No. 410.
Mr. Wurts
to Mr. Evarts.
Rome, August 28, 1880. (Received September 13.)
Sir: Your instruction No. 731, on the subject of an exchange of antiquities between the Smithsonian Institution and the Italian Government, has been duly received.
Only a few weeks ago General di Cesnola wrote to Mr. Marsh on this question, offering to exchange duplicates of his Cipriote collection in the Metropolitan Museum of New York for duplicates of the Pompeiian collections at Naples. The proposal of General di Cesnola was submitted to Senator Fiorelli, director-general of the ministry of public instruction, department of antiquities and excavations, and Senator Fiorelli promptly replied that no sale, exchange, or alienation of the works of art, or duplicates thereof, in the national museums could be made without a law to that effect being passed by Parliament.
Although this reply of Senator Fiorelli to General di Cesnola’s letter is equally applicable to the proposal of the Smithsonian Institution, and therefore disposes for the present of the question, I have thought it advisable to discuss the matter personally with the senator before mentioned, and in an interview with that gentleman this morning I have obtained information which may be useful to our government if it deems it expedient to take further steps towards effecting the contemplated exchange.
Senator Fiorelli informed me that many difficulties are in the way of carrying out this project. Laws both general and local are opposed to the exportation of all works of art or objects of antiquity having special merit; the legislation of Italy in this respect is still varied; in the Neapolitan provinces the laws of 1821 prohibit this exportation; laws of a similar nature in the former Roman states, instituted by Pius VII, and in Tuscany dating from the grand-ducal times, are still in force; in Piedmont, Lombardy, and Venetia no law of the kind was ever made, for the reason that there was nothing considered in the light of antiquity to which it would apply. A general law for the whole kingdom was presented to Parliament some years ago; it met with great opposition, the Chamber of Deputies favoring liberty of action to owners of antiquities and works of art to dispose of their collections, on the ground that a prohibition to sell is an infringement upon proprietary rights, the Senate refusing its consent to a law in so broad a sense; a compromise was finally agreed upon which reserves to the state the priority of right to purchase works of art offered for sale; if the state declines to pay the sum offered by the foreign bidder it forfeits its right to detain the work of art in the country.
A tempest was raised some twelve or thirteen years ago in the Chamber of Deputies on the discussion of the sale to the Empress of Russia of the celebrated Conestabili Madonna, a small picture not fifteen inches square, by Raphael. The enormous sum of 360,000 francs was offered by the Empress to Count Conestabili of Perugia for his picture. To allow a work of art of such artistic value to leave the country was considered by in any a national spoliation. The subject was brought to the notice of [Page 650] Parliament, and a vote was asked for the sum necessary to purchase the picture, but it failed to pass, and the picture is now in the imperial gallery at St. Petersburg.
A new law of much more liberal character has recently been presented to Parliament, but it will be much contested. The local jealousy of the possession of galleries and collections of fine arts is everywhere intense in Italy. Senator Fiorelli cited me two cases of this feeling within his own experience. On his nomination to his present position and with the consent of his superior, the minister of public instruction, he desired to bring to Rome from Naples some fragments of inscriptions on marble which belonged to and completed certain fragments recently discovered in Rome bearing on them the remaining parts of these inscriptions. The fragments in Naples had been excavated here fifty years ago and sent to Naples by Cardinal Farnese. These fragments in their separated condition were of little interest; joined together their value would be considerable. An order was given for their transmission to Rome, but not only did the syndic (mayor) of Naples sequester them, and prevent their exportation, but he brought an action against the persons concerned for robbery.
Undaunted by this failure to obtain these fragments, Senator Fiorelli later on offered to exchange for them a mutilated head of Vespasian discovered in laying the foundation for the new ministry of finance on soil belonging to the state, and consequently clearly the property of the state. The head was boxed and had almost left the railway station, when the syndic of Rome appeared with his tri-colored scarf of office and seized it as the property of the S. P. Q. R.
These instances show but one class of obstacles to be overcome in effecting an exchange of Italian antiquities for those of other countries. Another difficulty would be the valuation of the objects offered for exchange by the two contracting parties. Experts would of course have to be appointed for the appraisement of these objects, and this labor would be one of such delicacy that it might lead to long protracted discussions between the agents of the two governments.
Senator Fiorelli gently insinuated that American antiquities could have but a relative value in the eyes of Italians; their scientific interest is unquestioned, but would they be valued here as they are with us where they are esteemed for their local interest?
There is, besides, the question to decide, what are duplicates of works of art? An instructive article on this point appeared lately in the London Times, in relation to the distribution of the so-called duplicates, especially of the oriental sculptures, alleged to be lying in large quantities in the cellars of the British Museum. In this article it was concluded that as there never are two objects precisely similar, no such thing as a duplicate exists. After able and curious exemplificatian of this thesis, the article concludes by deploring the dispersion of the so-called duplicates among the provincial museums as a calamity to the antiquarian and the student of art.
A proposition is now under consideration in Italy to exchange duplicates where certain categories of antiquities are wanting in provincial museums, but objections are raised, and it is doubtful that it will be put into execution.
It is hardly necessary to add that there is no foundation for the report mentioned by the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution that the Government of Italy contemplates the destruction of its surplus collections at Naples, for want of accommodation; as Senator Fiorelli remarked, it would be easier to build rooms for them.
[Page 651]The foregoing indicates the principal difficulties existing and that might arise in the way of the proposed exchange. At the same time it is thought that if the Government of the United States make official overture to that of Italy, presenting its lists and indications of the antiquities at its disposal for exchange, the government of this country would very probably ask for authority from Parliament to negotiate.
Meanwhile, I believe that there is no action remaining for me to take until further instructed by the Department of State.
I have, &c.,