New-York tribune., 1882-04-23

awe were given every possible facility" said Laun'
Thompson in reply to the inquiries OF the reporter 10y
carrying examination that we could possibly ue
sire. We indicated what wanted aud we go'
We cut and scratched and washed the statues IRON
one end to the other. We found that Aphrodiio anu
Eros, which Mr. Cook says is one OF the most pa'cheu
up of the collection and q fraudulent patchwork o
unrelated parts ia unbroken stone. Ihe hgur.
holding che horned head, which Mr.. CooS
asserts ia made up of several fragments De
longing originally different statues of various slzes
we found 10 be monoih also and the repairs on cA
actly as represented in the catalogue"
How was it that Mr. Fcuardent did not meet your
In answer 10 this question Mr. Thompson showed the
reporter letter from Mr.. Feuardent stating that
friend of his overheard General Cesnola talking on Sat
urday with gentleman whom he believed to be Ballard
the former repairer OF the Museum, and they wtr,
arranging 10 take away statues ana re
place with Others and General Cesnoia expressed
himself anxious to have the removal accomplished
before the arrival Of the committee the next morning
Fenardent therefore declined to be present bcev
ing that neither himself the antiquities would re
Justice until they out Of the hands they were
in al present
They were in our hands at that time" said MT
Thompson " In subsequent letter he said that We
could make as many sentimental Journeys to the mu'
scum as we liked. In short Mr. Feuardent became
offensive But we were very sorry indeed that
Mr.. Feuardent did not meet as arranged.
We were quite willing 70 be convinced that the statues
were everything that he and Mr. Cook say they arc il
1T is alleged that the different parts Of these statues
not of proportion. said the reporter " IL 'he s'au
are mOnollths. how do you account for this = a.,
why, Art very primitive state between lne
Egyptian and PhGnician periods to Which these
belong and n great many of these works are or course
badly modelled Even to-day, In NewYOrk, may DC seen
many which do not observe the strceS laws VI
proportion -, A. .mo
" Did Won examine any other works besides the TWO
under discussionP - -. ,.h
results similar TO the ones already described
ADO YOU consider this investigation as nnai answer
10 the charges ?"
"Ycs, should regard It as such" $780,.
Charles Calveriey SAID " went up TO the Museum
one morning With my tools. had practical stone
cutter with me- We chiseed wherever there appeared
To be the ghost of We washed the sta ues tnor
ougbly YOu can always discover JOlI ny Washing.
There was join in either statue except those SET
down III the printed descriptions"
"The statues not cementF'
decidedly not. Such talk is mere nonsense to a
do you think of the other statues Of the colec
tion against which similar charges have been made =
IL would not bother TO look al them after the charges
against these have been proven to be so absurd
John Rogers and Robert El in expressed opin-
ions similar 10 those o(f MeS'rs In0hp
by three OF his workmcn and they chseed the statues
in every direction. There Il only Que thng' Mf EIin
said that could be more satisfactory and that ~ 10
have The statues cut In halves from head TO ieer Iney
Bat You are fully satsaed from your investigation
that The statues are lnono hc :" asked the reporter
Fully and entirely satisfied
GENERAL Dl CESNOLAo , COMMtNlS
"The fearful bunder which these critics fall
into" said General di Cesnola yesterday.
in commenting the result Of the
investicaon this They do not know that Art is one
thing and Archaeology is another and quite different
thing. The pamphlet argument r., OF M, NJ,
that every statue must BE- work OF art. He finds ta
has arm TOO iong an IL Is MOI polsed 10 SUI.
fraudulent patchwork Of unrelated parts But
The stoe tnris out 10 be an ancient monoh In all
MT "A
poor works O' art 10 one good one. 49,. -
which doubt is cast III DIR. Cooks pamphlet r.
"Nr Iaur who has been connected with the British
Nusau,n Visited me while | was making my excava-
tos s af plScS Thcsr visits are mentioned iu the
Rcrue Arch0oloqique in 1871. Lang was at one ume
Consul cyprus and my predecessor ana rival III as
1T is charged that the head which is now exhibited
separately and numbered 27l belongs 70 tae ngue nod
in the horned head aud that these together make the
figure of The Greek Priest described by
Mr. liche9ck I'm in an article e iho IN 4R re wa a .t
stated be found at salais and Is now credited 10
"T6s explanation Of all that is this: The Greek
Priest found at Slamis was lost at sea, together
with shipOad of other antiques; The head re
ferred does not resemble the one illustrated in the
How comes it then that this head illustrated in
early MuAeum catalogue by the same drawing that is
used in the magazine articlef
Because the Hsrpers presented the electrotvpes to
the Museum and unskiled hand made up the caia'
logue with them while in Cyprus. There only
slight differences between the head we have and
to the former. The head viii not of course fit the fig
nre holding horned head 1t belongs 10 round statue,
and this one is a wall statue"
"Then The Greek Priest which was found
at Saams was lost at sea; the head is
separate find aud the figure holding horned head was
found a. Golgo has always been stated III regard
tOitY
"That is the whole explanation"
General al Cosnola said in conclusion that he
had not spoken OF the Feuardcnt charges during
the last Two years, and could not do SO now
at any length because the matter before the
courts His counsel advised him that he must allow it
TO remain there and be there cecided ana hat II would
improper for him 10 try the through the