THE SO-CALLED ASIATIG TERRA-COTTA GROUPS

(Reprinted from The Clawcat. Rcview, April and May 1S88, p. 110-123, 133-:55..'

If an archaeologist ever atlempls lo retrace the history of anUquarian forgery, one of the most inleresting and attractive chaplers of his book will be devoted to terra-cottas, especially to those much admired and, in our opinion, much over-rated groups which hâve been known since 1880 as Cymaean, Myrinaean, Ephesian, Asiatic in génère, &c. I hâve already written a good deal on this subject, but the day is yet far when il can be treated in a définitive form, as M. Glermont-G anneau bas done in the case of the antiquarian forgeries in Palestine. The reason is that many important points remain yet obscure and unsettled ; we know very little concerning the origin and the authorshîp of the forged groups, and that very little cannot be put down in print until it is proved beyond discussion. For motives easy to understand, the mention of propernames of dealers — pereant nominal — must, as much as possible, be avoided. However, in a matter of that kind, disdainful or over-prudent silence might lead to the same resuit as silent complicity; it is the duty of those who are convinced of the existence of forgeries to wam the public and the muséums against them. That duty I bave never sought to escape, and 1 hâve recently had the pleasure of couvert ing some scholars to my opinion — a compensation for the abuse which I bave occasionally met with from others. Still, a great many amateurs and artists, and also a certain

i, [Cet exposé de la question des terres cuites dites d'Asie Mineure rerient sur beaucoup de fails déjà connus des lecteurs de nos Chroniques; mais il a paru utile d'en rendre le tableau d'ensemble plus accessible et de résumer une fois de plus les arguments d'ordre divers que Ton trouve disséminés plus haut. Inutile de dire que M. Cartault, dans son récent ouvrage intitulé Terres cuites grecques (Paris, Collin, 1891; cf. Reo. cnt,, 1891, I, p. 424), fait semblant d'ignorer entièrement les articles de la Clissical Review ; ils ont le tort de gôner un commerce qu'il a pris avec tant de zèle sous «a protection.]

number of professional archaeologisls, uphold the anliquily and the excellence of the groups in question. The majority of Ihem are unacquainled wilh the lilerature of the malter, which has become rather considérable and is not of easy access. The purpose of the présent paper is to give an historical review of the conlroversy from the beginning. wilh the indication of the published groups which are the éléments of any objective judgement, andof the pamphlets or minor articles which refer to them. The motives for suspecting the Asiatic groups will be stated in the review of the literalure. Although the groups are the most important éléments of the problem, I shall be obliged to mention now and then other counterfeits which stand in close relation to them ; but I will not enter hère into close discussion as to the aulhenticity of the isolated statuettes which seem equally subject to much doubt.

The vogue of Greek terra-cottas began in Paris about 1873, when the Tanagraean figures made their triumphant appearance in the market. The flrst terra-cottas from Myrina were discovered about 1874, and studied at Ali-Aga by M. G. Hirsclifeld {Nécropole de Myrina, p. 3) ; among them were two remarkable groups, one of which, now belonging to M. Waddington, has been published by M. Froehner {Terres cuites d'Asie Mineure, pi. 24). Up to that date, the only Asiatic terra-cottas known to scholars were : 1. The fragments discovered in Tarsos (Ainsworth & Barker, Lares and Pénates, London, 1853 ; Heuzey, Gazette des beaux-arts, Nov. 1876; Froehner, Terres cuites d^Asie, pi. 15; Musées de France, pi. 30-34) ; 2. Some statuettes from the environs of Smyrna, mentioned, but not published, by Welcker {Àlte Denkm., 186i, v., p. 483); 3. Fragments from Smyrnabelonging toM. Piot in Paris (Lenormant, Catal, de la Collection de M. Eugène P„ Paris, 1870, Nos. 220-231). About 1877, gilt terra-cottas, said to hâve been discovered at Ephesos, reached the muséums of Berlin and the Parisian collections (cf. Griechische Terracotten aus Tanagra und Ephesos, Berlin, 1878) ; some of them were groups, for instance, that of Eros and Psyché (Revue archéoL, 1878, ii., pi. xix.). Thèse gilt terra-cottas were mostly retouched and much completed, bul they cannot be looked upon as wholesalc forgeries. Many gilt heads and fragments from Smyrna entered the collections at the same time. The real provenance was not indicated, and the attribution to Ephesos was a falsehood. Very few terra-cottas indeed hâve been discovered at Ephesos, and those we know of are of a trivial style {e, g., one Satyr in the Bristish Muséum, wilh a * engraved on the revei*se, from Mr. WoodV excavations)*. — Discussion on the subject began in 1878, when a number of Asiatic terra-cottas appeared in the Eœpoèition rétrospective at the Trocadéro in Paris. M. Bode expressed the opinion that the gilt terra-cottas were pasticcios {Beiblatt sur Zeitschrift f. bild. Kunst, 29 Aug. and 5 Sept.

1. M. Ram?ay*8 statement on the non-existeDce of Ephesian terra-cottas (Ciassical Review, 1888, p. 90, note 1), is not to be taken quile literally.

1878; translatée! in Revue archéol., 1879, i., p. 95). F. Lenormant warned the public against the forgeries of Asiatic terra-cottas (Revue archéoL, 1878, il., p. 137), and quoted some of thèse as being imitations of Thorwaldsen and Fogelberg, in the style of Canova and his school {Cmtem» porary Review^ 1878, p. 858 and foll. ; Gazette archéoi, 1878, p. 201 and fol].), adding that Rayet denied the provenance to be Ephesos (Gazette archéol., 1878, p. 201). That .Tery same year the Berlin Muséum had received from Athens a number of so-called Ephesian terra-cottas, which were soon proved to be pasticcios and sent back to the dealer. Lenormant (under the name of Liénard)' alluded to the fact {Gazette archéol., 1879, i., p. 189-192), indicating (but not naming) Longpérier as one of the archaeologists who most strongly suspected the figures from Ephesos. In fact, Longpérier, who had been intrusted with the care of organizing the Exposition rétrospective, had rejected as forgeries several terra-cotlas which were presented to him, but I hâve been unable to ascertain whether those figures belonged to the Ephesian class or to the — then almost unknown — fabric of Myrina.

Next to Lenormant, 0. Rayet took a part in the debate. In 1878 (Gazette des beaux-arts, Sept. 1878, p. 362, reprinted in Vart grec au Trocadéro, 1879, i., p. 92 foll.), he mentioned the fabricsof Smyrna, Magneût, Pergamon, Miïetos, Mylasa and Tarsos, and protested against the désignation of Ephesian terra-cottas ; he also discussed, but without coming to a conclusion, the authenticity of a large Pan's head in the Gréau Collection (published by Froehner, Terres cuites d'Asie Mineure, Collection Gréau, pi. i., ii.). In the catalogue of his o^n collection {Catal. de la collection de M, 0. Rayet, Paris, 1879, p. 30), he briefly stated ail that was known at the time conceming Asiatic terra-cottas. He believed the majority of the so-called Smyrnaean and Ephesian terra-cottas to be genuine, but added that he had only seen a small number of them, the principal dealer in statuettes of that class not being his friend (an allusion to a wellknown antiquary, with whom Rayet had quarrelled at Athens). That same year (1879), M. Hoffmann, the Parisian dealer, having received terra-cottas from Aeolis, and wishing to settle the debate about their genuineness, wrote to M. Waddington, who was then minister, in order to obtain some information. M. Waddington, as we hâve stated elsewhere in détail (ffécrop. de Myrina, p. 13), appealed to A. Baltazzi (died Cet. i887), the possessor of the site of Myrina, and receiyed in relum some of the spécimens which had been discovered in 1874. The besl results of this enquiry were the excavations of the French School of Athens al Myrina (1880-1883), together with my investigation in the necropolis of Kyme (1880-1881 ; cp. Nécrop. de Myrina, p. 506); thèse scientific excavations hâve been followed by many others of a more doubtful

1. Liénard, Fivel, Mansell, Papayannakis, Y, are ail pseudonyms of Fr. Lenormant.

character, but certainly altended wilh success, so that almost ail the muséums in Europe now possess autheniic ierra-cottas from Myrina (cf. Revue arehéoL, 1887, i., p. 100 ; 1886, ii., p. 8, &c.). The first terra-cottas from our excavations were published in 1881 {Bull. Corr. Hellén , v., pi. 6 and fol.), but no article relating to them appeared before 1883 {Bull,, vii., p. 81). We had good reason for being cautions, knowing that Greek dealers had aiready sent emissaries to Ali-Aga in order to corrupt our workmen.

Meanwhile, the fabrication of the celebrated groups had begun — no doubt in imitation of some authentic ones which hâve hitherto remained unknown. As early as 1880, a couple of them were exposed for sale at Athens, and the dealer asserted confidentially that they originated from Myrina, having been stolen by our workmen. Ihave reason forbelieving, from the description given by a friend, that one of the groups in question was the Woman wUh the bull, published by M. Babelon in the Gazette archéologique, 1882, p. 145, pi. 16, when it had become the property of Mme. Darthès (collection Basilewsky in Paris). At the time that group was engraved, the two first issues of the Collection Camille Lecuyer, terres cuites antiques (Paris, 1882) had just appeared. The Woman with the bull was said to come from Kyme. M. Babelon justly remarked that the style closely resembled that of the groups in the Lecuyer collection. * On devine la même main, le même artiste, ou au moins la même école, dans les traits de ces visages féminins, dans Tagencement des plis des vêtements *. ISor did M. Babelon overlook the Attic character of the composition, which he aptiy compared to the Nike with the bull from the Athenian balustrade, and to a cognate bassorelievo found in Italy (Kekulé, Die Balustrade, pi. i., d.].

From 1879 to 1881, M. Froehner published his Terres cuites S Asie Mineure (Paris. Hoffmann, wilh forty plates). PI. 2 is a funeral banquet which reappeared in the Castellani sale (cp. Bullettino delV Institnto , 17 Jan. 1879) ; it is certainly genuine, although the heads aflixed to the small figures do not belong to the original. On pli. 17 and 24 are two genuine groups from Myrina. The group on pi. 30, from the Basilewsky collection, seems also genuine, but the Pan and Bacchante on pli. 39-40 (Basilewsky collection) is,to say the least, very doubtful, and must stand in close relation to the pseudo-Asiatic séries we are dealing with.

The Lecuyer collection bas been published in six folio issues, chiefly by the care of M. Cartault (Paris, 1882 foll., Rollin and Feuardent). The following groups, reproduced in phototype, must be briefly enumerated hère, as they are the main représentatives of the so-cailed Asiatic class. The names mscribed in parenthesis indicate the provenance assigned to them by the editor. — i^ livr. PI. 0. Dionysos et Méthé (Cymé). — $• livr. PI. T«. Barque de Charon (Cymé). — X*. Pan et Bacchante (Myrina). Resembles the Basilewsky group, Terres cuites d'Asie Mineure, pl.t.39. — Y*. Satyre et joueuse de cithare (Cymé). — 4« livr. PI. M*. Pan et Nymphe (As. Min.). — N*. Pan et Bacchante (As. Min.). — 0*. Silène et Dionysos

enfant (As. Min.). — L*. Éros couché près d'une jeune femme (As. Min.). — Y*. Jeune femme et éphèbe assis sur un rocher (As. Min.). — 5« livr. PI. J*. Achille, Alhéné, Agamemnon (As. Min.). A ridiculous forgery, sufficient lo ihrow discrédit on the whole séries. — K*. Priam et Hélène (As. Min.). — M*. Enfance d'Éros (As. Min.). — N*. Aphrodite et Éros sur un dauphin (As. Min.). — 0*. Scène de toilette (As. Min.). — Q'. Femme surprise au bain par un Satyre (As. Min.). Ridiculous. — R*. Scène bachique après la vendange (As. Min.). — S*. Génie ailé enlevant une femme (As. Min.). — X*. Centaure enlevant une femme (As. Min.). — A'. Satyre et Bacchante conduits par Éros (As. Min.). — B». Scène pastorale (As. Min.). Very awkward. — 6® livr. PI. M*. Éros et Pan (As. Min.). — N». La rencontre au tombeau (As. Min.). An évident imitation of the well-know plaque estampée which equally belonged to the Lecuyer collection and had been purchased at Athens by 01. Rayet An Attic stèle is fîgured in the middle. — 0». Une partie d'osselets à la fontaine (As. Min.). — P*. Triomphe de Dionysos (As. Min.).

We mention separately three groups of a rather difTerent style : 6* livr. PL L*. Hermès et Kalypso (As. Min.) ; U*. Héraclès ten-assant le lion ; V*. Thésée domptant le Taureau crétois (As. Min.). Of course they may originate from the same modem workshop as the others : quite as much can be said about the large masks published in the second issue (D», E*, E* bis, F*), which are by no means free from suspicion. The reader will observe that, while the names of Kyme and Myrina appear in the two firsl issues, they are replaced, in the four last ones, by the vague indication : Asie Mineure. At the end of the sixth issue, M. Cartauld very justly remarks : * Les indications recueillies sur la provenance ne doivent être acceptées qu'avec réserves.' The authentic statuettes from Myrina, which had become known in the interval, dissuaded the Greek dealers from indicating that origin and the Parisian ones from acceptmg it. Nevertheless, the dilettanti and the public at large continued to ascnbe those pasticcios to Kyme, Myrina or Ephesos — indeed, as we shall soon sec, archaeologists occasionally did the same.

A part of M. Lecuyer s collection — comprising many genuine and first^class terra-cottas — was sold by auction in Paris (April, i883). A quarto catalogue was published at the time by M. Froehner, with many illustrations and twenty-nine phototypes. Several groups of the AsUxiic species are to be found on pU. iii., vi., viii., x, (Charon), xviii., xxi. PL vL (No. 56) and pi. xviii. (No. 166) are said to come from Myrina; the group of Charon (No. 119) is called * un des chefs-d'œuvre de la plastique grecque. ' The results of the sale were highly encouraging : the Charon group fetched 8,000 francs and was purchased for Prince Liechtenstein in Vienna.

As early as the end of 1881, I had visited the Lecuyer collection in Company with the late Olivier Rayel. Wei^ere much puzzled by the Bark of Charon (one of the few groups that M. Lecuyer Ihen possessed), but,

as it was yet unedited and shown lo us in a privaie colJeclion, we nalurally kepl our uneasiness lo ourselvcs. AI the epoch of ihe Lecuyer sale, our suspicion wilh regard lo Ihe groups was already shared by a greal many archaclogisls. The Brllisii Muséum and Ihe Louvre eqiially rejecled Uie spécimens which were ofTered lo Ihem for purchase in 1883. The Vienna Muséum acquired but one froni a * bekannler griechischerKunsthaendier ' (engraved in Ihe Àrch. epigr» Miitheil, aus Oesterr,, vii., pi. iv., wilh an article by M. Klein, p. 196). It is a careful spécimen of the Asiatic class, but it is a forgery, as bas since Leen acknowledged at Vienna. The Berlin Muséum was less cautious. At the Lecuyer sale, M. Furtwaengier purchased the group of Pan wilh a Nymph (Froehner, CataLy pi. x\iii, and Carlaull, ColL Lecuyer, pi. x«) and, from anolher source, a second group represenling Ihe Bark of Charon {ArchaeoL Zeit.^ 1884, p. 66). In 1884, Ihe same muséum bought a group represenling a female Ganymeda carried off by an eagle (* aus der Gegend von Myrina ' Arch. Zeit,, 1885, p. 156.) The laller group (a curions forgery) bas been published by M. Furtwaengier in the Sammlung Saburoff; it is an imitation of the celebraled engraved mirror which belonged lo Ihe same collection. We shall return in a moment lo the Bark of Charon.

At the end of i88'i, in one of my Chroniques d'Orient {Revue archéoL, 1884, ii., p. 93), I ventured lo wrile a few lineS on Ihe subjecl of the groups ascribed lo Kyme : * Nous ne perdrons jamais une occasion de prolester contre celle attribution fantaisiste. L'origine de ces groupes nous est entièrement inconnue, bien que nous les croyons asiatiques. Mais nous sommes certain qu'ils ne proviennent pas de Cymé. Ajoutons d'ailleurs que leur authenticité ne peut être raisonnablement mise en doute.* This last phrase was added lo avoid the oulbreak of a polemic which I slill wished lo defei\ In the same article (p. 95), 1 mentioned the Berlin group of Ganymeda^ vfhh E. Curtius had presented lo the Archaeobgische Gesellschaft in Berlin, as discovered in Myrina. * Le nom de M^Tina sert aujourd'hui, comme celui d'Éphèse il y a sept ou huit ans, de pavillon à des marchandises d'origine et de valeur très diverses.' In a foolnole, I protested against the name of * lerracottas from Ephesos,' which was given, on a label in the Louvre, lo some heads coming evidenlly from Smyma.

My suspicion as lo the non-genuineness of the groups had now risen lo a subjective certitude. Not oniy had I never seen in Asia Minor the smallest fragment resembling Ihem, but my friends in Smyrna, to whom I repeatedly wrole about the matter after my return lo Paris, unaaimously declared thaï no such lerra-collas existed. I was acquainted wilh the forgeries which were currenl in Smyrna, viz. : 1. casts of genuine terracollas ; 2. patchwork from genuine fragments ; 3. so-called Smyma figures, consisling of a genuine gill head and a more or less patched up body : many Hercules ofthat class exist in collections (see Bévue archéol.^ 1886, ii., p. 94, Î6 and note) ; 4. large terra-cottas, single figures and group?, eaid to originale from Crète, in gênerai quite valueless and only

capable of deceiving innocent tourists. I knew that no man in Smyrna nay, that no Greek artist, was (nor is) capable of modelling a group like that of Gharon, which deceived the most clever amateurs in Paris and Berlin. Authentic or not, the groups could not be Asiatic,

Early in 1885, M. von Duhn published theGharon of the Berlin Museam [Arch. ZeiL, 1885, pi. i.), together with a sketch of the Liechtenstein (formerly Lecuyer) group representing the same scène (p. 10). I seized the occasion to state my opinion in the New-York Nation (24 September, 1885) : the principal passage of my article runs as foUows (p. 266) ' :

• In 1880 ! dug in Cyme for two months, and only found three terracottas of a very common style ; the finer fragments I could collect did not bear the slightest resemblance to most of the so-called Cymman terracottas in continental collections. The latter are generally large groups, which appear to hâve been stuck together from very numerous fhigments. Strangely enough, no fragment is missing, and the heads, especlally, are always in a perfect state of préservation. Now, any one who bas witnessed diggings in a Greek necropolis, knows that entîre terra-cotta figures are very seldom to be met with, and that the greater part ot them seem to bave been purposely mutilated when buried in company with the dead. Moreover, the Cymœan groups are covered with akindofyellowish vamish, alternating with large white spots and ezceedingly vivid colours on the heads and attributes of the figures. Again, the draperies are quite différent from what might reasonably be ezpected : instead of the bold and simple movements familiar to Greek sculpture, we find a mass of minute folds which recall the wrinkled surface of a troubled sea.

* Now, thèse Cymxan groups are of uncommon beauty and size, some of them numbering five or six figures'worked out with the utmost accuracy. For a year or two past they bave been simply styled ** Asiatic terracottas, " and the dealers bave dropped the name of Gyme, just as they had previously suppressed the suspicions name of Ephesus. It is whispered among dealers and amateurs that the real origin of thèse figures is kept a secret by some privileged diggers, who naturally wish the Turkish govemment not to interfère with their business. The precious statuettes find their way to Europe in passing through Athens, but no one can tell what route they bave foUowed on their way to Athens from Asia Minor. A German archœologist, von Duhn, recently published in the ArchaeolO' gische Zeitung two very beautiful groups of the Cymœo-Epheslan class, representing a young maiden led by Hermès to Charon's boat — a représentation not uncommon on white lecythi discovered in Attica« Herr von Duhn, justly struck by so close an analogy, ventures to suppose that the so-called Asiatic groups, and particularly the two spécimens he describes, originale in Attica and not in Asia Minor; they are styled Asiatic by the

1. Some passages from my article hâve been reprinted in American Joum. ofArchaeoL, 1885, p. 429.

dealers, on account of the severe laws exîsting in Greece against secret digging and the export of antiquities. The German scholar may be right^ and even more $o than he himself seems to believe. I agrée with kim in thinking that thèse celebrated gr<nq>s corne from Athens^ but I am by no means certain that they were discovered in tombs,

* The question remains whelher Asiatic groups are patchwork or original achievemenls — whether some parts of them or the whole must be assigned to a récent period of Greek history. This difûcult problem cannot be met with a gênerai answer. I hâve seen groups belonging to either class. But this is only a personal and subjective view ofthe matter. I sincerely hope that the mystorious necropolis may yet be discovered — somewhere perhaps between Ephesus and Cyme — and that its discovery will oblige me to confess thas I am a very poor judge of Greek terracottas.'

M. Furlwângler replied to M. von Duhn in the Archœologische ZeUung (1885, p. 153), afûrming— strangely enough— that the * vorzûgliche Relief ' of Charon certainly originated from the * so ergiebige Gegend von Myrina und Kyme/ He added that the Liechtenstein group, which had formerly been looked upon as Tanagraean, undoubtedly belonged to Myrina. A third group of Charon, said M. Furtwângler, is now in the hands of a dealer, and comes from the same région of Asia Minor. The imitation of Attic sepulchral reliefs and vases, which had struck M. von Duhn, had nothing astonishing for M. Furtwftngler, who quoted, as a parallel instance, a * splendid * group belonging to Baron L. de Hirsch, where sèverai figures are assembled around a tomb. M. Furtwângler has since disavowed his article, but it was necessary to mention it in our historical review of the debate.

In my answer to M. Furtwangler's note {Revue archéol.y 1886, i., p. 159), I inslsted upon the resemblance of the Charon group with Attic lecythi ^n the one hand, and, on the other, wih the marble vase of Myrrhina published by M. Ravaisson in 1876 (now in Athens). ' Nous nous contenterons de demander à quelle époque de Tart attique ou gréco-romain la draperie d*une femme a été traitée comme Test celle de la jeune fille du groupe de Berlin... M. de Duhn a raison lorsqu^il refuse de considérer •comme asiatique une terre cuite représentant une scène qu*on ne trouve .absolument que dans l'art attique, et cela pendant une période assez restreinte, bien antérieure à Fépoque où les nécropoles de TAsie Mineure se peuplaient de statuettes en terre cuites... De quel droit attribue-t-on ainsi à Myrina des groupes admirables, je le veux bien, mais qui ne ressemblent en rien aux œuvres authentiques qu'on y a trouvées, des groupes tout à fait attiques d'inspiration, je le veux bien encore, mais très peu attiques, à mon humble avis, et encore moins asiatiques de facture...' I added in a footnote (p. 160) : * La provenance d'Héraclée en Crète ne serait pas non plus à dédaigner, mais il ne s'agit pas de la Crète du temps d^Épîménide. M. Rossbach, rendant compte de Texposition des

terres cuites de Myrina au Musée du Louvre {Deutsche LUeraturzeUung, 9 janvier 1886) exprime le plaisant regret que TÉcole française n'ait pas découvert en Éolide ** de ces groupes qui donnent souvent les éclaircissements les plus étonnants sur les ouvrages de Tancienne plastique monumentale, groupes dont de beaux spécimens, provenant de Myrina (???), sont réunis dans la nouvelle collection G. L..." Mais depuis quand trouvet-on des Padouanes à Pompéi, du strass à Golconde, ou de la margarine à Isigny ? '

My allusion to a Cretan origin was causcd by a letter from M. Dem. Baltazzi, where my valued friend, who bas always shared my opinion as to the groups, mentioned a man from tbe Piraeus ^ho, baving committed a murder, fled to Herakleia, and was supposed to be a clever forger of antiquilies (see Revue arcfiéoL, 1886, ii., p. 94 j. English readers must, perbaps, be told tbat margarine is a kind of adulterated butter, and tbat Isigny is a place in Normandy wbere the best genuine butter is produced. M. Gartault soon protested against my article {Revue archéoLy 1886, i., p. 368), arguing tbat the suspected groups reached Paris in fragments, and tbat tbe clay tbey \s ère made of was so old tbat it oflen felJ lo pièces. He concluded thus : ' Franchement, la plaisanterie est excellente, mais il est temps qu'elle meure de sa belle mort.' I replied in tbe same number (p. 369), and pointed out the following facts : 1. the small radicles and dendrites which are to be found inside the genuine broken groups do not exist inside the pseudo-Asiatic ones, which I styled groupes de Naples, adding a query ; 2. I quoted a passage from the *E<pri\up\z tt,ç xuêepvriaea);, Athens, No. 117, March, 1886, which I must hère transcribe : * Sur un vapeur en partance pour Marseille, les douaniers du Pirée ont saisi deux caisses d'antiquités. L'une d'elles, à l'adresse de MM,***, antiquaires à Paris, contenait deux groupes en terre cuite brisés en de nombreux morceaux, mais néanmoins complets, avec des traces de coloration et de dorure : l'un représente Aphrodite sur un lit avec des Amours (a replica of this [?] appeared in the Gastellani sale, and is now in the South Kensington Muséum), l'autre une Victoire conduisant un taureau et précédée d'un Amour qui porte une torche (identical with tbe Basilewsky group, Gazette archéoL, 1882, pi. 16). A l'Éphorie générale, on a constaté, par la qualité de la terre, la coloration et le style, que ces objets sont apocryphes. Une enquête est ouverte sur leur origine*.' My conclusion was directed against the whole séries of cognate counterfeits. * Je regrette de ne pouvoir renoncer à la plaisanterie que M. Gartault m'attribue. Tous les groupes qu'il a publiés (the Lecuyer collection) sont rapiécés ou faux.'

1. M. Cavvadias sooQ discovered the name of the dealer who had senttbose parcels to Paris. One of them was wrapped up in a number of a French periodical which cbanced to hâve oaly one subscriber at Athens — the 'wellknowQ dealer we bave often alluded to.

Next follows (Revue arrhéoL^ 1886, i., p. 370) a letter from M. Lecuyer himself : * Eh bien ! qu'il se présente, cet artiste inconnu ; il a fait preuve de tant de talent, je dirai même de génie, qu'il peut être certain de trouver beaucoup d'indulgence chez ceux qu'il a trompés.' I replied (p. 370) that M. Lecuyer was too ienient, and that the * artiste inconnu ' — a gifled scoundrel — ought to be prosecuted with well-deserved severity.

In the hevue archéologique of the same year (1886, ii., p. 92 and foll.)» I translated in extenso the passage of the 'E<^f\]u^i(; alluled to above, and gave a short history of the controversy, thus resuming briefly the several motives of my judgment : 1 . the style of the groups recalls Ganova ; 2. no collector in Smyrna nor in Syria has ever seen such groups ; 3. no heads nor fragments of the same style are to be met with in the dealers' shops ; 4. the fractures always affect unimportant parts, such as the base, and invariably spare the heads with ail the attributes ; 5. the draperies hâve nothing antique about them ; 6. ali the groups originale from the same workshop and betray the same hand.

I stated in addition that Hamdi-Bey, the director of the Muséum at Gonstantinople, had requested M. Dem. Baltazzi to send him a report on the question of the Asiatic groups, a spécimen of which, representing a man with a buJl (very like Gazette archéoL, 1882, pi. 16), had been purchased by a collector in Gonstantinople, and declared false by Hamdi-Bey as weli as by several German scholars. M. Baltazzi had favoured me with a copy of his report, where he absolutelyasserted that no such terra-cottas are to be found in Asia Minor. I look occasion to add, that, besides the groups, there were many forged terra-cottas in European collections : 1. gilded patchwork from Smyrna ; 2. isolated female figures, such as Muses and Victories (aiso, as I hâve seen more recently, àtrrpaYaXiÇovaai) ; 3. large masks ; 4. Gretan groups ; and 5. grotesque figures resembling those which hâve been published on plate P. of the Collection Lecuyer, (the published ones seem to be quite good). *Dans la plupart de ces figurines, l'intérieur est artificiellement sali avec une sorte de boue jaune ; on trouve des cailloux, mais point de radicelles adhérentes aux parois. ' I had, ia fact, seen several groups reduced to fragments and filled with mud, and the aspect of those fragments, which adjusted marvellously when put together, had not disarmed, but corroborated my scepticism.

At the end of May, 1886, M. Hoffmann's collection of terra-cottas, jewels, and glass, was sold by auction in Paris. The catalogue, published by M. Froehner, giv.çs.the photographs of several groups accompanied with the vague mention ' Asie Mineure. ' The subjects are as follows : pi. iv. No. 36, Venus, Eros and a girl ; pi. ijc. No. 5?, a girl presentinga vase to a young man ; pi. xii. No. 58, Venus and Eros; pi. xv. No. 63, a Nereid on a hippocamp ; pi. xvi. No. 73, a young man carrying a girl ; pi. xvii. No. 74, a woman and a child; pi. xviii. No. 77, the râpe ofGanymedes ; pi. xix. No. 71, Leda and the swan. A couple of separate figures, such as an à<xTpaYaXcÇov<xa (pi. xi.) and a. woman holding a white Attic

lecythus (pi. xiv.)f clearly betray Ihe samc orîgin. Two huntsmen and a wild boar (pi. vii., No. 47) are rather like Ihe group V. in Ihe Collection Lecuyer, and may contain some genuine fragments. But ail the other groups, with the exception of pli. xvi. and xvii . , belong lo the worst sort of Asiatic counterfeits. Apparently the forger, rendered bolder by bis astonishing success, more and more neglects Ihe study of the genuine antique, and works as fast as he can to satisfy unrelenting demands and mistaken credulity. Il does little crédit to the taste of our time that such monsters as pli. xv., xviii., and xix. of the Hoffmann collection can hâve been published in phototype, unsparingly praised by such a scholar as Froehner, and last, but not least, sold at higher prices than the best genuine terra-cotlas hâve ever fetched.

Until 1886, the tone of the controversy had generally been courteous; I am not responsible for the disagreeable change which then took place. M. Froehner published, in two large volumes, the lerra-cottas of the Gréau collection, containing many valuable and sound spécimens, especially from Myrina and Smyrna, but also some very détestable ones of the Asiatic class (Nymph and Bacchant, pU. 70 and 104 ; an absurd scène with three figures, pi. 119 ; a Centaur carrying off a girl,pl. 120). The two hunters with a wild boar (pi. 111) are very much like Colûetion Hoffmann^ pi. vii., and may not be a wholesale forgery. Several other groups of the collection look like patchwork, and one at least of the single figures (pi. 41) belongs to the Asiatic set. M. Froehner, in his commentary, praised the groups very highly, bestowing upon them the most flaltering epithets, such as précieux, prodigieux, admirable, and the like. But, not content with praising forgeries, he wrote an introductory notice to the first volume, where he violently attacked M. Pottier and myself, accusing us of having donc bad work in Myrina, and direcled the diggîngs ' in the Cesnola style.* With référence to the question of genuineness, he wrote (p. XV.) : ' Le nombre de ceux qui, dans un but évidemment inté* ressé, déclarent fausses les terres cuites trouvées en dehors de Myrina se réduit à quelques juges sans autorité.' And further (p. xvi.) : • L'auteur des groupes serait à ia fois le plus grand artiste et le plus savant antiquaire du monde. Qu'il vienne donc se faire connaître, s'asseoir à la table des rois et dans les fauteuils de nos académies ! ' That argument, more rhetorical than scientifîc, which 1 bave too oflen heard, is of no value whatever : many skilful sculptors are nowadays condemned to misery, and may offer their services to unscrupulous dealers familiar with archaeological research (see Revue ait,, 1886, i., p. 484). The story of Michelangelo's Gupid suffices to show that pretended antiquity is and was a very high commendation for works of art.

I answered M. Froehner's attack in the Revue critique, where I published a review of the Collection Gréau (21 th June, 1886, p. 481). I stated my arguments for believing that the groups were forgeries, gave the story of the forged groups conûscated at the Piraeus, and lastly, convinced M. Froehner

of having commilted a certain number of mistakes wîth regard to ihe excavations of Myrina. M. Froehner replied in the number of August 2nd (p. 93). His answer, published igvith foot-notes added by myself, deals exclusively with secondary and personal questions ; on the principal one, viz. the aulhenticity of the groups, he is content with saying (p. 95) : * Quand M. Reinach aura répondu à mes questions, je parlerai de l'authenticité des groupes d'Asie. Là aussi, il est temps de rentrer dans le sérieux et dans le vrai. ' Not a word more ! My sincère belief was that M. Froehner had silently acknowledged his error and desired to avoid ail further debate. This was an error of mine, as I soon perceived. In the Gazette des beauayarts of 1887 (plate on p. 294 of vol. ii.), M. Froehner republished, with admiring comments, the Woman with the bull of the Darthès collection {Gazette archéoL, 1882, pi. xvi.) ; and, in the Gazette archéologique of 1887 (pi. 40), he gave a splendid phototype of an outrageons forgerybelongingto the celebrated collector, M.Spitzer. His articles, published with the plates in question, do not contain a syllable about the much-vexed problem of authenticity. No doubt, M. Froehner abstained from touching that sore point for fear of displeasing the possessors of the forged groups. But science bas the right and the duty to disdain ail such considérations, and M. Froehner's silence must seem ail the more astonishing, as his former ally, M. Furtwàngler, had, in the interval between October 1886 and 1887, declared himself openly in favour of my opuiion.

During the autumn of 1886 I went to Germany. Ispoke at Dresden with Dr. Treu, who completely agreed with me ; at Berlin I spent several hours discussing with Dr. Furtwàngler, who had just then on his table in the Muséum a large group representing a funeral ofTering, with a stèle of Attic character in the middle. Dr, Furtwângler was not to be persuaded for the moment, but he did not try to conceal his embarrassment. He suggested that the Attic motives in the groups might be accounted for by their having been made in some island inhabited by Attic clerouchoi, such as Imbros or Lemnos. But I bave visited both thèse islands, and never saw there any fragment of the kind ! The results of my tour in Germany were published in the Revue archéologique, 1887, i., pp. 100-105. Meanwhile, the upholders of the forgeries had poured abuse upon me in Rochefort*s paper, the Intransigeant (24th Aug., 1886), and it was confldently asserted that a collector was going to prosecute me for libel (cf. Revue archéoL, 1887, i., p. 106). It is a pity that the scheme in question was not carried ou t.

But the reign of falsity and falsehood must come to an end. I was not a little pleased and surprised, on the 18th of January, 1887, by receiving a letter from Dr. Furtwângler, where my leamed opponent expressly stated that he had, in his tum, recognized the falsity of the groups, and only vindicated the genuineness of a few which had served as models to the others. I published his letter in the Bévue archéologique, 1887, i., p. 363, together with a fragment of a letter from Rayet, dated 25th June,

1885, where my lamented friend expressed bis dislrusl in the tnatter of ihe Asialic groups. * Gela m'a brouillé avec tous les amateurs que je connaissais, * he wrote. But Rayel preferred tbe interests of truth and of science to the friendsbip of wealthy dilettanti.

In tbe Gazette archéologique of 1886, M. Cartault, uncbecked by my criticism, bad publisbed four groups of the worsl possible description (pli. 18, 19, 37, 38). In a foot-note on p. 293, be wrote disdainfully : ' Je n'insiste pas sur Tauthenticité de ces objets : ce qui a été imprimé récemment contre Tauthenlicité des groupes d'Asie en général est dénué de fondement et dépourvu de tout caractère scientifique. ' Hard words are not arguments. In tbe Revue archéologique oîiuneiSSlf M. Cartault printed a letler in référence to my criticisms publisbed tbe year before {Revue archéoL, June, 1886, p. 369). He objected tliat at a sitting of tbe Hellenic Society napvaT<r6c, MM. Sophoulis and Dragatsis bad maintained the authenticity of the groups confiscated by M. Cavvadias (see above). If Hamdi- Bey and Baltazzi knew nothing about tbe groups, that was, safd M. Cartault, because the dealers were interested in concealing from them Iheir excavations. I replied in the same number (p. 363), 1 : that MM. Sophoulis and Dragatsis were but sligbt authorities when compared with MM. Froehner and Cartault, wbom I bad ventured to contradicl ; 2. that Cavvadias had written to me a delailed letter, where he declared with very good reasons agauist the authenticity of the groups ; 3. that M. Furtwàngler bad become converted to my opinion. Lastly, as MM. Perrot and Bertrand, the editors of tbe Revue, wished the subject to be dropped for the présent, I resumed once more under four heads tbe varions arguments which condemn Asiatic groups. Our readers are aware of most of them; I will only transcribe a short passage which affords a new one. * Sujets mythologiques ou héroïques d'une transparence singulière, empruntés à ïlliade et à l'Odyssée. Sujets funéraires imités des lécytbes attiques (ivth century), alors que la longueur exagérée des figures trahit une basse époque. Sujets conçus et traités à la moderne, par exemple la femme au bain épiée par un Satyre {Collection Lecuyer, pi. Q*). Facture molle, draperies modelées sans parti pris, avec de petites ondulations capricieuses, quelquefois entremêlées de morceaux où se révèle une imitation du style archaïque. En somme, tous les caractères de faux dus probablement à des artistes italiens. ' My conclusion was as follows : ' Au cas où Ton démontrerait, par impossible, que ces choses-là sont antiques, il faudrait en conclure que l'archéologie et Thistoire de l'art sont des vanités. 11 y a des nouveautés qui étonnent la science, mais dont elle s'éclaire; celles-ci la scandalisent, et elle les rejette.'

Some days previously to the publication of this letter, M. Cartault had edited a short 4to pamphlet entitled Sur Vauthentxciié des groupes en terre cuite d'Asie Mineure (Mâcon, imprimerie Protat, 1887). This pamphlet is accompanied with Dujardin plates reproducing seven groups (the seventh comprising seven figures), which seem to bave been selected in order to

prove the falsity of the whole séries to which they belong. Nolone of them cam be looked at wilhout laughter by a man who knows anything about ancien t art : the Sappho on plate 2 îs a real marvel of absurdity, and evidentJy belongs to a period whcn the forger was either indisposed or ovep-confldcnt.

Of the text which accompanies thèse plates I will say very little. M. Cartault speaks of my * gamineries ' in the Revue critique, but does not give a single argument of any weight. With regard to the origin of the groups he writes mysteriously (p. 21) : * Notre ignorance n'est pas aussi absolue ([ue M. S. Reinach le suppose. J'ai vu des lettres d'Orient contenant des renseignements arrachés aux fouilleurs eux-mêmes par quelqu'un qui leur achète leurs groupes, mais qui n'a pas été lui-même sur les lieux... Une ville antique importante était dans le voisinage. Le nom moderne de la localité est écrit en toutes lettres. Je regrette de ne pas être autorisé aie donner ici. ' It is évident that M. Cartault has been deluded by some cunning friend of the forgers, and that he took Athenian humbug for solid gold. The Berlin Academy sent out MM. Winter and Judeich to Asia Minor, in the autumn of 1887, with the purpose of ascertaining if M. Cartaull's statement had any foundation : they returned with the conviction, which they bave expressed in their report, that the * ville importante * cpuld only be Athens. I bave never answered M. Cartault's pamphlet, to wich Voltaires words may be appiied : * La moitié se compose d'erreurs et le reste d'injures.' M. Cartault, I am glad to say, has wrilten a most excellent book on the Athenian Navy, but he certainly misjudged bis own faculties when he undertook the study of ancient art. There are many scholars who are fitled for archaeological but not for artistic research, because nature has not endowed them with a keen eye for beauty. Those scholars may be occasionally reminded of the Venetian girl's ad vice to Jean-Jacques Rousseau : * Lascia le donne e studia la matematica, '

M. Cartault's pamphlet was presented to the Archaeological Society of Berlin by M. Furlwângler (June, 1887). It seems as if the glaring forgeries published along with it had dispelled the last doubts of the German scholar. M. Furtwftngîeropenlydeclared that most ofthe groups were modem, în particular ail those which M. Cartault had just made known {Pkilol, Wochenschrift, 1887, p. 1071 ; Wochenschrift fur klassische Philologie, 1887, p. 937). His new opinion was founded on several non-antique détails in the treatment of the dress, weapons, and attributes ; also on the imitations of Attic lecythi by supposed artists belonging to a much later period of Hellenism. A Berlin collector, M. von Kauffmann, protested against M. Furtwôngler's words, but the previous speaker motntained hisjudgment. Again, in the Jakrbuch des deutschen Institutes for 1887, M. Furtwàngler declared (p. 199) that the genuine terra-cotta groups from Asia Minor are but very fewin number : among the latter he reckons Collection Hoffmann, pis. vii. and xvi., both purchased by himself, before his conversion, on behalf of the Berlin Muséum. He thus abandons to their fate ail the other

groups, includiûg that of Gharon which had previously been made so much of. I am unwilling to admit the entire genuineness of the two groups Tîndicated by M. Furtw&ngler, but they certainly demand further discussion, while almost ali the others are to be rejecled sans phrases. In tbe same journal I bave had the pleasure of seeing M. von Duhn abandon his group of Gharon, the publication of which, in the Archaeologische Zeitung of 1885, was the signal for the storm in which others than myself bave got shipwrecked. He writes (p. 240, note 1) : * Die von Reinach erhobene Bedenken werden von den am meisten competenten deutschen Pachgenossen nunmehr geteilt/ Accordingly, as I hear from my friends, ail the Asiatic groups bave disappeared from the glass cases in the German muséums. But, says M. von Duhn, the place where the groups are fabricated is not Naples : eher ist es Athen, This I will readily grant, having already said the same in the Nation (see the extract given above) ; but I maintain that the authorship should not be ascribed to an Athenian artist. In the Vienna Gharon group, and other pasticcios of equal clevemess, I recognize the hand of a trained Italian sculptor, who may very well, for ali I can guess, bave established his temporary abode somewhere about the Acropolis of Athens. The minute drapings of the groups are quile in the modem Italian taste. Now it is probable that the author of Gharon became the master of a small school, and that his pupils, far inferior to himself, are to be made responsible for the ugly counterfeits published in the pamphlet of M. Gartault and in the Collection Gréau by M. Froehner.

Sapienti sot. Our historical review is at an end, but the scandai and mischief created by the forgers are unfortunately not. Amateurs in gênerai do not read archaeological magazines, and the écho of our scholastic debates dies out before reaching their ears. I am informed that the Asiatic ware is being sold in England and elsewhere as Tanagraean, Korînthian, &c. If a better informed amateur suspects Asiatic groups, why should he distrust Korinthian ones? Such is the power of words on too impressible minds. The scheme of the forgers is indeed a clever one. But the very cleverest schemes, when founded on fallacy, must, sooner or later, corne to grief. My confidence in the verdict of the future remains unshaken :

SaLOMOIV RCI.NACU,

Assistant -Kêeper in the Muséum of Saint-Gtrmain, Seine-et-Oise .

(REVUE ARCHÉOLOGIQUE, 1890, t. I, p. 254-304.)

Bibliographie générale. — La troisième partie du tome II du Corpus inscriptionum atticarum a paru, malheureusement sans les addenda et les index, que Ton promet de publier bientôt *. L'impression du tome I*^ des inscriptions du nord de la Grèce continue régulièrement et Ton prépare en même temps les matériaux du tome IL Les inscriptions de lltalie et de la Sicile doivent être publiées en 1890. M. Mommsen a fait paraître le premier fascicule du supplément au troisième tome du Corpus inscriptionum latinarum^ comprenant l'Egypte, l'Asie, la Grèce d'Europe et la Mésie inférieure; les textes de cette dernière provenance ont été édités par M. de Domaszewski. La seconde partie de ce supplément sera publiée par MM. Hirschfeld et de Domaszewski dans le courant de 1890. Enûn, sous la direction de M. Imhoof-Blumer de Winterthur, et aux frais de l'Académie de Berlin, on a commencé le recueil des monnaies antiques de la Macédoine et de la Thrace, avec la collaboration de MM. Svoronos (pour le Cabinet de Paris) et Pick (pour le dépouillement des ouvrages imprimés). Ce volume est destiné à être le premier d'un Corpus numorum. Nous réprimons non sans peine les réflexions que nous suggère cette entreprise, l'essentiel étant, après tout, que les intérêts de la science soient bien servis.

— Je signalerai ici deux intéressants articles sur d'anciens voyageurs qui ont parcouru l'Orient hellénique. Le premier, de M. E. Montégut, concerne sir John Mandeville*; le second, de M. Gaffarel^ est relatif au cosmographe André Thevet*. Il est évident pour moi —