No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 December 2013
It is well-known that the antiquities of this Palace were sold by auction in 1882. In the sale catalogue, however, published by Messrs. Christie, Manson & Woods, no mention is made of nos. 1, 7, 8, 9 of my catalogue. All these being marble statues, I have little doubt that they have remained at the Palace, which is said to be still to-day richly furnished also with busts and other smaller antiquities. A few notes extracted from the sale catalogue will serve to supplement the notices given in my book. The kindness of my friend Mr. Scharf enables me to add the names of the buyers, and the prices as given in the priced catalogue. The woodcuts of the illustrated catalogue, which I have not seen, are said to be very poorly done; tracings of them lie before me.
No. 190 (no. 6 of my catalogue). Bust of Vespasian, of black basalt, with (modern ?) drapery of oriental alabaster. Woodcut. This bust, which was sold at the Strawberry Hill sale for £220 10s., fetched £336; T. Agnew & Son.
No. 191 (no. 4). Bust of Augustus, of antique Egyptian porphyry, with gilt ornaments. The woodcut shows the emperor crowned with a wreath, and clad in a breastplate (decorated with two pegasi flanking a central ornament), and an aegis below it, a mantle covering shoulders and part of the breast.
page 41 note 1 The same critic, in a very kind review of my book, in the Athenacum, 1883, No.2895, p. 512, objects to my having ‘overlooked Foucquet’ in my Introduction. I am not aware of any ancient sculpture of Foucquet's collection having come into English hands. I had therefore no reason to speak about that collection in an account which deals with ‘the influx of ancient sculptures into Great Britain’ only, not with ‘the development of the taste for antique sculptures on this side of the Alps.’ The further reproach that ‘due honour is not given to Haydon,’ will easily be refuted by a reference to pp. 140, 145, 148, to which I may add what I have stated in an article quoted p. 138, note 354.