Page:Greek Buildings Represented by Fragments in the British Museum (1908).djvu/59

 THE TOMB OF MAUSOLUS. 43 if by Pullan, and as i4 by Rayet and Thomas ; at Miletus, the latest built, it was ih. In all, the spaces between the square plinth blocks were approximately square, and this stands out as the most certain criterion. Further, the capitals spread about half a columniation, that is, they are about as much on the face as the dimension of the plinth block, and this seems also to approximate to a rule. At Ephesus the abacus is about 7 inches longer on the face than on the returns. At Priene it is nearer square. At the Mausoleum the abacus is square. This fact shows that the intercolumniation in this case was probably less than in the other two. Twice the size that the plinth must have been gives us 9, 9, or i| diameters. This dimension has already been arrived at at the Museum as result- ing from the length of some stones of the lacunaria. As to this, it might be contended that the bays were not necessarily square on plan, and this, indeed, was the case at Priene, where square lacunar panels were fitted to oblong bays by means of additional shallow strips of panels. Now, at the Mausoleum there were similar narrow sinkings on the marginal stones of the lacunars^ but three or four fragments of mitres of these sinkings have been found which show that here they ran all round, and not on two sides only. (Fig. 32.) The compartments were thus certainly square, as in the Museum restoration. This being settled, we have the fact that the margin -stone of one of the lacunaria gives the size of the square panel, and adding to this its own width twice over we again get the same dimension for the columniation (exactly 9, 9^). It is now, I suggest, proved that the columns stood about 9, gfrom centre to centre. (Fig. 33.) In trying to determine the size of the lacunaria we again come up against mistake upon mistake. In Newton's text the lacunar stone is said to show that " the exact size " of the panel was 4, of. On the plate, however, it is figured as 4.285, which is about 4, 3|. In the Museum Catalogue the dimension is correctly given from the stone, but it is said that Pullan's plate is wrong instead of the text. I speak of this as some revenge for the awe I used to feel for these elaborately figured dimensions. The bases of the columns, as set up in the Museum, from the indica- tions of the setting lines, gives a projection quite different from Pullan's version, and the bottom diameter is about 4 feet o