113. Editorial Note

In telegram 203 to Rome, July 17, the Department of State informed the Embassy that the Time magazine issue of that day had carried a story indicating that Ambassador Luce had suffered from arsenic poisoning while serving in Italy. The telegram acknowledged that Luce had confirmed the story, but that the Department and the Embassy intended to emphasize that the incident had taken place 18 months ago, that the cause was accidental, and that Luce was recovering and would shortly return to Rome. (Department of State, Central Files, 123–Luce, Clare Booth)

The Ambassador’s illness had actually been diagnosed in January 1955. Luce left Italy on December 27, 1954, to return to the United States for consultations and for tests to determine the nature of an [Page 372] illness she had been suffering from since the beginning of her tour in Italy. In personal letters from Durbrow to Luce on January 15 and January 17, 1955, Durbrow stated that tests taken by Luce’s doctors in Rome had detected the presence of arsenic in small but harmful quantities. The source of the arsenic was not known, but Luce was urged to seek treatment in the United States. In another letter, January 23, Durbrow stated his suspicion that the arsenic had come from peeling paint on the ceiling of the Ambassador’s bedroom. (Ibid., Luce Files: Lot 64 D 27, Correspondence 1955) The Time article later identified this as the source. Luce was treated and returned to Rome, but continued to suffer from weakened health. She left Italy on May 10, 1956, to return to the United States for additional treatment; in telegram 3700 to Rome, May 17, the Department informed Jernegan that Luce was suffering from gastroenteritis and required 8 weeks of rest and treatment. (Ibid., Central Files, 123–Luce, Clare Booth) She was still in the United States when the poisoning story became public and did not return to Rome until August 17. In telegram 313 from Rome, July 20, Jernegan reported that the poisoning story had caused considerable comment in Italy, including denials from paint manufacturers and vague hints by the Italian press that a more sinister force was responsible for the incident. (Ibid.)