gems, glyptic, engraved gems, agate, cameo, intaglio, shell, ancient gems, Rome, Greece, ancient jewelry, rings

One of the most tantalising peculiarities belonging to the study of antique gems is the existence of that innumerable series, thrown together at the end of every catalogue under the designation of “Unknown Portraits.” What can be more trying to one versed in ancient history than to possess some impress of a face full of life and individuality, to be morally conscious that he has therein the “counterfeit presentment” of some great philosopher, statesman, or warrior, and after all, to be obliged to content himself, at best, with the arbitrary ascriptions of Fulvius Ursinus, Leone Agostini, Gori, and Visconti—ascriptions based for the most part upon the fancied agreement of the features with those of some restored, almost equally unreliable, bust or statue? Where the assistance of medals fails us we indeed have no other resource than this; and even this poor resource labours under another disadvantage; sculpture, when reproduced by drawing, losing so much of its character, that the marbles or bronzes are of little real service to our purpose unless we be enabled to examine the originals for ourselves, and compare them with the miniature heads we are endeavouring to identify. Visconti, in his two Iconographies, has availed himself only to a very limited extent of engraved gems in order to complete his series of Greek and Roman portraits, being probably deterred by the consideration that a mere supposed resemblance, when unsupported by an inscription, was insufficient warranty for their admission amongst likenesses in the authenticity of which his own archaeological credit was involved. It is, however, possible that had the acute Italian more attentively studied these minuter, but far more perfect, memorials of ancient celebrities, he might have conscientiously augmented his muster-roll, and that to a very considerable extent.