Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T17:51:03.788Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Chariot-Group of the Mausoleum

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

Percy Gardner
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

As the re-arrangement of the sculptures at the British Museum has now reached the Mausoleum Room, the questions as to the restoration of that famous building are naturally brought to the front, and it is to be hoped that the occasion will arouse fresh interest in it in the minds of English friends of art and antiquity.

I do not propose in the present paper to do more than call attention to one point, the composition of the chariot-group which is sometimes supposed to have crowned the edifice. Larger and more general questions I leave. The restorations of Fergusson, Pullan and Petersen, which have been repeated by subsequent writers, all professedly follow the statements of Pliny, and hold the building to have consisted of a pteron standing on a lofty base, and supporting a pyramid on which the chariot-group stood. These writers all gave the Mausoleum the height fixed by Pliny of 140 feet: but recently Dr. Trendelenberg has called this view in question, maintaining that the full height was only 75 feet, and that the high base is a modern fancy. The question would be worthy of a more careful discussion than it has yet received. Both the older and the newer view are by no means free from difficulty: but I do not propose in this place to say more on the matter.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 13 , November 1893 , pp. 188 - 194
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1893

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See History of Discoveries, Pl. 19; Baumeister's Denkmaeler, s.v.; and the histories of sculpture.

2 Arch. Anzeiger, 1890, p. 105. Mr.Torr., in calling attention to this paper in the Athenaeum (Feb. 1892)Google Scholar, has expressed his agreement with its argument.

3 Recently Mr. Oldfield, in two papers read before the Society of Antiquaries, has proposed quite a new restoration. His views are as yet unpublished.

4 Scopas, p. 189.

5 ii. 302.

6 Philologus, 21, 464.

7 Gypsabgüsse zu Berlin, i. 427.

8 Eustathius mentions the Mausoleum as in his time a (twelfth century). But it does not follow that it was then intact. It must, however, have remained complete for six or seven centuries.

9 The horses I measured; the other figures are taken from official statements.

10 Röm. Mittheil. v. Pl. 9.

11 Cavvadias, Fouilles ď Epidaure, Pl. 9.

12 Mar. 12, 1892.

13 Brunn, , Grie. Künstler. ii. 376Google Scholar. According to Rayet, , Études ďarchéologie, p. 105Google Scholar, Pythis or Pythius was the greatest of the Ionic architects, and skilled in all branches of art and science.

14 Feb. 24, 1892.