THE SO-CALLED ASIATIC TERRA-COTTA CROUPS

(Rejprinted from The Classical Review, Aprif. and May 1888, p. 110-123, 153-155.)'

If an archaeologist ever atlempls to retrace the history of antiquarian forgery, one of the most interesting and attractive chapters of his bookwill be devoted to terra-cottas, especially to those much admired and, in our opinion, much over-rated groups wbich hâve been known since 1880 as Cvmaean, Myrinaean, Ephesian, Asiatic in genere, & c. I hâve already written a good deal on this subject, but the day is yet far when it can be treated in a definitive form, as M. Clermont-Ganneau has 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 authorship of the forged groups, and that very little cannot be put down in print until it is proved beyond discussion. For motives easyto understand, the mention ofpropernames 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 dutv of those who are convinced of the existence of forgeries to warn the public and the muséums against them. That dutyl liave never soughtto escape, and I hâve recently had the pleasure of converting some scholars to my opinion — a compensation for the abuse which I hâve occasionally met with from othèrs. Still, a great many amateurs and artists, and also a certain

1. [Cet exposé de la question des terres cuites dites d’Asie Mineure revient sur beaucoup de faits 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 l'on trouve disséminés plus haut. Inutile de dire que M. Cartault, dans son récent ouvrage intitulé Terres cuites grecques (Paris, Collin, 1891; cf. Rev. crit., 1891, I, p. 424), fait semblant d’ignorer entièrement les articles de la Clissical Review ; ils ont le tort de gêner un commerce qu’il a pris avec tant de zèle sous sa protection.]

number of professional archaeologists, uphold the anliquity and the excellence of the groups in question. The majority of them are unacquainted with the lilerature of the matter, 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 controversy from the beginning, with 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 literature. 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 bere into close discussion as to the authenticitv ofthe isolated statuettes which seem equally subject to much doubl.

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. Hirschfeld ( 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, pl. 24). Up to that date, the only Asiatic terra-cottas known to scholars were : 1. The fragments discovered in Tarsos (Ainsworlh & Barker, Lares and Penates, London, 1853 ; Heuzey, Gazette des beaux-arts, Nov. 1876; Froehner, Terres cuites d'Asie, pl. 15; Musées de France, pl. 30-34) ; 2. Some statuettes from the environs ofSmyrna, mentioned, but not published, by Welcker (Aile Benkm., 1864, v., p. 483); 3. Fragments from Smyrnabelonging to M. Piot in Paris (Lenormant, Catal. de la Collection de M. Eugène P., Paris, 1810, 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 ofEros and Psyché ( Revue archèol., 1878, ii. , pl. six.). These gilt terra-cottas were mostly retouched and much completed, but they cannot be looked upon as Wholesale 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, with a $ engraved on the reverse, from Mr. Wood’s excavations) *. — Discussion on the subject began in 1878, when a number of Asiatic terra-cottas appeared in the Exposition rétrospective at the Trocadéro in Paris. M. Bode expressed the opinion that the gilt terra-cottas were pasticcios ( Beiblalt zur Zeitschrift f. bild. Kunst, 29 Aug. and 5 Sept.

1. M. Ramsay’s statement ou the non-existence of Ephesian terra-cottas ( Ctassical Review, 1838, p. 90, note 1), is not to be taken quite literally.

APPENDICE

1878; translatée! in Revue archêol., 1879, i., p. 95). F. Lenormant warned the public against the forgeries of Asiatic terra-cottas ( Revue archêol., 1878, ii. , p. 137), and quoted some of these as being imitations of Thorwaldsen and Fogelberg, in the style of Canova and his school ( Contem porarij Review, 1878, p. 858 and foll. ; Gazette archêol., 1878, p. 201 and foll.), adding that Rayet denied the provenance to be Ephesos ( Gazette archêol., 1878, p. 201 ). That yery 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 Lié nard) ' alluded to the fact (Gazette archêol., 1879, i., p. 189-192), indicating (but not naming) Longpérier as one of the archaeologists who most strongly suspected the figures from Ephesos. In lact, Longpérier, who had been intrusted with the care of organizing the Exposition rétrospective, had rejected as forgeries several terra-cottas whicli 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, O. Rayet took a part in the debate. In 1878 (Gazette des beaux-arts, Sept. 1878, p. 362, reprinted in Hart grec au Trocadéro, 1879, i., p. 92 foll.), he mentioned the fabricsof Smyrna, Magnesia, Pergamon, Miletos, 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, pl. i., ii.), In the catalogue of his own collection ( Catal . de la collection de M. O. Rayet, Paris, 1879, p. 30), he brieflv slated ail that was known at the time concerning Asiatic terra-cottas. He believed the majority of lhe 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, wroteto M. Waddington, who was then minister, in order to obtain some information. M. Waddington, as we hâve stated elsewhere in detail ( Nécrop . de Myrina, p. 13), appealed to A. Baltazzi (died Oct. 1887), the possessorof the site of Myrina, and received in relurn some of the specimens which had been discovered in 1874. The best results of this enquiry were the excavations of the French School of Athens at Myrina (1880-1883), together with my investigation in the necropolis of Kyme (1880-1881 ; cp. Nécrop. de Myrina, p. 506); these scientific excavations hâve been followed by many others of a more doubtful

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

APPENDICE

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

Meamvhile, the fabrication of the célébra ted 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 with the bull, published by M. Babelon in the Gazette archéologique, 1882, p. 145, pl. 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 corne 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 l’agencement des plis des vêtements’. Nor did M. Babelon overlook the Attic character of the composition, which he aptly compared to the Nike with the bull from the Athenian balustrade, and to a cognate bassorelievo found in Italy (Kekulé, Die Balustrade, pl. i., d.).

From 1879 to 1881, M. Froehner published his Terres cuites d’Asie Mineure (Paris. Hoffmann, with forty plates). Pl. 2 is a funeral banquet which reappeared in the Castellani sale (cp. Bullettino delT Instituto , 17 Jan. 1879); it is certainly genuine, although the heads affixed to the small figures do not belong to the original. On pli. 17 and 24 are two genuine groups from Myrina. The group on pl. 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 sériés we are dealing with.

The Lecuyer collection lias 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 here, as they are the main représentatives of the so-called Asiatic class. The names inscribed in parenthesis indicate the provenance assigned to them by the editor. — irs livr. Pl. O. Dionysos et Méthé (Cymé). — 3° livr. Pl. Ts. Barque de Charon (Cymé). — XL Pan et Bacchante (Myrina). Resembles the Basilewsky group, Terres cuites d’Asie Mineure, pl.® 39. — YL Satyre et joueuse de cithare (Cymé). — 4e livr. Pl. M3. Pan et Nymphe (As. Min.). — N3. Pan et Bacchante (As. Min.). — O3. Silène et Dionysos

APPENDICE

enfant (As. Min.). — U3. Éros couché près d'une jeune femme (As. Min.). — Y3. Jeune femme et éphèbe assis sur un rocher (As. Min.). — 5e livr. PI. J*. Achille, Athéné, Agamemnon (As. Min.). A ridiculous forgery, sufflcient to throw discrédit on the whole sériés. — K4. Priam et Hélène (As. Min.). — M4. Enfance d’Éros (As. Min.). — N4. Aphrodite et Éros sur un dauphin (As. Min.). — O*. Scène de toilette (As. Min.). — Q4. Femme surprise au bain par un Satyre (As. Min.). Ridiculous. — R4. Scène bachique après la vendange iAs. Min.). — S*. Génie ailé enlevant une femme (As. Min.). — X*. Centaure enlevant une femme (As. Min.). — A5. Satyre et Bacchante conduits par Éros (As. Min.). — B5. Scène pastorale (As. Min.). Very awkward. — 6» livr. PL M5. Éros et Pan (As. Min.). — N!. La rencontre au tomb#âu (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 fïgured in the middle. — 0°. Une partie d’osselets à la fontaine (As. Min.). — PL Triomphe de Dionysos (As. Min.).

We mention separately three groups of a rather different style : 5e livr. Pl. L4. Hermès et Kalypso (As. Min.) ; U4. Héraclès terrassant le lion ; V4. 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 (D2, E!, E2 bis, F2), which are by no means free from suspicion. The reader will observe that, while the names of Kyme and Myrina appear in the two first 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 llie interval, dissuaded the Greek dealers from indieating that ongin and the Parisian ones from accepting it. Nevertheless, the dilettanti and the public at large continued to ascribe those pasticcios to Kyme, Myrina or Ephesos - indeed, as we shall soon see, arehaeologists occasionally did the same.

A part of M. Lecuyer's collection — comprising many genuine and iirst-class terra-cottas — was sold by auction in Paris (April, 1883). A quarto catalogue was published at the time by M. Froehner, with many illustrations and twenty-nine phototypes. Several groups of the Asiatic species are to be found on pli. iii., vi., viii., x. (Charon), xviii., xxi. PL vi. (No. 56) and pl. xviii. (No. 166) are said to corne from Myrina; the group of Charon (No. 119) is calied ‘ un des chefs-d’œuvre de la plastique grecque. ’ The results of the sale were highly encouraging : the C laron 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 laie Olivier Rayet. We vere much puzzled by the Bark ot Charon (one of the few groups that M. Lecuyer then possessed), but,

APPENDICE

as it was yet unedited and shown to us in a private collection, we naturally kept our uneasiness to ourselves. At the epoch of the Lecuyer sale, our' suspicion with regard to the groups was already shared by a great many archaelogists. The British Muséum and the Louvre equally rejected the specimens which were offered to them for purchase in 1883. The Vienna Muséum acquired but one from a ‘ bekannter griechischer Kunsthaendler ’ (engraved in the Arch. epigr. Mittheil. aus Oesterr., vii., pl. iv., with an article by M. Klein, p. 196). It is a careful specimen of the Asiatic class, but it is a forgery, as has since been acknowledged at Vienna. The Berlin Muséum was less cautious. At the Lecuyer sale, M. Furtwaengler purchased the group of Pan with a Nymph (Froehner, Catal-, pl. xviii, and Cartault, Coll. Lecuyer, pl. xs) and, from another source, a second group representing the Bark of Charon ( Archaeol . Zeit., 1884, p. 66). In 1884, the same muséum bought a group representing a female Ganymeda carried off by an eagle (‘ aus der Gegend von Myrina ’ Arch. Zeit., 1885, p. 156.) The iatter group (a curious forgery) has been published by M. Furtwaengler in the Sammlung Saburoff; it is an imitation of the celebrated engraved mirror which belonged to the same collection. We shall return in a moment to the Bark of Charon.

At the end of 1884, in one of my Chroniques d’Orient ( Revue archéol., 1884, ii., p. 93), I ventured to Write a few lines on the subject of the groups ascribed to Kyme : 1 Nous ne perdrons jamais une occasion de protester contre cette 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 to avoid the outbreak of a polemic which I still wished to defer. In the same article (p. 95), I mentioned the Berlin group of Ganymeda, wichE. Curtius had presented to the Archaeologische Gesellschaft in Berlin, as discovered in Myrina. ‘ Le nom de Myrina 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 footnote, I protested against the naine of ‘ terracottas from Ephesos,’ which was given, on a label in the Louvre, to some heads coming evidently from Smyrna.

My suspicion as to the non-genuineness of the groups had now risen to a subjective certitude. Not only had Inever seen in Asia Minor the smallest fragment resembling them, but my friends in Smyrna, to whom I repeatedly wrote about the matter after my return to Paris, unanimously declared that no such terra-cottas existed. I was acquainted with the forgeries which were current in Smyrna, viz. : 1. casts of genuine terracottas ; 2. patchwork from genuine fragments ; 3. so-called Smyrna figures, consisting of a genuine gilt head and a more or less patched up body : many Hercules ofthat class exist in collections (see Revue archéol., 1886, ii., p. 94, 95 and note); 4. large terra-cottas, single figures and groups, said to originate from Crete, in general quite valueless and only

APPENDICE

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 Charon, 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 the Charon of üie Berlin Muséum (A rch. Z eit., 1885, pl. i.), together with a sketch of the Liechtenstein (formerly Lecuyer) group representing the same scene (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 follows (p. 266) 1 :

1 In 1880 I dug in Cyme for two months, and only found three terracottas of a very common style ; the flner fragments I could collect did not bear the slightest resemblance to most of the so-called Cymæan terracottas in continental collections. The latter are generally large groups, which appear to hâve been stuck together from very numerous fragments. Strangely enough, no fragment is missing, and the heads, especially, are always in a perfect state of préservation. Now, any one who has witnessed diggings in a Greek necropolis, knows that entire terra-cotta figures are very seldom to be met with, and that the greater part of them seem to hâve been purposely mutilated when buried in company with the dead. Moreover, the Cymæan groups are covered with a kind ofyellowish varnish, alternating with large white spots and exceedingly vivid colours on the heads and attributes of the figures. Again, the draperies are quite different from what might reasonablv be expected : instead of the bold and simple movements familiar to Greek sculpture, we fmd a mass of minute folds which recall the wrinkled surface of a troubled sea.

1 Now, these Cymæan groups are of uncommon beauty and size, some of them numbering flve or six figures worked out with the utmost accuracy. For a year or two past they hâve been simply styled “ Asiatic terracottas, ” and the dealers hâve dropped the name of Cyme, just as they had previously suppressed the suspicious name ofEphesus. It is whispered among dealers and amateurs that the real origin of these figures is kept a secret by some privileged diggers, who naturally wish the Turkish government not to interfère with their business. The precious statuettes fmd their way to Europe in passing through Athens, but no one can tell what route they hâve followed on their way to Athens from Asia Minor. A German archæologist, von Duhn, recently published in the Archaeologische Zeitung two very beautiful groups of the Cymæo-Ephesian class, representing a young maiden led by Hermes 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 specimens he describes, originate in Attica and not in Asia Minor; they are styled Asiatic by the

1. Some passages from my article hâve been reprinted in American Journ. of Archaeol., 1885, p. 429.

APPENDICE

dealers, on account of the severe laws existing in Greece against secret digging and the export of antiquities. The Germon scholar may be right , and even more so than he himself seems to believe. I agréé with him in thinking that these celebrated groups corne from Alhens, but I am by no means certain that they were discovered in tombs.

‘ The question remains whether Asiatic groups are patchwork or original achievements whether some parts of them or the whole must be assigned to a recent period of Greek history. This difficult problem cannot be met with a general 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 mysterioils necropolis may yet be discovered

somewhere perhaps bclveen Ephesus and Cyme — and that its discovery w'ill oblige me to confess thas I am a very poor judge of Greek terracottas.’

M. Furtwàngler replied to M. von Duhn in the Archæologische Zeitung (1885, p. 153), affirming — strangely enough — that the ‘ vorzügliche 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. Furtwàngler, is now in the hands of a dealer, and cornes 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. Furtwàngler, who quoted, as a parallel instance, a ‘ splendid ’ group belonging to Baron L. de Hirsch, wdiere several figures are assembled around a tomb. M. Furtwàngler lias since disavowed his article, but it was necessary to mention it in our historical review of the debate.

In my answer to M. Furtwà.ngler’s note (Revue archéol., 1886, i., p. 159),

I insisted upon the resemblance of the Charon group with Attic lecythi on the one hand, and, on the other, wih the marble vase of Myrrhina published by M. Ravaisson in 1876 (now in Alhens). ‘ Nous nous contenterons de demander à quelle époque de l’art attique ou gréco-romain la draperie d’une femme a été traitée comme l’est 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 Fart attique, et cela pendant une période assez restreinte, bien antérieure à l’époque où les nécropoles de l’Asie Mineure se peuplaient de statuettes en terre cuites... De quel droit altribue-t-on ainsi à Myrina des groupes admirables, je le veux bien, mais qui ne ressemblent on 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 iacture... 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 dÉpiménide. M. Rossbach, rendant compte de l’exposition des

594 appendice

terres cuites de Myrina au Musée du Louvre ( Deutsche Literaturzeitung ,

9 janvier 1886} exprime le plaisant regret que l’Ecole française n ait pas découvert en Éolide “ de ces groupes qui donnent souvent les éclaircissements les plus étonnants sur les ouvrages de l’ancienne plastique m°™' mentale, groupes dont de beaux spécimens, provenant de Myrina (...), Tout réunis dans la nouvelle collection C. L...” Mais depuis quand trouyet on des Padouanes à Pompéi, du strass à Golconde, ou de la margarine

4 My aüuslon to a Cretan origin was causcd by a letter from M. Dem Baltazzi where my valued friend, who has always shared my opinion a to he g coups, mentioned a man from the Piraeus who, having committed a murder, fled to Herakleia, and was supposed to be a clever forger of antiquilies (see Revue archéol, 1886, ii„ p. 94,. English reader» must perhapsq be told that margarine is a ldnd of adulterated butter, and that Isi gny is a place in Normandy where the best gemme butter is proteed.

M Cartault soon protested against my article (Revue archéol., 1886, i., p 368) arguing that the suspected groups reached Paris m fragments, ind that the clav they were made of was so old that ît often fell to pièces. He conc uded thus : ‘ Franchement, la plaisanterie est excellente, ma,s il est temps qu’elle meure de sa belle mort.’ I replied m the same number (p 369), ^and pointed out the following facts : 1. the small radicles

5 «riL ,J.h are to b. fotmd i.sid. U» g»»™ • “'(H

do not exist inside the pseudo-Asiatic ones, which I styled s.oupe. de Naples addinga query ; 2. I quoted a passage Irom the EOT|up.«

Athens, No. 117, March, 1886, which I must here transcrire . sur un vapeur en partance pour Marseille, les douaniers du P.ree ont saÏÏi deux caisses d’antiquités. L’une d’elles, à l’adresse de MM. \ antiquaires à Paris, contenait deux groupes en terre cuite brises en de nombreux morceaux, mais néanmoins complets, avec des traces de coloration et de dorure : l’un représente Aphrodite sur un ht avec des Amours (a replica of this [?] appeared in the Castellani sale, and is now m io &■>. Muséum), r.utrc »«. Moiro

et précédée d’un Amour qui porte une torche (identical with the Basi lewsky °roup, Gazette archéol., 1882, pl. 16). A l’Ephor.e generale, on a cens até par a qualité de la terre, la coloration et le style, que ces objets “ “Sbè, Une est ouvert, sur leur origine*. My conclu-

sion was directed against the whole sériés of cognate counterfeits Je regrette de ne pouvoir renoncer à la plaisanterie que M. Cartault m attribue Tous les groupes qu’il a publiés (the Lecuyer collection) sont rapiécés

ou faux.’

1. M. Cavvadias soon discovered the name of the dealer who had sent those parcels to Paris. One of thern was wrapped up in a number of a Irène periodical which ebanced to hâve only one subscriber at Athens - the wellknown dealer we hâve often alluded to.

Next follows ( Revue archéol., 1886, i., p. 370) a lelter 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 lenient, and that the ‘ artiste inconnu ’ — a gifted scoundrel — ought to be prosecuted with well-deserved severity.

In the Revue archéologique of the same year (1886, ii. , p. 92 and foll.), I translated in extenso the passage of the ’Ecprjijiepiç alluled to above, and gave a short bistory of the controversy, thus resuming briefly the several motives of my judgment : I. the style of the groups recalls Canova ; 2. no collecter in Smyrna nor in Syria has ever seen sueh 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 ali the attributes ; 5. the draperies hâve nothing antique about them ; 6. ail the groups originate from the same workshop and betray the same hand.

I stated in addition that Hamdi-Bey, the director of the Muséum at Constantinople, had requested M. Dem. Ballazzi to send him a report on lhe question of the Asiatic groups, a specimen of which, representing a man with a bull (very like Gazette archéol ., 1882, pl. 16), had been purchased by a collecter in Constantinople, and declared false by Hamdi-Bey as well as by several German scholars. M. Baltazzi had favoured me with a copy of bis report, where he absolutely asserted that no such terra-cottas are to be found in Asia Minor. I took 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 (also, as I bave seen more recently, àdirpayaXlCourai) ; 3. large masks ; 4. Cretan groups ; and 5. grotesque figures resembling those which hâve been published on plate I5. 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, in 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. l-roehner, gives the photographs of several groups accompanied with the vague mention ‘ Asie Mineure. ’ The subjects are as follows : pl. iv. No. 36, Venus, Eros and a girl ; pl. ix. No. 52, a girl presentinga vase to a young man ; pl. xii. No. 58, Venus and Eros ; pl. xv. No. 63, a Nereid on a hippocamp; pl. xvi. No. 73, a young man carrying a girl; pl. xvii. No. 74, a woman and a child ; pl. xviii. No. 77, the râpe ofGanymedes ; pl. xix. No. 71, Leda and the swan. A couple of separate figures, such as an auTpayaXiÇouaa (pl. xi.) and a woman holding a white Attic

APPENDICE

lecvthus (pi. xiv.). clearly betray lhe same origin. Two huntsmen and a wild boar (pi. vii., No. 47) are rather like the group V. in the Collection Lecuyer, and may contain sonie genuine fragments. But ail the olher groups, with the exception of pli. xvi. and xvii. , belong to the worst sort of Asiatic counterfeits. Apparently the forger, rendered bolder by his astonishing success, more and more neglects the study of the genuine antique, and works as fast as he can to satisfy unrelenting demands and mistaken credulity. It 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-cottas 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 terra-cottas of the Gréau collection, containing many valuable and sound specimens, especially from Myrina and Smyrna, but also sonie very détestable ones of the Asiatic class (Nymph and Bacchant, pli. 70 and 104 ; an absurd scene with three figures, pl. 119; a Centaur carrying offa girl.pl. 120). The two hunters with a wild boar (pl. 111) are very much like Collection 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 (pl. 41) belongs to the Asiatic set. M. Froehner, in his commentary, praised the groups very highly, bestowing upon them the most fiattering 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 done bad work in Myrina, and directed the diggings ‘ in the Cesnola style.’ With reference to the question of genuineness, he wrote (p. xv.) : ‘ Le nombre de ceux qui, dans un but évidemment intéressé, déclarent fausses les terres cuites trouvées en dehors de Myrina se réduit à quelques juges sans autorité.’ And further (p. xvi.) : 1 L’auteur des groupes serait à la fois le plus grand artiste et Je 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 scientific, which 1 hâve too often 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 crit., 1886, i., p. 484). The story of Michelangelo’s Cupid 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 confiscated at the Piraeus, and lastly, convinced M. Froehner

APPENDICE

of having committed a certain number of mistakes with regard to the excavations of Myrina. M. Froehner replied in the number of August2nd (p. 93). His answer, published with foot-notes added bv myself, deals exclusively with secondary and personal questions ; on the principal one, viz. the authenticity 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 sincere 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 beaux-arts 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, pl. xvi.) ; and, in the Gazette archéologique of 1887 (pl. 40), he gave a splendid phototype of an outrageous forgery belonging to 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 ofthe forged groups. But science has 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. Furtwângler, had, in the interval betwreen October 1886 and 1887, declared himself openly in favour of my opinion.

During the autumn of 1886 I went to Germany. I spoke at Dresden with Dr. Treu, who completely agreed with me ; at Berlin I spent several hours discussing with Dr. Furtwângler, who had just then on his table in the Muséum a large group representing a funeral offering, with a stèle of Attic character in the middle. Dr. Furtwângler wras 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 l'or by their having been made in some island inhabited by Attic clerouchoi, such as Imbros or Lemnos. But I hâve 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 wras confidently asserted that a collector was going to prosecule me for libel (cf. Revue archéol., 1887, i., p. 106). It is a pity that the scheme in question w'as not carried out.

But the reign of falsity and falsehood must corne to an end. I wras not a little pleasedand surprised, on the 18th of January, 1887, by receiving a letter from Dr. FurtwAngler, where my learned opponent expressly stated that he had, in his turn, 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 Revue archéologique, 1887, i., p. 363, together with a fragment of a letter from Rayet, daled 2oth June,

APPENDICE

1885, where my lamenied friend expressed his distrust in the matter of tho Asiatic groups. ‘ Cela m’a brouillé avec tous les amateurs que je connaissais,’ he wrote. But Rayet preferred the interests of truth and of science to the friendship of wealthy dilettanti.

In the Gazette archéologique of 1886, M. Cartault, unchecked by my criticism, had published four groups of the worst possible description (pli. 18, 19, 37, 38). In a foot-note on p. 293, he wrote disdainfully : ‘ Je n’insiste pas sur l’authenticité de ces objets : ce qui a été imprimé récemment contre l'authenticité des groupes d’Asie en général est dénué de fondement et dépourvu de tout caractère scientifique. ’ Hard words are not arguments. In the Revue archéologique oî June 1887, M. Cartault printed a letter in reference to my criticisms published the year before (Revue archéol., June, 1886, p. 369) He objected that at a sitting of the Hellenic Society Ilapva'ra'oç, MM. Sophoulis and Dragatsis had maintained the authenticity of the groups confiscated by M. Cavvadias (see above). If Hamdi- Bey and Baltazzi knew nothing about the groups, that was, said M. Cartault, because the dealers were interested in concealing from them their excavations. I replied in the same number (p. 363), 1 : that MM. Sophoulis and Dragatsis were but slight authorities when compared with MM. Froehner and Cartault, whom I had ventured to contradict ; 2. that Cavvadias bad written to me a detailed letter, where he declarcd with very good reasons against the authenticity of the groups; 3. that M. Furtwàngler had become converted to my opinion. Lastly, as MM. Perrot and Bertrand, the editors of the Revue, wished the subject to be dropped for the présent, I resumed once more under four heads the various arguments which condemn Asiatic groups. Dur readers are aware of most of them ; I will only transcribe a short passage which affords a new one. 1 Sujets mythologiques ou héroïques d’une transparence singulière, empruntés à V Iliade et à V Odyssée. Sujets funéraires imités des lécythes 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, pl. 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 l’on démontrerait, par impossible, que ces choses-là sont antiques, il faudrait en conclure que l’archéologie et l’histoire de l’art sont des vanités. Il 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 V authenticité 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 hâve been selected in order to

APPENDICE

prove the falsitv of the whole sériés lo which they belong. Notone of them cam be looked at without iaughter by a man who knows anything about ancient art : the Sappho on plate 2 is a real marvel of absurdity, and evidently belongs to a period when the forger was either indisposed or over-confldcnt.

Of the text which accompanies these plates I will say very liltle. 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 lie writes mysteriously (p. 21) : ‘ Notre ignorance n’est pas aussi absolue que 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 lias been deluded by some cunning friend of the forgers, and that he took Alhenian 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. Cartault’s stalemenl had any foundation : they returned with the conviction, which they hâve expressed in their report, that the ‘ ville importante ’ could only be Athens. I hâve never answered M. Cartault’s pamphlet, to wich Voltaire’ s words may be applied : ‘ La moitié se compose d erreurs ■et le reste d’injures.’ M. Cartault, I am glad to say, lias wrilten a most excellent book on the Athenian Navy, but he certainly misjudgod his own facullies when he undertook the study of ancient art. There are many scholars wbo are fltted for archaeological but not for artistic research, because nature has not endowed them with a keen eye for beauty. rhose scholars may be occasionally reminded of the Venetian girl s advice to Jean-Jacques Rousseau : ‘ Lascia le donne e studio la matematica.

M. Cartault’s pamphlet was presented to the Archaeological Society of Berlin by M. Furtwângler (June, 1887). It seems as if the glaring forgeries published along with it had dispelledthe last doubts of the German schotar. M. Furtwângler openly declared that most of the groups were modem, in particular ail those which M. Cartault had just made known ( Philol . Wochenschrift, 1887, p. 1071 ; Wochenschrift fur klassische Philologie, 1887, p. 937). His new opinion was founded on several non-antique details 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, prolested against M. Furtwângler’s words, but the previous speaker montained hisjudgment. Again, in the Jahrbuch clés deutschen Institutes for 1887, M. turtwànglei 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

APPENDICE

groups, including thaï of Charon which had previously been made so much of. I am unwilling to admit the entire genuineness of the two groups vindicated by M. Furtwàngler, but they ccrtainly demand further discussion, while almost ail tbe others are to be rejected sans phrases. In the same journal I hâve had the pleasure of seeing M. von Duhn abandon his group of Charon, the publication of which, in the Archaeologische Zeitung of 1885, was the signal for the storm in which others than myself hâve got shipwrecked. He writes (p. 240, note 1) : 1 Die von Reinach erhobene Bedenken werden von den am meisten competenten deutschen Fachgenossen nunmehr geteilt.’ Accordingly, as I hear from my friends, ail the Asiatic groups hâve disappeared from the glass cases in the German muséums. But, savs 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 Yienna Charon group, and other pasticcios of equal cieverness, I recognize the hand of a trained Ilalian scuiptor, who may very well, for ail I can guess, hâve established his temporary abode somewhere about the Acropolis of Athens. The minute drapings of the groups are quite in the modem Italiantaste. Nowitis probable that the author of Charon 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. Cartault and in the Collection Gréau by M. Froehner.

Sapienti sat. Our historical review is at an end, but the scandai and mischief created by the forgers are unfortunateiy not. Amateurs in general 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, Korinthian, &c. If abetter 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 : IxeyaXv) rj àXrjÔsca Ci7cepi<r/0st.

Salomon Reinach,

Assista nt-Keeper in the Muséum of Saint-Germain , 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 l’on promet de publier bientôt L’impression du tome Ier des inscriptions du nard de la Grèce continue régulièrement et l’on prépare en même temps les matériaux du tome IL Les inscriptions de l’Italie 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’Égypte, 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. Enfin, 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. Gaflarel, est relatif au cosmographe André Tbevet1 2 3. Il est évident pour moi —