New-York tribune., 1882-04-23

ue,S ~ them with permission 10 lay them
before the trustees and recommend that theI oe
printed for the information OF members oil the Mh-
senm They also recommend that the report OF the
Committee on Investigation of which the president
of Columbia College was chairman dated January
% 1881, he reprinted for the use of meioberS
They also recommend that statues 81 and 80 be
continued now special exhibition for pubhc
examination until some time after the reception p,
day OF May next.
Respectfully submitted,
EcsrnF E sc RfHS5, Hdr. ,n.. Committee, etc.
W. l.. ANDREWS, }
THE LETTERS OF THE SCULPTORS.
THOROUGHLY EXoNERATED By WORKERS IN
STONE.
ELLrN & KrrsoS, ARCHITECTURAL scULrroRs'
5l9 WEST TWENTY FKsT-sT. oo,
NEw-YoRK, April l2, 1882
j. O. A. WARD ESQ.
DEAR SIR: As accepted the invitation OF the lrus
tees of the Metropolitan of Art TO all scup'ors
workers in stone and lovers of TRUTH to examine the
two statues at the Museum marked 80 and 80 respect
avely deem my duty 10 report o you the result as
party deeply interested and the only member OF the pre-
vtous examining committee personally known 10 me-
The examination took place on Saturday the
9Th inst, openly In the presence Of q great
many ladies and gentlemen unknown to me
In order TO make examination thorough asked for
and obtained permission To bring own men, and also
received authority to cut TO scrape To WASH IN shor'
10 DO a. pleased 80 that the truth be asoertaned.
We first examined the statue No 32, called Aphrodite
states fraudulent patchwork Of unrelated parts
our examination convinced that the above state
ment absolutely false ia every particular that the
line Of fracture shown through the neck headdres
etc. the genuine and only fracture. The head and
trunk are O the stone and belong 10 each other
A gentleman standing BY, and unknown 10 US, stated
that the publisher of Clarence Cooks pamrhet had as
eured mm few days before whilt examining he statue
tha the apparent line OF fracture across the neck was
fraudulent line intended 10 deceive that no fracture e1
listed there bat that the real fracture below, con-
smUad The fenre nndeT his directions. and
fafffI
al truth. on the contrary. found the statue 10 be
been broken off, had been replaced ana we thhh wei
placed. ,, ,os
head" was lees thorough than on No 32 and we are
satisfied that the statue is mOnOlithic. unbrOken ana I'M
ropafcd TO ankles, and that all statements TO
the contrary are untrue. We believe the feet now on
the statue to be the Hrglna Iee otI'hshE 10 sib s
has been made by inserting single block Of sioht cnt
% take the weight Of the statue Is correct and adlss
BILE one at the same llIne We tfhk II WOMB nav pee
more satisfactory had The feet been allowed 10 remain
in their OH glnnl position the base. and smaller
block inserted in the rear II found necessary sub
base could have been added 10 properly balance the
Beeving that vour desire if that the truth in this
matter should be fully known aud hoping that You "li
5S Ro GeSa ye nl2 4nJ S''f "a" sned EoaT TS f
cisn'd' Assistants. ]GiasH ]aals GIlgn,nsr, ;Hlniii
(IHOMAs u Gl LIS.
MIR. FRENCH CONVINCED THAT THE WORKS ARE
GENUINE.
NRw-YoRK CITY, April II. $50.
My DEAR SIR: have been to-day TO the Metropolitan
Museum and made a careful examination of the two
satues about which there has been such controversy
No. 81 and SO.
The statement tna No. 81 Is composed Of several parts
seems mex phcable. IL is obvious, almost ai glance
that from the neck down Is unbroken and that the
head which surmounts ii belongs it and cut from
the same block Of stone
OF No. 80 is true what General CesnOla claims for
II in ruy judgment-that from the neck to the
ankles 1t is whole, and caunOt be composed OF
parts borrowed from different statues The fracture
at the auke is very apparent as any break in
OF marble stone must be- The idea That either oil nese
satues could have been made OF fragments lrou 1neI
ent figures to me almost absurd. II would he
singular accident that would make the sweeping lines
OF the folds OF the drapery Ill and run into each other as
thev do without any of them il this were true
am convinced that the works are genuine anC Wnat
DAS'L c. FRENCH.
CHARLES CALvERLEY's VERDICT.
NEw-YoRK, April IL, 1882.
MY DEAR W ARD went up to the Museum this morn
ing and on my way up called at william Mays shop
and got him with lie is an honest fellow and
O good marble worker. We took with us hammer, chise
and files. We got there about o'clock and were
admitted and allowed 10 wash cut and file those two
statues Go 81 and 39l 10 our hearts content.
The figure holding a horned head is absolutely one
piece OF from the neck to the ankles There can be-
no possible mistake this The repair about the feet and
base found to be as represented In the printed SLATE
ment Of the Executive Committee. We tried the head
which it has stated, at former time on
this but it did not fi and never could have be
lopg.d 10 figure and could have been there.
No 81, called AphrVdte and Eros, we also found to he
Of one piece OF stone with no repair the he@d having
been broken off, replaced but not rs wen replaced az IL
might have been; but tns Is not fraudulent work The
Joint would have been perfect II little more care had
been taken III putting on the head but TINS has nothing
90 do with the charges.
We iound nothing these two statues to sustain the
charge OF having been made up oi unrelated parts,
Very truly yours, CHARLES CALNEKLEY
RESULTS OF LAUNT THOMPsONs EXAMiNATION.
JOHN TAYLOR JOHNSTON. esq. PeSi tent Metropolitan
Museum Of Art
DEAKsIR: At the request Of General Di Cesnola di-
rector IvsiteJ the Museum Thursday and carefully
examined using sponge aud water, chiss and magnify
ing glass, the No 80 (Aphrode anu Eros and
NO 80 "a holding the head Of horned annaD, botn
belonging Cypriote collection, and now placed on
special exhibition for the inspection of editors scuptOrs,
workers IN stone, etc, etc
II has been publicly charged that the statue No 81 is
fraudulent patchwork OF unrelated parts" This statue
from the neck down. found to be single solid stone
without seam, patonwork OF any kind whatever
The head which had been broken Of has been replaced
The ue fracture being such that ndispuaOie evidence
IL furnished that It Is in its original place.
II ia publicly charged that the statue No. 80 is made
ED of unrelated Fragments " and that the work
has been most clumsiy executed ~; that the
bust is a fragment Of statue, and the
lower part Of the body from the breast down
fs made of fragments from various figures OF
various sizes and differently poised y; that the
Statue has pair OF new feet new legs and a
base found the BODY OF tniS Stlttur TOn inc
neck Qt has head 70 the ankles to be unbrOken
piece OF homogeneous stone, saw no evidence what,
fver the OF its being composed or uurelttfd
fragments fragments OF various sizes and differ
emily poised The right leg is covered with the toga to the
fnstep and Is component part OF the body both ankle,
are fractured aud heels destroyed with the back
part the The front half OF the feet remains with
INC front section uf the base This fracture has been
eEfly repaired by inserting piece OF Cyprus stone,
30 mat would stand and admit brass rod 10
stach the the figure the fronts Of the feet
ediusted this with plaster OF paris III just-
able manner.
since writing the above have again examined the
statues company with other scuptOrs and have con
1rned what have above said am dear SIR very truly
yours, LAOSI IHOhfsON
Apra II. 1882.
T. T. The aead which il is charged formerly tho
sfntu.. neYer could have been 10 and IL NOT