Restitution Request "Guelph Treasure" (Welfenschatz), Account of the Established Historical Facts on the Basis Of
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
1 Restitution Request "Guelph Treasure" (Welfenschatz) Account of the established historical facts on the basis of the provenance research carried out by the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation (Stiftung Preußischer Kulturbesitz, SPK), As of 30.11.2010 - check against original text in German - Preliminary remarks: 1. The following text is an excerpt from the statement of the SPK sent to the legal representatives of the claimants on 30th November 2010. This statement was also presented to the Advisory Commission chaired by Professor Dr. Jutta Limbach (“Beratende Kommission”, or so-called “Limbach-Commission”), whose recommendation was announced on 20th March 2014. The text depicts what the SPK considers to have been the most important research results available to the foundation at that time. The account is in chronological order, beginning with the first sale attempts by the House of Guelph up to execution of the 1935 contract between the Dresdner Bank and the consortium. 2. The text presents the most important historical facts and processes considered verified by the SPK. In order to prepare this statement, extensive archive and literature research was carried out. A list of the evaluated files has been attached as Attachment 1, which explains – as far as applicable – the abbreviations used. During the evaluation of the procured files on the Guelph Treasure, a wealth of detailed information came together regarding the sales attempts since the 1920s. The respective historical document to which the account pertains is referenced in the footnotes. SPK cannot provide the full text version of the documents referred to in the footnotes due to archive right restrictions. If required, we ask you to request access from the relevant archive directly. 3. The blacked-out sections within the text relate to facts that could only be gathered from files or documents made accessible to the SPK by the claimants. Usage was limited to deployment within the proceedings before the Advisory Commission. SPK therefore does not have the right to make these facts and evidence public. 4. The SPK’s evaluation of the facts on the basis of the Guidelines (“Handreichung”) and the Washington Principles, which contains an evaluation of the prerequisites for a restitution from the perspective of the SPK, will currently not be published due to data protection issues. Only the SPK’s summarising conclusion is included. 5. Insofar as conversions of foreign values into Reichsmark (RM) were made, this was carried out using a currency chart provided by the Bundesbank and included as Attachment II. I. The sale and purchase attempts of the 1920s We were delivered records showing that the first sale efforts by the house of Brunswick-Lüneburg for the Guelph Treasure, which at that time was located in Gmunden, Austria, took place in the early 1920s. Both the Director of the National Gallery of Ireland, Robert Langton Douglas1 and employees of the renowned art dealership, Duveen Brothers2 inspected the Treasure. After his visit in 1921, Langton no longer occupied himself with the relics, as in his opinion the Duchy was demanding much 3 more than the pieces were actual worth. Initially, the main obstacle to a purchase for Duveen was 1 Getty Research Institute (GRI), Duveen Brother Records (ID: 960015), Box 234, Folder 15, Cumberland Collection, ca. 1923-1954, Letter from London to New York dated 8 May 1925. 2 Fowles Edward: Memories of Duveen Brothers, London 1976, p. 162 et seq. 3 GRI, Duveen Brother Records (ID: 960015), Box 234, Folder 15, Cumberland Collection, ca. 1923-1954, Letter from London to New York dated 8 May 1925. 2 that the Duke only wished to sell the Treasure in its entirety.4 In 1927, Duveen then learned that the main pieces were now being sold separately and the Domed reliquary had been priced at USD 1.0 million (RM 4.12 million). 5 This offer was described by the company in a letter as "ridiculous"; a purchase did not occur. Sales talks were also taken up with the Metropolitan Museum of Art New York in at latest December 1927.6 From the very beginning, the Metropolitan had no interest in acquiring the entire collection.7 After it asked the House of Brunswick-Lüneburg regarding the sales arrangements, the Director of the Department of Applied Arts, Joseph Breck, commented that the total prize of ten to twelve million USD (RM 41.9 to 50.28 million) being demanded was “obviously absurd”.8 In the same year, the House of Brunswick-Lüneburg insured the entire Guelph Treasure at an insurance value of RM 15.470 million.9 Breck appraised the pieces of interest to the Metropolitan, the Domed Reliquary and Portable Altar of Eilbertus, at ca. USD 100,000 (RM 419,000) each10. An art dealer, who was specified no further, appraised the Domed Reliquary for Breck at USD 250,000 (RM 1,047,500) and the portable altar at an amount slightly less than this price. 11 During the year 1928, the asking price for the entire treasure was reduced by more than 40% to the new asking price of USD 6.0 (RM 25.14 million).12 The Metropolitan believed the reduced purchase price to be too high, as well; Breck suggested that they wait: In the event that no museum or buyers group would be found in the United States to acquire the entire treasure for the price of six to ten million - and Breck emphasized that he would be very surprised, if this occurred - a new offer would be made with a much more reasonable asking price, based on which negotiations for two pieces of interest could then be conducted.13 The Viennese art dealer, Glückselig, stood in negotiations with the Victoria and Albert Museum in London as a negotiator (Unterhändler) of the Guelph Duchy since 1928 at the latest. In June 1928, the Director of the museum, Maclagan first reported the possibility of acquiring the Guelph Treasure for one and a half million pounds sterling [RM 30,585,000].14 The asking price of the House of Brunswick for the entire Guelph Treasure then went down 65% to 527,000 pounds sterling [RM 10,745,530].15 On 13 September 1928, Maclagan informed Glückselig that neither the Victoria & Albert Museum, nor the British government, saw itself in the position to purchase the Guelph Treasure or pieces thereof.16 In 1925, Austria secured a purchase option in the context of issuing the export licenses for the Guelph Treasure.17 The Directorates of the Collection of Sculptures and Applied Arts at the Kunsthistorisches National Museum and the Austrian Museum for Art and Industry estimated the amount of öS 2.5 million (RM 423,729) as the minimum purchase price.18 With reference to the “general state financial situation”, the Federal Ministry for Education officially waived the purchase option in January 1930.19 In July 1927, Dr. Paul Knoke, head of the Supreme Administration of the House of Guelph also tried before the Secretary of the Reichs Interior Ministry, Dr. Erich Zweigert, to bring about a purchase of the Treasure by the German Reich.20 The Prussian Prime Minister, the Prussian Minister of Finance 4 GRI, Duveen Brother Records (ID: 960015), Box 234, Folder 15, Cumberland Collection, ca. 1923-1954, Letter from Paris to New York dated 19 December 1923. 5 GRI, Duveen Brother Records (ID: 960015), Box 234, Folder 15, Cumberland Collection, ca. 1923-1954, Letter from Paris to London dated 9 December 1927. 6 Archives of The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Letter from H. Buck dated 10 December 1927. 7 Archives of The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Letter from Breck to Robinson dated 16 March 1928. 8 Archives of The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Letter from Breck to Robinson dated 16 March 1928. 9 Bundesdenkmalamt Wien (BDA, Federal Monument Office Vienna), Karton Ausfuhr 24 (Export Box 24), Fasz. (Fascicle) Cumberland (1922-1939), ln. 1760/1928. 10 Archives of The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Letter from Breck to Robinson dated 16 March 1928. 11 Archives of The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Letter from Breck to Forest dated 26 November 1928. 12 Archives of The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Letter from Breck to Robinson dated 16 March 1928. 13 Archives of The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Letter from Breck to Forest dated 13 December 1928. 14 V&A Archive, Letter from Maclagan to Symonds dated 26 June 1928. 15 V&A Archive, Letter from Maclagan [assumed to R.S. Wood, Deputy Secretary of the Board of Education] dated 11 September 1928. 16 V&A Archive, Letter from Maclagan [assumed to R.S. Wood, Deputy Secretary of the Board of Education] dated 11 September 1928 and ibid., Letter from Maclagan to Glückselig dated 13 September 1928. 17 BDA, Karton Ausfuhr 24, Fasz. Cumberland (1922-1939), Ln 2044/1928. 18 BDA, Karton Ausfuhr 24, Fasz. Cumberland (1922-1939), Ln 3732/1928. 19 BDA, Karton Ausfuhr 24, Fasz. Cumberland (1922-1939), Ln 305/1930. 20 Germanisches Nationalmuseum Nürnberg - Deutsches Kunstarchiv (GNM-DKA, Germanic National Museum 3 and the Prussian Minister of Science, Art and Popular Education were also informed by the House of Brunswick-Lüneburg regarding the intention to sell,21 as was also the Provincial Directorate of Hannover.22 So as to bring about a purchase in Hannover, Glückselig was also in contact with the Kiel Provincial Curator, Dr. Sauermann, who was in contact with the Provincial Directorate of Hannover, in particular its treasurer (Schatzrat) Hartmann.23 Moreover, Duke Ernst August III of Brunswick- Lüneburg personally approached the former Director General of the National Museums, Wilhelm von Bode, to share his decision regarding the sell.24 Particularly intensive sales efforts were made with German authorities by the antiquities dealer, Dr.