the ground. By this is meant that if a subject is chosen-take, for instance, Nos. 4 and 8 of the illustrations, the figure with the amphora, and the sculptor in the act of modelling a bust-the subjects occupy the entire field. The Greek and Roman artists seemed to have a horror of wide margins. The blank framing of a work, the vague space of nothingness around a head or a subject, they would not allow. It was certainly the thing itself which, having had lavished on it all that art could give, was to be made good enough to bear the whole brunt of observation. They directly courted concentration of the perceptive powers. N expression used by the Rev. C. W. | One very distinguishing trait of true old collector, in regard to engraved antique gems, is a most happy one. Mr. King calls engraved gems "little monuments of antiquity." This term "little" is to be understood simply as a limit of size, for though the heads, the full-length figures and their surroundings, may be cut and carved on a stone no larger than a pea, yet the effects produced are as grand, impressive, as large, as if worked on a frieze or painted on the widest spreading canvas. Here the perfect judgment of the Greek is visible. These old lovers of art scorned the immense. Quantity with them never took the place of quality. A Colossus of Rhodes might serve as a light-house, but the masterpieces of Greek work as they have come down to us, with the exception of the statues which were raised on an elevation, rarely exceed the proportions of the actual human form. To-day we, too, know and feel that in a Meissonier of but ten inches square there can be just as much force of drawing and breadth of color as in a panoramic picture by a Hans Makart. Engraved gems, then, when not archaic, but conceived in the best periods of art, are invariably of small size. As all true old intaglios at the time they were made were intended for signets and not for ornaments, stones of large size, being inconvenient when placed on the finger, were never used. Large intaglios are, then, to be regarded with positive suspicion. Cameos, which might have been worn for personal adornment, were of a certain size. The character of the stone, the shape of the back, often determine the authenticity of the engraved gem. Something like the palimpsests, which have first borne Egyptian hieroglyphs, and later, Greek letters, a rounded stone, with an exquisite Greek subject on the one side, may show on its back the traces of the older Egyptian scarab. A scratch on the back of a stone may be all that is left of the hole which was once threaded by an Egyptian when he wore it as a scarab around his wrist or neck, like an amulet. It might have thus belonged first to a period 2000 years before the birth of Christ, No. 1.-PHOENICIAN GEM. and then received a higher impress of art, due to a Greek artist, some 1800 years afterward. A We must remain as yet some little in doubt as to the methods employed by the old artists to perfect these miracles of taste. We have, however, the absolute certainty that these ancient masters were familiar with the diamond, and that their best work was made by using this, the hardest of all substances, as a tool. splintered fragment of the diamond served as a scraping tool, and they were well acquainted with the drill. Prehistoric man worked a drill at the very commencement of his existence. The No. 1-a Phoenician gem, a lion attacking a bull-shows how the drill was used. A number of circular depressions are found in the gem, which mark the extremities of the figures. This was done not only for the sake of effect, but to show the artist the limit of his work as to depth. After the holes were sunk, the artist united the various portions of his work by scratching. The crosscutting on the mane of the lion shows this method of treatment. Now the use of the diamond point or splinter, fixed in a style or iron socket, allowed a certain flexibility of handling, which our modern processes of gem-engraving do not permit. To-day the work is done by means of a minute rotating disk of copper, which is whetted with oil and diamond dust. On the least application of the substance to be cut to the disk, it is the disk which bites into the stone. The difference in manipulation is, then, that to-day it is the stone which goes to the tool, and not, as in olden times, the tool to the stone. It is more convenient, then, in 1879, to bring the cart to the horse. It can now be readily understood why in modern work, time and labor being spared (the art conception not entering for the present into the subject)-why this work of to-day is inferior to the art which is past. It is purely a mechanical process now, for a rotating disk will no more draw lines which have feeling than will photographing processes paint pictures. It has been stated that we are not entirely acquainted with the methods employed by the old glyptic artists. This becomes quite evident from this fact, that their best work seems to have been both cut and polished at one and the same time. To-day we have no tool, no substance, which will accomplish this double feat. Mr. King, dwelling on the diamond point, says "its extensive use is the great distinction between the antique and modern work." The Romans called the glyptic art scalpere, which signifies to scratch, while the Greek yλápur has the same meaning. Here two curious questions arise of a somewhat different character. From whence did the diamonds come used in gem-engraving? In such archæological researches as have been made, when the habits of prehistoric man have been carefully studied, it has become more and more evident that the primitive man wandered over a wider expanse of country than was first thought. There must have been, too, an interchange of natural products. The Lacustrine people used implements of jade. Now to-day between Switzerland and China the distance is immense, yet only beyond the Ural Mountains is found the country where jade is discoverable. We know that Alexander penetrated into the East, but even before his time there must have been an interchange of diamonds, No. 3.-BOY AND DOG. precisely as does the mechanic of to-day. He felt his way on the stone, taking from time to time an impression in wax. Yet so absolutely correct is this ancient work, that in the careful examination of these gems included in the King Collection, the general effects, though appreciable in all their beauty by the naked eye, are even enhanced when a glass is used. The perfection, the precision, of the work stands this powerful test. Instead of an enlarged field exaggerating faults, the strength and harmony of the pictures are absolutely augmented. That this increase in size does not in the least deteriorate from the exquisite character of the work is quite noticeable in the illustrations, which have been enlarged in some cases to twice the size of the gems. This amplification in the wood-cuts was necessary for this reason-that no graving tool, no matter how cunning was the hand of the artist, could ever be ground as sharp, clean, or fine as that splinter of diamond which, in the supple fingers of the Greek artist, cut these stones two or three thousands of years ago. The materials the old gem-engravers used were of many kinds. The sard, chalcedony, onyx, jasper, garnet, jacinth, quoise, aventurine, and obsidian were all fashioned. It was in working on sard, which is nothing more than a very good kind of carnelian, that the old artist most delighted. The reasons for preferring this material are quite evident: a which could only have come from the Indies. The other question which presents some points of interest is whether in engraving gems the Greeks and Romans made use of a magnifying-glass. This subject has offered a wide field for disputants. Now, strangely enough, because lenses might not be necessary for the cutting of gems, it has been argued that, as such helps to vision were not used, the ancients were quite ignorant of magnify-emerald, beryl, sapphire, ruby, topaz, turing-glasses. The more we study the origin of glass, and its adaptation to human wants, the older we find it to be. It would be curious if we made some day an intermediate age, as the stone, the bronze, the glass periods. It is quite impossible to imagine that the old Greek or Roman, having the manipulation of glass at his finger-ends, did not know how to construct a lens. The first drop of dew, which scorched the leaf it magnified when the sun shone through it, would have taught man the double physical power of a lens. He could cut stones harder than glass, could give them a most lustrous polish; he could even do more, for he melted the sands and made false gems, which from their purity of color and brilliancy are so perfect today as to be considered by us as almost among the lost arts. It seems to be more and more probable that the recent method of toughening glass was perfectly well known to the Romans. Lenses may not, it is true, have been called upon as helps in cutting gems. It is the sense of touch in engraving hard stones, in polishing diamonds, which serves for eyesight. The old Greek artist must have worked in the various stages of engraving hard stones No. 4.-MODELLING AN AMPHORA. sard had beauty of color, exceeding tough- sometimes being banded with three layers, was esteemed a very choice stone. Plasma, a chalcedony into which a salt of copper had been naturally filtered, was also a stone of choice during the later period of the Roman Empire. In jasper, the greenish shades were fairly regarded; but there was some mysterious source of jasper, vermilion-colored, used by the ancients, which can not be found to-day. Intaglios which are brownish, or rather dusky red, are not uncommon, but when found of pure vermilion are of exceeding rarity. The jacinth, a porous stone, must have presented some difficulty in working, as it was prone to splinter. Ancient work on jacinths has not stood the test of time's erosive tooth, and mostly appears in bad condition. The question as to whether the emerald existed in the times prior to the discovery of America is completely solved by the King Collection, No. 5.-AFRICA. which contains an engraved emerald of the later Roman period. When the brittle character of this stone is understood, one is amazed at the technical skill of the old artist. The beryl (aquamarine) was not often used by the ancients, though a most brilliant example (the No. 6), engraved in a beautiful aquamarine, forms the chiefest ornament of the King Collection. The sapphire, our lapis lazuli, was in common use; but the true sapphire, the hyacinthus of the ancients, when engraved, is among the rarest of stones, as only some half dozen have come down to us. It is not so much the rarity of the stone, but its exceeding hardness, which made it difficult to work. It is worth mentioning that the most famous of all gems cut on a sapphire, a stone an inch in diameter, a grand head of Jupiter, with the inscription IIY, possibly the signature of the artist Pyragoles, was found imbedded in the pommel of a Turkish brought to light. In rubies, intaglios are rare. Any gems offered for sale, said to be antique, when cut on sapphires or rubies, should be carefully examined, as they are mostly of modern work. The ancients, though caring for color and durability in the stone, were little inclined to waste their time and labor in overcoming obstacles which were only remarkable as evincing toil and patience. The play was not worth the candle. They preferred the sard, because it combined within itself so many advantages. The topaz, though brilliant and handsome, had the misfortune of being soft, and was rarely used. In describing the tools and materials used by the old stone-engravers, a reply has been given in a certain measure to those questions so frequently asked of the expert, How shall I determine what is an antique from an imitation of it?" "How shall I know what is true or what is false?" Here comes in another phase of the subject, very much more difficult to explain. So far we have had to do only with the materialism of the subject, which has restricted laws. To distinguish what is the work of antiquity from that of recent date will always require a thorough knowledge of art in its highest conception. The musician who sees a violin made by one of the great makers of the seventeenth century may be pleased with the graceful form, the careful workmanship, though the material be but wood; but when the tone is brought out, it is his prac ticed ear which at once appreciates the purity, the volume, and sweetness of the sound. Ask him to explain what are the peculiarities of that sound, and though he be ever so eloquent, words are so vague that he can never express his ideas. With a perfect gem one feels at once that it is a work inspired by genius. It would be a grave mistake to declare that all old intaglios are good. There must have been many poor engravers of gems 300 years before the birth of Christ, with a few illustrious ones. There never has been nor will there ever be a communism of talent. Some gems are archaic in character, and are certainly more quaint than beautiful. It should be remembered, too, that on the finding of gems, accident has exercised no sorting process. It is, then, a perfect familiarity with ancient art which alone allows the collector to distinguish what is ancient from modern work. The study of numismatics leads up in a certain measure to a good knowledge of the old glyptic art, but even ancient coins, superb and massive in style, No. 7.-A TITAN. are wanting in the manifestations of those higher and loftier impulses which the engraved gem alone possesses. pearance of modern scamping, however, on the back, but it was on the front of the stone that the artist applied all his powers. Excessive polish on the face of the gem is sufficient to awaken doubts as to authenticity. Mr. King says "a high degree of polish on the face of the gem, although in itself a suspicious circumstance, does not infallibly stamp an intaglio as a work of modern times, for it has been the unfortunate practice with jewellers to repolish the surface of a good antique intaglio in order to remove the scratches and traces of friction which true antiques usually present." Many a fine antique, then, like a good old picture, has been cleaned out of existence. Even a roughly worn surface may be a trick of the modern gem-forger. There is a cunning game played by Italians on innocent strangers who hunger for antiques. brand-new engraved stone is procured for a few scudi, and this is crammed down a turkey's craw. Now the gizzards of birds have a surprising muscular force, with powers of attrition increased by the grav A Here are, then, some practical rules which may help the collector, the æsthetic considerations being put aside for the pres-el they swallow. The gem leaves the bird ent. Antique intaglios are never of large size. In the illustrations the actual size of the No. 10 is barely half of an inch in its greater diameter. The work always covers the stone, and there is no margin. True antique intaglios are mostly irregular in shape, as close as possible to the original fragment of stone, or to the scarab with a peculiar antique-looking surface. Another method is to take a true antique of little merit and to retouch it. A careful scrutiny with a glass will show incongruity of handling. On the same stone will be the honest work of by-gone centuries with the jobbery of to-day. It used to be thought that antique gems |