Page:Notes and Queries - Series 11 - Volume 3.djvu/490

 484

NOTES AND QUERIES. rn s. m. JUNE 24, 1911.

sight of. " His library and museum were sold by John Cooper in the Great Piazza, Covent Garden, 12 November, 1738, and from a priced copy of the scarce sale cata- logue I transcribe a few of the items of special London interest : Urnce Fictiles.

Lot. 2. Quinque Urnae, ex terris Gpodmann', una major, quataor minores. (Sold with 3 other urns, 5*. 6:7.)

Lot 6. Quatuor Urnse offossae, duae prope Divi Pauli, illae esae ; duae aliae laesae ex Clapham, 3s.

Lot 7. Du Urnae cum ligneis operculis altera cum cineribus, altera vacua ; effossae ex terris vulgo diet. Goodnaanni, Is.

Lot 9. Tres Urnae, quarum, una tantum Integra, effossae Spittle-fields. (Sold with lot 10, 7*. 6d.)

In the miscellanea there occurs

6. Pars Pavimenti tessellati prope Bishops- gate effossa, sold with many other items for 10s. Qd.

Of greatest interest is lot 4 of the " Lam- pades Fictiles " :

Una perquam spectabilis, fundamentis D. Pauli effossa, in qua aedificium, quod qui viderunt eruditi censuozuit esse templum Dianae, praeser- tim cum eodem tempore reperta sunt aprum brochi, cervorum cornua, aliorumq ; animalium ossa, quae immolari solebant. Delineatam hanc urnam videre licet in vita Erasmi per S[amuel] Knight, D.D., altera ad confirmationem prioris sententiae spectans, quoniam ex eodem loco effossa, utpote in arae morem factae, hinc et inde duae imagines ; pone etiam sacerdotis imago sed laesa, tria habet ellychnia. Alia, ibidem eruta imagine cymbae cum vectoribus, per quae flumen Tameseis designari putant.

This cannot be described as a slight descrip- tion of one of the lamps which were in Kemp's collection (see ante, p. 403). Wren was probably quite familiar with it and Woodward's collection generally. It will be remembered that a letter advocating the temple of Diana identification was addressed by Woodward to Wren, and published by Curllin 1713.

I do not propose to refer to other collectors of London antiquities until, at a later date, they had become less gatherers of Roman potsherds, and more acquirers of things of the post-Conquest era having some his- torical or personal interest.

Here are two examples. Sotheby sold on 23 February, 1818, the library, &c., of John Carter, F.S.A., and there were offered

Lot 250. Fragments of ancient tapestry from the Painted Chamber.

Lot 252. fPiece of flesh from the neck of the heai of Archbishop Sudbuiy, and a diaper cloth which wrapped up the body of Fitzhamond, the founder of the Abbey Church of Tewkesbur^v in a black frame.

Lot 272. Two architectural fragments, one from K. Henry VII. 's Chapel.

Lot 300. Fragments from Edward the Con- fessor's Chapel and of St. Stephen's Chapel.

Southgate sold on 22 May, 1828, the library and collections of William Capon. Following several lots of stained glass, some with arms of Westminster, there occur

Lot 292. Six Ebony Chairs exquisitely carve. 1 from the antient Palace of Nonsuch.

Lot 293. A rosewood table from the same Palace, of the finest workmanship of the Eliza- bethan tune.

I cite these examples as evidences also of the manner in which the desire to possess antiquities of London or architectural specimens led to much spoliation of its buildings, and although Carter stands con- fessed as a great vandal, it must be re- membered there were many other offenders, and I expect to find in the sale catalogues of Henry Flitcroft's and Thomas Gayfere's libraries similar condemnatory evidence, as they had the same opportunities, at West- minster at least. It was probably these sales or the publication of the volumes descrip- tive of Soane's Museum that led to the print- ing by William Twopeny of ' Some Remarks on the Taste and Effect of collecting Frag- ments of Ancient Architecture,' &c., 1832. We may hold Horace Walpole in a measure. responsible for this passion, and such late disciples as Thomas Baylis of Pryor's Bank and L. N. Cottingham are blameable for purchasing things which should have re- mained in situ.

The prince of nineteenth- century collectors of London antiquities was Charles Roach Smith, and it is to be regretted that his museum in Liverpool Street was not more generally imitated.

The catalogue is a familiar volume, and, together with his correspondence, is evidence of tremendous zeal and industry. He endeavoured to be present at every demoli- tion and excavation, not only in London, but also throughout Kent and in some other counties. Nothing was too trivial to be noted, and those who saw his own copy of the ' Retrospections ' and his other MSS. and illustrated records that were in the library of the late Frederick Hendriks will envy their present possessors. His many archaeological friends assisted him loyally in his pursuits. A letter before me, ad- dressed by a correspondent at Rayleigh name undecipherable) to W. H. Black on 17 May, 1849, informs him that in plough- ing they came upon " an ancient founda- tion, under Which was an urn containing