Appendix 3 - The case against F.N Pryce, and his reply
Letter from Forsdyke to Pryce.
8th November 1938
F. N. Pryce, Esq.,
Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities
Dear Pryce,
I enclose extracts from the Report of the Trustees' Board of
Enquiry into the damage done to the Parthenon sculpture, which
refer to your own part in this matter. They are in effect a charge
of neglect of duty against you.
You should let me have your answer to the charge in writing
before Saturday next, November 12th, in order that the Standing
Committee may consider it with the Board of Enquiry's report. You
should also be ready to appear before the Standing Committee at
that time, in case they wish to examine your case further.
Yours sincerely,
E. J. Forsdyke
Director and Principal Librarian
EXTRACTS FROM THE INTERIM REPORT OF THE BOARD OF ENQUIRY INTO
DAMAGE DONE TO SCULPTURE OF THE PARTHENON
Mr. F. N. Pryce
The portions of the Parthenon sculptures in question are three
in number, namely, the Selene horse's head, the Helios group and
the figure of Iris, all belonging to the East Pediment. On the 16th
of September Mr. Pryce left the Museum on short holiday leave. The
three pieces of sculpture were then in their proper places in the
Elgin Room. Before he went away Mr. Pryce gave no instructions
either to Mr. Hinks, who took charge in his absence, or to anyone
else with regard to either moving the sculptures or cleaning them
beyond a direction to Holcombe to prepare a mounting for the Iris
figure which involved its removal from the pedestal. The Director
informed the Board that he had previously reminded Mr. Pryce that
this figure must not even be washed without the authority of Dr.
Plenderleith in view of the precarious condition of its surface.
While Mr Pryce was absent it came to the notice of the Director on
the evening of Thursday, 22nd September, that tools had been used
in the cleaning of the Parthenon sculptures. He instructed Mr.
Hinks on the morning of 23rd September to see that improper methods
were not being used. On Sunday, 25th September, the Director
happened to have occasion to pass through the basement of the
Department. He was surprised to find there the Helios group in
process of cleaning. On the bench he observed a number of copper
tools and a piece of coarse carborundum, and from the appearance of
the sculptures he at once saw that tools had been used on the
sculptures. On Monday morning, 26th September, the Iris was found
by Mr. Hinks to be undergoing similar treatment in an annex of the
new Duveen Gallery, and the Selene horse's head in the Foreman
Mason's workshop.
Although Holcombe denied that he had used any copper tool in
cleaning the horse's head, which he dealt with himself personally,
the Board are satisfied that copper tools were used by Holcombe and
the labourers under him in cleaning all the three pieces of
sculpture in question. Holcombe admitted that apart from the
instruction to prepare a mounting for the Iris figure he had
received no specific instructions from the Keeper or the Assistant
Keeper either to remove or to clean the sculptures. He appears to
have assumed that he was at liberty to proceed at his own hand with
the process of removing and cleaning. He apparently had obtained
some strips or rods of copper from the store and had fashioned
those into tools of various shapes by flattening and sharpening the
ends. He said that he had used similar tools on other occasions for
cleaning marble and he apparently regarded himself as entitled to
use them on the Parthenon sculptures. No effort was made to conceal
them and they were lying exposed to full view on the bench when the
Director first observed them.
In the course of the evidence given by Holcombe and the
labourers it emerged that they had used tools in cleaning the
metopes and frieze on which they had previously been engaged for
some time. The Board did not think it to be within their duty to
make a detailed examination of the metopes and frieze with a view
to ascertaining the extent of the damage done, but they were
impressed by the fact that such improper methods of cleaning had
been allowed to be in operation over so long a period.
While the damage to the sculptures was directly occasioned by
the unauthorised actions of Holcombe, it is impossible to acquit
the Keeper and the Assistant Keeper of serious dereliction of duty.
Their main responsibility is the preservation and protection of the
valuable works of art committed to their care. Nevertheless, owing
to absence of direction and to inefficiency of supervision in the
Department, Holcombe was able to remove the Helios group and the
Selene horse's head, and to undertake the cleaning of all the three
sculptures in question at his own hand without the knowledge of
either the Keeper or the Assistant Keeper who was in charge of the
Department at the time. This can only be taken as indicating a most
unfortunate slackness and want of system in the administration of
the Department.
In the case of Mr. Pryce, it is true that he had in the course
of this year been suffering from ill health necessitating his
absence from work for two periods, and also that he was on holiday
leave when the particular unauthorised actings of Holcombe with the
Pediment sculptures took place. But the work of cleaning the
Parthenon sculptures was a long and delicate process, calling for a
definite programme and careful and systematic supervision. It was
the duty of Mr Pryce to see to these matters. It should have been
made clear to the staff that no piece of sculpture must be removed
and no piece of sculpture must be cleaned without specific orders
from Mr. Pryce himself, or, in his absence, his deputy. No such
step was taken, with the result that Holcombe considered himself
entitled to remove the Helios group and the Selene horse and to
start to clean those two pieces and the Iris figure on his own
initiative. The necessity for specific instructions with regard to
the cleaning of each individual piece was all the more imperative
by reason of the fact that the condition of the sculptures varies
considerably and special care was necessary in certain cases, for
example, the Iris figure. Mr. Pryce informed us that when the
cleaning first began he gave instructions to Holcombe that it was
only to be done according to the approved methods. But it was his
duty to see that these instructions were being carried out. In this
duty he failed, with the result that tools were improperly used in
cleaning the metopes and the frieze without his ever knowing it.
The improper practice thus begun was continued in the case of the
Pediment sculptures during Mr. Pryce's absence. But the fact that
he was absent on that occasion does not free him from
responsibility for the damage done to these sculptures since if he
had exercised proper supervision when the cleaning of the metopes
first began the practice would have been stopped at the very
beginning. Moreover, when he left for his holiday he ought to have
given proper instructions to his deputy, Mr. Hinks, with regard to
continuing the work of cleaning the sculptures, but he failed to do
so. Mr. Pryce's neglect of his duties is all the more serious in
view of the fact that he had been Deputy Keeper since 27th
November, 1934, and Keeper since 25th June, 1936, and had had the
management of the Sculpture Galleries and workshops from 1925 to
1932, during Mr. Walters' Keepership, and was presumably conversant
with the proper procedure to be observed in connection with the
moving and cleaning of the sculptures under his charge. When
questioned as to how this occurrence could have taken place if
there had been proper supervision Mr. Pryce was unable to answer,
and when asked as to what steps should be taken to prevent the
possibility of the recurrence of such an incident he exhibited
little faculty of resourceful suggestion.
Statement in answer to the charge of neglect of duty
Mr. F. N. Pryce
1. I would emphasise that I had no intention of beginning the
washing of the pedimental figures at the period under review. Other
and urgent work was before us (in the Third Graeco-Roman Room,
which had begun before I returned). Further, I wished the washing
of the pediments to be the last of the Elgin Room activities, not
only that the marbles might be freshly cleaned for the opening, but
because much labour would be saved if, after washing, these heavy
masses could be transferred directly to their new mounts. February
1939 seemed to me the suitable date on which to begin the washing.
It was for this reason that I had not yet consulted Dr.
Plenderleith as to how far we should wash, and for the same reason
I said nothing about washing to Mr. Hinks when I handed over to
him.
2. The instructions I gave Holcombe on leaving were to take down
the Iris, prepare its mounting, and set it up in the new gallery.
This was at Lord Duveen's request conveyed through the Director. I
explained the matter fully to Mr. Hinks, emphasising that he should
personally check the position of the mount. Holcombe moved the Iris
half-way, then deviated from his instructions. The job would have
occupied the men until they were wanted elsewhere; had it been
finished more quickly, there are always various jobs of a routine
nature on which the men can be usefully employed. There was no
necessity to begin washing, to find employment for the men.
3. The standing instruction in the Department is that no
sculpture is moved without express authority. Holcombe had not
acted without authority in the past and I had no reason to
anticipate that he would act on impulse in my absence.
4. When the washing began, I asked Holcombe if he and the men
understood the proper process, and he replied in the affirmative.
At the outset I spent much time with the men, and the washing
whenever I was present was being done in accordance with
regulation. I have reexamined the slabs of the frieze which were
first washed (in the S.W. angle of the Elgin Room), and can see no
trace of the use of copper tools. On this point I consulted Dr.
Plenderleith who, I believe, concurs. It would appear then that the
proper process was known to the men and at first followed by them,
and that I had reason for being satisfied on this point.
Subsequently I spent less time in the workshop, but when on duty I
regularly visited the men daily. I never caught them in the use of
unauthorised tools. There was of course a long period in the spring
of this year when washing was in progress and when I was absent or
under medical treatment.
F. N. Pryce
11 November 1938