and in a memoir on the Mausoleum (
Classical
Museum, v. pp. 170-201) Mr. (now Sir C. T.) Newton stated that these
fragments were probably those of the Mausoleum lying
in
situ, as the position of this spot corresponded with the
description in Vitruvius already mentioned. In 1856 an expedition to Budrum
was dispatched from England under the auspices of the British Government,
the direction of which was entrusted to Sir C. T. Newton, who has embodied
the results in his
History of Discoveries at Budrum, Cnidus, and
Branchidae.
The exploration of the site already referred to presented peculiar
difficulties, because it was encumbered with Turkish houses and gardens, the
owners of which had to be separately dealt with before possession of the
ground could be obtained. Fragments of the architecture and sculpture found,
some in the soil, others in the rubble walls of the houses and gardens, soon
enabled the explorers to identify the ground as the site of the Mausoleum,
though of the ancient structure not a single stone remained above ground in
its original position. The whole of the edifice had been removed except a
few courses of the lowest foundations: these were laid in a rectangular
cutting sunk in the native rock, and varying in depth from 15 feet on the
west to 4 feet on the east. (Newton,
Hist. Disc. pll.
ii.-iv.) In this sunken area and in the soil above and around it were found
drums and capitals of columns, pieces of cornice and architrave, stones from
lacunaria, and steps of a pyramid. The sculpture comprised fragments of a
colossal chariot group, of an equestrian group, of statues of colossal or
heroic dimensions, and of many lions and other animals; there were four
pieces of a frieze suitable in dimensions for the Ionic order, and many
fragments of at least two other friezes. (See Newton,
Guide to
Mausoleum Room in British Museum.) All the remains of sculpture
and the more important of the architectural marbles were sent to the British
Museum in 1858-9, and after their arrival in England were carefully examined
and arranged, with a view to the restoration of the original design. Many
restorations had been attempted before the discovery of the remains
in situ; but as the only data for these were the
scanty notices in Pliny and other ancient authors, they may be put aside
now. Since the arrival of the marbles in the British Museum three
restorations have been published: that by the late Mr. R. P. Pullan, the
architect sent to Budrum to assist Sir C. T. Newton in the expedition (see
History of Discoveries); that by the late Mr. James
Fergusson, and a more recent one by Mr. Petersen (
Das
Mausoleum, Hamburg, 1867. See also the memoir on Scopas by
Urlichs).
What we know of the original design of the Mausoleum is derived in the first
instance from certain scanty notices in Pliny, Vitruvius, and other ancient
authors. With these have to be combined the remains discovered
in situ. According to a much-discussed statement in
Pliny,
Plin. Nat. 36.30, the tomb itself
measured 63 feet from north to south, being shorter on the fronts; its
entire circuit was 411 feet, or, according to the Codex Bambergensis, 440;
its height 25 cubits, equal to 37 1/2 feet. Round it were 36 columns. This
peristyle was called the
Pteron. Above this
Pteron a pyramid equalled the lower part, contracting by 24 steps to an apex
like that of a
meta. On the summit was a marble
chariot with four horses, the work of Pythis. The addition of this made the
height of the entire structure 140 feet. From this description we may assume
that there was a Pteron or peristyle edifice surmounted by a pyramid, which
in turn was crowned by a marble chariot group.
When we confront Pliny's statement with the architectural marbles found
in situ, we obtain an order 37 1/2 feet in
height, equivalent to Pliny's 25 cubits for the height of the Pteron, and
the remains of a chariot group of which the height may be calculated at from
13 to 14 feet. Again, from the measurement of the steps of the pyramid found
in situ, we obtain for its whole height 24
ft. 6 in. if we assume that all the 21 steps were exactly of the same
height. The pyramid,
[p. 2.146]according to Pliny, equalled
in height the lower elevation. As the text stands, the words are
altitudine inferiorem aequabat, so that the
substantive with which
inferiorem should agree
is wanting. According to ordinary rules, the word to be supplied would be
pyramidem, but that is inadmissible, as
there is no evidence to show that there was a lower pyramid. If we leave the
text as it stands, we must either supply
altitudinem or
partem after
inferiorem:
“Above the Pteron was a pyramid equalling in height the lower height,
i. e. the Pteron;” or read
altitudinerm,
“equalling in height the lower
altitudo.”
By this lower
altitude Pliny can hardly have meant
any other part of the elevation than the Pteron. But this, as has been
already stated, was 37 1/2 feet in height; the pyramid, according to actual
measurement of the steps, was only 24 1/2 feet. To make it equal to the
Pteron, we must add 13 feet either to its base or to its apex, or partly to
the one and partly to the other. Mr. Fergusson, in his restoration, brings
the height of the pyramid to 37 1/2 feet by adding 11 feet 9 inches for a
pedestal under the chariot group (Pliny's
meta), and 2 feet for a plinth intervening between the lowest
step and the cornice. In Mr. Pullan's arrangement the entire chariot group
is reckoned in with the pyramid as 37 feet 9 1/2 inches. The main objection
to this was pointed out by Mr. Fergusson: the group itself would not be
sufficiently raised above the pyramid to be properly visible from below
except at some distance. Further, it would be necessary, in order to
complete Pliny's sum of 140 feet, to allow 65 feet for the basement under
the Pteron, which in Mr. Pullan's restoration seems out of all proportion to
the rest of the design. Moreover, the words of Pliny do not justify us in
reckoning the 37 1/2 feet of the pyramid as
inclusive of the chariot group. Pliny's words,
haec
adjecta, show clearly that this was to be added in order to
make up the whole height of the monument to 140 feet. Mr. Fergusson allows
11 feet 9 inches for the height of the
meta,
and 14 feet for that of the
quadriga.
The next question is, what was the spread of the pyramid laterally. On
examining the steps of the pyramid, of which from 40 to 50 were found
in situ, we find that with the exception of
a few blocks (A 17-23 of the Guide), they have a tread of either 1 foot 9
inches or 1 foot 5 inches; or, in the case of corner stones, a tread of 1
foot 9 inches on one side and 1 foot 5 inches on the other. The number, of
these steps, according to Pliny, was 24. If we assume with Mr. Pullan that
22 of these had a tread of the dimension already stated, and add a step of
101 inches and one of 9 inches below the platform on which the chariot group
stood, we obtain 39 feet 11 inches for the spread of the pyramid on one side
and 32 feet 6 inches for its spread on the other. But it is not proved that
all Pliny's steps had exactly the same tread, or that the two stones with
the exceptional treads of 101 and. 9 inches formed the uppermost course of
the pyramid, as Mr. Pullan assumed, though they may have belonged to the
upper part which Pliny describes as “in metae cacumen se
contrahens,” tapering like a
meta.
The dimensions of the platform on which the chariot group stood are still
more uncertain. Mr. Pullan calculates it at 25 ft. 6 in. by 20 ft. 5 in.,
but Mr. Fergusson is probably nearer the mark in reckoning it as 20 by 16
Greek feet. It follows that Mr. Pullan's calculation of 105 ft. 5 in. for
the length of the base of the pyramid and 85 ft. 5 in. for its breadth
cannot be relied on. Mr. Fergusson makes the lowest step of the pyramid 100
by 80 Greek feet.
If we turn from the pyramid to the Order below it, we get on surer grounds.
Mr. Pullan gives 100 feet English for the length of the peristyle from
centre to centre of the columns, and 80 feet for its breadth. He arranges
nine columns on the front and eleven on the flank, and allows an
intercolumniation of 10 feet from centre to centre of the columns. But to
this arrangement there is a grave objection. The lions' heads of the cornice
cannot be so disposed that one may range over each column, according to the
usual rule in Ionic architecture.
Mr. Fergusson calculates the measurement of the lower step of the pyramid 100
by 80 Greek feet. He arranges the 36 columns of the peristyle so as to have
eleven columns on the longer sides and nine at the ends, counting the angle
columns twice. He reckons the intercolumniation at 10 ft. 6 in. except at
the angles, where he supposes the columns coupled, so as to have half an
intercolumniation, viz. 5 ft. 3 in. The longer sides of the peristyle would
thus measure 94 ft. 6 in. Greek; the shorter sides, 73 ft. 6 in. if we add 2
ft. 9 in. for the projection of the cornice. In order to make this
arrangement fit in with the general scheme of his restoration, he is obliged
to allow only half an intercolumniation (5 ft. 3 in.) for the distance of
the angle column from the one next it on either side. But for such a
coupling of the columns in an Ionic edifice he can adduce no other example.
Petersen concurs with Fergusson in allowing 10 1/2 feet for the
intercolumniation, which, with eight columns on the front and eleven on the
flank, yields ten intercolumniations on the longer and eight on the shorter
side. If we add to this half the thickness of the base of the two angle
columns, we may calculate the dimensions of the stylobate as 109 [multi]
88. He thus obtains for the circumference of the building 394 feet, and
there is room for two lions' heads between each pair of columns.
Pliny says that the tomb itself--meaning, it is to be presumed, the
cella within the peristyle--was 63 Greek feet in
length, but shorter in width. How much shorter he does not state. According
to Mr. Pullan's scheme, the space between the cella wall and the peristyle
would on the fronts be 17 feet. In his Plate XXI. figs. 1 and 2, he shows
how by the use of through stones this space can be corbelled out, the beams
acting as ties, and in the lowest course of the corbelling the stones being
of sufficient length to extend from beam to beam.
Mr. Fergusson, having diminished the length of the Pteron by the expedient of
coupling the angle columns, reduces the space between the cella wall and the
Pteron to 14 feet in the fronts; 2 ft. 8 in. less Mr. Pullan makes it.
Petersen supposes that the Pteron had an inner row of columns, and that
Pliny's
cingitur only applies to the outer row.
This no doubt would solve several difficulties, but the text of Pliny will
not bear such a forced interpretation.
[p. 2.147]
The size and plan of the basement or
podium have
lastly to be considered. According to the Codex Bambergensis, which ranks as
the most reliable MS. of Pliny, the whole circuit of the tomb was not 411
but 440 feet: other MSS. read 411. Messrs. Pullan and Fergusson adopt the
lower dimension, but Mr. Petersen follows the Codex Bambergensis.
Mr. Pullan makes the measurement of the podium 119 ft. by 88 ft. 6 in., which
gives 415 feet for the circumference. Mr. Fergusson, measuring it on its
lowest step, makes the podium 126 Greek feet by 105 Greek feet; so that it
would extend on each side as far as the sides of the quadrangular cutting,
and its total circumference would be 462 feet, in which dimension he
includes piers projecting all round the basement at the height of 17 feet
from the ground. In the recesses formed by these piers he places statues:
above these piers a cornice and frieze connect the podium with the stylobate
of the Pteron, and below it is a wall of plain masonry.
Mr. Petersen substitutes for recesses between the piers arched niches for
statues, which give the podium a very Roman look, and neither his designs
for the podium nor Mr. Fergusson's have been generally accepted by
architectural authorities. On the other hand, Mr. Pullan's basement, besides
being too tall, is too bald, and its mouldings are deficient in boldness.
The one thing that we may assume is that the basement was crowned with a
cornice, below which may have been one or more friezes. The remains in
relief, of which a description is given (
Guide to Mausoleum
Room, Nos. 26, 28), and which represent a centauromachia, are
probably from the podium. The height of this frieze is 2 feet 101 inches. It
probably ornamented the podium.
Mr. Fergusson reduces the height of the basement to 51 feet 6 inches, in
which dimension he includes an entablature of 14 feet. Mr. Petersen assigns
44 feet as the height of the basement.
Whatever the height of the basement may have been, we may assume that it was
not less than 40 feet above ground. It has been already stated that the
quadrangular cutting below the natural level of the ground, in which the
foundations of the Mausoleum had been laid, was cut in the native rock, in
various depths, the lowest part of the area being on the west side, where
the cutting was 15 feet below the natural level of the rock, while on the
east side the bed rises within 4 feet of it. The whole of this area had been
originally filled up with the courses of the foundation stones, consisting
of blocks of a green ragstone strongly bound together with iron clamps, and
generally measuring about 4 feet square by 1 foot thick. In some places all
the foundation courses had been removed, and the original bed of the rock
laid bare. On the west side of the quadrangle was discovered a staircase of
twelve steps, 29 feet wide and cut in the solid rock. On the north his
staircase was flanked by a wall of good isodomous masonry, built of large
blocks of native rock. A few feet to the east of the stair were found some
alabaster jars, such as were used by the ancients for precious ointments. On
one of these jars were two inscriptions, one in hieroglyphics, the other in
the cuneiform character. These inscriptions contained the name of the
Persian king Xerxes, written in four languages. Immediately to the east of
the spot where these jars were found was a block of green ragstone, 7 ft.
high by 41 ft. square, and weighing about 10 tons. It rested on two slabs of
white marble, in which were bronze sockets, adjusted to receive dowels,
fixed at the bottom of the stone, but by some accident in the original
process of fixing the stone these dowels had never descended from their
collars into their sockets.
It may be inferred from the position of the remnant of marble pavement under
the great stone, that a passage paved with marble led from it into the royal
sepulchral chamber, which may have been nearly in the centre of the
basement, where the cutting in the rock is deepest. After the body of the
personage interred had been carried down the steps to its final
resting-place in the heart of the basement, the great stone was let down
into its place, like a portcullis, and wedged in on either side by smaller
stones. The alabaster vases, found between the great stone and the foot of
the staircase, must have been deposited there shortly after the interment,
as an offering to the dead.
There, too, were found bones of oxen from a sacrifice, and small terra-cotta
figures. The staircase must have been then filled in with earth to the level
of the upper surface, and the soil to the east of the stair was supported by
a wall running from flank to flank, which was more than a yard broad, and
constructed of massive blocks of native rock carelessly thrown together
without bond. The great stone, the remnant of marble pavement under it, and
the alabastra and other sepulchral offerings found between the great stone
and the foot of the stair, are all that the exploration of the site yielded
to indicate the arrangement of the interior of the basement. Mr. Pullan,
adopting a suggestion previously made by Sir Robert M. Smith, R.E., the
engineer officer attached to the Budrum expedition, supposes that in the
interior of the basement there was a circular chamber, covered with a vault
similar in structure to that of the lion tomb at Cnidus, the so-called
Treasury of Atreus at Mycenae, and many other ancient tombs. Mr. Fergusson,
rejecting this arrangement, proposes an elaborate plan of the basement which
is mainly grounded upon a narrative in Guichard (
Funerailles des
Grecs et Romains, Lyon, 1581, pp. 378-81). That author states
that in 1522 some of the Knights of St. John were sent from Rhodes to Budrum
to repair the castle there, then threatened by the Sultan Solyman. These
knights, on their arrival at Budrum, at once began to strengthen the
fortifications of the castle, which had been built rather more than a
century before by a German knight, called Henry Schlegelholt, who, as we are
told by his contemporary Fontana, used as materials the ruins of the
Mausoleum then lying above ground. The materials first used would naturally
be the marbles from the upper part of the edifice, which were lying
in situ detached by their fall, such as the steps of
the pyramid, the architrave, the fragments of the frieze of the Order and
cornice, the drums, capitals, and bases of the columns. As the ruins were
thus gradually cleared away, the stylobate and marble facing of
[p. 2.148]the basement would be stripped off till nothing
was left but the inner core of the masonry, composed of large blocks of
green rag, such as were found in position in the quadrangular cutting.
Between 1402 and 1522 the fortifications of the castle were repaired by the
Knights at intervals; through all this time the ruins of the Mausoleum must
have supplied both stone and lime to the building.
The Knights employed in 1522 found still in position certain steps of white
marble, which Guichard compares to a
perron.
“These they made into lime, and, having cleared them away above
ground, proceeded to search by excavation for more marbles of the same
quality. As they proceeded deeper, the base of the structure was
enlarged, and they found not only marble for the limekiln, but good
building stone. After working downwards for four or five days, they came
upon an opening like that of a cellar. Descending through this, they
found themselves in a large square apartment, ornamented all round with
columns of marble, with their bases, capitals, architrave, frieze, and
cornices engraved and sculptured in half relief. The space between the
columns was lined with slabs and bands of marble, 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 relief.”
All this sculpture, according to Guichard, was broken up and destroyed by the
Knights. He goes on to narrate how, “besides this apartment, they
found afterwards a very low door, which led into another apartment
serving as an antechamber, where was a sepulchre with its vase and
helmet (
tymbre) of white marble, very beautiful,
of marvellous lustre.” They deferred opening this till the next
day, retiring to the castle for the night. On returning the next morning,
they found the tomb opened and the earth all round strewn with fragments of
cloth of gold and spangles of the same metal. It was supposed that pirates
had plundered the tomb in the night. Guichard had this story from
Dalechamps, a learned contemporary, who, we may presume, was the editor of
Pliny, and to whom it was narrated by the Commander La Tourette, a Lyonnese
knight, who was sent to Budrum with other Knights and was present at the
siege of Rhodes in the same year.
There seems to be no reasonable ground for rejecting this story in its
general outline, but it must be borne in mind that it is based on hearsay
evidence, and we are hardly justified in insisting on the accuracy of its
details as strongly as more than one recent writer has done.
It may be assumed that the
perron mentioned by
Guichard was the remnant of the steps on which the stylobate of the Pteron
had rested, the ruins above which had been gradually cleared away by the
Knights in the course of the fifteenth century. If we accept the narrative
of Guichard literally, we must suppose a square apartment ornamented all
round with a frieze and other sculptures. It is not likely, however, that
marbles of different colours would have been used, but the frieze may have
been painted, as was certainly the case with the fragments of the frieze of
the Order, found in the excavations above ground. Mr. Fergusson supposes in
his restoration a sepulchral chamber 52 feet 6 inches by 42 feet. It would
thus have been identical in dimensions with the interior of the
cella in his restoration.
In the walls of the castle were formerly to be seen a number of lions broken
off behind the shoulder, and pieces of frieze from the Mausoleum, which the
knights had inserted at intervals in the walls, and which attracted the
notice of travellers from Thevenot down to our own time. All these
sculptures are now in the British Museum, having been presented by
successive Sultans. Other forehands, heads, and fragments of lions were
found on the site of the Mausoleum. From the evidence of these fragments, it
is clear that they stood on detached rocky bases, which average in thickness
6 inches. These bases appear to have been inserted in a lower plinth at an
average depth of 2 inches from the upper surface. The proportions of the
lions are adjusted to three different scales. The largest measure 4 ft. 6
in. from the point of the shoulder to the hind quarter, and the second in
scale about 3 inches less. Their height probably did not exceed 5 ft. One
head measured across the forehead in a line with the eyes was 2 inches less
in width than the largest head. A paw was found smaller than any of the
others, which seemed to correspond in scale with this head.
On the north of the quadrangular cutting was a wall of white marble blocks,
beautifully jointed with isodomous masonry. Behind this wall on the north
was a mass of white marble blocks, which on examination were recognised to
be steps from the pyramids. From forty to fifty of these steps were found.
Intermixed with these steps were fragments of the chariot group, of which
the most important were the anterior half of a colossal horse (the harness
of which showed that it was from a chariot, the bronze bit and bridle still
remaining attached to the head) and the hinder half of a horse, similar in
style and scale: this extended from the middle of the body to the root of
the tail, and measured in length rather more than 6 feet. There were various
fragments of feet and legs of horses; also pieces of one of the wheels of
the chariot, from which its diameter has been ascertained, and the remains
of a colossal male figure, which has been made up of seventy-four fragments
collected
in situ. This figure is generally
held to be the portrait of Mausolus himself (Guide, No. 34). There was a
draped female figure of colossal size, probably representing a goddess
acting as charioteer in the quadriga (Guide, No. 35). Both these statues are
remarkable for the breadth and grandeur of effect in the drapery, and the
refined delicacy in the execution.
For further details of the sculptures which were found, see Sir C. Newton's
Guide to the Mausoleum Room, especially Nos. 8-11, 17,
26, 29, 38-49.
Mr. Pullan and the others who have attempted restorations of the Mausoleum
differ widely in their disposition of the sculptures in the round. It is
generally accepted that the two colossal figures found among the ruins of
the pyramid steps belong to the chariot group, and represent Mausolus and
the Goddess who acted as his charioteer. The lions must have been arranged
[p. 2.149]round the tomb as its watchful guardians, some
stationed at its doors, others perhaps at the base of the pyramid: the
equestrian torso was probably one of four groups from the angles, but beyond
this we are left entirely to conjecture. Statues were probably placed
between the columns, as in the Xanthian monument, but of the torsoes
preserved most are on a scale too small to stand by the side of the columns
for support of the roof of both apartments.
Where the remaining statues were placed is at present a matter on which we
have no more evidence than we have as to the arrangement of the columns, the
area of the basement or of the platform on the top of the pyramid, or the
circumference of the building as expressed by Pliny's
totus circuitus. As the author of the Guide remarks,
“The problem of the restoration of the Mausoleum will probably
remain unsolved, unless some unexpected discovery at Budrum or elsewhere
in the Hellenic world contributes fresh evidence. As we know that the
Castle of St. Peter was built by the Knights out of the ruins of the
Mausoleum, it may be assumed that many fragments of architecture and
sculptures are still imbedded in its walls.”
The native rock of the platform is pierced at two different levels by
subterranean galleries, with which shafts communicate at intervals. The
lower of these galleries runs all round the quadrangle, and must have served
for the drainage of the Mausoleum. It is cut throughout in the solid rock to
a height ranging from 6 to 8 feet, except in front of the stair on the west
side, where it passes between the stair and the big stone, where it is only
2 ft. 10 in. in height. It is evident that, before the foundations of the
Mausoleum had been laid in the quadrangle, the rock had been quarried out to
various depths, and had also been used as a place of interment in early
times, before the city had been enlarged and embellished by Mausolus. The
centre of his new city was probably selected as the most appropriate site
for his tomb, because he considered himself the new founder of
Halicarnassus.
Hyginus, a Latin writer of uncertain date under the Roman Empire, states (in
the
Fabulae) that the Mausoleum was surrounded
by a peribolos 1340 ft. in circumference. Supposing Greek feet to have been
used in this measurement, one-fourth of the peribolos would be 335 Greek
feet (equal to 339 English). On the north side of the Mausoleum a wall
constructed of marble blocks of fine masonry (
Hist. Disc. pl.
vi.) was traced east and west for a distance of 337 English feet. A similar
wall was traced under the soil for 260 English feet on the east side. We may
assume that the four sides of the peribolos formed a rectangle. No trace was
found of the western wall, but on the southern side Mr. Biliotti, exploring
the ground in 1865, traced a cutting in the rock running east and west,
which he believed to be the bed prepared to receive the foundation of the
southern wall. It is probable that the platform on which the Mausoleum stood
was connected with the Agora on the shore by a series of terraces, with
intervening flights of steps, so disposed as to set off the elevation to
advantage when viewed from below. [
C.T.N]
Though none of the proposed restorations of the Mausoleum can be accepted
with certainty, as the preceding writer has remarked, still the ingenious
restoration by the late Mr. Fergusson is not without value. (See cut on
following page.) The principles on which he constructed it, and the
objections that may be taken to it, have been already fully stated.
Of the other magnificent sepulchral edifices to which the name of Mausoleum
was given the two most important are:--
1. The MAUSOLEUM OF AUGUSTUS, which was erected by
Augustus, during his lifetime and in his sixth consulship (B.C. 28), in the
northern part of the Campus Martius, between the Via Flaminia and the Tiber
(
Suet. Aug. 100). It was a magnificent
circular building (called by
D. C. 58.22,
βασιλικὸν μνημεῖον), erected on
foundations of white marble, covered to the summit with plantations of
evergreen, and surmounted with a bronze statue of Augustus: in the interior
were sepulchral chambers, containing his ashes and those of his family. The
ground round the Mausoleum was laid out in groves and public walks. (
Strab. v. p.236.) Several members of the
family of Augustus were entombed in the Mausoleum before the ashes of the
emperor were deposited in it, as Marcellus, Agrippa, Octavia, and Drusus,
the brother of Tiberius (
Verg. A. 6.873
seq.;
D. C. 53.30,
54.28,
55.2;
Ov.
Cons. ad Liv. 37; Pedo,
Eleg.
1.69: for the burial of Augustus himself, see
D. C.
56.43;
Suet. Aug. 101). The ashes
of Livia, the mother of Tiberius, were also deposited there (
D. C. 58.2), and it was the regular tomb of the
imperial family, whence it is called by Tacitus (
Tac. Ann. 3.9)
tumulus Caesarum.
Caligula had the ashes of his mother Agrippina and his brother Nero interred
here with great pomp (
Suet. Cal. 15;
D. C. 59.3). By the time of Hadrian this Mausoleum
was completely filled, which caused him to build a new one on the opposite
side of the river (
D. C. 69.23: see below).
Martial alludes to the Mausoleum of Augustus under the name of
Mausolea (5.64, 3), as the
deos in the following line clearly refer to the Caesars. (See
Friedländer's note.) There are still considerable remains of this
Mausoleum; but “it is now so completely ruined,” remarks Mr.
Fergusson, “that it is extremely difficult to make out its plan; it
appears however to have consisted of a circular basement about 300 feet
in diameter, and about. 60 feet in height, adorned with twelve large
niches. Above this rose a cone of earth as in the Etruscan tombs, not
smooth like those, but divided into terraces, which were planted with
trees.” (Fergusson,
Hst. of Arch. i. p. 343.) It
was converted into an amphitheatre for bullfights till the time of Pius VI.,
and is now used as a theatre for the display of fireworks and other
spectacles of the lowest description.
2. The MAUSOLEUM OF HADRIAN, also called the
Moles Hadriani, now the
Castle of S.
Angelo, a much more splendid building than the Mausoleum of
Augustus, was erected, as we have already seen, by the Emperor Hadrian on
the right bank of the Tiber, near the Aelian bridge in the gardens of
Domitia (Dio Cass.
[p. 2.150]69.23; Spart.
Hadr. 19). Hadrian died at Baiae, and his remains were first
deposited in a temporary tomb at Puteoli, from which they were removed to
the Mausoleum at Rome by Antoninus Pius, who probably completed the building
(Spart.
Hadr. 25; Capitol.
Ant. Pius, 5, 8).
This Mausoleum was the sepulchre of the subsequent emperors and their
families down to Commodus and perhaps to Caracalla, but not beyond. It is
expressly mentioned as the sepulchre of Antoninus Pius (Capit.
Ant.
Phil. 7), of Lucius Verus (Capit.
Ver. 11), of
Commodus (Lamprid.
Commod. 17). As to the other emperors, see
Becker,
Röm. Alterth. vol. i. p. 661, where the
subject is fully discussed.
The Mausoleum is described by Procopius (
B. G. 1.22) on the
occasion of the siege of Rome by the Goths, A.D. 537. He says that it had
been converted into a fortress considerably before his time ( “by the
men of old,”
οἱ παλαιοὶ ἄνθρωποι), and was joined to
the line of fortifications by two walls. This was probably done when the
walls were repaired by Honorius about A.D. 423. Procopius (
l.c.) describes it as a memorable sight (
θέαμα λόγου πολλοῦ ἄξιον), outside the Porta
Aurelia, distant from the walls about a bow-shot.
 |
|
The Mausoleum of Artemisia restored by Mr. Fergusson.
|
“It is made,” he says, “of Parian marble, and the stones
fit closely into one another with no other fastening. It has four equal
sides, each about a stone's throw in length, and in height rising above
the walls of the city. Above are statues of men and horses made of the
same Parian marble and wonderful to behold.” Many of these
precious works of art were hurled down from the Tomb on the Gothic
besiegers. The Barberini Faun at Munich and the Dancing Faun at Florence
were found in the ditch below the Tomb. The subsequent history of the
Mausoleum will be found in all the guide-books. (See Murray's
Handbook of Rome, p. 73
seq.）
From the existing remains, and the description of writers in the Middle Ages,
the Mausoleum has been restored by modern archaeologists. “A
quadrangular structure of dazzling white marble, each side 300 Roman
feet long and 85 feet high, it had upon its sides inscriptions to the
various emperors from Trajan to Severus who were buried within its
walls. At the corners of this structure were equestrian statues of four
emperors. Above, two circular buildings, one over the other, were
surrounded with colonnades and peopled with marble statues. Over all
rose a conical cupola whose summit was 300 feet above the ground.
Visitors to the gardens of the Vatican may still see there a bronze
fir-cone, 8 feet high, which according to tradition once surmounted the
cupola of Hadrian's tomb.” (Hodgkin,
Italy and her
Invaders, iv. p. 202; Dante,
Inf. 31.59; cf.
Fergusson,
Hist. of Arch. i. p. 344.)
[
W.S]
