Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T17:53:41.497Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Nereid Monument Re-examined

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2015

Extract

When the fragments of the Nereid Monument, which had been discovered by Fellows, were brought to England they were of course examined by all the experts in classical art, Cockerell, Falkener, Watkiss Lloyd, and others. It was Cockerell who first laid down the lines which all other students have accepted as obviously correct. In a letter to Newton, or rather a note added to the letter, printed in the Classical Museum (vol. v. 1848, p. 194), he wrote regarding the peristyle which is the key of the scheme—‘that such an arrangement of the cella may be obtained from the fragments themselves and the observations made by Mr. Rohde Hawkins [the architect to the expedition] I was able to demonstrate, when by his ingenious father's introduction I had the honour, as a veteran in antiquities of this kind, to be consulted by him.’ Rohde Hawkins had many measurements and sketches taken at Xanthus before the stones were shipped for England, ‘when the backs of the slabs were sawn off for transport [and] the original joints were in some cases lost.’ He made a restoration, following Cockerell's suggestions, which is represented by a drawing at the British Museum and by a description printed in the Civil Engineer (vol. viii.). Fellows made another attempt; but while following the same general scheme, he proceeded on the assumption that he had discovered all the slabs of one of the sculptured friezes. His result is embodied in the model now in the British Museum. Although his restoration of the structure was certainly too small, he associated many of the sculptured slabs together in groups—doubtless with the assistance of Scharf, his draughtsman—in a way which is convincing.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1915

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 Benndorf, and Niemann, , Reisen, p. 90.Google Scholar

2 Civil Engineer, vol. viii.

3 The narrow frieze of the podium seems also (judging from the indications on Fellows' plan of the stones as found) to have had the angle stones cut to the form. I find that Fellows does say that the Podium was built [cased] with large blocks of marble the same size as those of the large frieze; these required narrow alternate bonding courses.

4 Who puts one intervening slab.

5 The extra inch allows the battering on the long sides to have been 2 inches.

6 To obtain even this he seems to have pushed his columns too far out on the moulded capping of the podium.

7 Compare the Merehi tomb in the B.M. A very similar composition occurred on one of the Sidon sarcophagi.

8 Since writing this I find that Falkener says: ‘We find on the cella a funeral procession, amongst the figures of which is the horse of a deceased warrior.’

9 Mr. Arthur Smith kindly informs me that these cramp holes are modern.

10 Compare a somewhat similar detail from Bassae in the British Museum.

11 Middleton studied a stone of an enriched architrave now known to have formed part of one of the eastern windows of the Erechtheum (J.H.S. Supp. Paper 3, 1900). He described it as ‘end of lintel block of….architrave with a sinking and two pins to fix a console.’ What he meant by a sinking does not appear on his drawing, but the pin-holes were evidently for fixing a console.

12 See Girard, P., La Peinture Antique, p. 201.Google Scholar

13 In a recent British Museum publication it is assigned to early in the fourth century.

14 Of the inscribed stele, I suppose.

15 Beautiful drawings of the sculpture by Scharf are preserved in the British Museum. An illustration of one of the pedimental groups, from a drawing of his which seems to have disappeared, is given in an article by Gibson in the Museum of Classical Archaeology. Falkener's representation of the second frieze is admirable. Our Fig. 2 is taken from it. Collignon has excellent illustrations of some of the figures and friezes in the second volume of his History of Greek Sculpture; and representations of most of the other fragments may be found in Monumenti del Istituto.