Richard Payne Knight, Esquire, called in, and Examined.
nach: Report 1816, S. 92–104.
[…]
ARE you acquainted with the Elgin Collection? — Yes: I have looked them over, not only formerly, but I have looked them over on this occasion, with reference to their value.
In what class of art do you place the finest works in this Collection? — I think of things extant, I should put them in the second rank – some of them; they are very unequal; the finest I should put in the second rank.
Do you think that none of them rank in the first class of art? — Not with the Laocoon and the Apollo, and these which have been placed in the first class of art; at the same time I must observe, that their state of preservation is such I cannot form a very accurate notion; their surface is gone mostly.
Do you consider them to be of a very high anti- [93] quity? — We know from the authority of Plutarch, that those of the Temple of Minerva, which are the principal, were executed by Callicrates and Ictinus, and their assistants and scholars; and I think some were added in the time of Hadrian, from the style of them.
Do you consider what is called the Theseus and the River God, as works of that age? — The River God I should think, certainly – of the Theseus I have doubts whether it was in that age or added by Hadrian; there is very little surface about it, therefore I cannot tell; the River God is very fine.
Do you consider the River God as the finest figure in the collection? — Yes, I do.
In what class do you rank the fragments of the draped female figures? — They are so mutilated I can hardly tell, but I should think most of them were added by Hadrian: they are so mutilated I cannot say much about them: they are but of little value except from their local interest, from having been part of the Temple.
In what class of art do you consider the metopes? — The metopes I consider of the first class of relief: I think there is nothing finer: but they are very much corroded: there are some of them very poor: but the best of them I consider as the best works of high relief.
Do you consider them as of high antiquity? — I consider most of them as executed at the time of the original building; the others might have been finished since.
What proportion of them do you think are of the first class? — I should think a half at least.
[94] In what class of art do you reckon the frieze of the Procession? — I think it is of the first class of low relief: I know nothing finer than what remains of it; there is very little of it.
Do you consider that as of the same high antiquity? — Certainly; all of it I think has been executed at the first building of the Temple, as far as I can judge; they are very much mutilated.
Can you form any judgment as to what may be the money value of that collection or of the parts? — I have gone over them to make an estimate, and I will state the grounds on which I have done it; I have been over them three times, to form the value. I valued that statue of Venus, which Lord Lansdowne paid £ 700 for, at £ 1,400; and I valued Lord Elgin’s accordingly; and I put on fifty per cent in consideration of their local interest. I valued the draped figures, which I think would be worth very little if it were not for their local interest, at £ 2,000. I do not know the value of the drawings.
[The Witness delivered in a paper, which was read as follows.]
»Such of the Sculptures of the Temple of Minerva at Athens, as are of the time of Pericles, are the work of Callicrates and Ictinus, or their assistants and scholars, to which the testimony of Plutarch, the only ancient authority, is precise – τον δε ἕκατομϖεδον Παρθενωνα Καλλικρατης ειργαζετο και Ικτινος – Phidias only made the statue of the Goddess, and presided (επιςατει) over the works of Pericles in general.« — Plutarch’s life of Pericles. [95]
The Prices which have been paid to Roman dealers, within my knowledge, for important articles in this country, are as follows: —
| By Mr. Townley, to Jenkins, for the Discobolus |
£ 700 |
| By the Marquis of Lansdowne, to D°, for a Hercules |
600 |
| By Mr. Townley, to D°, for the Relief of the Feast of Icarus |
400 |
| By D°, to Gavin Hamilton, for a large Venus |
700 |
(I learn since that Mr. Townley paid about £350 more in fees to have the Venus exported.)
| By the Marquis of Lansdowne, to D°, for a Mercury |
700 |
The two last articles were, however, unreasonably cheap even at that time (forty years ago) – Hamilton not having been allowed a fair competition; and the last having been clandestinely brought from Rome. I think each of them worth more than any two articles in Lord Elgin’s collection, especially the latter, which is, in my judgment, of better sculpture; and both are a thousand per cent, better in preservation, which has always been considered as of the utmost importance.
| Recumbent statue of Hercules, as on the coins of Croto, with little of the surface remaining |
£ 1,500 |
| Trunk of a male statue recumbent |
1,500 |
| [96] Back and shoulders of a trunk, on which the head of Hadrian appears to have been |
200 |
| Fragment of the head of a horse, very fine |
250 |
| Fragments of about ten draped trunks, from the pediments of the Parthenon, most of which appear to be the age of Hadrian |
2,000 |
| Fourteen metopes, of various degrees of merit, all corroded, and mostly much mutilated |
7,000 |
| Twelve pieces of frieze of the cell, with parts entire |
3,600 |
| About thirty-five more, completely ruined |
1,400 |
| Three capitals, and part of a column, from the same temple |
500 |
| Plaster casts, from d° and other temples |
2,500 |
| A granite scarabous [sic] |
300 |
| A white marble soros complete and entire, but coarse, |
500 |
| Various shafts and blocks of marble |
350 |
| D° of porphyry |
350 |
| Various fragments of statuary and relief |
500 |
| Various d° of architecture |
300 |
| Caryates from the Propylæa, much injured |
200 |
| Nine broken marble urns |
450 |
| One wrought brass d° |
150 |
| One inscribed earthen d° |
150 |
| Inscriptions, &c. |
300 |
| Medals |
1,000 |
|
£ 25,000 |
| Drawings |
|
[97] Do you conceive that if this Collection were to be publicly sold, it would produce the prices that are named here? — No, not near half, if sold in detail; what any of the Sovereigns of Europe might give for them collectively, I cannot pretend to say. […]
[98] […] How would you value the Theseus, in comparison with the Belvidere [sic] Torso; how would you class it? — I should think it inferior in value; what is called the Torso Belvidere I believe to be a copy of Lysippus’s Hercules.
Do you happen to know the value that was put upon it, in the collection of the Louvre? — No.
Do you happen to know what was paid for the Borghese Collection? — I do not know what was to be paid; I know what has been paid.
Was not there a great deal of difficulty in removing any good work of art from Rome? — Very great, and that is the reason why that Venus, in the British Museum, was sold so low.
There was great difficulty? — The Pope had a selection always, and his judges were a little susceptible, I believe, sometimes, and were bribed.
Did not the Pope, or the Sovereign of the country, claim a pre-emption of any thing valuable? — Yes.
Therefore you would consider any good piece of sculpture brought to this Country, as greatly increased in value from the difficulties of removing it [99] from Rome? — All that was included in the price that was paid by Lord Lansdowne; every thing that is sent out of Rome, unless it is smuggled out, must have the Pope’s permission.
[…] Have you examined minutely the parts that are most perfect in the River God? — Yes: the under parts.
Do not you think that is as highly finished as any piece of sculpture you know? — It is highly finished, but it is differently finished from the first-rate pieces; there are no traces of the chisel upon it; it is finished by polishing. In the Laocoon and the things of acknowledged first-rate work, supposed to be originals, the remains of the chisel are always visible. That is my reason for calling these of the second- rate.
Do you not consider those parts as being a perfect [101] imitation of nature? — Yes; I think them very fine; as fine as any thing in that way.
Are the marks of the chisel visible on the Venus de Medicis? — No, they are not.
Are they visible on the Apollo Belvidere [sic]? — No; they are not; I think it a copy from brass.
In the opinion you gave as to the artists who executed the works of the Parthenon, you did not mention the name of Phidias, by whom they are most commonly supposed to have been designed? — No, I did not; and Plutarch expressly excludes him.
Does not Plutarch decidedly say that Callicrates and Ictinus worked it? — Yes; I understand him to say they undertook the working of it.
Do you consider the Torso of Belvidere [sic] as having any value whatsoever, but as a model or school for art? — [103] Yes; I think it has value in every respect to collectors as well as students.
It has no furniture value? — No; a corroded, dirty surface people do not like.
Do you think the corrosion of the surface of the Torso of Belvidere [sic] renders it, in any considerable degree, less valuable as a model or school for art? — If it is corroded, it certainly does; but I do not recollect whether it is or not: it is very much stained I know.
Do you recollect in what degree the River God is corroded? — The upper parts that have been exposed to the weather are corroded; the under parts are entire, and very perfect. I think it is not so much corroded as the Theseus; but I think there is more than half of it corroded; the back and the side, which are very fine, are not corroded.
Have you formed any estimate of the value of these Marbles, wholly unconnected with their value as furniture, and merely in the view of forming a national school for art? — The value I have stated, has been entirely upon that consideration of a school of art; they would not sell as furniture; they would produce nothing at all. I think, my Lord Elgin, in bringing them away, is entitled to the gratitude of the Country; because, otherwise, they would have been all broken by the Turks, or carried away by individuals, end dispersed in piece-meal. I think therefore the Government ought to make him a remuneration beyond the amount of my estimate.
The Committee observe, that in the paper you have given in of your estimate of the value, you lead to that value, by an enumeration of the prices of five different pieces of sculpture; the Committee beg to know, whether all those pieces are not fit for what may be called furniture? — Certainly.
[…] Have you reason to think that the art of Sculpture has advanced in this Country since this Collection has been brought into England? — No, certainly not; the best thing that has ever been done in this country, in my judgment, is the monument of Mrs. Howard, by Mr. Nollekens, many years ago.
Do not you conceive that the purchase of my Lord Elgin’s collection by the Nation, for the purpose of forming a great National school of art; would contribute very much eventually to the improvement of the arts in this Country? — A general Museum of Art is very desirable, certainly. I dare say it will contribute to the improvement of the Arts; and I think it will be a valuable addition to the Museum. […]
Kurzbiographie
Der aus dem englischen Herefordshire stammende Pfarrerssohn Richard Payne Knight (1751–1824) war ein durch Privatstudium und mehrere Italienreisen geschulter Kenner und Sammler antiker Kunstgegenstände. In den Jahren 1772–73 und 1776–77 bereiste er Italien, entsprechend den Gepflogenheiten der englischen Oberschicht, die eine Grand Tour vorsahen. 1781 wurde er in die Society of Dilettanti, eine einflussreiche britische Vereinigung von Sammlern und Kunstliebhabern, aufgenommen. In der Folge machte er sich einen Namen als Autor insbesondere mit Büchern über den antiken Phalluskult (1786) und die Ästhetik des Picturesque (1805). Dem englischen Parlament gehörte er zwischen 1780 und 1806 an. Im Alter von 63 Jahren wurde er 1814 ein Trustee des British Museum, welchem er seine Sammlung an Skulpturen, Münzen, Gemmen und Zeichnungen vermachte (Stumpf-Condry/Skedd 2015).
Kommentar – Der britische Erwerb der Parthenon-Skulpturen als Staatsinvestition
Im Jahr 1816 kam es zu einer Debatte im britischen House of Commons über den Ankauf der sogenannten Elgin Marbles, jener marmornen Frieselemente und Skulpturen, die Lord Elgin (1766–1841) vom Parthenon in Athen entfernen und nach England hatte verschiffen lassen (Encyclopaedia Britannica 2019). Das Parlament setzte einen Ausschuss ein, der neben Elgin selbst weitere Beteiligte, Zeugen der Translozierung, Händler, Künstler und Sammler befragte. Leitfrage war, ob der britische Staat die Objekte »on behalf of the Public« (Report 1816, S. 1) kaufen sollte, und wenn ja, zu welchem Preis. Nützen die Steine etwas? Sind sie richtig taxiert? Sind sie echt? Es ging also um eine öffentliche Investition. Vor diesem Hintergrund stellte sich auch die Frage der Rechtmäßigkeit der Erwerbung in Griechenland, Streitpunkt der bis heute nicht gelösten Debatte um die Translozierung der marbles (Report 1816, S. 3–5, Befragung Elgins ebd., S. 31–50, William Hamilton, ebd. S. 54–58). Für die Bewertung als mit hoher Wahrscheinlichkeit legitimer Vorgang wurde der in der späteren Diskussion berühmt-berüchtigte Erlass der osmanischen Obrigkeit beigefügt (Report 1816, Appendix 10).
Richard Payne Knight wurde als Sachverständiger befragt, der speziell zum Geldwert Auskunft geben sollte. Bemerkenswert ist seine im Vergleich zu enthusiastischen Bewertungen von Autoritäten wie dem Diplomaten und Sammler Sir William Hamilton (Report 1816, S. 58–66) oder dem Bildhauer Richard Westmacott (ebd., S. 80–84) deutlich kühleren Einschätzung, die sich mit der des ebenfalls examinierten, durch seine Umrisszeichnungen nach römischen Antiken vielbeachteten Bildhauer John Flaxman weitgehend deckt (Report 1816, S. 70–80; Marchand 2010, S. 41f.). Dazu werden, wie bei Konvoluten üblich, die einzelnen Stücke hierarchisiert und taxiert, unter Heranziehung bekannter Vergleichsobjekte. Der Torso und der Apoll vom Belvedere dienen als Maßstab, ihr Kunstwert wird als normativ und absolut verstanden. Deshalb müssen der Flussgott und der sogenannte Theseus aus Elgins Sammlung als Spitzenstücke erscheinen, die Metopenfriese dagegen abfallen. Nicht nur beim Parlamentsausschuss wird das deutlich – blickt man auf die von Archibald Archer (c. 1791–1848) dargestellte Präsentation der marbles wenige Jahre später, erscheinen die beiden Werke prominent im Vordergrund (British Museum, Inv. Painting 30).
Dabei wird durchaus mit zweierlei Maß gemessen: Befragt etwa nach dem Wert des Torsos von Belvedere, bejaht Knight dessen Vorbildfunktion für eine »school of art«, verneint jedoch dessen »furniture value«. Konstruiert wird also eine Unterscheidung zwischen Museumswert einerseits – die antiquarische, erzieherische, öffentliche Funktion – und einem Marktwert andererseits – der der privaten Sphäre zugeordnet wird und daher auf dekorative Ausstattung (»furniture«) zielt (vgl. Brewer 1997, S. 282–288). In der Folge wird auch der Geldwert sehr unterschiedlich eingeschätzt – Knights Schätzung von 25.000 Pfund stehen die mehr als doppelt so hohe von Hamilton (60.000 Pfund) und die des Earls von Aberdeen gegenüber, auf deren letzterer Basis dann tatsächlich der Ankauf für 35.000 Pfund erfolgte (Report 1816, S. 13; Encyclopaedia Britannica 2019).
Knights schriftliches Gutachten ebenso wie seine Aussagen geben nicht nur Aufschluss über den harten Geldwert von Kunstwerken und Kulturobjekten und die ästhetisch-normativen Ansprüche, die an sie gestellt werden – sondern auch über Erwerbs- und Sammelpraktiken: Nicht nur die äußere Unversehrtheit, Schönheit oder auf antike Referenzen in Literatur und Philosophie zurückgehende ›Originalität‹ und Zuschreibungen, etwa an Phidias, bestimmen den Wert – sondern auch die Schwierigkeit, diese Objekte zu bekommen. Knight spricht die rechtswidrige Praxis direkt und in lakonischem Ton an, ja, er setzt sie implizit sogar voraus: Die Umgehung von Ausfuhrverboten und Bestechung von Beamten sind reale Bedingungen für den Erwerb in England.
Vergleiche mit dem Torso vom Belvedere oder der Venus von Medici und Bezüge zu anderen europäischen Herrschern bzw. Staaten als mögliche Käufer der marbles machen die Konkurrenzsituation mit den Museen des Louvre und des Vatikans deutlich. Letzteres erhielt seine Werke zurück, als der triumphale Kunstraub des nachrevolutionären Frankreichs rückabgewickelt wurde: ein symbolischer Akt britischer Machtpolitik, die eine eigene Museumsgründung delikat machte:
Während die Briten ihren Sieg über Napoleon als »triumph of excellence« (Jenkins 1992, S. 15) feiern und im selben Zuge die ›heroischen‹ Qualitäten der griechischen Antike für sich beanspruchen, müssen die geschlagenen Franzosen ihre römischen Trophäen zurückgeben. Die Aneignung fremder Werke zur eigenen Glorie verbat sich daher; man hielt sich stattdessen an den vermeintlich schutz- und herrenlosen Antiken aus Griechenland schadlos. So spricht Knight ganz am Schluss der Vernehmung von sich aus die Rechtfertigungsthese an, die marbles wären ohne die Initiative Elgins entweder durch die Türken zerstört oder von anderen Privatleuten in Besitz genommen und zerstreut worden: ein Argument dafür, den Ankauf als Ehrenerweisung zu begreifen, wobei weniger der nicht eben enthusiastisch eingeschätzte Kunstwert der Objekte eine Rolle spielt als deren staatspolitische Symbolkraft.
Dass die griechische Antike diesen »triumph of excellence« nicht bloß symbolisch untermalen sollte, sondern ihr eine handfeste volkswirtschaftliche Wirkung zugesprochen wurde, ist in der Rede vom Museumswert implizit. So erklärte ein Mitglied des Select Committee, John Wilson Croker, im Rückblick:
»The bargain was for the benefit of the public, for the honour of the nation, for the promotion of national arts, for the use of the national artists, and even for the advantage of our manufactures, the excellence of which depended on the progress of the arts in the country. It was singular that when 2500 years ago, Pericles was adorning Athens with those very works, some of which we are now about to acquire, the same cry for economy was raised against him, and the same answer that he then gave might be repeated now, that it was money spent for the use of the people, for the encouragement of arts, the increase of manufactures, the prosperity of trades, and the encouragement of industry; not merely to please the eye of the man of taste, but to create, to stimulate, to guide the exertions of the artist, the mechanic, and even the labourer, and to spread through all the branches of society a spirit of improvement, and the means of a sober and industrious affluence« (zitiert nach Hitchens 1987, S. 133).
Die Quintessenz: Eine freie Regierung erzeuge eine Kunstblüte, Geistesleistungen und Exzellenz auf allen Ebenen, daher könne kein Land den Parthenon-Skulpturen ein so ehrenvolles »Asyl« bieten wie England, wo sie Schutz und Wertschätzung erführen. Diese Volte überzeugte keineswegs allgemein. Unausgesprochen kam das dem Gedanken von der wiedererlangten Freiheit der Kunstwerke nahe, womit in Paris nach der Revolution der reale Raub uminterpretiert wurde (Pommier 1992, S. 37). Das gilt auch für den Vorbildcharakter, den sie praktisch erfüllen sollten, den auch Knight trotz seiner Zurückhaltung im Urteil grundsätzlich bestätigt, wie auch seine Bemerkungen zum 1823 Realität werdenden (British) Museum zeigen. Mit Werken aus Phidias’ Schule, begriffen als Spitze menschlicher Bildhauerkunst überhaupt, und der politischen Wirkungszeit Perikles’ als ideal überhöhtem Vorbild wird London materielle und ideelle Erbin und Nachfolgerin Athens:
»But if it is true, as we learn from history and experience, that free governments afford a soil most suitable to the production of native talent, to the maturing of the powers of the human mind, and to the growth of every species of excellence, by opening to merit the prospect of reward and distinction, no country can be better adapted than our own to afford an honourable asylum to these monuments of the school of Phidias, and of the administration of Pericles; where secure from further injury and degradation, they may receive that admiration and homage to which they are entitled, and serve in return as models and examples to those, who by knowing how to revere and appreciate them, may learn first to imitate, and ultimately to rival them« (Report 1816, S. 27).
Simon Lindner studiert Kunst- und Bildgeschichte an Humboldt- und Technischer Universität Berlin. Robert Skwirblies ist wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter am Forschungscluster translocations an der Technischen Universität Berlin.
Literaturverweise
Helen Angelomatis-Tsougarakis: The Eve of the Greek Revival: British Traveller’s Perceptions of the Early Nineteenth-century Greece, London 1990.
John Brewer, The Pleasures of the Imagination. English Culture in the Eighteenth Century, London 1997.
The Editors of the Encyclopaedia Britannica: »Elgin Marbles«, In: Encyclopædia Britannica, o. D., online abrufbar (aufgerufen am 15.06.2019).
Christopher Hitchens, The Elgin Marbles. Should they be returned to Greece?, London 1987.
Ian Jenkins, Archaeologists & Aesthetes in the Sculpture Galleries of the British Museum 1800–1939, London 1992.
Eckart Marchand, John Flaxman’s Drawings After Italian Antique, Medieval and Renaissance Sculpture, in: Ders., Hugh Brigstocke, A. E. Wright (Hg.), John Flaxman and William Young Ottley in Italy, London 2010, S. 25–45.
Edouard Pommier, Winckelmann und die Betrachtung der Antike im Frankreich der Aufklärung und Revolution. Vortrag gehalten auf der Hauptversammlung der Winckelmann-Gesellschaft in Stendal, Dezember 1991, Tübingen 1992.
Report from the Select Committee of the House of Commons on the Earl of Elgin’s Collection of Sculptured Marbles, London 1816.
Jacob Rothenberg, Descensus Ad Terram. The Acquisition and Reception of the Elgin Marbles, New York, London 1977.
C. Stumpf-Condry, S. J. Skedd, s. v. Knight, Richard Payne, in: Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, [2004], online abrufbar (aufgerufen am 15.06.2019). |
Empfohlene Zitierweise:
Knight: Parlamentarische Befragung zur Skulpturensammlung des Earl of Elgin (1816), kommentiert von Simon Lindner und Robert Skwirblies, in: Translocations. Anthologie: Eine Sammlung kommentierter Quellentexte zu Kulturgutverlagerungen seit der Antike, https://translanth.hypotheses.org/ueber/knight, veröffentlicht am 25.07.2019.
|
nach oben |
Eine veränderte Version dieses Blogeintrages findet sich in: Isabelle Dolezalek, Bénédicte Savoy, Robert Skwirblies (Hg.): Beute. Eine Anthologie zu Kunstraub und Kulturerbe, Berlin (Matthes & Seitz) 2021.
| |
