His statues of Venus, are, after all, perhaps the most remarkable of his works in sculpture. One of these statues, if not the original, is supposed to have been the prototype of one of the most celebrated and beautiful portrayals of that charming deity in the world to-day. Another to which Pliny gives particular prominence was that in which the goddess is presented nude and which was found in the temple of Brutus Callaicus in Rome. This statue, he adds, “would have conferred renown upon any other city, but at Rome the immense number of works of art and the bustle of daily life in a great city distracted the attention of men.” It is probably this work of art, which is thought by some to have been superior to that by Praxiteles, which, with some modifications, is credited with being the model after which Cleomenes fashioned the celebrated Venus de Medicis. Pausanias and Pliny mention also other portrayals of Venus by Scopas, but it is left to Waagen and some other critics to ascribe the celebrated statue of Aphrodite, in the Louvre in Paris, and known as the Venus de Milo, to this great sculptor and architect. It is foreign to the purpose, however, to devote too much space to this side of the art life of Scopas, but in treating of his connection with the magnificent mausoleum which Artemesia erected at Halicarnassus, to her husband, Mausolus, king of Caria, it will be argued doubtless that the work of this artist on that famous mortuary monument, which ranked as one of the seven winders of the world, was more in the line of a decorative sculptor than of an architect. In this undertaking Scopas was associated with three other architectural sculptors—namely, Bryaxis, Timotheus and Leocarus—all of whom were Athenians. Each took as his special work the decoration of one side of the building, Scopas choosing the east or principal façade. The north and south sides had a width of about sixty-three feet; the east and west were not quite so wide. Before outlining further the principal characteristics of the building, it is only fair to say that the professional architects to whom is due the credit for the plan of the structure were Phileus, an Ionian whose name Vitruvius spells in a variety of ways, and Satyrus, whose native city is not given, but who, according to the same authority, wrote a description of the mausoleum. Phileus was also an author on architecture, having written a volume on the Ionic temple of Athene Polias at Priene, of which he was the designer, and which was one of the most renowned buildings in Asia Minor, and a treatise on the mausoleum, which was also located in that part of the globe. As for Satyrus, whatever may have been the other public buildings of which he was the architect, there is no record.