|
costs18. He dismissed Henry Syer Cuming's findings
as "Foolscap tirade" and suggested that the matter be
settled by a forum of experts and interested parties19.
Charles Roach Smith reported on the trial for The Gentleman's
Magazine. Here he argued that the comparatively late manufacture
of the objects in the 16th century could explain their anachronistic
design. A forger, he explained, would copy objects known to him,
but these bore no resemblance to any product of any period. It would
also be impossible for a forger to produce such a wide variety of
objects20. He challenged Henry Syer Cuming to prove him
wrong, but, inexplicably, Henry Syer Cuming withdrew from the debate.
At the end of 188 Charles Reed, the head of a London printing
company, exhibited some of the finds to the Society of Antiquaries.
The ensuing debate was unfavourable to the objects and prompted
Augustus Franks, the Director, to read a paper on forgery at the
next meeting'21. But nobody made
I8. B.L., Ad. Mss. 30297, item 276.
19. Ibid.
item 184: (see also 283 & 284).
20. October 1858 400-1.
|
any new investigations into the matter, and despite the remonstrations
of Charles Roach Smith, the debate petered out.
However,
the press coverage of the trial gave the objects such publicity
that sales revived. It may not have been coincidental that George
Eastwood had moved his business to the Haymarket by the start of
185922. Henry Syer Cuming claimed that the Guildford
trial was "A glorious victory'; as with so many supposed victories,
it is doubtful that there were any winners.
The matter rested
until the start of 1861, when Charles Roach Smith wrote an article
on the finds for the fifth volume of his Collectanea Antiqua.
He feared that it might be litigious to revive the debate, but he
believed that the British Archaeological Association owed George
Eastwood compensation. He argued that the objects dated from the
reign of Queen Mary (from their style of lettering), and had been
imported from the Continent to replace those articles of religious
devotion that has been destroyed
21. Proc Soc Ant Lond I ser 4 (1858) 241: 246-9
22. Gentleman's Magazine Feb. 1859 173.
|
|
Fig. 5: cock metal forgery. In 1869 Henry Syer Cuming
bought five medallions of this design and two
others for sevenpence.
(Photo: Chris Mycock)
|
