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. |
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]