Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2018 with funding from 
 Getty Research Institute 
 
 https://archive.org/details/hrhprincealbertaOOmoor 
 
H. R. H. PRINCE ALBERT 
 
 AND THE 
 
 APOLLO AND MADSYAS 
 
 DY 
 
 RAPHAEL 
 
H. R. H. PRINCE ALBERT 
 
 AND THE 
 
 APOLLO AND MARSYAS 
 
 BY RAPHAEL 
 
 TO THE PUBLIC 
 
 A STATEiHEI^T WITH Ai\i APPENDIX 
 
 BY MORRIS MOORE 
 
 SECONDE EDITION 
 
 AUGMENTÉE DE LA 
 
 Traduction Française de « A, STATEMENT « 
 
 PARIS 
 
 IMPRIMERIK ET LITHOGRAPHIE DE RENDU ET MAULDE 
 
 BUE DE RIVOLI, 141 . 
 
 • S50 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 TO THE I'UHLIC 
 
 Pages. 
 
 A Statement. 5 to 17 
 
 Postscript. 17 to 22 
 
 Traduction Française de « A Statement » . 23 to 36 
 
 APPENDIX 
 
 The Corriere Italiano and Monitore Toscano . 38 to 62 
 
 Letter of Lord Elcho . 53 to 54 
 
 Tin: Rejected Michael Angelo . 55 to 61 
 
TO THE PUBLIC 
 
 A STATEMENT 
 
 Paris, 1859. 
 
 The subornation of the Director of the Venetian Aca¬ 
 demy to secrete the original drawing for the picture by 
 Raphael in my possession, the Apollo and Marsyas, a 
 deed now notorious to Europe, and identified with a ques¬ 
 tion formally on the 20th of March, 1850, and again, on 
 the 25ih of March, 1859, brought under the notice of the 
 House of Commons, has had a consonant sequel (i). 
 
 Early in March , having heard that a collection of 
 photographs, published by Bardi the printseller of Flo¬ 
 rence, from Raphael’s Drawings at Florence, Venice, and 
 Vienna, had reached Paris, I called upon the depositary, 
 and requested permission to see it. He handed me the 
 three series with a printed Italian catalogue descriptive 
 of each piece. To the Second Series, namely, the Vene¬ 
 tian , was this note : 
 
 “ For the nomenclature of these Drawings and for the rela- 
 “ tive observations, we have avaded ourselves of J. D. Passa- 
 “ vant’s Work, Rafael von Urbino, etc., Leipsic, 1839; and ol 
 
 fl) See Corriere Italiano, elc., Appendix, page 38 to 49. 
 
— fi 
 
 “ the iMarchese P. Selvatico’s Catalogue, published at Venice 
 “ ill 1854. — The photographs of the Drawings in this series, 
 “ are all of the same size as the originals” (i). 
 
 We have here a formal intimation that either in Pas¬ 
 savant or in Selvatico is to be found whatever appears 
 under this head, and that, unless otherwise stated, they 
 express no disagreement; for in the face of such an 
 announcement, to suppress a notable discrepance be¬ 
 tween them would be a suspicious omission of a manifest 
 obligation, while silence on an intercalation contradic¬ 
 tory of either, especially if anonymous, would warrant 
 the worst construction. 
 
 Last on its list, the very arrangement to catch the 
 eye, picked out from several obvious counterfeits, as the 
 only possible counterfeit, and so, though to the letter 
 prudentially retained in the Raphael category, in spirit 
 expelled from it, I found Raphael’s most salient drawing 
 of the Venetian series, heralded as follows : 
 
 “ 80. Apollo and Marsyas, a drawing in pen and water- 
 “ colour on reddish paper; this drawing is by some attributed 
 “ to Mantegna ” (2). 
 
 Mark, not Montagna, the name written below it on 
 the mounting, as the photograph which I procured of it at 
 
 (I) “ Per la poinenclatura di quest! Disef;ni e per )e relative osser- 
 “ vazioni, ci sianio servit! dell’ Opera di J. D. Passavant, Rafael von 
 “ Uibino, Llpsia, 1839; edcl Catalogo del Marchese P. Selvatico, pubbli- 
 “ cato a Venezia nel 1854. — Le fotogratie dei Disegni di questa série 
 “ sonotntte della medesima gi andezza degli original!. ” 
 
 (2 “ 80. Ai’Oli.o e .tiAnsiA, discgco a peni.ac acquerollo su carta rossas- 
 “ tra; questo disegno vien da qtinlcbcduno attribiiito a! Mantegna. ” 
 
Venice, in 1857, shews, — but Mantegna. I saw here the 
 cloven foot. This drawing never was attributed to Man¬ 
 tegna. The Selvatico Catalogue describes it thus : 
 
 ^‘ Apollo and Marsyas. A work of rare perfection, in which 
 “ Raphael shews all his elegance. This drawing, once attri- 
 
 billed to Bart. Montagna, I know not why, has been ascer- 
 “ tained to be undoubtedly by Raphael ”(l). 
 
 The name Montagna was written by Count Cico- 
 gnara, formerly President of the Venetian Academy, as 
 a memorandum, when sorting the collection, that Bene¬ 
 detto Montagna had engraved the same subject ; an 
 explanation given me at Venice, in 1857, by the actual 
 subdirector of that Academy, Signor Andrea Tagliapie- 
 tra, present when Cicognara wrote it, and confirmed to 
 me by Signor Francesco Zanotto, secretary to the Vene¬ 
 tian Academy under Cicognara’s Presidency. 
 
 The Marchese P. Selvatico then, one of the authorities 
 
 (1) Tlic entire passage, page 40, is as follows : 
 
 “ * 1. Apollo e Maosia. — Disegno all’ acqiierello rialzato di biacca. 
 “—Opera di rara perfezione, in cui Raffaello mostratulta la sua eleganza. 
 “ —Questo disegno, attribuito da prima a Bart. Montagna, nè so il perché, 
 “ fu riconosciuto essere indubbiamente di Raffaello. II sig. Moore a Londra 
 “ ha un dipinto tenuto del Sanzio, colla stessa composizione, ed nn poco 
 “ piu idccolo del disegno presente. ” — The asterisk corresponds to a 
 notice at page 13, that this sign distinguishes the most valuable drawings; 
 — “ N. B. I dispgni piu pregevoli sono contrassegnati da un asterisco. ” 
 
 In the above ]>assagc there are three errors : 1. This drawing is executed 
 chiefly with the silver point, water-colour being confined to the high lights 
 and extreme shadows; 2. The name written by Cicognara on the mounting, 
 is “ Dened" ” (Benedetto), not “ Bart. ” (Bartolommeo) Montagna; 3. The 
 picture instead of being a little smaller than the drawing, is, on the con¬ 
 trary, larger by nearly three inches in height, and by one inch in breadth. 
 The difference is between the backgrounds. The figures are precisely of the 
 same dimension. 
 
— 8 — 
 
 Lo whom we are hid look for the nomenclature of the 
 Venetian series, says nothing of Mantegna, nor in any 
 way questions the Apollo and Marsyaa drawing : on the 
 contrary, he piles emphasis on panegyric in maintaining 
 it to be by Raphael; cannot even conceive a doubt of it; 
 and proclaims a like conviction for others. Neither has 
 Passavant, the remaining authority, ever attributed it to 
 Mantegna. Therefore the Public is misled by the note to 
 the Venetian series ; a proceeding which shall presently 
 be stripped to its uttermost nakedness. P)Ut first, a word 
 more upon Passavant. 
 
 “ x4t pages 174-5 of the third and last volume of his 
 Rafael von Urbino and sein Vater Giovanni Santi, pub¬ 
 lished at Leipsic in July, 1858, and under the special 
 head, Apollo and Map.syas, it is his ‘ ‘ conviction that both 
 the drawing and the picture after it are by Timoteo Viti"; 
 and this “ conviction” he declai'es while owning to have 
 not seen the former since 1835, — since Ixveiity-tkree 
 years. Now, mark further his convictioxi. 
 
 Pieflecting that had he previously known of the Ve¬ 
 netian Academy’s possessing the original drawing by 
 “ Timoteo Viti ”, as he styles him, he would scarcely in 
 1850, even dull as he is, have committed himself with 
 Lord Elcho, and, before Mr P>ohm, with me, to an “ nncd- 
 ierable opinion” that the picture was by Francesco Fran¬ 
 cia (L, 1 went to the Ribliothicpie Inipcriale, and there 
 examined the part of his Work cited in the note to the 
 Venetian photographs; namely, the two first volumes, 
 
 1) Set; Lon) I'.lclio’s ]j'iivi-,.\piienili.r,ps"c. 5.3; ami AI. Dolini’?, Morniiuj 
 Cost, June the ]3tli, 18.50. 
 
— y — 
 
 published in 1839. In the second volume, page A66, was 
 a Division, “ Raphael’s Drawings in Italy ” ; first under 
 it, the subdivision, “ Raphael’s Drawings in the Aca¬ 
 demy of Fine Arts at Venice”; nowhere a word about 
 the Apollo and Marsyas. But his hero was Raphael, not 
 Timoteo della Vite. To objection so imperious, a swift 
 reply.— In this self-same subdivision, page 477, fig¬ 
 ures not the only one by another hand, “ a pen drawing . 
 of Mary with the Infant Christ standing”, by his very 
 Timoteo Viti. — Silence therefore upon a drawing so ex¬ 
 quisite, so striking, as the Apollo a)ul Marsyas, and by 
 this same master, as he would impose, were of itself 
 ihe guage of his perception in 1835, and of his scru¬ 
 pulousness va 1858; but his earliest mention of it occur¬ 
 ring in an attack upon me in the Deutsches Kunstblatt 
 of Berlin on the 1st of November, 1855, that is, five 
 years and nine months after the discovery of the picture, 
 the evidence superabounds that if he saw the draw- 
 ingin 1835, he did not observe it; nay, that he remain¬ 
 ed unconscious of its very existence until full fifteen 
 years later its obscurity became irradiated by the rising 
 splendour of the former; consequently, that his “ con¬ 
 viction” of 1858 is a conviction for the occasion. So 
 exquisite is the fibre of “ eminent ” Germans, By Autho¬ 
 rity “ more eligible^than Englishmen ” ! 
 
 A fe\v days after 1 had seen the photographs above- 
 mentioned, an acquaintance wishing to purchase some 
 of them, called upon me with a complete set, that I 
 might assist him in the selection. I asked him whether 
 he had noticed what the catalogue said of the Apollo 
 
10 — 
 
 and Marsyas. — “1 did notice it, he replied, and was 
 struck by it : whence that name Mantegna ” ?— That, I 
 rejoined, is the mark of Prince Albert. — After a pause, 
 he said ; — “ You are right 1 I come straight from Bardi : 
 he himself lent me the set which you see here, and 
 informed me that Prince Albert had procured him the 
 authorizations for the execution of the Work, and that 
 it was got up under his patronage and superinten¬ 
 dence. Bardi is at the Hôtel Byron, rue Laffitte ” — 
 Until now I was not aware that Bardi was in Paris. 
 Self-defence then, not to mention higher motives, im¬ 
 pelled me to fathom this new perfidy. 
 
 Taking with me Selvatico’s Catalogue, I called at the 
 Hôtel Byron. It was Mardi Gras, the 8th of March. Bardi 
 was at home, and, as it was a holiday, at leisure. I re¬ 
 quested to see his photographs. As he required no name, 
 
 I gave none. He had deferred his return to Florence 
 expressly to superintend the first issue of his Publication 
 here, and was therefore anxious to shew it and to sa¬ 
 tisfy inquiries. I began at the First Series, the Floren¬ 
 tine, examined each piece, and pointed out sundry er¬ 
 rors in the catalogue. He thanked me for my corrections, 
 and eagerly jotted them down. On reaching the Second 
 Scries, I read the note aloud, and remarked that to pa¬ 
 rade in an Italian Work a German name exploded even 
 in Germany, was a slur upon Italy, and that either coun¬ 
 try could have afforded him authority more respectable 
 than Passavant; an individual, insignificant as a Critic, 
 and untrustworthy as a man.—- “Oh! said he, that is 
 no fault of mine. I am no connoisseur. It was Prince 
 
— 11 — 
 
 Albert who obtained from the Austrian and Tuscan 
 governments leave to execute these photographs. For 
 the Drawings at Vienna and at Venice, he gave me a 
 letter to the Archduke Ferdinand Maximilian, to whom 
 I presented it myself at Schonbrunn, and he commanded 
 me through his German secretary, Dr Becker, to confine 
 myself to Selvatico and Passavant in compiling the cata¬ 
 logue; but to always first consult Passavant, whom he 
 considers the highest of authorities. The Work is brought 
 out under Prince Albert's Patronage and is dedicated to 
 him. 1 am merely the publisher, and am but recently ar¬ 
 rived from London, whither I went to submit it to him 
 completed — Then I presume that this catalogue was 
 reviewed by Prince Albert before publication. — “ /f 
 tV(/s'\ 
 
 I now came to N“ 80, the Apollo and Marsyas .— 
 Another error ! said I. This drawing is executed chiefly 
 with the silver point, not with the pen, as you state. But 
 how is this? ''By some attributed to Mantegna" I It 
 never was attributed to Mantegna. Here is your Mar- 
 cheseP. Selvatico's Catalogue. Observe; he declares it 
 “ a work of rare perfection, in ivkich Raphael shews all 
 his elegance ", and ‘ ‘ ascertained to be undoubtedly by 
 RaphaeV'M^i. Nor does Passavant speak of Mantegna. How 
 
 1) Tlie expression “ di rara perfezione ” which Selvatico applies to 
 the Apollo and Mar.yijas drawinj, occurs, tlioiigh with far less reason, 
 elsewhere in his catalogue, as also the analogous phrases, “ di rara 
 bellezza ”, “bel disegno franchissinio, etc.”. These are “ hy Permis¬ 
 sion ” all duly rendered in English by; “ of singular beauty ” , “ beau¬ 
 tiful” , " a fine and very bold drawing, etc. ” But the panegyric on 
 the Apollo and Marsyas drawing, “ Opera di rara perfezione in eui Hof- 
 
J2 — 
 
 came this name then? — Bardi now admitted that he 
 was famiiiar with Seivatico’s Cataiogue, and knew that 
 neither there, nor in Passavant, was Mantegna mention¬ 
 ed. But to this drawing, he said, there was a singuiar 
 history, the details of which he had heard at Venice. It 
 was the drawing for the picture belonging to Mr Morris 
 Moore, to whom Prince Albert was e.xtremely hostile, 
 and who had, in consequence, so suffered in England, 
 that he had been driven from the country. At an inter¬ 
 view which he, Bardi, had had with Prince Albert, the 
 latter had vehemently repudiated both the drawing and 
 —■ without ever having seen it — the picture, as not by 
 Raphael. The anonymous interpolation about Mantegna 
 had been inserted by Prince Albert’s express command. 
 Nor am I the only one in Paris to whom Bardi has related 
 these particulars. But what need of witnesses? There 
 lies the corpus delicti, —the falsehood in the catalogue, 
 and the Dedication. Before leaving, I obtained two ver- 
 
 faello moslra tulla la sua eleyanz'i, ” not being included in tlic Royal 
 Ibitent, it is suppressed. 
 
 Where all breathes candour, every utterance is precious. The Ve¬ 
 netian series is singled out, as we liave seen at page 6, text and note, for 
 the announcement that “ the photographs of the Drawings in this series 
 are all of the same sine as Ihe orUjinals. ” Now, the figures in the Apollo 
 and Marsyas drsLV/ing are exactly of the same size as those in the picture, 
 and an indentation around the outlines of the former shews that they were 
 transferred by the tracing point to the latter. The Publication “ Dedicated 
 by Permission, etc., ” disposes of such connection between the two works 
 by frankly giving, under cover of the preceding announcement, a photo¬ 
 graph of this drawing so reduced as to represent the Apollo as shorter by 
 an inch and three quarters —by the head and neck— than the original. 
 Thus, at worst, the Patron can fall back upon the satisfaction of at least 
 having proved that this drawing never could have served for the actual 
 outlines of the figures in the picture. 
 
— 13 — 
 
 sioiis of the catalogue, one in Italian, tlie other in 
 English, “ Dedicated by Permission toH. R. H. the Prince 
 Consort”. 
 
 Thrift follows fawning. We shall be told that as the 
 Publication is Prince Albert’s own, he may deal with it 
 according to his humour ; that he also, as well as ano¬ 
 ther, must have liberty to express an opinion, and that 
 the interpolation needs no other apology. The first postu¬ 
 late transcends reply : the last is less intangible. Let every 
 man have liberty to express himself freely on all mat¬ 
 ters ; and conscience be the only bar to license. But, under 
 a mask to insinuate into a public document a malignant 
 assertion, as devoid of conviction as of truth, detrimental 
 to your neighbour, and, constructively, as the respectable 
 judgment of staid authority, —• an interpretation I defy 
 Casuistry itself to rebut, — is an expansion of the prin¬ 
 ciple scarcely reconcilable with any received system of 
 Ethics. The passing over of Passavant’s silence, the 
 surreptitious interpolation of a flat contradiction to Sel- 
 vatico's declaration, and the utter suppression of the 
 latter, are a fit corollary to the class of argument let 
 loose upon me to vindicate the superlative “ qualifica¬ 
 tions” of that “ able hand”{i), the iwice-expelled wnàiSelf- 
 
 (1) See Prince Albert’s Appendix to the Report of the Parliamentary 
 Committee of 1853 on the National Gallery (No. XVII, p. 791), and Letter 
 to Lord Ellesmere on the Manchester Exhibition, London Journals, July, 
 1856. 
 
 It is expedient it be distinctly understood that the “ able hand ” in the 
 text saw the Apollo and Marsyas when on view for sale in 1850 at 
 Christie’s. Four of my acquaintance, witnesses of this circumstance, 
 have repeatedly stated it to me and to others. One of them, Mr. J. W. 
 Brett of Hanover Square, even pointed out the Apollo and Marsyas to him 
 
14 — 
 
 confessed incompetent functionary, Eastlake, — Le 
 Chevalier, as he styles himself, — and to protect this 
 “ amiable, distinguished, and thorough gentleman” from 
 being ‘ ‘ a butt for the attacks of every disappointed com¬ 
 petitor 
 
 On reaching home, I made a memorandum of what 
 had passed at Bardi’s, and examined the version “ Dedi¬ 
 cated by Permission, etc. This began with the Venetian 
 series. The note was the same, but at N“ 80 I discovered 
 an addition ; 
 
 “ 80. Apollo anb Marsyas : .drawn with the pen and sha- 
 “ ded with Indian ink This drawing has been ascribed to 
 “ Mantegna; it corresponds with the picture now in the pos- 
 ‘‘ session of Mr Morris Moore ”. 
 
 Why halt? why flinch from proclaiming that in 1850, 
 the auctioneer catalogued X\iQ picture also as Mantegna? 
 
 as a remarkable work. The “ able hand ” looked at it, uttered something 
 about “ curious, ” — and passed on. This further expounds the subsequent 
 plots against picture and drawing. Linked as tliese works are with the 
 good name of one who has borne his share in twice ousting the client from 
 the National Gallery, the “ able hand ” and his Patron have obviously an 
 interest in undermining both. 
 
 Again, it was this same “ able hand ” that in 1845 appraised at £ 630, 
 and bought for this sum, the supposititious Holbein, “ a Medical Gentle¬ 
 man, ” as he terms it, and who in the same breath rejected at £ 500, 
 Mrs. Bonar’s (now Mr. Labouchere’s) unfinished picture in tempera. The 
 Virgin and Child with St. John and Saints, by Michael Angelo; a mistake 
 which I made a chief point of my indictment against him before the 
 Parliamentary Committee of 1853 (q. 9953) on the National Gallery. 
 
 Thus, before the eyes of this twice fraudulently reinstated Chief of a 
 National Gallery, of this President of a Royal Academy, have passed, nay, 
 have as it were been thrust upon him, two of the rarest and most exquisite 
 specimens of the Revival; but he for them was sightless, they for him 
 were a blank; a strange yet authentic epitome of his official career. — See 
 “ The Rejected Michael Angelo ”, Appendix, page 55. 
 
— 15 — 
 
 The ascription of the drawing to Mantegna, in 1859, 
 was to signalise a coincidence. Why leave inchoate so 
 infinite a conclusion against “ the picture now in the 
 possession of Mr Morris Moore”? But when was fraud 
 not craven! To have quoted loyally Cicognara’s memo¬ 
 randum had carried its own antidote; since Benedetto 
 Montagna's quaint little print of Apollo and Marsyas with 
 Apollo in blouse playing the fiddle, may be seen in any 
 considerable collection of engravings, and “ corres¬ 
 ponds " neither with the auction-room catalogue of 1850, 
 nor "with the picture now in the possession of Mr Morris 
 Moore. ” From first to last, and in every sense, the inter¬ 
 polation is a cheat. Not a decent name can be produced 
 to give it countenance. I anticipate the apology for (he 
 English rider. The printer will be the culprit. An a for 
 an 0 , and an e for an a, and lo 1 Cicognara’s Benedetto 
 Montagna unwittingly Andrea Mantegna , the name for 
 a moment connected with the picture. Behold the coin¬ 
 cidence 1 Meanwhile, like a “ creeping venom’d thing ”, 
 the forgery winds through Europe ; and so, in the nice 
 computation of chances, the hope ferments that the ve¬ 
 nom may leave a sting (i). 
 
 It is nine years that this conspiracy, fed by every tur¬ 
 pitude, is afoot. Blinded by ignorance and vicious in¬ 
 stinct, the conspirators hailed in the Apollo and Marsyas 
 
 (1) It is my resolve, since in England fairplay seems extinct, to circulate 
 throughout Europe, in various languages, every incident, and to post the 
 name of every abettor, of this opprobrious conspiracy. It is one Dr. Rad¬ 
 ford, of Suflolk street, Pall Mall, London, who “ from pure love of Art,'' 
 as he gives out, has lent himself as “ honorary ” translator and Amender- 
 Licentiate of Prince Albert’s catalogue. 
 
au opportunity. It might remit all trausgressious. M\ 
 judgment at fault here, the verdict which twice I had 
 established against them would be reversed ; a scan¬ 
 dalous reinstatement vindicated. A trim prospect through 
 a dull argument. They went to work; but, mole-like, 
 underground. When I bent myself to unearth them, an 
 obsequious freemasonry, in deference to a foreigner 
 whom nevertheless privately all vituperate, dammed up 
 every channel of publicity, choked utterance where once 
 my voice was sought and approved. Such the return for 
 best years and energies devoted to the Public; such 
 the consequence to that array of testimonials which, in 
 the teeth of sycophancy, I had won from the press and 
 men not deaf to conscience ; and to that yet more dainty 
 blazon, confessions wrung from enemies. But “ truth is 
 truth to the end of reckoning. ” I bethought me that 
 England was not the World, shook off the dust under my 
 feet, and appealed to Europe. The new verdict has more 
 than ratified the old. 
 
 In me, personality is a demerit to outweigh argument 
 and unrealise fact. Still, personal I must continue until I 
 shall have learned that measures can have birth without 
 man ; an act without an agent; fraud without a knave. 
 But, thank Providence 1 I feel that within, which must 
 ever preserve me from indulging in personality such 
 as is here proved. Not a man in the English Parliament, 
 where even the slenderest pretext for clamour about 
 
 National honour ” is wont to be seized upon as a trump 
 card, has ever hazarded a breath about my arrest in 
 Berlin, a breath about that insolent violation of Inter- 
 
— 17 — 
 
 national Law, my expulsion from Prussia in defiance of 
 the most conclusive of admissions by the Prussian go¬ 
 vernment that nothing existed to justify either outrage. 
 But “ out of this silence can be read as much, as from 
 the rattling tongue of saucy and audacious eloquence”,— 
 and “ instinct is a great matter ". The Berlin piece stood 
 awhile for repetition in Paris ; but the german sympathies 
 of a German Court were wanting to its revival (G. 
 
 How many Englishmen will venture to utter openly 
 what even the vilest must feel on perusal of this? Where 
 wrong such as I have endured may pass unchallenged, 
 Civism is but a sound; Liberty, a phantom. What more 
 can the fiercest Despotism, than—strangle? Liberty! — 
 in England, Sycophancy is her vampire. Let any English¬ 
 man, “ freeborn ” as we have it, dare as much! — my 
 experience awaits him. In meanness alone is security. 
 
 Morris Moore. 
 
 POSTSCRIPT 
 
 The new episode in the plot against me concerning 
 the Apollo and Marsyas drawing, has met with signal 
 rebuke and discomfiture in Paris. The French are fasti¬ 
 dious. They roundly stigmatise it “ une infamie. ” Its 
 
 (1) It is notorious at Berlin that the order for my arrest issued directly 
 from the King’s Cabinet, and that the President of Police was ignorant of 
 the project until the outrage had been perpetrated. 
 
 i> 
 
— 18 — 
 
 only soil now is England. There, amid servile laughter 
 at schoolboy inanities about “ hypotheses ” and “ con¬ 
 tingencies, ” drawled out in reply to a plain question, 
 and scoffs more servile still at the “ famous picture 
 now in the possession of Morris Moore — Esquire, ” (d 
 experience tells me it may thrive ; but pointless vulgarity 
 will not prevent that same “ famous picture ” from 
 shining as famous truly , even among pictures truly 
 famous, long after the “ famous” author, “ famous” 
 orator of others’ oratory, and “ famous ” statesman of 
 oriental azure-blood, Disraeli-Benjamin-The-Right- 
 Honourable, shall have strutted, with a congenial mob, 
 into a merciful oblivion (2). 
 
 I said that fraud was craven. The plotters have slunk 
 from their handiwork. Prince Albert’s catalogue, signifi¬ 
 cantly chastened, has been published in French. The 
 “ Dedicatedby Permission, etc., ” is, by “ Permission, ” 
 vanished, —by ■“ Permission” r/is-Dedicated; vanished 
 too, by “ Permission, ” are Passavant and Selvatico. 
 Their names are of little recommendation here. The note 
 which contained them is curtailed to the misrepresenta¬ 
 tion, that “ the photographs from the Drawings in this 
 series are all of the same size as the originals, ” — 
 
 (1) See Mr. Disraeli’s reply to Mr. Coningliam. — Parliamentary De¬ 
 bates, March tlie 25th, 1859. 
 
 (2) Tlie instinct witli wliich this personage scents old trappings and tricks 
 them out as new, at once reveals the frankness of his nature and the value 
 of his resources, and stamps the Patriarchal antiquity of his pedigree. — 
 Compare M. Thiers’s Panegyric on Marshal Dugeaud, and ex Chancellor of 
 the Exchequer Disraeli’s, on the Duke of Wellington. 
 
— 19 — 
 
 baggage possibly overlooked in the tumult ot“retreat. But 
 there is further expurgation. 
 
 “ On account of the frequent expostulations addressed 
 to him here on the subject, ” affirms M. Bardi, but perhaps 
 not less on account of a dearth of sponsors, the Apollo 
 and Marsyas drawing is, by “ Permission, ” no longer 
 “ by some attributed to Mantegna, ” but like its compa¬ 
 nions, triumphs by “ Permission, ” as Raphael, with 
 the adjunct of the now amiable notification that “ it 
 corresponds with the picture in the possession of 
 Mr. Morris Moore. ” 
 
 I subjoin a letter, the complement to this Statement, 
 and voucher for my claims as a Prophet. 
 
 ^ “ Paris, May tlie 7th, 1859. 
 
 “ My dear Mr. Moore, 
 
 I went this morning to M. Bardi, to return him the 
 “ photographs which I had discarded from the selection I had 
 made amongst the three collections after the drawings by 
 “ Raphael in the Galleries of Florence, Venice, and Vienna. 
 “ I took of him, at the same time, the set from the Cartoons at 
 “ Hampton Court. You know that the day before yesterday 
 “ I made atBardi’s a first choice,having before me the Italian 
 “ catalogue of those collections. On coming to the Apollo and 
 “ Marsyas, thrown at the end of the Venetian series, I mani- 
 “ tested my astonishment at seeing a first-ratc drawing by 
 “ Raphael, and of the most Raphaelesque, given to Mantegna, 
 “ and f asked him who was the author of this curious attribu- 
 “ tion. — “Prince A/fcerf,” he laconically replied.—You know 
 “ that M. Bardi speaks French with difficulty, and besides. 
 
— 20 — 
 
 “ he was but slightly acquainted with me. I wished to have 
 some particulars upon so singular a circumstance; although, 
 “ indeed, what could surprise one after your incredible arrest 
 “ at Berlin, and the strange letters which followed you hither 
 “ from London, recommending that an eye be kept on the 
 “ man, and no support given to the picture? I accordingly put 
 “ some fresh questions to M. Bardi; but with me he was less 
 “ communicative than with you and with others, to whom he 
 “ related this history in all its details. This morning I return- 
 ed to the charge. M. Bardi now told me that this attribu- 
 “ tion had been taken from an old catalogue of the Venetian 
 “ Academy, in which the drawing of Apollo and Marsyas is 
 given to Montagna, and that here, in the Italian catalogue 
 “ of the photographic collection, Mantegna was a misprint 
 “ iov Montagna. I contained my indignation at such a shuffle, 
 “ but admiring the while your perspicacity. M. Bardi was evi- 
 “ dently rehearsing his lesson. I objected that the Venetian 
 “ Academy had never had a catalogue before that of M. Sel- 
 “ vatico, published on the 31st. of July, 18^4, which gives 
 “ this drawing to Uaphael, and describes it as one of the 
 “ most precious of the collection; “ a work of rare perfec- 
 “ tion, in which Raphael shews all his elegance”. M. Bardi 
 “ admitted to me that in fact there never had existed a 
 “ catalogue before that of M. Selvatico, and put to the push, 
 he ended by declaring that Prince Albert was certain, and 
 “ maintamerf, that this drawing was not by Raphael. I had 
 it -on my tongue to ask him upon what knowledge this 
 “ Monsieur could found a certainty of this kind, and maintain 
 “ that a drawing could or could not be by this or that master, 
 and whether then he had an interest in fastening so 
 stubbornly upon the palpable and recognised attribution 
 “ of this one, when others in the same collection were 
 “ ridiculously decked with the names of Raphael, Michael 
 
21 
 
 “ Angelo, Leonardo, Giorgione,etc., without his finding fault, 
 “ that is, admitting him to be able to detect it; but you 
 “ will allow that the question was a difficult one to put to a 
 “ client of the Prince. M. Bardi relieved me of the embar- 
 “ rassment by telling me of his own accord, that a Mr Morris 
 “ Moore, very well known, possessed the picture of this 
 drawing, and that since some time this M. Morris Moore 
 had been harassed (inquiété) by the Prince. He added that, 
 on the other hand, so many expostulations had been ad- 
 ‘‘ dressed to him here upon the attribution of this drawing, 
 “ that he had just had printed a French version of the cata- 
 logue, from which he had caused the name of Mantegna 
 “ to disappear. 1 send you, my dear Mr. Moore, a copy of 
 “ this French version. As to this letter, you can make such 
 “ use of it as you may please. 
 
 “ Yours, etc. 
 
 “ Léon Batte 
 
 « Paris, 7 Mai 18.59. 
 
 » Mon cher Monsieur Moore, 
 
 0 Je suis allé ce matin chez M. Bardi pour lui rendre les pliotographies 
 » que j’ai écartées dans le choix que j’ai fait parmi ses trois collections 
 Il d’après les dessins de Raphaël dans les galeries de Florence, Venise et 
 Il Vienne. Je lui ai pris en môme temps la suite des cartons d’Hamptoii- 
 » Court. Vous savez qu’avant-hier je fis un premier choix chez lui, a 3 'ant 
 • sous les yeux le catalogue italien de ces collections. Arrivé à VApollon et 
 Il Marsyas, rejeté à la fin de la série de Venise, je lui manifestai mon éton- 
 II nement de voir un dessin capital de Raphaël, et des plus raphaëlesques. 
 Il donné à Mantegna, et lui demandai quel était l’auteur de cette curieuse 
 Il attribution. — « Le prince Albert», me répondit-il laconiquement. — 
 Il Vous savez que M. Bardi parle difficilement français, et il me connais- 
 <( sait à peine. Je voulus avoir quelques détails sur un fait aussi singulier; 
 Il quoique, en vérité, de quoi s’étonnerait-on après votre incroyable arres- 
 11 talion à Berlin, et les étranges lettres qui de Londres vous suivirent ici. 
 Il lesquelles recommandaient d’avoir les yeux sur l'homme rl de n’appuyer 
 
— 22 — 
 
 pas le tableau? Je posai donc à M. Bardi de nouvelles questions; mais il 
 fut avec moi moins communicatif qu’avec vous et d’auires, à qui il a 
 raconté cette histoire dans tous ses détails. Ce matin je suis revenu à la 
 charge. M. Bardi me dit alors qu’on avait pris cette attribution sur un 
 ancien catalogue de l’Académie de Venise, où le dessin d’Apollon et 
 Marsyas est donné à Montagna, et qu’ici, dans le catalogue italien de la 
 collection photographique, Mantegna était une faute d’impression pour 
 Montagna. Je contins mon indignation d’une pareille supercherie, tout en 
 admirant votre perspicacité. Evidemment M. Bardi me récitait sa 
 leçon. Je lui objectai que jamais l’Académie de Venise n’avait eu de 
 catalogue antérieur ù celui de M. Selvatico, publié le 31 juillet 1854, 
 lequel catalogue donne ce dessin à Raphaël, et le désigne comme un 
 des plus précieux de la collection, « une œuvre d'une rare perfection 
 dans laquelle Raphael montre toute son élégance. » M. Bardi convint 
 avec moi qu’en effet il n’avait jamais existé de catalogue antérieurement 
 à celui de M. Selvatico, et, poussé à lout, finit par me déclarer que le 
 prince Albert était certain et soutenait que ce dessin n’était pas de 
 Raphaël. J’avais surla langue de lui demander sur quelles connaissances 
 ce monsieur pouvait baser une certitude de ce genre, et soutenir qu’un 
 dessin pouvait être ou non d’un maître ou d’un autre, et s’il avait donc 
 un intérêt à s’acharner sur l’attribution palpable et reconnue de celui-ci, 
 lorsque d’autres, dans la même collection , se paraient ridiculement 
 des noms de Raphaël, Michel-Ange, Léonard, Giorgion, etc., sans qu’il 
 le trouvât mauvais, en admettant qu’il le reconnût; mais vous convien¬ 
 drez que la question était difficile à poser à un client du prince. M. Bardi 
 m’en évita l’embarras, en me racontant de lui-même qu’un M. Morris 
 Moore, très connu, possédait la peinture de ce dessin, lequel M. Morris 
 Moore était inquiété (sic) depuis longtemps par le prince. Il ajouta que 
 d’ailleurs on lui avait fait ici tant de réclamations au sujet de l’attri¬ 
 bution de ce dessin, qu’il venait de faire imprimer une version française 
 de son catalogue, dans laquelle il avait fait disparaître le nom de Man¬ 
 tegna. Je vous envoie, mon cher M. Moore, un exemplaire de cette ver¬ 
 sion française. Quant à cette lettre, vous en pouvez faire tel usage que 
 vous voudrez. 
 
 >1 Votre tout dévoué. 
 
 Léon BATTÉ. 
 
AU PUBLIC 
 
 UN EXPOSÉ 
 
 Traduction de « A, STATSJflËJVT » 
 
 (Vo'r le texte, pare :i) 
 
 Un lait aujourd’hui connu de l’Europe, etqui s’identifie 
 à une question formellement portée deux fois devant la 
 Chambre des Communes, le 20 mars 1850 et 25 mars 1859, 
 la subornation du directeur de l’Académie de Venise pour 
 cacher le dessin original du tableau de Raphaël en ma 
 possession, VApollon et Marsyns, vient d’avoir une digne 
 suite (P. 
 
 Dans les premiers jours de mars, ayant appris qu’une 
 collection de photographies publiée par M. Bardi, l’édi¬ 
 teur de Florence, d’après les dessins de Raphaël à Florence, 
 Venise et Vienne, était arrivée à Paris, j’allai chez le dé¬ 
 positaire, et demandai à la voir. On me mit en main les 
 trois séries avec un catalogue italien imprimé décrivant 
 chaque pièce. A la Seconde Série, celle de Venise, était 
 cette note : 
 
 '1'. Voir le Corriere Italiano, etc,, Appfnàice, r*K<* 38 à 49. 
 
— 24 — 
 
 « Four la iionieiiclature et les observations relatives à ces 
 K dessins, nous nous sommes servi de l’ouvrage de M. J. D. 
 « Passavant, liafacl von Urhino, etc., Leipsic 1839, et du Cata- 
 « logue du marquis P. Selvatico, publié à Venise en 1854. 
 
 < — Les photographies des dessins de cette série sont toutes de 
 
 < la même grandeur que les originaux (1). » 
 
 On nous intime expressément ici que, soit dansM. Pas¬ 
 savant, soit dans M. Selvatico, devra se trouver tout ce 
 qui se rattache à cette série, et aussi que tous deux sont 
 d’accord lorsqu’on ne nous prévient pas du contraire; car, 
 en face d’une telle annonce, supprimer une différence 
 notable entre eux constituerait une suspecte omission 
 d’un devoir évident, et garder le silence sur une intercala¬ 
 tion qui contredirait l’un ou l’autre, surtout si cette inter¬ 
 calation était anonyme, autoriserait la pire interprétation. 
 
 Dernier sur la liste, la vraie place pour capter l’œil, 
 trillé parmi des contrefaçons manifestes, comme la seule 
 contrefaçon possible, et ainsi, quoique /ettre prudem¬ 
 ment retenu dans la catégorie de Raphaël, en esprit re¬ 
 jeté de cette catégorie, je trouvai le dessin de Raphaël le 
 plus saillant de la série de ’Venise annoncé comme suit : 
 
 € 80. Apollon kt Marsyas, dessin à la plume et à l’aquarelle 
 « sur papier rosâtre; ce dessin est par quelques-uns attribué 
 « à Mantegna (2). > 
 
 Remarquez, non pas Montagna, le nom écrit sur la 
 monture au-dessous du dessin, comme le montre la pho¬ 
 tographie que j’en ai fait prendre à Venise en 1857, — 
 mais Mantegna. Là je vis le pied fourchu. Ce dessin n’a 
 
 (Ij Voir pour le texte, page 6, note 1. 
 fa) Voir pour le texte, page 6, note ‘J. 
 
— 23 — 
 
 jamais été attribué à Mantegna. Le Catalogue Selvatico 
 le décrit ainsi : 
 
 « Apollon et Marsyas. Œuvre de rare perfection, dans 
 € la(jueUe Raphael montre toute son élégance. Ce dessin attribué 
 « d’abord, je ne sais pourquoi, à Bart. Montagna, a été reconnu 
 • être induhitahlement de Raphaël (i). » 
 
 Le nom de Montagna fut écrit par le comte Cicognara, 
 • autrefois président de l’Académie de Venise, comme un 
 memorandum, tandis qu’il classait la collection, que Be¬ 
 nedetto Montagna avait gravé le même sujet : explication 
 qui me fut donnée à Venise en 1857 par le sous-directeur 
 actuel de l’Académie, M. Andrea Tagliapietra, présent 
 quand Cicognara l’écrivit, et qui me fut confirmée par 
 M. Francesco Zanotto, secrétaire de l’Académie de Venise 
 sous la présidence de Cicognara. 
 
 Or, le marquis P. Selvatico, une des autorités aux¬ 
 quelles on nous renvoie pour la nomenclature de la série 
 de Venise, ne dit rien de Mantegna, ni ne conteste en au¬ 
 cune façon le dessin ci'Apollon et Marsyas; au contraire, 
 il entasse les éloges en soutenant qu’il est de Raphaël, ne 
 peut même cnnccrofr un doute à cet égard, et proclame 
 une conviction semblable chez d’autres. M. Passavant 
 non plus, l’autorité qui reste, ne l’a jamais attribué à 
 Mantegna. Donc le Public est égaré par la note à la série 
 de Venise, procédé qui va être dépouillé jusqu’à complète 
 nudité. Mais d’abord un mot de plus sur M. Passavant. 
 
 Pages 174-5 du troisième et dernier volume de son 
 Rafael von Urbino and Sein Vater Giovanni Santi, 
 
 l'I ) Le nom écrit au-dessous du dessin par le comte Cicognara, est « Be- 
 ned" » (Benedetto), et non '< Bart. <- /Bartolommeo^ Montagna. ■— Voir la 
 note, page 7. 
 
— 2G — 
 
 publié à Leipsic en juillet 1858, au chapitre spécial 
 Apollon et Marsyas, c’est sa « ronvictwn que le dessin 
 et le tableau d’après le dessin sont tous deux de Timoteo 
 Viti; » et cette « conviction » ilia publie tout en avouant 
 n’avoir pas vu le dessin depuis 1835, — depuis vin g i- 
 irois ans. Examinons de plus près sa conviction. 
 
 Réfléchissant que s’il eût préalablement connu le dessin 
 original de « Timoteo Viti comme il l’appelle, possédé 
 par l’Académie de Venise, il était à peine croyable, même 
 borné comme il est, qu’il eût risqué en 1850 devant lord 
 Elcho, eE en présence de M, Rohm, devant moi, son 
 « opinion inaltérable » que le tableau était de Francesco 
 Francia lE, j’allai à la Ribliothèque Impériale, et là, 
 compulsai la partie de son ouvrage citée dans la note aux 
 photographies de la série de Venise, c’est-à-dire, les deux 
 premiers volumes publiés en 1839. Dans le second volume, 
 page 466, est une division, « Les Dessins de Raphaël en 
 Italie », et à celle-ci une première subdivision, « Les 
 Dessins de Raphaël dans l’Académie des Beaux-Arts à 
 Venise »; nulle part un mot de T Apollon et Marsyas. — 
 Mais son sujet était Raphaël, et non Timoteo della Vite. 
 — A une objection si impérieuse, une courte réponse. — 
 Dans la même subdivision, page 477, figure, et pas le 
 seul étranger à RaphaëL « un dessin à la plume de Marie 
 avec le Christ-Enfant debout », par son véritable Timoteo 
 Viti. — Son silence donc sur un dessin aussi exquis., 
 aussi frappant que VApollon et Marsyas, et par ce 
 même Timoteo Viti, ce qu’il veut faire croire, serait le 
 
 '1, Voir la Lettre de lord Elclio, Appi^ndice.p^KO 53, et celle de M. .BOhm, 
 Morniny Pont, 13,juin 1850. 
 
— 27 - 
 
 gage de sa perception en 1835, et de sa loyauté en 1858; 
 mais sa première mention du dessin concordant avec une 
 attaque contre moi dans XeDeutsches Kiinstblatt de Berlin, 
 du 1" novembre 1855, , c’est-à-dire, cinq ans et neuf 
 mois après la découverte du tableau, l’évidence surabonde 
 que s’il vit le dessin en 1835, il ne le remarqua pas; de 
 plus, qu’il demeura sans soupçonner même son existence, 
 jusqu’à ce que, quinze années plus tard, la splendeur 
 naissante du tableau vint en illuminer l’obscurité; par 
 conséquent, que sa « conviction » de 1858 est une con¬ 
 viction pour l’occasion. Si délicate est la fibre des « émi¬ 
 nents » Germains, « supérieurs » Par Autorité « à tout 
 Anglais > 1 
 
 Peu de jours après que j’eusse vu les photographies 
 en question, une personne de ma connaissance, désirant 
 en acheter quelques-unes, vint chez moi avec une collec¬ 
 tion complète pour que je l’assistasse dans son choix. Je 
 lui demandai s’il avait remarqué ce que le catalogue disait 
 de VApollon et Marsyas. — « Oui certes, répondit-il, et 
 j’en ai été frappé : d’où vient ce nom de Mantegna? — 
 C’est la yriffe du prince Albert, repris-je. —Après une 
 pause, il me dit ; — « Vous avez raison! Je sors de chez 
 Bardi ; lui-même m’a confié cette collection que vous voyez 
 et m’a appris que le prince Albert lui avait procuré les 
 autorisations nécessaires à l’exécution de cet ouvrage qui 
 se publiait sous le patronage du prince et sa surveillance. 
 Bardi loge à l’hôtel Byron, rue Laffitte. > Jusqu’à ce mo¬ 
 ment j’avais ignoré que Bardi fût à Paris. Une légitime 
 défensè‘à\.ov6, pour ne pas parler de motifs plus élevés, me 
 poussait à approfondir cette nouvelle perfidie. 
 
— 28 — 
 
 Prenant avec moi le Catalogue Selvalico, j’allai à l’hô- 
 lel Byron. C’était le mardi-gras, 8 mars; Bardi était chez 
 lui, et, comme c’était fête, de loisir. Je demandai à voir 
 ses photographies. Comme il ne demandait pas de nom, 
 je n’en donnai point. Il avait différé son retour à Flo¬ 
 rence expressément pour surveiller la première issue de 
 sa publication ici ; il avait donc à cœur de la montrer, et 
 de satisfaire aux informations. Je commençai par la Pre¬ 
 mière Série, celle de Florence ; j’examinai chaque pièce, 
 et signalai plusieurs erreurs dans le catalogue. Il me re¬ 
 mercia de mes corrections, et les mit en note avec empres¬ 
 sement- Arrivé à la Seconde Série, je lus la note à haute 
 voix, et remarquai que faire parade dans une œuvre ita¬ 
 lienne d’un nom allemand éventé même en Allemagne, 
 c’était faire tort à l’Italie, et qu’en tout cas l’un ou l’autre 
 pays aurait pu lui fournir une autorité plus respectable que 
 ce M. Passavant, insignifiant comme critique, et indigne de 
 confiance comme homme. — « Oh 1 dit il, ce n’est pas ma 
 faute. Je ne suis pas connaisseur. C’est le prince Albert 
 qui a obtenu des gouvernements autrichien et toscan la 
 permission d’exécuter ces photographies. Pour les dessins 
 de Vienne et de Venise, il me donna une lettre pour l’ar¬ 
 chiduc Ferdinand-Maximilien, auquel je la présentai moi- 
 même à Scôhnbrunn, et m’ordonna, par son secrétaire 
 allemand, le docteur Becker, de m’en tenir à MM. Passa¬ 
 vant et Selvatico pour la confection du catalogue ; mais de 
 commencer toujours par consulter M. Passavant, qu’il re¬ 
 gardait comme la plus haute des autorités. L’ouvrage est 
 publié sous le patronage du prince Albert, et lui est dédié. 
 ,Te n’en suis rien que l’éditeur, et j’arrive de Londres où 
 je viens de le lui soumettre achevé. « —Alors je présume 
 
29 — 
 
 que ce catalogue a été révisé par le prince Albert avant la 
 publication ? — nil l’a été », 
 
 Maintenant j’arrivais au n" 80, VApollon et Marsyas. — 
 Autre erreur I dis-je. Ce dessin est exécuté principalement 
 à la pointe d’argent, et non à la plume, comme vous l’in¬ 
 diquez. Mais que veut dire cela, « par quelques uns attri¬ 
 bué à Mantegna » ? Il n’a jamais été attribué à Mantegna. 
 Voici le Catalogue de votre marquis Selvatico. Remarquez ; 
 il le déclare « une œuvre de rare perfection, dans laquelle 
 Raphaël montre toute son élégance », et « reconnu indu¬ 
 bitablement de Raphaël > (C. Passavant non plus ne parle 
 pas de Mantegna. Comment ce nom est-il venu là? — Bardi 
 convint alors que le Catalogue Selvatico lui était familier, 
 et qu’il savait bien que ni dans ce catalogue, ni dans Pas¬ 
 savant, Mantègna n’était mentionné. Mais sur ce dessin, 
 dit-il, il y avait une singulière histoire dont il avait entendu 
 les détails à Venise. C’était le dessin pour le tableau appar¬ 
 tenant à M. Morris Moore à qui le prince Albert était extrê- 
 ment hostile, ce dont M. Morris Moore avait tellement 
 souffert en Angleterre, qu’il en avait quitté le pays. A une 
 entrevue que lui, Bardi, avait eue avec le prince Albert, 
 
 (1) L’expression « di rara perfezione » que M. Selvatico applique au 
 dessin d’Apollon et Marsyas, se rencontre ailleurs, quoique avec beaucoup 
 moins de raison, dans son catalogue, comme aussi les phrases analogues 
 « di rara bellezza », « bel disegno franchissimo », etc. Elles sont toutes, 
 U par Permission », dûment rendues en anglais par « d’une singulière beau¬ 
 té », « très-beau », « beau et très-hardi dessin », etc. Mais le panégyrique 
 du dessin d’Apollon et Marsyas, « Opéra di rara perfezione in cui Raffaello 
 mostra tutta la sua eleganza », n’étant pas, par exception, inclus dans le 
 brevet royal, est par conséquent supprimé. 
 
 Où tout respire l’ingénuité, pas un mot qui ne soit précieux. La série de 
 Venise est distinguée des autres, comme nous l’avons vu page 24, par cette 
 annonce que « les photographies des Dessins de cette série sont toutes de la 
 
— 30 — 
 
 celui-ci avait repoussé avec véhémence le dessin, et aussi, 
 — sans l’avoir jamais vu, — le tableau, covamQ n’étant 
 ni l’un ni l’autre de Raphaël. L’interpolation anonyme de 
 Mantegna avait été insérée par l’ordre formel du prince 
 Albert. — Je ne suis pas le seul dans Paris à qui Bardi 
 ait raconté ces particularités. Mais qu’est-il besoin de té¬ 
 moins? Voici le corpus delicti, — le mensonge dans le 
 catalogue et la dédicace. Avantde me retirer, j’obtins deux 
 versions du catalogue, une en italien, l’autre en anglais 
 « Dédiée par Permission à S. A. R. le Prince-Epoux ». 
 
 L’adulation porte profit : on nous dira que la publication 
 étant ta chose du prince Albert, il peut l’accommoder à sa 
 fantaisie; que lui aussi, tout comme un autre, doit avoir 
 la liberté d’exprimer une opinion, et que l’interpolation 
 n’a pas besoin d’autre apologie. La première proposition 
 est trop escarpée pour une réponse ; l’autre est moins ina¬ 
 bordable. Que tout bomme ait la liberté de s’exprimer libre¬ 
 ment sur toute matière, et que l’honneur soit le seul frein 
 à la licence! Mais sous le masque, insinuer dans un docu¬ 
 ment public une assertion maligne, aussi dénuée de con¬ 
 viction que de vérité, préjudiciable ànotre voisin, présentée 
 comme la décision respectable d’une grave autorité, — 
 
 môme grandeur que les originaux ». Or les figures dans le dessin à’Apol¬ 
 lon et Marsyas sont exactement de la même grandeur que dans le tableau, 
 et une empreinte sur les contours du dessin montre qu’elles ont été trans¬ 
 portées sur le panneau par le décalque. La publication « Dédiée par Permis¬ 
 sion, etc. », dispose d’une telle connexion entre les deux ouvrages, en 
 donnant franchement, sous le couvert de l’annonce précitée, une photogra¬ 
 phie de ce dessin ainsi réduite, qu’elle représente l’Apollon plus petit d'un 
 pouce et trois quarts —la hauteur de la tête et du cou — que l'original. 
 Ainsi, au pis aller, le Patron peut se reposer sur la satisfaction d’avoir au 
 moinsprof/vé que ce dessin n’eût jamais pu servir de calque réel aux figures 
 du tableau. 
 
— 3i 
 
 interprétation que je défie la casuistie elle-même de re¬ 
 pousser, — est une extension du principe difficilement 
 conciliable avec aucun système reçu de morale. Le silence 
 sur l’abstention complète deM. Passavant, l’interpolation 
 subreptice d’un plein démenti à la déclaration de Selvatico, 
 l’entière suppression de celle-ci, sont de dignes corol¬ 
 laires de cette sorte d’arguments lâchés sur moi pour 
 revendiquer les « qualifications » superlatives de cette 
 « main habile » (f, de ce fonctionnaire deux fois chassé, 
 confesseur de sa propre incompétence, M. Eastlake, -— 
 
 (1) Voir l’Appendice du prince Albert au Rapport du Comité Parlemen¬ 
 taire de 1853 sur la Galerie Nationale (n” XVII, p. 791), et sa Lettre à lord 
 Ellesmere sur l’Exposition de Manchester, dans les journaux de Londres de 
 juillet 1858. 
 
 Il convient qu’il soit bien compris que cette « main habile h vit l’Apol¬ 
 lon et Marsyas exposé pour la vente chez Christie en 1850. Quatre per¬ 
 sonnes de ma connaissance, témoins du fait, me l’ont fréquemment répété, 
 à moi et à d’autres. L’une d’elles, M. J. \V. Brett de Hanover Square, lui 
 signala môme \’Apollon et Marsyas comme une oeuvre remarquable. La 
 « main habile » le regarda, murmura quelque chose comme « curieux », et 
 — passa outre. Ceci vient expliquer les intrigues qui suivirent contre le 
 tableau et le dessin. Liés comme sont ces deux ouvrages à la réputation d’un 
 homme qui a contribué pour sa part à chasser deux fois de la Galerie Na¬ 
 tionale le client du prince, la « main habile» et son Patron ont évidemment 
 un intérêt à les miner. 
 
 Ce fut encore la môme «main habile» qui, en 18/i5, évalua à 15,750 francs 
 et acheta pour cette somme le faux Holbein , un « Medical Gentleman » , 
 comme il le nomme, et qui en môme temps repoussa pour 12,500 francs le 
 tableau inachevé de l’Exposition de Manchester, La Vierge et l’Enfant avec 
 Saint Jean et des Saints par Michel-Ange : méprise dont je fis un point 
 capital de mon acte d’accusation devant le Comité Parlementaire de 1853 
 (Quest. 9953) sur la Galerie Nationale. 
 
 Ainsi sous les yeux de ce chef d’une galerie nationale frauduleusement 
 réinstallé deux fois, de ce président d’une académie royale, ont passé, 
 même alors qu’on avait excité sur eux son attention, deux des plus rares 
 et des plus exquis spécimens de la Renaissance; mais lui pour eux fut sans 
 yeux, eux pour lui furent des pages vides : étrange, mais authentique abrégé 
 de sa carrière officielle. - • Voir The Rejected Michael Angelo, Appen¬ 
 dice, page 57. 
 
Le Chevalier, de par sa carte, — et pour garantir cet 
 « aimable, distingué et tout-à-fait gentleman » de servir 
 de « plastron aux attaques de chaque compétiteur désap¬ 
 pointé ». 
 
 Rentré chez moi, je fis un mémoire de ce qui s’était 
 passé chez Bardi, et j’examinai la version « Dédiée par 
 Permission, etc. ». Elle commençait par la série de 
 Venise; la note était la même; mais au n° 80, je décou¬ 
 vris une addition : 
 
 • 80. Apollon et Marsyas : dessin à la plume, ombré à 
 « fencre de Chine. Ce dessin a été attribué à Mantegna; il 
 « correspond au tableau appartenant aujourd’hui à M. Morris 
 * Moore. > 
 
 Pourquoi s’arrêter? Pourquoi gauchir à proclamer que, 
 en 1850, le commissaire-priseur catalogua le tableau 
 aussi comme Mantegna? L’attribution du dessin à Mante¬ 
 gna en 1859 devait signaler une coincidence. Pourquoi 
 laisser indécise une conclusion si infinie contre « le ta¬ 
 bleau appartenant aujourd’hui à M. Morris Moore? » Mais 
 quand la fourbe ne fut-elle pas lâche? Avoir cité loyale¬ 
 ment le mémorandum de Cicognara portait son propre 
 antidote, puisque la curieuse petite gravure de Bene¬ 
 detto Montagna, Apollon et Marsyas, avec Apollon en 
 blouse jouant du rebec, se peut voir dans toute impor¬ 
 tante collection de gravures, et ne « correspond » ni au 
 catalogue de la vente en 1850, ni « au tableau appartenant 
 aujourd’hui à M. Morris Moore ». Des pieds à la tête, sous 
 quelque côté qu’on la tourne, l’interpolation est une four¬ 
 berie. Pas un nom décent ne peut être produit pour lui 
 prêter une contenance. Je vais au devant de l’apologie de 
 
— 33 
 
 l’addition anglaise, h'imprimeur sera le coupable Un a 
 pour un O, un c pour un et voyez le Benedetto Monta¬ 
 gna de Cicognara devenir innocemment Andrea Mantegna, 
 le nom pour un moment attaché au tableau. Regardez la 
 coïncidence! En attendant, comme un «venimeux reptile », 
 le faux serpente par l’Europe, et ainsi, dans le calcul 
 probable des chances, l’espérance fermente que le venin 
 laissera des traces (U. 
 
 11 y a neuf années que dure cette conspiration, nourrie 
 de toutes les turpitudes. Aveuglés par l’ignorance et de 
 pervers instincts, les conspirateurs saluèrent dans VApol¬ 
 lon et Marsyas une opportunité. 11 pouvait remettre toutes 
 les transgressions. Mon jugement en défaut ici, le verdict 
 que deux fois j’avais établi contre eux était renversé, 
 une réinstallation frauduleuse absoute. Belle perspective 
 au travers d'un triste raisonnement. Ils se mirent à 
 l’œuvre; mais comme les taupes, sous terre. Quand je 
 me mis à les déterrer, une obséquieuse franc-maçonnerie, 
 par déférence pour un étranger que cependant chacun à 
 part soi vitupère, m’obstrua tous les abords de la publi¬ 
 cité, étouffa ma parole là où déjà ma voix avait été solli¬ 
 citée et applaudie. Tel fut le salaire de l’énergie de mes 
 meilleures années dévouées au public ; telle, la conséquence 
 de cette masse de témoignages que, en dépit de l’adula¬ 
 tion, j’avais reçus de la presse et des hommes de quelque 
 
 (1) J’ai résolu, puisque toute loyauté semble éteinte en Angleterre, de 
 répandre par l’Europe, eu diverses langues, chaque incident de cette 
 ignoble conspiration; d’afficher le nom de quiconque l’appuie. C’est un 
 D'' Radford, de Suffolk-Street, Pali Mall, Londres, qui « par pur amour 
 de VArt », comme il le donne à entendre, s’est offert comme traducteur 
 ■' honoraire » et correcteur juré du catalogue du prince Albert, 
 
 3 
 
34 — 
 
 conscience, et, titres autrement flatteurs, des confessions 
 arrachées à l’ennemi. Mais « la vérité défiant tous les cal¬ 
 culs est la vérité ». Je m’avisai que l’Angleterre n’était 
 pas le Monde, et, secouant la poussière de mes piedsp 
 j’en appelai à l’Europe. Le nouveau verdict a plus que 
 ratifié l'ancien. 
 
 Chez moi, les personnalités sont un démérite qui l’em¬ 
 porte sur l’argument et déréalise le fait. Encore faut-il 
 pourtant que je continue à m’en servir, jusqu’à ce que 
 j’aie appris que des mesures puissent prendre naissance 
 sans un homme, un acte sans un agent, la fraude sans- 
 un fourbe. Mais, Dieu merci! je sens en moi ce qui doit 
 me préserver toujours de me livrer à des personnalités 
 telles que celle qu’on vient de prouver ici. Pas un 
 homme dans le parlement anglais, où môme le plus mince 
 prétexte pour crier à 1’ « honneur national » est tout 
 aussitôt saisi comme atout, n’a jamais hasardé un souffle 
 sur mon arrestation à Berlin, un souffle sur cette auda¬ 
 cieuse violation de la loi internationale, mon expulsion 
 de la Prusse au mépris du plus complet aveu du gouver¬ 
 nement prussien que rien jamais n’avait pu motiver fun 
 ou l’autre outrage. Mais « de ce silence on peut entendre 
 autant que de la langue de crécelle d’une éloquence effron¬ 
 tée D, et « c’est merveille que l’instinct. » La pièce de 
 Berlin fut remise à l’étude pour une reprise à Paris ; mais 
 les sympathies germaines d’une cour Germaine firent 
 défaut à l’entreprise (L. 
 
 (1) Il est notoire à Berlin que l’ordre de mon arrestation émana direc~ 
 tement du cabinet du roi, et que le chef de la police ignora le projet 
 jusqu’après la perpétration de l’outrage. 
 
— 33 — 
 
 Combien d’Anglais oseront exprimer ouvertement ce 
 que même le plus vil ne pourra s'empêcher de sentir à la 
 lecture de ceci? Où de telles choses que j’ai souffertes 
 peuvent passer sans réclamation, le civisme n’est qu’un 
 son, la liberté qu’un fantôme. Que peut de plus le des¬ 
 potisme le plus féroce, qu’étrangler? La liberté! —en 
 Angleterre la servilité est son vampire. Qu’un Anglais, 
 « né libre », comme tous en ont plein la bouche, ose au¬ 
 tant 1 — mon expérience l’attend. Dans la seule bassesse 
 est la sécurité- 
 
 Signé, Morris Moore. 
 
 POSTSGRIPTUM 
 
 Le nouvel épisode du complot contre moi au sujet du 
 dessin Apollon et Marsyas n’a rencontré à Paris que 
 le mépris et la déroute. Les Français sont chatouilleux : ils 
 l’appellent rondement « une infamie », Son seul terroir 
 aujourd’hui est l’Angleterre. Là, au milieu des rires ser¬ 
 viles à des fadaises de cuistre d’école sur les « hypo¬ 
 thèses » et les « contingences », étalées en réponse à une 
 simple question D) ; parmi les sarcasmes plus serviles 
 encore à l’adresse du « fameux tableau appartenant au¬ 
 jourd’hui à Morris Moore, — Esquire »; là seulement, 
 l’expérience me dit qu’il peut vivre. Mais la plate vulgarité 
 n’empêchera pas ce même « fameux tableau » de briller 
 comme vraiment fameux, même parmi les plus fameux 
 tableaux, longtemps après que le « fameux » auteur, le 
 
 (1) Voir la réponse de M. Disraeli à M, Coniughani. — Débals parle¬ 
 mentaires du 25 mars 1859. 
 
— 36 — 
 
 » fameux » orateur débitant les périodes d’autrui U), le 
 « fameux » homme d’état orïmidX, Disraeli- 
 
 Benjamin-le-Très-Honorable, se sera pavané, avec la cohue 
 de même espèce, jusque dans un miséricordieux oubli. 
 
 J’ai dit que la fourbe était lâche. Les conspirateurs se 
 sont dérobés à leur besogne. Le catalogue du prince 
 Albert, significativement corrigé, a été publié en français. 
 Le 1 Dédié par Permission, etc., s est par «Permission » 
 disparu,—par « Permission » ^/é-Dédié; disparus aussi, par 
 « Permission », sont Passavant et Selvatico. Leurs noms 
 étaient de petite recommandation à Paris. La note qui les 
 contenait est écourtée à ce déguisement, que « les photo¬ 
 graphies des Dessins de cette Série sont tous de la même 
 grandeur que les originaux », bagage oublié peut-être 
 dans le tumulte de la retraite. Mais ce ne sont pas là toutes 
 les expurgations. 
 
 « Par suite des fréquentes réclamations qui lui ont été 
 adressés ici à ce sujet », affirme M. Bardi, mais non 
 moins sans doute par suite du manque d’appuis dessin 
 d'Apollon et Marsyas n’est pas, par « Permission », pour 
 plus longtemps « attribué par quelques-uns à », 
 
 mais de même que ses compagnons , il triomphe par 
 « Permission » comme Raphaël, avec l’adjonction de la 
 note aujourd’hui bénigne, que « il correspond au tableau 
 appartenant à M. Morris Moore ». 
 
 Ci-jointe une lettre, servant de complément à cet 
 Exposé, et de certificat à mes prétentions comme pro¬ 
 phète. (Voir page 21 la lettre de M. Leon Datte). 
 
 (1) Comparer le panégyrique du maréchal Bugeaud par M. Thiers, et 
 celui du duc de Wellington par M. Disraeli. 
 
APPENDIX 
 
ARTICOIiO 
 
 r>BL 
 
 CORRIERE ITALIANO DI VIENNA 
 
 BI MERCOLEBI )3 MAG G 10 1857 
 
 Riprodutto sul MOl^ITORE TOSCAIVO 
 
 GIO-VEDI 4 GIDGNO BEL MEDESIMO ANNO. 
 
 APOLLO Ë MARSIA 
 
 UN DIPINTO ED UN DISEGNO DI RAFFAELLO 
 
 II signor Morris Moore^, uomo ben conosciuto in fatto di 
 Belle Arti^ il quale trascorse gran parte di sua vita a percorrere 
 musei, gallerie e citta ricclie in monumenti^ scoperse a Londra, 
 alcuni anni or sono^ im insigne dipinto di Raffaello, rappresen- 
 tante Apollo e Marsia. Non ando gnari ch’ ei seppe esistere fra 
 li disegni appartenuti al pittore Bossi, ed acquistati dalla mu- 
 nificenza sovrana, e da questa donati alia nostra Accademia, 
 nn disegno originale colla précisa composizione di Raffaello, 
 sotto il quale, di mano del Cicognara, era stato scritto di 
 Benedetto Montagna, tratto forse in errore quelF egregio, dalF 
 avere appunto Benedetto, e non Bartolommeo, come poscia fu 
 detto, intagliato ii soggetto inedesimo; quando lo stile e la 
 scuola affatto diverse, lo palesavano opera esimia dell’ Ur- 
 binate. 
 
 Per confrontar dunqne il dipinto col disegno, fin dal marzo 
 1854, cerco modo il Morris Moore di possedere una fotografia 
 del seconde, e per cio col mezzo del signor Edoardo Cheney, 
 pregava il sig. Rawdon Browne, die da più anni onora di sua 
 dimora Venezia, a procurargliela. Ad onta pero delle solleci- 
 tudini prese dal signor Browne, non fu posslbile ad esso di 
 averla, essendogli stata negata dal segretario della R. Accade- 
 mia, sig. M. Selvatico, e cio per ignorate cagioni. 
 
ARTICliE 
 
 FROM THE 
 
 CORBIERE ITALIANO OP VIENNA 
 
 WEDNESDAY MAY THE 1 3 ftc 1857 
 
 llepubllshed by (he MOlVITORï: TOSCAIVO 
 
 THDRSDAY JUNE THE 4th OF THE SAME YEAR, 
 
 APOLLO m MARSTAS 
 
 A PAINTING AND A DRAWING BY RAPHAEL 
 
 Mr. Morris Moore, a man well known in the Fine Arts, and 
 who has passed a great part of his life in ■visiting Museums, 
 ■Galleries, and cities rich in monuments of Art, discovered some 
 years ago an exquisite painting by Raphael, representing Apollo 
 and Marsyas, Not long after, he heard that among the draw¬ 
 ings formerly belonging to the painter Rossi, since acquired 
 by Royal munificence and presented to onr Academy, there 
 «xisted an original drawing of the very same composition by 
 Raphael, under which had been written by the hand of Cico- 
 gnara, Benedetto Montagna, that accomplished man having 
 perhaps been led into error by Benedetto, and not Bartolom¬ 
 meo, as was subsequently said, having engraved the same 
 subject; although the style and the school, entirely different, 
 revealed it to be a transcendent work of Raphael, 
 
 To compare then the painting with the drawing, Morris 
 Moore, as early as March, 18 54, sought means to obtain a pho¬ 
 tograph of the latter; and he accordingly, through Mr. Edward 
 Cheney got Mr. Rawdon Browne, who for many years has 
 resided in Venice, to procure it for him. In spite, however, of 
 the pains taken by Mr. Browne, it was impossible for him to 
 obtain it, the secretary of the I. R. Academy, the Marchese 
 Selvatico, having refused it him, and this for reasons unknown . 
 
- 40 — 
 
 Due niesi appresso, cioe nel maggio 18 54, il barone Maroc- 
 chetti, sciiltore stabilité a Londra, pregato dal INIorris Moore 
 inedesimo, scriveva ad iin suo aniico Inglese, forse il signor 
 Leeves, residente in Venezia, di rinnovar la demanda al sig 
 INI. Selvatico, il quale questa volta rispondeva non poter per 
 mettere cbe tratta fosse alcuna fotografia da quel disegno, se 
 prima non 1’ avesse ottenuta il Direttoi’e della Galleria Nationale 
 Inglese, signor Eastlake, « col quale crasi impegnato ; }> ma 
 cbe tosto dope ne riceverebbe una copia. Ma non si verified 
 mai I’opera della fotografia, e quindi neppur la promessa. 
 Sembra adunque cbe Timpedimento per ottenerlo dérivasse 
 dair Eastlake. 
 
 Pochi di appresso di questo ultimo fatto, il signor Giuseppe 
 D. Bohm, Direttove delP I. R. Accademia degli incisori di 
 Zecca, ed I. R. incisore di camera a Vienna, conoscitore es- 
 pertissimo di Belle Arti e già possessore di disegni originali di 
 Raffaello, recandosi per ordini dell’ Impériale governo in 
 Italia, affine di esaminare lo stato del Cenacolo di Leonardo e 
 di altri celebrati dipinti, colse quella occasione per vedere il 
 disegno in parola, conoscendo già per fama il dipinto posseduto 
 dal Morris Moore; ma quel disegno era stato tolto dalla cor¬ 
 nice, e percbe lo vedesse si trasse da una custodia della stanza 
 del segretario. Chiese allora il signor Bohm al marchese 
 Selvatico di mandargliene una fotografia, « ma ad onta delle 
 più positive sue promesse non la potè mai avéré », come egli 
 stesso con queste precise parole, scriveva al Morris Moore da 
 Vienna il 22 luglio 1855, la lettera del quale veniva pubblicata 
 il 1 del seguente settembre nei giornali Inglesi. Nè solamente 
 si lev6 dalla cornice il disegno in questione, ma s’ impedi cbe 
 fosse veduto da alcuni intelligenti forestieri, siccome testimo- 
 niar possono li sigg. Guglielmo Smith, già negoziante di stampe 
 a Londra, e Guglielmo Carpenter, capo del dipartimento delle 
 Incisioni e Stampe nel Museo Britannico, i quali venuti nelP 
 
— 41 
 
 Two months afteiwards, that is, in May, 1854, Baron Ma- 
 rocchetli, a sculptor established in London, wrote at the in¬ 
 stance of Morris Moore himself to an English friend resident at 
 Venice, perhaps Mr. Leeves, to renew the request to the sig. 
 M' Selvatico, who this time replied that he could allow no 
 photograph of that drawing to be taken until the Director of 
 the English National Gallery, Mr. Eastlake, “ to whom he 
 stood thus pledged ”, had first received one; but that soon 
 after he should have a copy. But the execution of the photo¬ 
 graph was never realised, and consequently, neither was the 
 promise. It appears, therefore, that the impediment to obtain¬ 
 ing it derived from Eastlake. 
 
 A few days after this last occurrence, M. Joseph D. Bdhm, 
 Director of the 1. R. Academy of the Medallists of the Mint, 
 and I. R. Medallist in Ordinary at Vienna, a most able con¬ 
 noisseur and formerly possessor of original drawings by Ra¬ 
 phael, having come to Italy by command of the Imperial Go¬ 
 vernment in order to examine the condition of the Cenacolo, 
 by Leonardo, and of other celebrated paintings, seized that op¬ 
 portunity to see the drawing in question, he being already 
 acquainted by fame with the painting in Morris Moore’s pos¬ 
 session; but that drawing had been removed from its frame, 
 and it had to be fetched from the private room of the secre¬ 
 tary (Selvatico) before he could see it. M. Bohm then asked 
 the Marchese Selvatico to send him a photograph of it; but “ in 
 spite of his most positive promises, he could never 
 
 get it ”, as he himself, in these same words, wrote to Morris 
 Moore, on the 22iid of July, 1855, in a letter which was pub¬ 
 lished on the 1st of the September following, in the English 
 journals (i). Nor was the drawing in question merely taken 
 from its frame, but various foreigners were prevented even 
 from seeing it, as can testify Messieurs William Smith, late 
 printseller of London, and William Carpenter, keeper of the 
 
— 42 — 
 
 autuniio deir anno 1854 in Venezia, e quivi fermatisi quattro 
 giorni, non fu loro possibile, per quanto fecero, di veder quel 
 disegno, negate loro quando sotto d"uno, quando sotto Taltro 
 pretesto. 11 Smith pure intese a Venezia, come egli stesso riferi 
 a Morris Moore allorchè fu di ritorno a Londra, che saria inu¬ 
 tile pensare alia fotografia, e che Timpedimento dérivasse dal 
 soprannominato Eastlake. 
 
 II riconoscimento pei di quel disegno per parte deir onore- 
 vole ed intelligentissimo sig. Bohm, accaduto come si disse nel 
 maggio 1854, valse si che allora soltanto, e non prima, fosse 
 valutato di Raffaello, e non del Benedetto Montagna, e fu 
 allora che il M. Selvatico, valendosi di quel riconoscimento, 
 pnhblicava nel calalogo dei disegni antichi esistenti nella R. 
 Accademia Veneta di Brlle Arti dato fuori il 31 luglio di quell’ 
 anno, ed essere stato esso disegno « riconosciuto indiibitata- 
 mente di Raffaello », e possederne il signor Morris Moore un 
 dipinto dell’ autore stesso, senza accennare aversi allora cor- 
 retto soltanto, a merito del Morris Moore e del Bohm, lo 
 shaglio commesso dal Cicognara; anzi, in quella vece, incorse 
 egli in due altri errori rilevantissimi, e sono; il primo, nell’ 
 asserire essersi attribuito quel disegno a Bartolommeo Monta¬ 
 gna in luogo di Benedetto, il quale intaglio quel soggetto, 
 come si disse, e come fu scritto dal Cicognara; il secondo, 
 nell’ aver affermato essere il dipinto di RalTaello posseduto dal 
 Morris Moore, im jtoco più inccolo del disegno, quando è, in 
 vece, maggiore in altezza di circa tre oncie, ed in larghezza 
 ■di circa un’ oncia. 
 
 Conviene notare che all’ Eastlake premeva che fosse igno- 
 raio questo disegno di Raffaello, perché per tale guisa pensava 
 smpedire che maggior nome acquistasse in fatto di cogniziom 
 artistiche il Morris Moore medesimo, il quale aveva due volte 
 operate per mezzo del Parlamento, cioè ncl 1847 e nel 1854, 
 
— 43 
 
 Prints and Drawings in the British Museum, who having come 
 to Venice in the autumn of 1854, and remained here four days, 
 found it impossible, notwithstanding all their efforts, to see that 
 drawing, access to it having been denied them on one pretext 
 or another. Mr. Smith also heard in Venice, as he himself on 
 his return to London informed Morris Moore, that it would be 
 useless to think of the photograph , and that the impediment 
 derived from the above-named Eastlake. 
 
 The recognition of this drawing by the honourable and most 
 intelligent M. Bohm, which occurred, as we have said, in May, 
 1854, was of such weight, that then only, and not before, was 
 it re-established as being by Raphael, and not by Benedetto 
 Montagna; and it was now that the M“ Selvatico availing him¬ 
 self of that recognition, published in the Catalogue of Drawings 
 existing in the I. Venetian Academy of Fine Arts, brought out 
 on the 31st of July of that same year, both that the drawing had 
 been “ ascertained to he undoubtedly by Raphael ”, and that 
 Mr. Morris Moore possessed a painting of it by the same master, 
 but without mentioning that the mistake committed by Cico- 
 gnara had now been corrected only through Morris Moore and 
 Bohm ; nay, he fell instead into two other very considerable 
 errors; namely, the first, in asserting that that drawing had 
 been attributed to Bartolommeo Montagna, in place of Bene¬ 
 detto, who engraved that subject, as has been said, and as was 
 written by Cicognara; the second, in having asserted the 
 painting belonging to Morris Moore, to be a little smaller than 
 the drawing, when, on the contrary, it is larger in height by 
 about three inches, and in breadth by about one inch. 
 
 It is necessary to observe here that it was of great conse¬ 
 quence to Eastlake that this drawing by Raphael should re¬ 
 main unknown. On account of his vandalisms in the treatment 
 of Ancient Paintings and his ignorant purchases, Morris Moore 
 had twice, by means of Parliament, effected his removal from 
 
— 44 — 
 
 che rimossovenisse; percagione di vandalisiiio in fatto di ristauri 
 di antichi dipinti e di ignoranti acquisti, dal Direttorato della 
 Galleria Nazionale Inglese, nuovamente da lui occupato pbscia 
 per quegli intrighi noti a tutta I’lnghilterra. Fece FEastlake 
 in persona due viaggi da Londra a Venezia, cioè nel 1852 e 
 nel 1851, espressamente per impegnare il Selvatico come di 
 sopra accennato. In quanto agli ignoranti acquisti fatti dall’ 
 Eastlake per la Galleria Nazionale Inglese, basta dire che 
 alcuni da esso e da un tal Mündler bavarese fatti in Italia nei 
 due ultinii anni, vennero per ordine superiore rivenduti all' 
 Asia pubblica il 14 del febbraio decorso. La somma ricavata 
 fu meno della metà del loro costo. 
 
 Nello scorso gennaio recandosi a Venezia da Londra il 
 signor Alessandro Barker, e volendo ottenere una fotografia 
 del disegno in questione, a cio sollecitato dal Morris Moore, 
 non fu possibile a lui di mandare ad effetto il desiderio, ap- 
 punto ])er la negativa che ebhe dal M. Selvatico. II che viene 
 a confermare piii ancora le cose superiormente esposte, e 
 mostra il delibcrato consiglio di nascondere per alcune viste 
 quel disegno. 
 
 Prima pero di qnesto ultimo fatto, cioè nel 1856, aveva il 
 Morris Moore interposto, per mezzo dei signori Higgins e 
 Dawkins di Londra, il signor Harris console generale Inglese 
 in Venezia, affine di ottenergli la sospirata fotografia, ed egli, 
 valendosi dei propi mezzi, fè si che quella volta non potesse 
 essere a lui negata. Ma accadde perô, che chiamatosi un’ 
 artista ignorante o prevenuto, non pote questi, o disse di non 
 poter trarre la fotografia ricercata; e si che il marchese Sel¬ 
 vatico propose al signor Harris, di fame eseguire, in quella 
 vece, la copia in disegno, da un giovane studente dell’ Acca- 
 demia; e questa copia si sped! al possessore del qnadro in 
 I ugh il terra. 
 
— 45 — 
 
 the Directorship of the English National Gallery (in 1847 and 
 1854), subsequently again occupied by him through those in¬ 
 trigues which are notorious to all England. By the conceal¬ 
 ment therefore of the drawing, he hoped to prevent Morris 
 Moore from acquiring greater authority in matters of Art, 
 Eastlake madetwo journeys in person from London to Venice, 
 namely, in 1852 and 1854, expressly to gain over Selvatico, 
 as above mentioned. With regard to the ignorant purchases 
 made by Eastlake for the English National Gallery, it is enough 
 to record that some made within the two last years in Italy by 
 him and one Miindler, a Bavarian, were resold on the 14th of 
 last February (185 7) by public auction, and that the sum rea¬ 
 lised for them was less than half their cost. 
 
 Last January (l857) Mr. Alexander Barker having arrived at 
 Venice from London, and wishing to obtain a photograph of 
 the drawing in question, to this solicited by iSiorris Moore, he 
 found it impossible to accomplish his desire, and precisely on 
 account of the refusal which he met with from the M® Selvatico. 
 All which comes to confirm still further the things above set 
 forth, and shews the deliberate intention to conceal, for some 
 motive, that drawing. 
 
 Before this last occurrence however, that is, in 1856, Morris 
 Moore having, in order to obtain the desired photograph, inter¬ 
 posed by means of Messieurs Higgins and Dawkins of London, 
 Mr. Harris, the English consul-general in Venice, the tatter so 
 managed that this time it could not be refused. But it now 
 befell, that the photographer engaged (by Selvatico) being 
 either ignorant or so instructed, could not, or said he could 
 not, produce the required photograph; and thus the M“ Selva¬ 
 tico proposed to Mr. Harris to have executed, in its stead, a 
 copy in drawing by a young student of the Academy, and 
 this copy was forwarded to the possessor of the picture in 
 
 t 
 
 England. 
 
 I 
 
— 46 — 
 
 Tutte le particoladtà notate ed altre ancora infinite, si pub- 
 bîicarono in parecchi giornali, e sembrando impossibile il non 
 potersi cavare da quel disegno una fotografia, mosse M. Passa¬ 
 vant, Direttore della Galleria di Francoforte sul Meno, a ricer- 
 carne a Venezia la causa. Ricevette in risposta, dipendere F 
 impossibilità dal fatto, che F originale disegno è eseguito sopra 
 carta di tinta rossa ; tinta, la quale per il fotografo risponde, 
 corne si voleva far credere, a perfetta oscurità. Quella ricerca, 
 e la risposta che la segui vennero pubblicate il 1 novembre 1855, 
 dal Passavant medesimo, nel giornale Berlinese di Belle Arti 
 intitolato Deutsches Kunstblatt. 
 
 Non è da dirsi quindi di quale e quanta indignazione fosse 
 preso il detto signor Morris Moore nel vedere tante contrad- 
 dizioni, tanti errori, tante sorgere questioni e basse gare, 
 affine di velare le male arti esercitate contre di lui ; e perciô 
 trè articoli pubblicava in vari giornali Inglesi, nelF agosto 1855 
 e nel maggio 1856 , nei quali lagnavasi di tutti coloro che 
 avevano dapprima quasi tentato nascondere il disegno, poi non 
 potendo in ciô riescire, impedito che fosse reso noto mediante 
 la fotografia. 
 
 Se non che risposto avendosi a quegli articoli, nel giornale 
 F Examiner in data 7 giugno 1856, in modo da far credere 
 essere cahmnie le cose esposte dal Morris Moore, svisando, o 
 meglio faisanda i fatti da lui resi noti quando quei fatti erano 
 suffulti da documenti inopponibili, fecesi egli a smascherare 
 quelle falsi là in un articolo pubblicato nel giornale privilegiato 
 di Berlino intitolato Vossische Zeitimg, in data 13 fehbraio 
 decorso; e per vederla una volta flnita, recôssi egli stesso a 
 Vienna affine di ottenere dal supremo Ministero della Pubblica 
 Istruzione, un regolare permesso per poter trarre dal com- 
 battuto disegno la fotografia dichiarata impossibile. Ed egli in 
 fatti F ottenne tostamente; e la o tienne con quella liberalità 
 
— 47 — 
 
 All the particulai’s above recorded, besides very many others, 
 were published in several journals, and it seeming unaccoun¬ 
 table that no photograph could be produced from tliat drawing, 
 M. Passavant, the Director of the Gallery of Frankfort-on-the- 
 Maine, undertook to inquire at Venice the cause. He heard in 
 reply, that the impossibility arose from the fact that the origi¬ 
 nal drawing is executed on paper of a red tint; a tint which to 
 the photographer corresponds, as it was sought to make be¬ 
 lieve, to perfect darkness. That inquiry and the answer which 
 followed it, were published by Passavant himself on the 1st of 
 November, 1855, in the Berlinese Art-Journal entitled, Deut¬ 
 sches Kunstblatt. 
 
 It were needless to tell how great was now Mr. Morris Moore’s 
 indignation on discovering so many contradictions, so many 
 blunders, so many subterfuges and base intrigues, in order to 
 cloak the malignant artifices employed against him ; and he 
 therefore in August, 1855, and May, 1856, published in various 
 English journals, three articles in which he complained of 
 all those who, at first, had attempted to conceal, at it were, 
 that drawing; and then, not being able to succeed in this, had 
 prevented its being made know by means of photography. 
 
 In consequence of a reply to those articles in the Examiner 
 newspaper on the 7tii of June, 1856, distorting, or rather, fal¬ 
 sifying the facts by him made public, in a way to make them 
 appear calumnies, although those facts were backed by irrefra¬ 
 gable evidence (2), Morris Moore bent himself to unmask those 
 falsehoods in an article published in the KonigUch priviligirte 
 Berlinische Zeitung, called also the Vossische Zeitung, of the 
 13th of last February (1857); and to see the matter settled once 
 for all, he went himself to Vienna, in order to obtain from the 
 supreme Ministry of Public Instruction a regular permission to 
 take from the disputed drawing, the photograph declared im¬ 
 possible. And indeed he obtained it speedily; and it was grant¬ 
 ed him with the liberality characteristic of the Austrian go¬ 
 vernment, which loves and takes pains to foster study, to dif- 
 
48 — 
 
 propria del governo Austriaeo, il quale aiiia e cura di sorreg- 
 gere gli studi^ diffondere le instituzioni, promuovere il bene, 
 premiare gl’ ingegni; ed era quiiidi il Morris Moore munito 
 di largo decreto, col quale mettevasi in grado, e di levare 
 liberainente 1’ agognata fotografia e di trarne altre, se lo 
 avesse creduto, dai disegni posseduti dalla Veneta Accademia, 
 i quali potessero venire in soccorso dei di lui studii. 
 
 Giunto V onorevole signor Morris Moore a Venezia, trovô 
 aperta ai suoi desiderii la R. Accademia, assente il signor Sel- 
 vatico, dal signor Tagliapietra; e condottovi seco 1’ esperto 
 fotografo signor Pcrini, tostamente, e con tutto 1’ esito, cavô 
 la fotografia antecedenteniente annunziata per ivipossibile, e 
 cosi esso eziandio ne trasse un’ altra, da un altro disegno 
 di Raffaeilo, in cui si scorge aver quel sommo tracciato il 
 primo pensiero, o ineglio le forme d’Apollo, di cui poi se 
 lie valse nel dipinto di Apollo c Marsia, dal Morris Moore 
 posseduto. 
 
 Queste cose volemmo render palesi per inolti riguardi, qiielli 
 cioe, di smentire le favole promulgate da parecchi giornali 
 stranicri; di svelare le arti usate da chi ainava die quel 
 disegno fosse, per secondi fini, ignorato; di diinostrare I’igno- 
 ranza di alcuni die vogliono far credersi maestri in Arte , 
 qiiando dell’ Arte non saiino nemmeno i principii; di rendere 
 inaggiormente noto il disegno, verainente insigne di Raffaello 
 posseduto dalla Veneta Accademia, il quale deve agli studii ed 
 allé ricerclie del Morris Moore il suo riconoscimento; in fine, 
 di offrire un tribute di grazie doverose e solenni all’ Eccelso 
 Ministère die voile con liberale animo acconsentire cbe se ne 
 tracsse quella fotografia, senza la quale nè si sarebbe potato 
 smentire i giornalisti bugiardi e gl’ ignorant!; nè si sarebbe 
 dilluso un originale preziosissimo, a vantaggio della storia e 
 delle Arti gentili, la di cui fotografia già deposta dal Morris 
 Moore nella R. Accademia Veneta, potrà ivi vedersi^ 
 
— 49 — 
 
 fuse public Institutions, to. promote what is good , and to 
 reward genius ; and hence Morris Moore was furnished with 
 an ample decree which placed him in a position to obtain 
 freely the coveted photograph, and to take others also, had 
 he thought fit, from such drawings belonging to the Vene¬ 
 tian Academy as might come in aid of his studies. 
 
 Arrived at Venice , Mr. Morris Moore found the I. R. Aca¬ 
 demy made accessible to all his desires, by signor Andrea Ta- 
 gliapietra, the M® Selvatico being absent ; and having brought 
 there with him the skillful photographer signor Perini, he 
 quickly obtained, and with complete success, the photograph 
 previously announced as impossible ; and, in like manner, he 
 took also another photograph from another drawing by Ra¬ 
 phael, in which one perceives that the incomparable master 
 had traced the first idea, or rather the forms of the Apollo, of 
 which he availed himself for the painting of Apollo and Mar- 
 syas in the possession of Morris Moore. 
 
 These things we wished'to make public for many reasons; 
 as for instance, to give the lie to the fables promulgated by 
 certain foreign journals; to unmask the artifices practised by 
 those who, to serve their own ends, wished that drawing to 
 remain unknown; to demonstrate the ignorance of some who 
 would pass themselves off as masters in Art, when of Art they 
 know not even the rudiments ; to make more widely known 
 the truly exquisite drawing of Raphael belonging to the 
 Venetian Academy, which to the studies and researches of 
 Morris Moore owes its recognition; las’tly, to offer a tribute of 
 deserved and solemn thanks to the illustrious Ministry which 
 with liberal mind was pleased to consent that that photograph 
 should be taken, without which, neither had it been possible to 
 give the lie to mendacious journalists, nor to the ignorant; nor 
 to the advantage of history and of the polite Arts had been 
 spread the knowledge of a most precious original, the photo¬ 
 graph of which together with one from the picture, already 
 deposited by Morris Moore in the I. R. Academy of Venice 
 can there be seen. 
 
 4 
 
30 — 
 
 NOTES TO THE CORRIERE ITALIANO, ETC. 
 
 (^i) Morning Advertiser, September the isi, and Bell'sWeekly Messenger, 
 September the 8th, 1855. The following is Director Bohm’s letter: 
 
 » Pregiatissimo Signore, 
 
 « Vienna, li 22 Luglio, 1855. 
 
 » Sulla fli Lei domanda se sia genuine il disegno di Raffaello, che 
 trovasi nella raccolta dell’ Accademia delle Belle Arti di Venezia, del quale 
 ella possiede un dipinto di cui mi mandé un’ intaglio in legno , ho 
 I’onore di dichiararle che senza dubbio lo ritengo tale. Quel disegno è 
 severo nelle forme e dell’ età giovanile di Raffaello : vi si vede nncora 
 Tinfluenza di Perugino , ma nel medesimo tempo una tendenza ad eman- 
 ciparsi dalla maniera solita ed invariabile del maestro, in ricerca del 
 Bello e del Sublime. 
 
 » Ho prcgato verbalmente ed in iscritto il signor marchese Selvatico 
 perché me ne mandasse una fotogralia; ma ad onta delle più positive 
 sue promesse, non 1’ ho potato avere. 
 
 » Dispiacentissimo perci6 di non potere corrispondere ai di Lei desi- 
 deri che con qucsta mia, invece della sumraenzionata fotogralia, mi ras- 
 segno con istima, 
 
 » Gios. Dan. BÔHM, 
 
 » Direltore dell’ Accademia degli Incisori di Zecca, ed I. R. Inciaore di Caorera. 
 
 B Alio slmatissimo signor Morris Moor{% Suho-Sqnarr, London. » 
 
 (2) jrr. JOHN FORSTER 
 
 His brief endorsed Story of a Slander, Mr. John Forster constituted 
 himself, anonymously, counsel for fraud. His exordium is a gem, and pro¬ 
 gnostic of its sequel : — “ Few sensible men acquainted with the world, 
 “ are prone to notice coarse slanders. They become only mischievous 
 “ when they reward their originators with any large amount of observation, 
 “ and contempt. ” If the iheys in this pregnant rhetorick smack of ambi¬ 
 guous allegiance, it was by design ; so, if “ only ’’ halts at “ mischievous” 
 in contempt of ” when ” : by design also, was the something “ becoming 
 only mischievous when rewarded with any large amount of contempt, ” 
 veiled in Delphic mystery. The diction suits the intent; for who but the 
 inspired shall penetrate anything’s becoming' even “ only mischievous 
 “ when rewarded ivith a large amount of contempt? ”— “A number of 
 goats feeding on Mount Parnassus came near a place which had a deep and 
 long perforation. The steam which issued from the hole seemed to inspire 
 the goats, and they played and frisked about in such an uncommon manner, 
 that the goatherd was tempted to lean over the hole, and see what mys¬ 
 teries the place contained. He was immediately seized with a fit of enthu¬ 
 siasm, his expressions were wild and extravagant, etc. ”, Such was the origin 
 
- 51 — 
 
 of the Delphic Oracle. The inspired goatherd is here to avouch it. But just 
 now I have other use for him. 
 
 Mr, John Forster gives, text and translation, Selvatico’s description of 
 tlie Apollo and Marsijas drawing (see page 7), and comments upon it thus : 
 
 “ Yet in the face of this unstinted recogniiion, not only of the drawing, 
 “ but of the owner of the London picture, we have this ridiculous story 
 
 trumped up of the English Director tampering with the Venetian Director, 
 “ and of the latter promising to do his best to suppress what he became 
 “ straightway careful to take every means of proclaiming to the world! ” 
 
 The “ unstinted recognition ” can be computed. It was in May, 1854, 
 as stated above , that Director BOhm discovered the legerdemain. At this 
 period there existed no Catalogue of the Drawings in the Venetian Aca¬ 
 demy ; nor till the 31st of the July following did the actual one see tlie 
 light. The “ unstinted recognition ” then, not to say the catalogue itself, 
 was indited to cloak the detected conspiracy. But hear again the subtle 
 pleader : 
 
 “ We take up a Catalogue, drawn up by the Marchese Selvatico, and 
 “ printed two years ago, after the date of the alleged conspiracy, of the 
 “ contents of the Venetian Academy, and in the Sala delle Sedute, which 
 “ contains sketches or designs open to be examined at certain hours in 
 “ every week by any stranger, we find placed among the choice sketches 
 “ ascribed to Raffaelle this very Apollo and Marsyas ; and not only placed 
 “ among them, but accompanied with a commentary calling more atten- 
 “ tion to it than to any other of the drawings. It is pointed out to visitors 
 “ and students, by the Marchese Selvatico, as a ivork of rare perfec- 
 “ tion, etc. ” 
 
 “ After the date of the alleged conspiracy ”! The clumsy tool lacked the 
 wit to perceive that his case demanded a Catalogue drawn up before the 
 date of his “ alleged ” conspiracy, and that his“ after, ” circumstantiates 
 the fraud, and casts his clients. 
 
 Not less than eighteen times in the column and three quarters of his 
 forged Story of a Slander, does this creature slanderously give me the tie. 
 Mark his maudlin effrontery : 
 
 “ We regret to say it, but this passage ” — that is my true account of 
 “ Eastlake’s plots against the drawing— “ could only have been written 
 “ from a conviction that the very unscrupulousness of its untruth would 
 ‘‘ secure it against answer. It is not only untrue, but the absolute reverse 
 “ of truth. ” 
 
 Full eighteen times, therefore, while drawing his verbose distinctions 
 between “ the untrue” and “the absolute reverse oftruth, ” himself hed-, 
 upon which, to further teach him that unscrupulous untruth does not 
 secure against answer, may be heaped the following : 
 
 He avers ; I. That, Director Passavant was asked by me to pronounce 
 upon the Apollo and Marsyas; II. That, this gentleman expressed to me 
 his conviction that it was by Raffaelle’s friend, Timoteo Viti of Urbano, as 
 he words it; III. That, I carride the picture to Paris; IV. That, I sought 
 an opinion from the authorities of the Louvre; V. That, their opinion 
 
— o2 — 
 
 proved to be entirely similar to that w'hicli bad been given by Director 
 Passavant; VI. That, certain it is, that when an application for a photo¬ 
 graph of the drawing was made for me to the Marchese Selvatico, through 
 Mr. Harris, the English Consul-general in Venice, one of the best photo- 
 grapliers was summoned to provide a copy; VII. That the sole reason for 
 my not obtaining a phothograph was, either because the colour of the 
 paper, or because the faded state of the ink in which the drawing had been 
 e.vecuted, rendered a photograph unattainable. 
 
 I, II, will be found disposed of in Replies 1, 2, of my Address to the 
 German Public, published in German in the Vossische Zeitung of Berlin 
 on the 13th of February, 1857, and in English, in Mr. Léon Batté’s work 
 on the kpoUo and Marsyas ; III, IV, V, at a blow, by the one fact that the 
 picture was never in Paris until I brought it hither on the 7th of Feb¬ 
 ruary, 1858, to rebuke English subserviency and German perfidy, but as 
 we are upon this topic, and “ the authorities of the Louvre” have now seen 
 the Apollo and Marsyas, — though not till years after the date falsely 
 asserted in his Story of a Slander, — I here defy Mr. John Forster, his 
 associates, and his Patron, to persuade any single one of those authori¬ 
 ties to publicly subscribe to “ the opinion" given by Herr Passavant, 
 or to a denial that the Apollo and Maivsyas is other than an obvious 
 and transcendi nt work of Raphael; VI, VII, by the successful photograph 
 which I instantaneously obtained from the drawing at Venice in 1857, 
 and by the more recent and more notorious one “ Dedicated by Permission 
 to H. R. H. the Prince Consort. ” Yet “ an unscrupulous untruth ” to 
 crown the array. 
 
 On the 7th of April, 1856, in the Debate on the National Gallery Esti¬ 
 mates,Mf. Otway quoted ihe Examiner,with the bulk of the London press, 
 as having denounced Le C/tera/fer Eastlake’s iucompetency. On the 12th, 
 Mr. John Forster sneering at the “ new'svenders’ list of London journals,” 
 denies all fellowship with it, and “ should really like Mr. Otway to favour 
 “ vsiuith the page of the Examiner in which that journal had been found 
 “ joining in an unprovoked and ungenerous attack against an able artist 
 ” and a competent critic of Art.-” With the required page ( Examiner, 
 Dec., 6, 1846), he was at once “ favoured. " He there “ adopts ” 
 that indictment of mine which first drove his client from the National Gal¬ 
 lery, pronounces it “ substantially correct and not overstated ”, and de¬ 
 mands “ an instant assurance and guarantee against future tamperings. ” 
 With the “ page” was a demand for public atonement. Mr. John Forster 
 suppressed the communication. 
 
 Personality ! What! shall this inflated parasite, this well-gilt placeman 
 through base compliances, his breath reeking with Academy dinners, 
 “ a slave whose gall coins slanders like a Mint, ” charge me with slander, 
 yet escape the brand? Personality! “ My phrase is to the matter.” Behold 
 how jauntily the Forster certificate of “ gentleman" sits, on the Marchese 
 Selvatico, the notorious Austrian informer ! — and no Italian will gainsay 
 me — execrated by his fellow-countrymen, contemned by his employers , 
 and therefore the fitter to be leashed with a Passavant, an Eastlake, a 
 Waagen and a — Forster. 
 
LETTER OF LORD ELCHO 
 
 Pnblishetl In Ihc MORIVIING POST, June the tOth, iSSO. 
 
 '^MR. MORRIS MOORE’S RAPHAEL 
 
 “ To the Editor of the Morning Post. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 I trust that you will be able to find a place in your 
 columns for a few lines in explanation of the circumstances 
 which have prevented my publicly calling the attention of the 
 First Lord of the Treasury to Mr. Morris Moore’s Raphael, in 
 pursuance of a notice to that effect which I gave in the early 
 part of the session. In giving that notice I had two objects in 
 view. I was anxious, in the first place, puhlicly to call the 
 attention of the Trustees of the National Gallery to the exis- 
 lenoe, or, rather, to the discovery of a work of Art, which I, m 
 common with most of those who have had the good fortune to 
 see it, believe to he of great National importance ; and, in the 
 second place, I wished to give expression to the universal 
 feeling of dissatisfaction which prevails with regard to the 
 management of the concerns of the National Gallery. But, 
 inasmuch as I felt that an unseasonable discussion of these 
 subjects would ei’eate little interest in the House of Commons, 
 I thought it advisable to wait until the grant xvas moved for 
 the current expenses of the National Gallery, xvhich would have 
 offered a fitting opportunity for bringing on my notice. Time 
 has however run on; the Session is far advanced; and I am 
 obliged to leave England before tins branch of the jMiscella- 
 neous Estimates has been brought under consideration ; I must, 
 therefore, postpone the subject to anotber Session. Public 
 attention has been already so fully drawn to Mr. Morris 
 
— 54 — 
 
 Moore's Raphael, and public opinion has been so strongly 
 expressed in its favour, through the medium of the press, 
 that I would fain hope the Trustees will make a point of secu* 
 ring it for the National Gallery. I have no fear as to the 
 result of their deliberations upon it, provided they do not allow 
 their better Judgments to be influenced by the criticisms of a 
 foreign gentleman (Herr Passavant) who, on a Friday, an¬ 
 nounces, ex catliedrâ, that this picture, which he admits to 
 be a first-rate specimen of the finest jteriod of Italian Art, is 
 the work of Francia, and who, on the Monday following, with 
 equal confidence, ascribes it to Timoteo della Vite, two pain¬ 
 ters who cannot by any possibility be confounded ; provided 
 likewise that they are not guided by the opinions of those pro¬ 
 fessional connoisseurs who had neither the taste,nor the feeling, 
 to appreciate so fine a work, nor the critical knowledge which 
 should have led them to discover, under a false name, the 
 master-hand of Raphael. My own conviction is, that this pic¬ 
 ture is not only a Raphael, but, perhaps, the purest and most 
 beautiful specimen of the master in this country. But I care not, 
 as regards its claims upon the National Gallery, whether it be 
 by him or not; for when a picture is universally pronounced to 
 he a first-rate specimen of the finest period of Italian Art, its 
 title to a place in our National Collection is clear and indefea¬ 
 sible, and it then becomes the bounden duty of the Trustees 
 not to suffer so important a work to leave the country, or be¬ 
 come the ornament of a private gallery. 
 
 “ F. CiiARTEiiis (Lord Eicno). 
 
 27, Cheshaui Street, June, Î850. ” 
 
THE REJECTED MICHAEL ANGELO 
 
 THE IHAMESTER EXHIBIIION 
 
 Various reviews have of late appeared in the London journals on 
 the unfinished painting in tempera by Michael Angelo, The Virgin 
 and Child with St. John and Saints, mentioned in the note at page 14. 
 My Statement in the Morning Chronicle of June the 10th, 1858, 
 curtailed servility of a theme. But if to ” sympathise with the pro¬ 
 per pride ” of one who, profiting by my absence from England, 
 brazenly arrogated “having been the first to atliihwte publicly this 
 picture to Michael Angelo, is no longer feasible, the writers of 
 those reviews atone by silence upon my claims on this masterpiece ; 
 yet, save for me, they might to this hour be as ignorant of its exis¬ 
 tence, as dishonest men must ever be of its excellence. 
 
 But the impostor has other abettors. A Mr. John Harford of Blaise 
 Castle and a Mr. John Murray of Albemarle Street swell the band; - 
 for to parade his “ authority ” on this subject and to not mention 
 me, is tu abet him. Mr. John Harford, in a. Life of Michael Angelo, 
 plumes himself upon bis own “ opinion having recently been con¬ 
 firmed by high authority of Dr. Waagen; ” blandly observes 
 that the Doctor most justly observes, etc.; ” and for our higher 
 appreciation of this “ high authority, ” sends us to “ Treasures of 
 Art, vol. 2, page 417, ” —published not until 1854, — where lies 
 treasured what “ the Doctor, in his turn, had found by a year’s 
 anticipation “ confirmed ” by my authority in the Parliamentary 
 Report on the National Gallery of 1853. M. John Murray, in his 
 Quarterly Revieiv for April last, consciously the publishei' uf a men¬ 
 dacious article in support of his “ competent man of sensitive 
 mind and nice honour,” Le Chevalier Eastlake, had the etlrontery 
 in April 18118, while evading allusion to me, to print in the same 
 Periodical, that “ Dr. Waayen's verdict on this picture had done 
 
“ much to convince the English Public of the justice with which it 
 “ now' bears Michael Angelo’s great name. ” 
 
 Could Mr. John Harford of Blaise Castle have raised himself to 
 the dignity of his subject, he would have felt that servility and 
 misrepresentation ill consort with the venerable name of Michael 
 Angelo. Had Mr. John Murray—but enough. Let him enjoy Free 
 Trade even to the “ right” of selling his venal pages to the most 
 profitable bidder. In vain the servile strive to defraud Tiuth. I 
 have placed my title-deeds beyond Iheir reach. 
 
 For such Englishmen as dare be convinced that an Englishman 
 may be worth a German (i), 1 reprint my Statement on the 
 HEJECTED Michael Angelo. 
 
 Paris, June the 7ih, 1858. 
 
 The Manchester display was an exposition of England’s 
 claims in the domain of Art. Many were the pearls -, but 
 counterfeit on counterfeit exalted into masterpieces, to 
 subserve venality or to flatter rank, and an official Catalogue 
 crammed w'ith the plagiarisms and empty conceits of foreign 
 pretenders, stamping, us, “ By Authority as bald of wit as 
 of self-respect, have suggested to the Continent an equation 
 not soothing to our insular vanity. Our proudest boast is 
 our chief reproach. A masterpiece for which a Demetrius 
 might have spared a Rhodes, had been amidst us some thirty 
 
 (1) My “ anti-Germanism ” was worked with amazing industry while I 
 was in Germany, but it is only justice to add, with barren result. Men of 
 sense and candour can easily understand that my “ anti-Germanism” is 
 not hostility to Germans as a people, but simply to that German coterie 
 which sociallij, administratively, and potitically, by favour of English 
 satellites yet meaner, sits like an Incubus on England’s manhood, spj'ing 
 how it may put “ Constitutional Government on its trial, ” and under 
 an Albert hat extinguish every generous impulse. 
 
~ 57 — 
 
 years, to remain a stranger. Offered to us, pressed upon uS, 
 at a mean price, our right men in the right place had 
 spurned it from our doors ( 2 ). That masterpiece becomes the 
 note dominant of a great Art-Festival ; when, lo! an Athenian 
 from the hanks of the Spree, vouchsafes to proclaim himself 
 “ the first ” to revéal its origin; and Britain straight adores 
 the Oracle. Patriots revel in his triumph,— as though ’twere a 
 very Jubilee to Englishmen for England to figure as foil to the 
 German, — and exullingly reckon up their “ hundreds who 
 will symphatise with the proper pride he expresses in find¬ 
 ing so many approved judges confirming his opinion, that the 
 once so-called Ghirlandaio is a genuine easel picture by the 
 pencil of Michael Angelo; while our gay neighbours here 
 find scope for their pleasantry in seeing us hectoi’ed for our 
 stolidity by one whose pretensions, long since exploded in his 
 own country, are at such a pass in this, that the Administra¬ 
 tion of the Louvre has found it necessary to purge its Catalogue 
 of his name. In England only can he find countenance. 
 There, indeed, he may descant unchallenged on “ the defe¬ 
 rence with which his opinions are received by artists and 
 friends of Art, ” and on “ the confidence which many are 
 pleased to place in him ” (3); there issue his fiat that an alien, 
 his creature, be sent, with comely emolument and delicate 
 opportunities, to travel as the personification of the 
 artistic intelligence of the Nation; there inspire Economists to 
 predicate that his is at once the “ highest ” and the cheapest 
 of “ recommendations, ” and in “ deference ” to his quin- 
 
 ;2) “ Sir Martin Sliee (P. R. A., and ex-offtcio& Trustee of the National 
 Gallery) was decidedly against the purchase of the picture —i. e., the 
 Michael Angelo. — Eastlake’s Evid., 1833, q. 6,179. 
 
 (3) Waagen’s Letters. — Times, July 13, 1854, and July 16, 1856. 
 
— 88 — 
 
 tessential authority, to expel Englishmen from the category of 
 the “ eligible ” (^). 
 
 At page 6 of a Publication bearing the modest title-page, 
 The Manchester Exhibition ; What to Observe. A Walk 
 through the Art Treasures Exhibition, under the Guidance of 
 Dr. Waagen. A Companion to the Official Catalogue. Lon¬ 
 don, etc,, 4851, ” may be read : 
 
 “107. Michael Angelo Buonarroti. The Virgin, the Child, SI. 
 “ John, and Four Angels holding Scrolls. No artist hut Michael 
 “ Angelo could have attained to the expression of so lofty a 
 “ purity, so elevated a consciousness of divine maternity, as that 
 “ displayed in the Vii’gin in this picture. The angel seen in pro- 
 “ fde is, too, of extraordinary beauty. All the undraped parts 
 “ are modelled with the greatest knowledge. By far the rarest 
 picture in the whole exhibition, as only one other easel picture 
 “ by Michael Angelo isknown to exist—that in the Tribune at Flo- 
 rence. Having been the first to attribute publichj this picture, 
 “ previously assigned to Domenico Ghirlandaio, to Michael Angelo 
 “ (Waagen, vol. 2, page 417), it gave me much satisfaction to find 
 “ this denomination acknowledged by some of the fn-st connois- 
 “ seurs I met in the exhibition. ” 
 
 The “ lofty purity ” of this morsel,, largely exemplified 
 in the assertion about the Michael Angelo at Florence, is a 
 dainty fit for the “ hundreds who sympathise with the proper 
 pride ” of the author. That assertion is untrue. It was 
 levelled at a work which he hieiv to exist, but had never 
 secji, namely, the Michael Angelo in my possession; yet to 
 this same work, the very picture which he so “ pi’operly 
 prides” himself upon “having been the first to attribute 
 publicly to Michael Angelo, ” owes somewhat of its present 
 
 (li) See James Wilson and Cornwall Lewis on the superiority of Ger¬ 
 mans over Englishmen. Debates on tlio National Gallery Estimates, August 
 1855, and July 2, 1857. 
 
— 59 — 
 
 renown. The parenthetical reference points to a book not in 
 existence till the summer, or may be the autumn, of 1854; 
 the No. 5 of the following extract, to a list of masterpieces 
 passed at trifling sums by a “ Board of Taste ” careful to 
 moderate Taste to the official standard of tens of thousands for 
 ambiguous mediocrities, accentuated occasionally by a not 
 ambiguous counterfeit. The claim of priority is met thus : 
 
 Q. 9,953. No. 5. The Virgin, Child, and Si. John, with Saints, 
 “ by Michael Angelo. This great work, superior to any in the 
 “ National Collection, was offered to the Trustees in 1844, for 
 £500, at the very time when Ihey were in treaty for that 
 “ wretched Holbein, A Medical Gentleman. It belonged to a 
 “ lady named Bonar. The two pictures were in the same room 
 “ at the National Gallery, and at the same time. The daub was 
 “ secured; the masterpiece rejected. The Michael Angelo was 
 “ subsequently exhibited at the British Institution in 1847. It 
 remained on sale during the whole period of Sir C. Eastlake’s 
 “ Keepership, and was at last sold in 1849 for Mrs. Bonar, by 
 “ Messrs. Coliiaghi, for £525. ” — [Morris Moore’s Evidence on 
 the Picture-purchasing, July 22, 1853. Report of Sel. Com. on the 
 National Gallery of 1853, p. 696) (5). 
 
 In the same evidence, this work is twice again affirmed to 
 be by Michael Angelo. 
 
 It could be shown by testimony irrefragable, that in deliver¬ 
 ing this evidence, the witness did but repeat a judgment 
 
 (5) The Quarterly Review of July, 1857, contained an anonymous 
 article, but of obvious parentage, claiming for Le Chevalier Eastlalce a lively 
 appreciation of this work. The keenness of his appreciation of Michael 
 Angelo is illustrated in App. No. 2, p.472, and at qq. 0,178-80 of the Report 
 of the Select Committee on the National Gallery of 1853. In the former 
 it is proved that he exhibited this masterpiece to the Trustees on the 
 3rd of June,181(4, merely ns a Domenico Ghirlandaio. In the latter, he first 
 speaks of it as “ probably painted by Domenico Ghirlandaio, ” and then, 
 as positively by Ghirlandaio. He indeed names Michael Angelo, bul only 
 to repudiate him as its author. 
 
— 60 — 
 
 which he had pronounced more elaborately in 1847, upon his 
 first introduetion to this masterpiece. But a judgment pri¬ 
 vately expressed was inadequate to the emergency. The claim, 
 one of “ public ” priority, stretched to the full the elaimant’s 
 responsibility. To confute it demanded a perfect parallel. 
 But if personal responsibility can add emphasis to the catego¬ 
 rical, then was the evidence of 1853 indeed emphatic. It 
 stood as climax to an indictment addressed to the grand inquest 
 of the Nation in the teeth of a diseomfited faetion, and of a 
 Committee eager to fasten upon any indiscretion of the aecuser 
 wherewith to soften the defeat of the accused. Idle were 
 it to plead that, granted the spuriousness of the claim and 
 the egotism of its form, — for these, who will deny? — it 
 must have been made in ignorance, sinee to have run thus 
 headlong on detection had been fatuity scarcely credible. 
 Assertors of false claims must be held to the consequences. 
 Wisely was it ordained that to lack candour is to lack under¬ 
 standing. Folly is the very root of dishonesty. There is no 
 extenuation. Tlie confidential ally of the chief defendant in 
 the National Gallery inquiry of 1853, himself assailed in the 
 Evidence, his public boastings of complete information on all 
 matters of Art in England in general, and of my connection 
 therewith in particular, and his actual publication, after his 
 own peculiar fashion, of the last (6), show all but to a demon¬ 
 stration that the author of “ What to Observe ” could not but 
 have been cognizant of my evidence on the Michael Angelo. 
 I submit, moreover, — and herein I am backed by one alike 
 eminent for critical acumen and for literary accomplishments— 
 that the fourth seUtenee of his remarks bears strong internal 
 evidence of direct plagiarism from the first of mine. The 
 
 (6) Kuiiiglich }irivUigerle Berlinische Zeituny, Nov. 30, and Dec. 14, 
 1856. 
 
— 61 — 
 
 homage of Europe to the majesty of the work seduced him 
 into this extravagant claim; the ephemeral nature of his 
 pamphlet and my absence from England, blinded him to its 
 detection. Thus do the weak-witted and self-seeking, while 
 labouring to conceal their ineptitude and to overreach others, 
 but toil at the net that is to ensnare themselves. I asserted 
 no priority in 1853. The contemplation of the mighty Flo¬ 
 rentine stifled self-exaltation. One exception, and I assert no 
 priority now. The spurious claim has thriven for a year. 
 Forbearance may become desertion of Right. It was time to 
 pluck tlie stolen plumage, and so remove an unmerited stigma. 
 
 Morris Moore. 
 
 
 3979 Paris. — Imp. Renou et Maiille, rue de Rivoli, U4. 
 
-”2 .;V - -V *"* .' ’ 
 
 ; •r;i,:3 ■;■: ;.Vi:'T.: ::'-;i:>-,;^;i- i'-ù: ojfii 
 
 -à où i.::U! sv-i \ 
 
 r r'V.‘. ,-‘'’'î'^' . ■ 'i*' J '' .... -Vi.y .. • . -■ ■■^ 
 
 . ;kv.', <{î.. ï'-:..; ÿÔijj.r.î<p..: -.i ;.'i i .noa, ■■? • .:: .•‘.'wl •' 
 
 ^ .-o fioiii:.. "': k-jU - 4 : , 
 
 'vrK\;;’4^ ' ^.. ' -■■; ■ 
 
 «ri 'km ;.ïï>îüitilï;> . . ' :.;'.-a ■ -'i:;.- - 
 
 ," .y^ noviv/r 
 
 i-; V..-" ...o/ ,, .'4.^:; : J 
 
 ... .■ ■ .' , , ■ ■ . .- 
 
 ■' >■’■'■ ■ . ■■■'i'r. - 
 
 « 
 
NOTA 
 
 Pour plus de détails sur l’APOLLOiS ET MMSYAS 
 
 Voir l’Ouwage de M. liÉosi BATTE 
 
 LE RAPHAEL DE M. MORRIS MOORE 
 
 PARIS _Alphonse TARIDE, 2, rue de Marengo. 
 
 LONDRES. William JEFFS, 15, Burlington Arcade. 
 

 ■ •s-’-î#'. 
 
 •<. 
 
 -1 
 
 ■ '■ '-Æ' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
■ ■ I 
 
 F 
 
 r 
 
 
 > 
 
 " 1 
 
 i 
 
 I 
 
 i 
 

Vi 
 
 
 '}