The materials which now exist for restoring the Mausoleum are of four
different kinds. These are:—
_First._—The passages in various ancient authors which either describe
the appearance of the building or give its dimensions.
_Secondly._—The actual remains of the building discovered in the recent
explorations, and the measurements of the ground then obtained.
_Thirdly._—The several tombs existing in Asia and Africa, evidently of
the same type, and which afford valuable hints for the restoration.
_Lastly._—The system of definite proportions in Greek architecture,
which is not only most useful in suggesting forms, but also most
valuable in rectifying deductions arrived at from other sources.
1. _Scripta._
Among the things written with regard to the Mausoleum, by far the most
important is the celebrated passage in Pliny’s Natural History.[2]
It is to the following effect: “Scopas had, as rivals in the same
age, Bryaxis, and Timotheus, and Leochares, who should be mentioned
together, as they were equally employed in the sculptures of the
Mausoleum, a sepulchre erected by his wife Artemisia to Mausolus,
King of Caria, who died in the second year of the hundred and seventh
Olympiad. It was mainly owing to the work of the above-named artists
that this building was considered one of the seven wonders of the
world. It extends on the north and south 63 feet, but is shorter on
the other fronts. The whole circumference is 411 feet. It is raised
in height 25 cubits, and is surrounded by 36 columns. This part was
called the pteron. The sculptures on the east side were by Scopas, on
the north by Bryaxis, on the south by Timotheus, and on the west by
Leochares. Before they had finished their work, the Queen Artemisia,
who had ordered this building to be constructed in honour of her
husband’s memory, died; but they did not on that account cease from
their labours till it was entirely finished, regarding it as a monument
of their own fame and of art; and to this day the work testifies to
their rivalry in merit. A fifth artist was joined to them; for above
the pteron there was a pyramid equal in height to the lower part, with
24 steps, contracting into a summit, like that of a meta. On the top of
all this was a quadriga in marble, made by Pythis. These being added,
the height of the whole work was equal to 140 feet.”
It is easy to see what difficulties were involved in this description.
How, in the first instance, was it possible that a building which
was only 63 feet in length in plan, and shorter on the other sides,
could be 411 feet in circumference? and, in regard to height, what
substantive was to be supplied after “inferiorem”? If “partem,” it
might apply to the pteron, which is the only part mentioned in the
previous description; but the logic seemed to require “pyramidem,” and
if so, what was it? If either, how was the whole height of 140 feet to
be made up?
In looking a little carefully into the matter we can now guess how
it was that Pliny came to state these dimensions in so enigmatical a
manner; for we learn from Vitruvius[3] that Satyrus and Phytheus, two
of the architects employed in the building, wrote a description of
their work, which no doubt Pliny had access to; but as he was thinking
more of the sculpture than of the architecture, he jotted down these
dimensions without probably realising the form of the building himself,
and left them as a bewildering enigma for posterity. Now that we have
the means of verifying them, these figures are ten times more valuable
than the most vivid description of the general appearance of the
building would be to us; but it is only now that we feel this.
The only other author who furnishes us with any dimensions is Hyginus,
a grammarian in the time of Augustus. In enumerating the seven wonders
of the world, he describes the “Monument of King Mausolus, built of
shining (?) (_lychnicis_) stones, 80 feet in height, and 1340 feet
in circumference.” Neither of these dimensions agrees with Pliny’s;
but the latter evidently refers to the peribolus, the wall of which
was found in the recent excavations.[4] The former, for reasons to
be given hereafter, I fancy should be 80 _cubits_, meaning thereby
Halicarnassian or Babylonian cubits of 21 inches each. If so, it is
Pliny’s exact dimension; but the matter is not important, as the text
of Hyginus is avowedly so corrupt, and he is of such low repute, that
his assertion is of little importance in the controversy.
Vitruvius unfortunately adds very little to our knowledge of the
building. He describes its situation as in the centre of the curve
formed by the town, encircling its bay like a theatre, and with a broad
street, “_platea_,” leading from the _agora_ on the shore up to the
Mausoleum.[5] He adds, “Mausoleum ita egregiis operibus est factum;”
from which we may infer, as in fact we do from all other descriptions,
that the building was more remarkable for its sculpture and its details
than for its dimensions.
Among the Greek authors, the most amusing account is that given by
Lucian in his ‘Dialogues of the Dead.’ He there makes Mausolus say,
in reply to the scoffing inquiry of Diogenes (after recounting his
exploits), “Besides that personal superiority, I am beautiful, tall
of stature, and of so robust a constitution as enabled me to sustain
all the hardships and fatigues of war; but, to be brief, the principal
point is, I have a prodigious monument raised over me at Halicarnassus,
which for magnitude and beauty has not its equal in the whole world.
It is decorated with the most exquisite figures of men and horses, all
carried to such a degree of perfection, and in such exceedingly fine
marbles, as you will not easily find even in a Temple.” Further on,
Diogenes remarks, “As to your monument and the costly marble of which
it is built, the inhabitants of Halicarnassus may certainly have reason
to show it to strangers, and to think much of themselves for possessing
so costly a work within their walls; but, my handsome friend, I do not
see what sort of enjoyment you should have in it. You should only say
that you bear a heavier load than the rest of us, since you have such
an enormous heap of stones lying on you!”
The few words found in Pausanias add little to our knowledge, but
serve to show the estimation in which the Mausoleum was held. He
says, “Although there are many sepulchres worthy of admiration, two
may especially be mentioned; one at Halicarnassus, the other that of
Helena of Adiabene at Jerusalem.” With regard to the first he adds,
“It was erected for Mausolus, who reigned at Halicarnassus, and was so
wonderful, not only on account of the magnitude of the work, but also
from the magnificence of its ornaments, that the Romans considered it
among the wonders of the world, and called all their most magnificent
tombs _mausolea_, after it.”[6]
Strabo merely mentions that it was considered one of the wonders of the
world.
From this time to that of its final demolition by the Knights of St.
John between 1402 and 1522 A.D., the Mausoleum is mentioned as still
standing by Gregory of Nazianzum in the fourth century, and later
by Nicetus of Cappadocia and by Constantine Porphyrogenitus in the
tenth century; but the most important fact is the mention of it by
Eustathius, two centuries afterwards, who, in his commentary on the
‘Iliad,’ says of the Mausoleum, that “it was _and is_ a wonder.”[7]
From all this we are justified in assuming that down to the twelfth
century the Mausoleum was at least sufficiently perfect to convey a
correct idea of its original magnificence. Between this period and the
year 1402, when the city was taken possession of by the Knights of St.
John, we are led to infer that the building must have been ruined,
most probably by the shock of an earthquake,—the position of many of
the fragments found being such as to be explicable only on such an
hypothesis.
The Knights, it seems, immediately set about erecting the present
Castle, and the remains of the Mausoleum supplied not only stone,
but lime for the building. Still the materials were far from being
exhausted by this process in the first instance, for in 1472 Cepio
mentions the remains as remarkable, and a certain Coriolanus speaks of
them with more marked admiration. By far the most detailed account,
however, is found in the following extract from Guichard’s ‘Funerailles
des Rommains,’ printed at Lyons, 1581, and for which, as for all the
above mediæval information, we are indebted to the researches of Mr.
Newton, from whose work I have abstracted it. The passage runs as
follows in the old French, and is quoted entire, as it is almost as
important to the restoration of the monument as that of Pliny itself:—
“L’an 1522, lors que Sultan Solyman se préparoit pour
venir assaillir les Rhodiens, le Grand Maistre sçachāt
l’importance de ceste place, et que le Turc ne faudrait
point de l’empieter de premiere abordee, s’il pouuoit,
y ennoya quelques cheualiers pour la remparer et mettre
ordre à tout ce qui estoit necessaire soustenir l’ennemi,
du nombre desquels fut le Commandeur de la Tourette
Lyonnois, lequel se treuua depuis à la prise de Rhodes,
et vint en France, où il fit, de ce que ie vay dire
maintenāt, le recit à Monsieur d’Alechamps, personnage
assez recognu par ses doctes escrits, et que ie nomme
seulement à fin qu’on sçache de qui ie tien vne histoire
si remarcable. Ces cheualiers estans arriués à Mesy,
se mirent incontinent en deuoir de faire fortifier le
chasteau, et pour auoir de la chaux, ne treuuans pierre
aux enuirons plus propre pour en cuire, ni qui leur vinst
plus aisee, que certaines marches de marbre blanc, qui
s’esleuoyent en forme de perron emmy d’un champ près du
port, là où iadis estoit la grande place d’Halycarnasse,
ils les firêt abattre et prendre pour cest effect. La
pierre s’estant rencōtree bonne, fut cause, que ce peu de
maçonnerie, qui parroissoit sur terre, ayant esté demoli,
ils firent fouiller plus bas en esperance d’en treuuer
d’auantage. Ce qui leur succeda fort heureusement:
car ils recognurent en peu d’heure, que de tant plus
qu’on creusoit profond, d’autant plus s’eslargissoit
par le bas la fabrique, qui leur fournit par apres de
pierres, non seulement à faire de la chaux, mais aussi
pour bastir. Au bout de quatre ou cinque iours, apres
auoir faict vne grande descouuerte, par vne apres disnee
ils virent ouverture comme pour entrer dans vne caue:
ils prirent de la chandelle, et deualerent dedans, où
ils treuuerent vne belle grande salle carree, embellie
tout au tour de colonnes de marbre, avec leur bases,
chapiteaux, architraues, frises et cornices grauees
et taillees en demy bosse: l’entredeux des colonnes
estait reuestu de lastres, listeaux ou plattes bandes
de marbre de diuerses couleurs ornees de moulures et
sculptures conformes au reste de l’œuure, et rapportés
propermēt sur le fonds blāc de la muraille, où ne se
voyait qu’histoires taillees, et toutes battailles à demy
relief. Ce qu’ayans admiré de prime face, et apres avoir
estimé en leur fantāsie la singularite de l’ouurage, en
fin ils defirent, briserent, et rompirent, pour s’en
seruir comme ils auoyent faicte du demeurant. Outre
ceste sale ils treuuerent apres vne porte fort basse,
qui conduisoit à une autre, comme antichambre, ou il y
auoit vn sepulcre auec son vase et son tymbre de marbre
blanc, fort beau et reluisant à merueilles, lequel, pour
n’avoir pas eu assez de temps, ils ne descouurirent, la
retraicte estant desia sonnee. Le lendemain, apres qu’ils
y furent retournés, ils treuuerēt la tombe descouuerte,
et la terre semee autour de force petits morceaux de drap
d’or, et paillette de mesme metal: qu leur fit penser,
que les corsaires, qui escumoyent alors le long de toute
ceste coste, ayans eu quelque vent de ce qui auoit
esté descouuert en ce lieu là, y vindrent de nuict, et
osterent le couuercle du sepulcre, et tient on qu’ils y
treuuerent des grandes richesses et thresors. Ainsi ce
superbe sepulcre, compté pour l’un des sept miracles,
et ouurages merueilleux du monde, apres auoir eschappé
la fureur des Barbares, et demeuré l’espace de 2247 ans
debout, du moins enseueli dedans les ruines de la ville
d’Halycarnasse, fut descouuert et aboli pour remparer
le chasteau de S. Pierre, par les cheualiers croisés de
Rhodes, lesquels en furent incontinent apres chassés par
le Turc, et de toute l’Asie quant et quant.”
The demolition at that period seems to have been nearly complete,
though it is probable that from that time to this, the Turks may have
been in the habit of using such blocks of marble as may have remained
above ground, to make lime. At all events, so completely was all
trace of it above ground obliterated, that even so experienced an
observer as Captain Spratt failed, after the most minute survey of the
neighbourhood, to fix on the site where this wonder of the world had
once stood.
2. _Reliquiæ._
The one redeeming point in the conduct of these barbarian Knights was
that, instead of burning all the sculptures into lime, they built some
thirteen slabs of one of the friezes, and some of the lions, into
the walls of their castle. These had early attracted the attention
of travellers, and a view of them _in situ_ was published by the
Dilettante Society in their second volume of ‘Ionian Antiquities’ in
1797. In 1846, Lord Stratford de Redcliffe obtained a firman for their
removal, and they were sent home to the British Museum in Her Majesty’s
ship _Siren_.
Nothing further was done till the explorations commenced, as before
mentioned, by Mr. Newton, in 1855, and the establishment of the
expedition there in the following year; though, from various causes, it
was not till the 1st of January, 1857, that they were really able to
commence excavations on the site of the Mausoleum.
The principal discoveries which rewarded their exertions were:—
_First._—Some thirty or forty blocks which formed part of the steps
of the pyramid mentioned by Pliny. These all (with two exceptions)
showed, by the weather marks on their upper surface, that they had
been constructed of two breadths only—the tread, or upper exposed part
of the steps, being always either 1 ft. 5 in. or 1 ft. 9 in. English,
according to Messrs. Smith, Pullan, or Newton. The real dimension,
however, as we shall see presently, was probably in inches and decimals
of an inch 17·01 and 21·2526.
Even more important than these were four or five angle-stones of the
pyramid, showing the same dimensions in juxtaposition on their two
faces. It is much to be regretted that the exact number of these
stones which were found was not noted. If there had been three, and
they had all been found together, which seems to have been the case,
they might,—probably would,—all have belonged to one course. With four
this is less probable, but it still leaves it open to any one who has
a theory such as that of Mr. Cockerell or Mr. Falkener, or who might
suggest a curvilinear one (as I once did), to assert that this was
so, and thus leave the whole question still in doubt. If there were
five this would be impossible, and it would simplify the argument to a
considerable extent.
The truth of the matter seems to be that Lieutenant Smith’s business
there was to take charge of the Sappers and Miners under his command;
Mr. Newton was only anxious to procure specimens of sculpture for the
National Museum; and before Mr. Pullan arrived, a great deal that had
been discovered was covered up again and no record left. Many points
that might then have been easily cleared up must now, therefore, be
left in doubt, unless some one will take the trouble of doing over
again what has been so carelessly done once.
_Secondly._—Almost equally important with these were some portions of
the cymatium of the order. Like the greater steps, this was composed of
pieces, 21 inches in length, and on each alternate one, covering the
joint, was a lion’s head—thus 3 ft. 6 in. apart from centre to centre.
From this we get, with almost absolute certainty, the width of the
intercolumniations as twice, thrice, or four times 3 ft. 6 in.
_Thirdly._—A capital and base of a column, very nearly perfect were
found, and fragments of several others;—a considerable number of
frustra of the columns and fragments of the architrave and cornice. The
frieze we assume that we knew before from the sculptures already in
the Museum. In fact, a sufficient number of fragments were recovered
to enable us to restore the whole “order” with very tolerable
approximative certainty. All these parts are more or less chipped and
broken, so that minute differences still exist; but on the whole we may
feel tolerably certain that it reached, as nearly as may be, the height
of 25 cubits or 37 ft. 6 in. Greek, mentioned by Pliny.
_Fourthly._—Some stones of the lacunaria of the roof were found, but
not in a sufficiently perfect state to enable us to be certain of any
dimensions from them. Mr. Pullan makes them fit an intercolumniation
of 10 feet,—Professor Cockerell, it is understood, applies them to one
of 8·75; and they would be found equally applicable to various other
dimensions.
_Fifthly._—No other strictly architectural fragments were found, but
portions of the wheel of the quadriga, and a nearly perfect statue,
which was almost certainly that of Mausolus, together with portions
of two at least of the horses of the chariot. These enable us to
restore that most important group with very tolerable certainty, and to
ascertain that its height was somewhere about 13 or 14 feet.
_Sixthly._—Portions of three different friezes were found, two of which
appear to have been external; the third, from being less weather-worn,
may have been situated under the pteron, or may have adorned the
interior of the building.
_Seventhly._—Fragments of some panels of sculpture, but where situated
is not clear.
_Eighthly._—In addition to these, fragments of a considerable number of
statues, a little more than life-size, were discovered; and fragments,
more or less perfect, of some 20 lions, principally of two dimensions,
viz., either about 5 ft. 0 in. or 5 ft. 3 in. in length, and about the
same in height; and one torso of what was either an Amazon or a young
man on horseback in violent action.
_Ninthly._—But perhaps the most important discovery of all, in so
far as the restoration is concerned, was that the rock on which the
building stood was excavated to a depth of 8 or 9 feet over an area
measuring some 107 feet by 127. As the explorers were not aware of the
value of these dimensions, they quote them loosely in round numbers;
but they almost certainly were 105 by 126 Greek feet, or 106·31 English
by 127·575, as will be explained hereafter.
3. _Exempla._
By far the best corroborative example that has yet been brought to
light is one discovered by Mr. Newton and his associates at Cnidus, and
by them called the Lion Tomb.
[Illustration: 1.—LION TOMB, CNIDUS. (From Mr. Newton’s work.)]
Whether it is a Tomb at all, or whether the restoration can be depended
upon, will not be known till the second part of Mr. Newton’s text
is published. The plates in his work fail, in this and every other
instance, in giving the remotest idea of the remains _in situ_; and the
architectural plates do not distinguish between what was found and what
is restored. Still it must be near enough to the truth to be allowed
to suggest what was the meaning of the “metæ cacumen,” or the pedestal
on which the sculpture was placed on the top of the Pyramid, which is
the key to the whole mystery of the Mausoleum. It may also probably be
quoted as suggesting the mode in which the Pyramid was placed on the
order.
2. A Tomb is found at Dugga in Africa, which is singularly suggestive
of the appearance of the Mausoleum, with only such difference as the
very much smaller scale would necessitate.
[Illustration: 2.—TOMB AT DUGGA. (From a Drawing by Mr. Catherwood.)]
3. A third, at Souma near Constantina, is published by Ravoisé in
elevation, and in perspective by Mr. Falkener in his Museum of
Classical Antiquities, No. 2, p. 172. This consists first of a solid
podium or basement, with steps. Over this is a storey with a doorway or
opening on each face, and above this a pteron of eight Doric columns,
disposed three on each face, but without any cella or chamber, the
space being too small to admit of any. There is, in this instance, no
pyramid of steps on the top, but a small pediment on each face.
4. At page 174 of the same volume there is a still more suggestive
design restored by Mr. Falkener from some remains he found at Denzili
in Phrygia. The base of this monument was entirely concealed by
rubbish; but above ground were found six square steles or piers,
arranged three and three, with a figure sculptured in bas-relief on
each face. Above the entablature was a pyramid of steps supporting a
couchant figure of a lion.
5. There is a well known Tomb at Mylassa, published by the Dilettante
Society in their volume on ‘Ionia;’ which, though of late Roman times,
is evidently copied from the Mausoleum.
[Illustration: 3.—TOMB AT MYLASSA.]
6. There are several other smaller examples, which, if they do not
suggest much, are at least interesting, as showing how widely the fame
of this building was extended, and how generally it was imitated, not
only in Asia but in Africa.
7. There is also the Trophy Monument discovered by Sir Charles Fellows
at Xanthus, which, though hardly bearing directly on the subject, is
still sufficiently near it in design to suggest several peculiarities
which, without its authority, we might hesitate to adopt.
4. _Rationes._
The last mode of investigation which has been mentioned as open to us,
yields results which, though not so obvious at first sight, are quite
as satisfactory as those obtained from any of the previously mentioned
sources of information.
As will be explained in the sequel, we find that, by the application
of the formula of simple ratios, we are enabled to fix the dimensions
of almost every part of the Mausoleum with almost absolute certainty;
and at the same time it is found that the Mausoleum is one of the most
complete and interesting examples of a building designed wholly on a
scheme of simple definite ratios. Thus the very science which assists
materially in solving the problem, is at the same time illustrated and
confirmed by the discoveries it aids in making.
The first attempt to explain the peculiarities of buildings by a scheme
of definite ratios seems to be that expounded by Cæsar Cæsarini, in
his edition of Vitruvius, published in 1521. In this work he shows
by diagrams how a series of equilateral triangles explains all the
dimensions and peculiarities of design in Milan Cathedral; and in this
he probably was right, for, being a foreign work, it is very probable
that the Italian architects, not understanding the true principles of
the art, squeezed the design into this formal shape and so spoiled
it. The success of this attempt of Cæsarini, however, has induced
numberless other architects to apply the same principle to other Gothic
Cathedrals, but without success in a single instance. Those which
approach nearest to it are such buildings as Westminster Abbey,—a
French church built in England; Cologne Cathedral, which is a French
example in Germany; and in like manner all foreign examples approximate
to definite proportions; but it may safely be asserted that no truly
native example of Gothic art was so arranged.
It has, however, long been suspected that the Greeks proceeded on
a totally different principle; but materials did not exist for a
satisfactory elucidation of the question till Mr. Penrose published
his exquisite survey of the Parthenon and other buildings at Athens
made for the Society of Dilettanti, and Mr. Cockerell the result of his
explorations at Bassæ and Egina. In the first-named work, its author
pointed out with sufficient clearness some of the principal ratios of
that celebrated building, which his survey enabled him to verify, and
for others he supplied dimensions which for completeness and accuracy
left nothing to be desired. With these new materials, Mr. Watkiss
Lloyd undertook the investigation, and by a long and careful series
of comparisons he has proved that the time-honoured doctrine of the
Vitruvian school—that the lower diameter of a column was the modulus
of every other part of a building—had no place in Greek art; on the
contrary, that every part of a Greek building was proportioned to those
parts in juxtaposition or analogy to it, in some such ratio as 3 to 4,
4 to 5, 5 to 6, and so on,—not by accident, but by careful study; and
the whole design was evolved from a nexus of proportions as ingenious
in themselves as they were harmonious in their result.
In the Parthenon, for instance, he found that the entire building is
set out with the minutest accuracy, by the application of a few ratios
which involve no higher number than 16, and in no case have a higher
difference between them than 5.
The greatest ingenuity and refinement were exercised in embracing the
entire design in a network of proportional relations, in such a way
that every division had a special dependence upon some other that was
particularly contrasted or connected with it; and at the same time
every member was implicated in more than one such comparison by what
might seem happy accident, were it not that on trial it is proved how
much study is required to effect such a result. At the same time, when
the clue is once gained, it is easy to see how study was competent to
effect it.
Among the proportional applications affecting the present subject,
which may be considered axiomatic are these:—
The establishment of proportions of low numbers between—
1. The length and breadth of the basement, either upon its upper or
lower step, or both.
2. The breadth of front and full height of the building; in most cases,
also, the length of flank and full height.
3. The length and breadth of any other conspicuous rectangle, such as
in the present case would be the plans of the cella, of the pyramid, of
the base or pedestal of the statue.
4. The division of the grand height of the structure into a pair of
well-contrasted parts, having a ratio to each other of which the terms
differ by unity, as 2 to 3, 3 to 4, &c. The further subdivision of
these parts is effected again by definite proportions, and a favourite
scheme here, as elsewhere, is for an intermediate section of a
vertical line to have a simple proportion to the joint dimensions of
sections above and below it, these upper and lower sections being then
proportioned independently. Thus in the entablature of the Mausoleum
the frieze is just half the joint height of architrave and cornice;
that is, one-third of the height is given to the frieze.
5. The lower diameter of the Ionic column has usually a ratio to the
upper diameter expressible in low numbers with a difference of unity.
In the Mausoleum the ratio is 5 to 6, the same as at Priene. In the
columns at Branchidæ, which were more than double the height, the
difference is slighter, viz., 7 to 8.
6. The height of the column is usually, but by no means invariably,
commensurable with the lower diameter, or at least semi-diameter, and
the columns are spaced in one or other of the schemes that supply
a symmetry with their height; that is to say, the height of the
column will be found invariably to measure off a space laterally that
coincides with centre and centre of columns, centre and margin, or
margin and margin of the foot of the shaft or base. This symmetry was
of more importance than the commensurability of height by diameter.
7. In the architecture of temples, at least, the height either of the
shaft or of the full column compares with the complementary height of
the order, or of the front, in a ratio of which the terms differ by
unity, and the larger term pertains to the columns. For example, the
height of the Parthenon column is two parts out of three into which the
full height of the order at the flank of the temple is divisible; the
remaining part being divided between the entablature and the steps.[8]
Mr. Lloyd first publicly explained his theory of the system of
proportions used in Greek architecture in a lecture he delivered at the
Institute of British Architects in June, 1859, and he afterwards added
an appendix to Mr. Cockerell’s work on Egina and Bassæ, explaining
specially the proportions of those temples; but the full development of
his views, and particularly their relation to the Parthenon, which it
appears surpassed all known works in refined and exact application of
the system, still unfortunately remains in manuscript.
The more direct application of this theory to the design of the
Mausoleum will be explained as we proceed, but in the meanwhile it may
be asserted that without it many of the dimensions of this celebrated
monument might for ever have remained matters of dispute. With its
assistance there is scarcely one that may not be ascertained with
almost absolute certainty.
Another and quite distinct set of ratios was discovered by Colonel
Howard Vyse and his architect Mr. Perring, in their explorations of the
Pyramids of Egypt. They found, for instance, in the Great Pyramid that
the distance
Cubits.
From the ground-line to the floor of the Queen’s chamber was 40
From the floor of the Queen’s to the floor of the King’s chamber 40
From the floor of the King’s chamber to the apex of the discharging roof 40
From that point to the apex of the pyramid, 40 × 4 160
———
Making up exactly 280
They also found that the length of the base line was to this dimension
in the ratio of 8 to 5, making it 448 cubits or 767·424 feet English
exactly. With these two dimensions all the other parts of so simple a
figure follow as a matter of course.
The bearing of this also on the Mausoleum will be seen in the sequel,
though a much more complicated system of ratios was of course necessary
either to such a building or to even the very simplest Greek temples.