145 
impression I now strongly entertain, that this fashion of imitating 
and copying imperfect things is altogether based upon a false idea. 
Thirty years since I was a good deal in Rome, and there I made 
the acquaintance of the Jesuit fathers who then had the care of the 
“Collegio Romano.” One of the Society, Padre Macchi, was a 
distinguished and learned antiquarian, and he invited me to 
accompany him to the catacombs of St. Agnese, which had then 
lately been discovered, and which contained the most interesting 
relics of early Christian art then extant. On the road we passed 
the villa of the well-known banker, Prince Alexander Torlonia, who 
was, I believe, really of Jewish extraction, but who had lately been 
ennobled by the Pope, and had married a lady of the historical 
family of Colonna. This villa had been fitted up and adorned 
with all modern means and appliances which wealth could supply, 
and amongst other ornamental work the Prince had erected in the 
grounds miniature copies of some of the best known ruins in 
Rome, such as the Colosseum, Temple of Peace, &c. As we 
drove by, one of my Jesuit friends called my attention to these 
things, saying with a satirical smile, ‘Guardi, Signore, I’Antichita 
Moderna’—that is, “Observe, sir, the modern antiquity,” and his 
companion, referring to the Prince, quietly muttered “Stupido,” 
a word I need not translate. With this criticism I then cordially 
agreed, and I agree with itnow. Rely upon this, that whether the 
scene be in Italy or England, and whether the subject be Roman 
ruins or Gothic remains, imitation is base in both cases, and the 
wholesale fabrication of medieval shams, so common with the 
“greatest church restorer,” merits the identical censure which was 
pronounced by my Jesuit friends upon Prince Torlonia for doing 
what he thought very clever, but which was exactly the reverse. 
Now, it is to oppose these pernicious notions that the efforts 
of the anti-restoration party are mainly directed. There are, as 
must be the case in so wide a field of ideas, “ anti-restorationists” 
and “anti-restorationists.” There are those who think with Mr. 
Stevenson that nothing ought to be done “beyond mere upholding”; 
others there are who concur with Mr. Street, that, while removals 
and changes, either whole or partial, are in many cases justifiable, 
1] 
