MODERN ANTIQUES: THE PONIATOWSKY GEMS.
Soma of our readers may perhaps remember, that towards the end of last year a notice was given, under this head, of a set of casts from the "Poniatowsky Gems,"—a collection of 1,200 intaglios, every one in- scribed with the name of some famous Greek gem-sculptor, which having been put up to auction at Christie's at an upset price of eight guineas each, but not sold, were afterwards purchased by Mr. Join; TYRRELL, of Craven Street. The opinions we expressed on that occa- sion have been absurdly mixed up with a private quarrel, in which the Spectator has no concern ; and of which we knew nothing what- ever until a few days since, when the letter inserted below reached us, accompanied by the pamphlet mentioned therein. -The Spectator having been impertinently alluded to in this pamphlet—a copy of which has subsequently been sent to us by the publishers—it becomes proper for us to contradict the false and utterly groundless assumptions of its author. The facts of the case, so far as relates to the Spectator, are as follows.
About the middle of December last, Mr. TYRRELL called at the office of this journal, and introduced himself to the Editor as the proprietor of a rare and extensive collection of antique gems, casts of which he was about to publish ; inviting inspection of the gems, and soliciting a notice of the casts in the Spectator. The Editor's first inquiry naturally was, "How do you prove their antiquity ? " This direct question was not answered, except by an appeal to the unrivalled beauties of the collection. Such an evasive reply was calculated to awaken a suspicion that all was not right, and that the Spiectator's attention was sought in order to be made subsidiary to some private purpose ; and as the authenticity of a collection of gems alleged to be antique was not of itself a question for our consideration, the matter was dismissed for the moment. Soon after, a box containing a set of casts from one portion of the collection was sent for our inspection ; and, being regarded in the light of a new publication on which an opinion was requested by the publisher and might be desired by our readers, the casts were attentively examined : the result was, the judgment of their merits recorded at the time,—a judgment that we see no reason to alter, and which the opinions of several competent authorities have since confirmed. Here, we sup- posed, the matter rested: but the satisfaction of Mr. TYRRF.LL at the "flattering expressions of approval with which his publication wag honoured by the majority of the press—including the Times, Afore* Herald, Morning Chronicle, Literary Gazette, Globe, Art-Union, Stand- ard, Court Journal, Polytechnic Journal, and others "--" was very seri- ously alloyed" by the unflattering expressions of disapproval from the Spectator : not all the praises lavished on his gems by the Leading Journal and other papers could console him for the solitary dissenting voice of the plain-spoken Spectator. Mr. TYRRELL seems to have been lulled by the syren strains of laudatory critics into a fool's paradise ; his complete enjoyment of which was marred by our scepticism: but, instead of setting himself to ascertain the validity of our objections, he cherishes his delusion by exclaiming "an enemy kith done this." That notion seems to have been strengthened by the appearance of an article in the last number of the British and Foreign Review, denying the pretensions of the Poniatowsky Gems to the antiquity claimed for them. Straightway Mr. TYRRELL jumps to the conclusion that the two unfavourable opinions emanated from one pen ; and, being able to trace the authorship of the article in the British and Foreign Re- view to Mr. NATHANIEL OGLE—a literary gentleman whom he had engaged to illustrate a catalogue of the gems, but with whom he quarrelled before the task was completed—Mr. TYRRELL, with most logical sequence, infers that Mr. N. OGLE was the writer of the notice in the Spectator. On this "three-piled hyperbole" of groundless assumption Mr. TYRRELL proceeds to impute "unworthy motives" to the writer of the Spectator's notice, and to point out inconsistencies that only exist in his unfounded supposition. Such conduct is too absurd to excite any feeling stronger than pity. His insane rashness puts it quite out of the question for us to take any notice of Mr. TYRRELL'S remarks beyond this,—Mr. TYRRELL may have some stronger reasons than self-interest to induce him to believe that the Poniatowsky Gems are veritable antiques, and that his notion of their authenticity is true : we have every reason to believe it false,—notwithstanding a negotiation appears to have been commenced for the sale of them by Mr. TYRRELL to a foreign power at the enormous sum of 65,0001.! As regards his supposition that Mr. N. OGLE wrote the critique in the Spectator, our word will be taken against that of the pamphleteer's surmise, when we state that Mr. OGLE never wrote a line in the Spectator on any subject—never had any connexion or influence whatever with this journal ; and that we never had communication with that gentleman, directly or indirectly, till the present week, when he waited upon us to state his grievance and solicit the insertion of his letter. Should the controversy respecting the antiquity of the Poniatowsky Gems assume a proper shape for discussion free from personal ani- mosity and coarse vituperation, the Spectator may be disposed to enter upon the subject : as the matter stands at present, it has already Occu- pied too much of our space.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE SPECTATOR.
London, 21st March 1842. SIR—Yesterday I obtained a pamphlet entitled "Remarks exposing the un- worthy Motives andfallacious Opinions of the Writer of the Critiques on the Poniatowshy Gems contained in the British and Foreign Review and the Spec-- talon" The simple exposure of so unwarrantable an assertion is aufficive. to show, that the whole catalogue of calumny and abuse founded on it ;-. equally false and unworthy of belief. With as little hesitation I acknowledge, that I wrote 1.1.e artiste on the Po- niatowsky Gems in No. 25 of the British and Forri-ii.Review ; and that it is, with very slight alterations and additions, an, eeay, which, on a dispute with Mr. TYRRELL, (for whose work it was at first intended,) he informed me that he had "cancelled" and converted into "a heap of waste paper." Instead of the unworthy motives attribut.:d to me, my reason for reviving the cancelled essay was, that I might place on record my opinion, that the Poniatowsky Gems are not the authentic works of Greek artists, but an extraordinary col- lection of the works of the engravers of the eighteenth century, devised and directed by Cavaliere GIOVANNI PIKLER, interspersed with others of the same sera; so that I might, if necessary, have it in my power to refute an imputa- tion on my character as sanctioning that collection being palmed on the world as the works of the ancient Greek gem-engravers. I have numerous letters of Mr. Tons TYRRELL'S incontestibly showing that his opinions were in exact accordance with those expressed by me in the British and Foreign Review. If I deem it necessary to refute seriatim the calumnies contained in the pamphlet, I shall do so when the proper time arrives. In the meanwhile, I merely rebut the false statement above alluded to, and leave the tissue of vio- lence, vulgarity, and falsehood, to accompany Mr. TYRRELL'S infatuation rela- tive to this collection of gems, and which has probably excited his shameless libel.
The private and confidential letters written by me and now printed by Mr.
TYRRELL, contain opinions on the value and beauties of the gems which I have seen no reason to change, and which accord with the opinions and facts in the article in the British and Foreign Review, and prove the sincerity and zeal with which I was desirous of promoting his interests, instead of being contra- dictions to sentiments which I never wrote, in the Spectator or any other publication. I have the honour to be, your most obedient humble servant,
NATHANIEL OGL/L
Previous page
