No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 December 2013
The following paper represents the results of a dissertation recently submitted for the M.A. degree at London. The whole question of the Maussolleum is of an exceedingly complex nature, while the composition of the Chariot Group, though only incidental to the reconstruction of the building, has been the subject of much controversy.
The evidence put forward in this article cannot be regarded as entirely conclusive, but I hope to show that the margin of probability which lies on the side of those who do not think that the statues occupied the chariot is rather broader than has usually been supposed.
The attitude in which I have approached the question is quite unbiassed and this will account for the fact that I appear in some parts of the paper to be arguing against both sides in turn. In reality, however, I have endeavoured to examine the evidence impartially and then to form a conclusion from those arguments only which have stood the test of examination. The conclusion I have reached on the matter is the same as that of Prof. Percy Gardner, but I do not entirely agree with him as to the grounds on which that view is to be based.
1 J.H.S. vol. xiii. p. 188.
2 Archaeologia, vol. lv. Pt. 2, p. 343.
3 Halicarnassus, Cnidus, and Branchidae, vol. ii. p. 207 (1862).
4 Le tombeau de Mausole, p. 27.
5 Geschichte der Griechischen Plastik, ii. s. 72. 77(1881).
6 Ibid.
7 Paper read before the Society of Antiquaries (May 7th, 1896).
8 Philologus, vol. xxi. p. 453 (1865).
9 Ibid.
10 History of Ancient Sculpture, p. 473 (1883).
11 Philologus, loc. cit.
12 Fouilles et Découvertes, pp. 295 ff.
13 Gipsabgüsse, p. 427 (1885).
14 Histoire de la Sculpture Grecque, vol. ii. p. 338.
15 Philologus, loc. cit.
16 Professor Gardner seems to have inaccurately transcribed this.
17 The one withforehand remaining—measured to top of head.
18 This difference of one inch may be accounted for by the absence of mane on the extreme top of the horse's head: I may not have allowed enough, though I have made an allowance of ⅜″. This may possibly be insufficient.
19 Presumably this is the posterior half.
20 This is, of course, the usual way to measure the height of a horse.
21 E.g. Pl. CXCIV.
22 Cp. also Furtwängler-Reichhold, Taf. 11–13.
23 Ibid. Taf. 82.
24 Ibid. Taf. 8.
25 Ibid. Taf. 67.
26 Ibid. Taf. 100.
27 Macdonald, Hunter Catalogue, Pl. XVI. Nos. 14, 15, 18, 19.
28 Ibid. Pl. XIV. No. 17.
29 J.H.S. vol. xiii. Pl. VIII.
30 Jahrbuch, 1907, p. 147.
31 Circa 700 B.C.
32 Layard, Monuments of Nineveh, vol. ii. Pl. XXIV.
33 Layard's Nineveh, vol. i. Pls. LXXII.–LXXX.
34 Published by Studniczka, in Jahrbuch, 1907Google Scholar.
35 Furtwängler, Antike Gemmen, Plate I. Fig. 2.
36 Bull. de Corr. Hell. 1891, Pl. XV. bis, 1, 5, 9; Pl. XVI. 1, 3, 5, 8.
37 Ibid. Pl. XV. bis 5, and Pl. XVI. 8.
38 Hamdy Bey and Reinach, Nécropole Royale à Sidon, Pl. VII.
39 Assyrian Gallery, No. 46.
40 There is in fact not more than ⅗″ of difference between the two wheels in natural size.
41 iii. 106.
42 525.
43 B.C. 54.–A.D. 24.
44 Strabo, 529: 
45 xxvii. 14.
46 xii. 4.
47 iii. 5. 8.
48 The Horse, p. 6.
49 iii. 5. 6.
50 i. 78.
51 Loc. cit.
52 Loc. cit.