New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1881-01-28
THE REPORT.

The hEPORI.
To the Trustees ofhe Metropolitan Museum Of Art:
The undersigned, having been requested to inveS-
tieste certain charges of alterations AMI incorrect
kepairs Of objects in the Cesnoa Collection OF Cy-
friote antiquities. contained In puocatons
submitted to them, report:
The charges were first published In The Art Ama-
tsur for August, 1880, over the signature OF Mr.
CASTOR L. Feuardent. The subsequent publications
IN newspapers and other periodicals were discus
sons and repetitons Of the same charges and so lar
as they were accusations proceeded from the
same author The original publication In The
ART amateur was elaborate in statement
and argument and was accompanied by
engraved illustrations to sustain the charges,
which in publications of archaeological and seem
fiic character are generally relied on by scholars
and the public as made with accuracy and con-
scientous regard to their importance Inc charges
related to seven objects, all in stone of which the
accusation was that some had been falsely and
trauduently, others enormously. repaired and IN
some cases restored. An eighth charge related to
the bronzes The charges were entitled and directed
specially and personally against General IN Cesnoa;
the Director of the Museum under the general head
Tampering with Antiquities"
We have made this investigation thorough and ex-
haustive. We ascertained on examining the 0bJe
that there sfe no @ p n Sr mn'cr
determined by ordinary eyesight and evidence. lhat
the trustees might have doubt of the thcIonghness
the valuable assistance of wellknO scuptors and
practical stOnecutters aud carVers nave TAKEN inc
.S Of Of the
and have subjected some OF the repaired 0D)ects 10
prolonged baths taken them to pieces, and verified
before us original photographs of the objects taken
at the place Of discovery, aud at later periods and
abundant evidence of their history down to and
during the process of repairing and arranging 1of
exhibition in the present Museum building.
We have examin ID the Director and RepaiIcr OF
G. L. Feuardsnt the author of the charges to at.
tend and assist with such information as he could
give and although at first declining the Invitation,
him fully as to each of the charges. Being re-
quested to name any experts on whom the Commit
tee could rely, and whom he would advise them to
call to their aid in the investigation he informed us
that he knew Of no one that be could suggest
He advised the consulting of practical
aud workers. winch the Committee have done.
SUMMING UP THE RESULTS.
We report as the result of our inquiry that each
and all of the charges without foundation; that
there have been no restorations and no cutting or
engraving of objects but simply repairs by the re-
placing and reunion of such original fragments as
existed and could be identified; and that the en-
graved illustrations which accompany the charges,
inaccurate in general are very incorrect Ill some OF
the most important details.
We subion statement of the substance of each
charge lac condensed by us and corrected and ap-
proved by the author when before us wltD our md
ing IN respect to each.
J. No. %. Statue of Priest.
Charge: That the right arm and part of the
right hand were produced from O fragment from
another statue while the collection was in my the
accusers) gallery in London; but now the points of
junction which were left quite apparent then have
sssn Sun that tie as
We find the right hand to be solid, unbroken
part OF the statue against the side of which is sup
fragments, the head, the body. the right forearm
from wrist to elbow. That this with other objects
IN General Di Cesnoa's first collection, was sent to
London and there renamed in care OF the author OF
to ' be s" sHnbtsd. and Il possible. sold to tie
British or some other museum, General ID
Cesnola being in Cyprus. That while it was
in his custody the author Of the charge being un-
able to fad the original forearm aud not knowing
attached to the statue While thus falsely repaired it
was photographed, and the publication 81 process
print from the photograph enables us to identity
the false forearm by distinct marks. We hnd that
when General Di CesnOa had the opportunity for the
first time repair the objects he removed the false
forearm and properly replaced the original forearm,
found with the statue and preserved. The contour
and fitting of lines OF fracture leave no doubt IN our
minds of the correctness OF the repair. The false
was in evidence before us. We find the charge
founded, and that this statue is now in perfect org
inal condition to its form and MATERIAL except as
TO effects Of time aud exposure.
NO REASON FOR SUSPICION.
H. No. Sd. Two Sphinxes back to back.
Charge: That this slab was found with all the
upper part of the left sphinx wanting; now 1t is
quite complete. and the pieces joined to it seem TO
be of modern work."
We find reason for the suspicion suggested.
After prolonged bath we find the repair of the left
sphinx to be a reunion of the ancient fragments
which we find correct. A difference III the character
OF the heads of the wosphnxes might
inquiry as to whether they original parts OF the
sans object but examination OF various monothic
shows the same want Of uniformity. There is moth
ing in the character of the stone condition of its
surface manner Of carving or treatment OF the head
to throw any doubt on General Di Cesnolas state
ment that when found no part OF this object was
missing, the fragments Of the left head being found
close to the piece from which they mad been broken.
Ill. No. 80. Seatuette of Man.
Charge: That this object has been entirely re-
worked that few lines are left in original condition
the head-dress completely altered by additions and
deep carvings; hair which hung down on the
shoulders cut off modern right shoulder angular
and newly Ornamented added outlines of orDa-
ment on tho belt and apron reeut part OF the knees
The object Is fragment. found in several frag-
ments We have placed IL IN a bath for some days
and taken it to pieces. There is possible doubt
of the correct reunion Of the pieces. small frag
ment Of the right shoulder, with original surface
decoration. was correctly replaced the existing
We Ind ret0uch,ng reengravng, cutting or alter
atom Of any part of the surface of the object and
no Foundation for any part Of the accusation.
NOT THE HEAD OF A GUILD
". No. 40. Statuette of Man.
Charge: "That the head of q child has been added
TO diminutive statue of a man; that modern
neck has been manufactured to Join head and body;
tho neck made too long IN order to counterfeit the
effect Or oduced by the head being too large; that
the upper chest has been cut into leaving modern
hard line of the neck Of the dress; that left fore
ara hes been joined to the figure"
We find the charge unfounded in every particular.
The engraved illustration which accompanies 1t in
The Dirt Ahaatewy, August 1880. entitled Statue
No. 20 as it was Found" is incorrect in the only in
poYtaut detail. This represents the body with the
neck broken short OF down to the chest. thus giving
color to the charge of amodern neck to receive which