Documentary evidence for the cleaning of the sculptures
1937-8
In this section and the three following, I
shall present the raw data of the episode arranged, for the sake of
the reader's interest, in the form of a narrative. It is a
compelling story and deserves to tell itself. I have, therefore,
largely resisted attempting to make value judgements, either of the
evidence itself or of the actions and sayings of the people
concerned. This will be done in section 7. Transcripts of the full
documents referred to will be found in Appendices 1 to 11.
At a meeting of the Standing-Committee of
Trustees on 8 October 1938, Forsdyke reported that 'through
unauthorised and improper efforts to improve the colour of the
Parthenon sculpture for Lord Duveen's new gallery, some important
pieces had been greatly damaged.'(60) He asked for a Board of
Enquiry to consider the nature of the 'damage' and the policy of
the Trustees in regard to publication of the facts.The Board was
appointed and comprised Lord Harlech, Sir William Bragg, Sir
Charles Peers and Sir Wilfred Greene with Lord Macmillan in the
chair.
The Director received brief preliminary
statements in the form of letters from Pryce, his assistant Roger
Hinks, H.J. Plenderleith, scientist in charge of the Museum's
laboratory, and Arthur Holcombe foreman of the masons,(61) who were
called as witnesses before the board along with Sydney Smith,
Keeper of Egyptian and Assyrian Antiquities, and V.A. Fisher,
mason.The Board's first Interim Report is dated 7 November
1938.(62) Taking it together with the statements of Frederick Pryce
and Roger Hinks (63), events may be summarised as follows.
'When the washing began', Pryce recalls, 'I
asked Holcombe if he and the men understood the proper process, and
he replied in the affirmative.' By this he must have meant the
cleaning that began in the summer of 1937. He goes on, 'At the
outset I spent much time with the men, and the washing whenever I
was present was being done in accordance with the 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.' The sculpture referred to in the S.W. corner of
the room are the blocks of north frieze showing the cavalcade.
Subsequently, Pryce spent less time in the
workshop and there was a long period in the spring of 1938 when he
was absent on sick-leave and did not supervise the cleaning at all.
Hinks had returned from leave on 29 August 1938 and was together
with Pryce in the Department, before the latter went on leave on 16
September. Before leaving, Pryce gave Hinks no special instructions
as to cleaning the Parthenon sculptures. The political crisis in
September over Germany's invasion of Czechoslovakia involved Hinks
in the drawing up of emergency measures for evacuating the
collections, with the help of his junior C.M. Robertson.(64) In
accordance with Pryce's instruction, Hinks also superintended the
work of the masons, 'who were engaged in mounting various pieces of
sculpture.' He goes on:
'I also visited the Annexe of the new Elgin
Room, to inspect the Iris from the East Pediment, whose base was to
be measured for the cutting of a template, but no work was yet in
progress. I noticed that some washing of the lower part of the
figure had recently taken place; but as I had just been away for
several weeks, and as I assumed that the cleaning of this figure,
like that of the rest of the Parthenon sculpture, was contemplated
before removal to the new room, I was not surprised to find that
the work had been started. I did not observe any signs that
unauthorized methods of cleaning had been used, nor were there then
any tools or other materials laid out on the trestle on which the
figure stood. I did not then pass through Holcombe's shop or the
other basements, because I had received no instructions from the
Keeper that any work was to be in progress there. In short I did
not spend as much time in the basement as I should have spent there
in normal circumstances, because I judged that my first duty during
these critical days was to superintend the safeguarding of the
collections in the upper rooms, for which the Director had already
issued general instructions.'
Hinks comes at last to the Director's
revelation to him of his suspicions about malpractice. He had gone
to see Forsdyke on the afternoon of Friday 23 September to discuss
various matters, and at the end of this interview the Director
brought up the matter of the sculptures. In the first Interim
Report it was said that Forsdyke had first become aware that tools
had been used on the sculptures on the evening of Thursday 22
September, but what is not clear from these papers is how Forsdyke
suddenly became apprised of the fact or why he decided to mention
it then, when the cleaning had been going on for fifteen months.
The answer seems to lie in a paper addressed to Sir David Wilson,
dated 9 February 1984, (Appendix 5) which records a memoir of the
episode by Dr R.D. Barnett, then a retired Keeper of Western
Asiatic Antiquities at the Museum.(65) Barnett remarks that he had
long been puzzled as to why an elderly labourer had been allowed to
sit -
'day after day using hammer and chisel (to
remove lime stalagmites) and wire brushes (to remove the
golden-brown patina) from the Parthenon metopes and frieze slabs,
which were solemnly trundled in to him one by one. I wondered
whether I should intervene here and pondered long; but I felt much
difficulty in thus interfering in another department's affairs.
After all, Forsdyke, though he had by now become Director, must
know about it since he had continued to exercise close control over
the whole Duveen Gallery scheme from the Director's office. The
matter however was shortly afterwards (how shortly I don't
remember) taken out of my hands.
One day Sydney Smith [Keeper of Egyptian and
Assyrian Antiquities] and Mallowan [the Assyriologist] and I were
down there (I think) at lunch-time when the 'cleaner' [Holcombe? In
his workshop] was out. Sydney Smith, noticing what he had been
doing, strode over, looked at his tools, and exclaimed 'Good Lord!
Do you see what they're doing? They're cleaning the sculptures with
wire brushes!'
'Yes', I said, `and I don't like it', (or
words to that effect) .
'Don't ever tell anyone what you've seen here
today!' said SS with great finality.
Of course we promised we wouldn't - indeed I
kept my promise for nearly 50 years: however at the time I took SS
to mean that he would accept responsibility and do or say whatever
was necessary. In the upshot, he didn't do anything till that day
in October (?) 1938 when it was reported that the Duveen Gallery
had been finished and the metopes had been installed in the side
galleries. What happened next I only have from heresay, not
personal knowledge, but I understood that Sydney Smith and Mrs.
Gulbenkian were ushered down to meet Forsdyke in the galleries and
Forsdyke remarked of the metopes: 'They're looking very white,
aren't they?', to which SS was able to come back with a smart
answer: 'You know why, don't you? They've been cleaning them with
wire brushes!!'
Barnett's account is artfully designed to
discredit all but himself. In the Museum he has a reputation for
brilliant scholarship and political cunning. Even in retirement he
sought to influence Museum affairs. At the time of his writing,
there was a plan for re-combining Barnett's old department of
Western Asiatic Antiquities with Egyptian Antiquities, as in the
days of Sydney Smith. Barnett opposed it. His inflammatory memoir
is probably designed to embarrass its recipient, and should be
taken with a large pinch of salt. Certainly, there is no evidence
to confirm his mention of wire brushes 'to remove the golden-brown
patina.' Perhaps all that can reliably be inferred from it is that,
by saying what he knew, Sydney Smith brought out an anxiety that
had been building in the Director's mind, for some time.
Hinks's account of his interview with Forsdyke
the next day continues:(66)
'The Director then mentioned the cleaning of
the Elgin marbles, and expressed concern at the appearance of some
of the slabs of the frieze. He repeated the conviction of the
Trustees that nothing but the method of cleaning invented by Dr
Plenderleith should be employed on the marbles, even if this did
not achieve the degree of whiteness desired by Lord Duveen. He then
expressed his own fear that unauthorised methods might already have
been employed on the frieze, especially the use of metal scrapers
and abrasives. He then instructed me to look into this matter.'
On the following Saturday, Hinks went to look
at the frieze and noticed the whiteness of which the Director had
complained, but found no indication as to whether this had been
achieved by unauthorised methods or by Plenderleith's method.
On Sunday 25 September Forsdyke passed through
the basement and was surprised to find that the Helios group had
recently been undergoing treatment. There were copper tools on the
bench and a piece of coarse carborundum. It was obvious the tools
had been used on the sculptures. On Monday the 26th September,
Hinks found Holcombe in his shop with the head of Selene's horse.
He was washing it in the approved way, but on the bench were the
various tools and tins of white powder. Hinks challenged Holcombe,
who denied using them on the head and denied knowledge of the
powder, which he claimed was something left over from the days of
his predecessor, William Pinker.(67) His suspicions aroused, Hinks
went immediately to the Annexe of Duveen's new gallery, where he
found two labourers washing the figure of Iris and using copper
tools on the drapery. The work was stopped.
Pryce returned to the Museum on Tuesday 27
September. He declared that it had not been his intention to
proceed with the cleaning of the pediment sculptures until February
of the following year, and that explained why he had not consulted
Plenderleith about 'how far we should wash'. For the same reason he
had said nothing to Hinks, when the latter took over. The only
instruction given to Holcombe had been to take down the 'Iris', fix
a new pedestal and set it up in the new gallery.
The Board were persuaded, contrary to claims
by Holcombe, that copper tools were used by him and the labourers
under him in cleaning all three pieces. Nor had Holcombe received
any instruction, but had taken it upon himself to clean the
sculptures as he saw fit. He had acquired some strips of copper
from the store and shaped them by flattening and sharpening the
ends. Similar tools had been used on the frieze and metopes. He
apparently saw no harm in this and had made no effort to conceal
the tools. The Board, for reasons not given, 'did not think it
within their duty to make a detailed examination of the metopes and
frieze with a view to ascertaining the extent of the damage.' At
any rate the effect was recognised as 'to remove the surface of the
marble and to impart to it a smooth and white appearance.' Pryce
had described the horse head of Selene as having been 'skinned'.
'The damage', the report goes on, 'which has been caused is obvious
and cannot be exaggerated.'
It was recalled that washing the sculptures
used to be done in the galleries using water and hard brushes, that
is until in 1932 Plenderleith prescribed a 'neutral solution of
medicinal soft-soap and ammonia', training one mason's labourer in
how to apply this with distilled water. For the next four years
only this person washed the sculptures and this to the Keeper's
order. Holcombe could give no satisfactory reply as to why this
practice was deviated from. Pryce remarked, however, that a foreman
of Lord Duveen, who was employed on the site of the new gallery,
'had expressed Lord Duveen's desire that the sculptures should be
made as clean and white as possible and this may very well have
become known to the workmen.'
The Trustees were very critical of Pryce and
Hinks for what was regarded as a dereliction of duty in failing to
provide proper supervision over a long period of time, which
failure could not be excused on the basis of periods of absence
through vacation or ill-health. Nor, in Pryce's absence, was it
even Hinks who had discovered the crime, but it had been left for
the Director to reveal.
The first Interim Report was submitted to the
Standing Committee of Trustees and accepted. The Board met for a
fourth time on 15 November to complete the enquiry and to consider
what disciplinary action should be taken and to deliberate on how
the facts were to be published. The results of this meeting made up
the second Interim Report.(68)
They re-examined Holcombe and also questioned
J.F. Sinclair and A.E. Simenton, two of the labourers. Sinclair
confirmed that he had been using copper tools to clean the
Parthenon sculptures since June 1937. The report goes on:
'He also stated that Daniel, the foreman
employed by Lord Duveen, had pointed out to him that one of the
slabs, chosen for Lord Duveen to show in his new gallery, was not
white enough and that Holcombe had previously told him to see if he
could brighten it up. The slab was in consequence recleaned. Daniel
commended him for getting it whiter. The incident is of importance
only as showing that Holcombe and Sinclair and presumably the other
workmen were aware of Daniel's desire that the sculptures should be
made as clean and white as possible for Lord Duveen.
The Board learned from Holcombe, Sinclair and
Simenton that a sum of two or three pounds had been given by Daniel
to Holcombe to be divided among himself and the workmen after they
had performed some heavy work in moving some of the sculptures, and
that this sum was shared among them. The Board do not associate
this payment with the cleaning operations, except in so far as it
was calculated to promote the readiness of Holcombe and the workmen
to comply with Daniel's wishes.'
On the question of the fate of the officers,
it was decided to terminate the employment of Pryce and Hinks, the
conditions as yet undetermined.
On the matter of a public statement the Board
decided that none need be made. 'They have learned with
satisfaction that [unspecified] remedial measures applied by the
Director and Dr Plenderleith have mitigated to a considerable
extent the evidence of the treatment which the three
pediment-sculptures have received so far as the eye of the general
public is concerned but to the expert the damage will remain
discernible. In these circumstances the Board do not recommend any
communication to the Press on the subject.'
The second Interim Report dated 8 December
1938 was presented to the Standing Committee and the Trustees on 10
December 1938 and was accepted. Afterwards the Board met again (69)
and reconsidered the terms of Pryce's dismissal in the light of
medical evidence, which had since become available to them. They
now found that, 'so far as he is concerned, the unfortunate state
of matters which the Board have had to investigate ought in large
measure to be attributed to his breakdown in health.' After a
month's sick-leave, therefore, Pryce was to be allowed to retire on
medical grounds. Hinks by contrast was to be allowed to remain in
post with a severe reprimand and the loss of ten years seniority.
Holcombe was dismissed and ceased duty on 9 December 1939.(70)
Pryce's month of sick-leave expired and he
never returned to his duties, as his retirement on medical grounds
went through. Bernard Ashmole, Yates Professor of Classical
Archaeology in the University of London, joined the Department in
January 1939 and took over Pryce's duties on a part-time basis.(71)
On 13 January, his position no longer tenable or tolerable, Hinks
tendered his resignation to Ashmole. It was accepted by the Board
of Enquiry on 14 January 1939(72) and at a General Meeting of
Trustees on 25 February 1939.
The surviving correspondence between Forsdyke
and the Board members is largely routine,(73) but two letters from
Lord Harlech are telling. He was a hard-liner, who disapproved of
Macmillan's initial instinct: 'Price (sic) and Holcombe ought to be
got rid of and possibly Hinks too.(74) Price's evidence was
deplorable and I don't see how he can be entrusted with
responsibility any more. Holcombe obviously lied to us, and
deliberately did what he did the moment the Keeper's back was
turned wanting to please Duveen. The Trustees and you and the whole
Museum have been let down badly, and effective disciplinary action
must follow. Frankly, I don't like Macmillan's desire to hush it
all up and minimize a very bad job'.(75)
In the event, Harlech was reassured: 'Knowing
Macmillan's views I am agreeably surprised at his draft report. He
has adopted a good many of my suggestions.'(76)