the chariot group, a very probable estimate - Mr. Newton makes it 13 feet 3 inches, but it is evident that in such a case no great accuracy can be attained-we find that, deducting this from the 140 feet given by Pliny as the total height, there remain just 126 feet for the height of the building itself: that is to say, its height was exactly equal to its extreme length. Again, the dimensions deduced by excavation for the foundation or ground plan of the building are, according to Mr. Newton's statement, 127 feet by 108; but there appears to be some doubt as to the accuracy of these measurements, and Mr. Fergusson has pointed out that if the latter dimension be taken at 106.31 English, or 105 Greek, feet, this would give exactly the ratio of 5 to 6 for the proportion of the width to the length of the whole edifice. Now this is precisely the same proportion as Mr. Fergusson deduces from independent considerations for the length and breadth of the cella, a proportion which certainly agrees very well with Pliny's expression that it was 'brevius a frontibus.'

It is by following out the principle thus indicated, and which has been already found to prevail in other well-known examples of Greek architecture, that Mr. Fergusson has produced a scheme for the restoration of the Mausoleum far exceeding in symmetry and beauty of proportions any of those previously put forth. And although much ingenuity is required in putting together the various parts of an edifice so peculiar in its character as that with which we have here to deal, and it is probable that many similar attempts may hereafter be made with more or less success, we feel convinced that Mr. Fergusson has been the first to strike out the true path of discovery, and that a skilful application of the system of definite proportions will be found the only clue to the restoration of the long-perished Mausoleum.

Undoubtedly the part of Mr. Fergusson's design that least carries conviction to our minds is the manner in which he has dealt with the basement or lower story of the building. This is indeed the main difficulty in any restoration, for, in truth, we know absolutely nothing concerning it. But the analogy of other monuments of a later date than the Mausoleum, and which we may reasonably suppose to have been in some measure designed as imitations of it, would certainly lead us to suppose that the basement had a more solid and massive character than that suggested by Mr. Fergusson. This does not, as already pointed out, by any means exclude the introduction of the richest ornament; and especially of that sculptural decoration for which the building, as a whole, was so celebrated. Mr.

Newton himself is disposed to suggest the introduction of 'one 'or two belts of friezes, so disposed as to give an agreeable 'alternation of sculpture and plain masonry,' instead of the uniform monotony of Mr. Pullan's basement; but he afterwards rejects this idea because no such remains were found in situ. Yet he himself admits that the marble casing of the basement has entirely disappeared, and suggests, with much probability, that this may have taken place at a comparatively early period of the Middle Ages, long before the fall of the pyramid and the Pteron, and still longer before the Knights of St. John began digging among the ruins in search of marble to burn for lime.

But however we may account for this disappearance, one fact remains unfortunately but too certain, that the sculptures which once gave its chief celebrity to the Mausoleum have almost entirely disappeared. The few fragments that have been recovered are sufficient to give us a faint glimpse of the glorious works that we have lost, but they are very far from enabling us to realise, even in imagination, the character of those works. We are still almost as much in the dark as heretofore as to the nature, the design, and even the subjects of the compositions by which Scopas and his rival artists gave immortality to the tomb of Mausolus.

The sculptures that have been discovered and brought to England consist exclusively of two classes: portions of friezes, adorned with reliefs, but none of them exceeding the usual dimensions of such architectural members; and fragments of statues, or, as they are technically termed by Mr. Newton,' sculptures in the round.' Some of these last, as the statue of Mausolus himself, and that of the goddess who appears to have accompanied him in his chariot, have been found in such a condition that it has been possible to restore them in great part by merely reuniting the disjointed fragments; but these, as well as the two colossal portions of the horses of the chariot, were the work, as we know from Pliny, of a separate artist, probably the same who is mentioned also as one of the architects of the building. The noble fragment of a colossal figure on horseback is the only other work of this class that has been preserved to us in such a state as to enable us to form any idea of the original to which it belonged; and even to this we are wholly unable to assign any position in the building, or to determine whether it was an isolated figure or formed part of a group. The other fragments found, besides two or three heads, consist for the most part of portions of extremities, hands, feet, legs, and arms; and these are sufficiently numerous to indicate the existence of a considerable number of separate statues; most of which appear

VOL. CXVI. NO. CCXXXVI.

K K

to have been isolated figures, in a standing posture and in attitudes of tranquillity. These are supposed by Mr. Newton to have been placed in the intercolumniations of the Pteron, or in other positions of a similar character. But no portions have been discovered that can be referred to works in relief on any larger scale than those of the friezes.

Yet it is certain that it is to works of this latter class that the words used by Pliny-calavere Mausoleum'- where he speaks of the labours of Scopas and his brother artists, would naturally refer. Mr. Newton, indeed, goes so far as to say that 'the expression cælavere, used by Pliny in reference to their 'respective works, seems to indicate that they were all employed 'on friezes.' (P. 239.) But this conclusion seems to us wholly unwarranted. Sculptured metopes, sculptures let into panels, or broad slabs sculptured in relief, anything, in short, except detached statues, would equally come within the scope of Pliny's expression. It appears to us, on the other hand, absolutely impossible to suppose that the celebrated works of the masters in question could have been confined to so subordinate a part of the building as the mere decoration of friezes, more especially as those friezes must have been raised to a height nearly double that required even in the largest temples.

We are very far from wishing to depreciate the value of the slabs of frieze that have been so fortunately preserved to us. Their merit has been indeed very variously estimated by writers upon ancient art; and we certainly think that they must be admitted to be of very unequal excellence; some of them, especially the four slabs discovered by Mr. Newton, and the one still remaining at Genoa, being entitled to a very high place among works of their class, while several of the others are so inferior, both in design and execution, that we find it difficult to believe that they belong to the same period and school of art. But even their most sanguine admirers will not venture to place them in comparison with the noble frieze of the Parthenon. Yet we shall look in vain in all the authors of antiquity for any special mention of the latter work, while, if we are to believe Mr. Newton, it was to a few narrow friezes that the Mausoleum owed its world-wide celebrity.

The negative evidence, on which Mr. Newton lays so much stress, is to our mind wholly inconclusive. At whatever period the marble casing was stripped off from the basement of the edifice, it is certain that all trace of it has disappeared. The fragments of statues found are in all probability portions of those which adorned the Pteron. Nor have any remains of architectural, any more than of sculptural, decorations been dis

covered, which can with any probability be referred to the basement. We are therefore compelled either to acquiesce in Mr. Pullan's supposition that none such ever existed, and that a building celebrated in all antiquity for its highly ornamented character was in its most important member one of the plainest of edifices, or to admit that the lower part of the building had been plundered long before the upper story; and that the immortal works of Scopas and his fellow-labourers perished at this earlier period. This latter hypothesis seems to us at once the most plausible and consistent with the analogy of other similar cases.

Let us be thankful for what we have got. We owe much to the exertions of Mr. Newton, who has rescued from oblivion, as well as from all chances of further destruction, the few fragments that had survived the vicissitudes of so many centuries: but we cannot consent to magnify the value and importance of these scanty relics by assuming them to have formed any considerable portion of the great works referred to by ancient writers. We must venture to doubt, notwithstanding the high authority of Mr. Newton, whether any portion of the friezes that we possess can be ascribed to the master-hand of Scopas or of his scarcely less celebrated rivals. It is certain that

in most cases the execution of the friezes was left to subordinate workmen-pupils or young artists who possessed skill enough to execute the designs of the master mind to whom the conception of the whole was due. There is every reason to believe that this was the case even with the exquisite frieze of the Parthenon itself; we know it to have been the case with that of the Erechtheum, a building upon which the Athenians were undoubtedly desirous to lavish all the resources of art. But even if we allow the friezes of the Mausoleum the highest merit that can possibly be claimed for them, they can no more be considered as representing the masterpieces of those great artists than would a corresponding portion of the frieze of the Parthenon have sufficed to give us an adequate idea of the glorious works of Phidias.

Of some of the other fragments recovered it is indeed difficult to speak too highly. The figure of Mausolus himself is full of dignity and grandeur, and has a monumental character peculiarly suited to the position for which it was designed. The same style of treatment is still more observable in the horses that belonged to his chariot, and which bear evident proofs of having been executed with reference to the lofty situation in which they were to be placed. It is very instructive to compare them in this respect with the torso of the eques

trian figure, the surface of which, as Mr. Newton observes, is highly wrought, as if meant for close inspection. Cruelly mutilated as it is, this equestrian fragment is undoubtedly entitled to rank among the finest works of Greek sculpture remaining to us. We are indeed unable to make out with certainty the action of the rider, or the subject that it was intended to represent; but it is certainly probable, as suggested by Mr. Newton, that it formed part of a group. A figure in such violent action would have seemed unmeaning and exaggerated without some apparent motive for its attitude. But whether detached or combined with other figures we are wholly at a loss to assign it any place in connexion with the building to which it undoubtedly belonged. We can only infer, from the laws of architectural symmetry, that such a group must of necessity have had corresponding groups in other parts of the building. Of these, however, no remains have been discovered-an additional proof, if any such were wanting, how imperfect, after all, is our knowledge of the famous Mausoleum.

Our space will not admit of our attempting to follow Mr. Newton in his interesting researches at Cnidus and Branchida. But we cannot omit to bestow a passing word upon the noble lion that he has brought from the former place, which is indeed, as he himself terms it, 'a magnificent example of colossal Greek 'sculpture,' and deserves to rank with the statue of Mausolus, and the fragment of the equestrian figure from Halicarnassus, among the most valuable specimens of Greek art. It is probably of somewhat earlier date than the sculptures of the Mausoleum; and Mr. Newton suggests that the monument which it surmounted may have been erected to commemorate the victory gained by the Athenian fleet under Conon in B. C. 394an action which was fought in the immediate neighbourhood of Cnidus, and probably in full view of the conspicuous site on which the ruins were discovered. If this hypothesis could be established, the monument would possess almost as much historical as artistic interest.