Restitution Request 'Guelph Treasure' (Welfenschatz), … · 1 Restitution Request "Guelph Treasure" (Welfenschatz) Account of the established historical facts on the basis of the

1

Restitution Request "Guelph Treasure" (Welfenschatz) Account of the established historical facts on the basis of the provenance researchcarried out by the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation (Stiftung Preuischer Kulturbesitz, SPK), As of 30.11.2010 - check against original text in German -

Preliminary remarks:

1. The following text is an excerpt from the statement of the SPK sent to the legal representatives of the claimants on 30th November 2010. This statement was also presented to the Advisory Commission chaired by Professor Dr. Jutta Limbach (Beratende Kommission, or so-called Limbach-Commission), whose recommendation was announced on 20th March 2014. The text depicts what the SPK considers to have been the most important research results available to the foundation at that time. The account is in chronological order, beginning with the first sale attempts by the House of Guelph up to execution of the 1935 contract between the Dresdner Bank and the consortium.

2. The text presents the most important historical facts and processes considered verified by the SPK. In order to prepare this statement, extensive archive and literature research was carried out. A list of the evaluated files has been attached as Attachment 1, which explains as far as applicable the abbreviations used. During the evaluation of the procured files on the Guelph Treasure, a wealth of detailed information came together regarding the sales attempts since the 1920s. The respective historical document to which the account pertains is referenced in the footnotes. SPK cannot provide the full text version of the documents referred to in the footnotes due to archive right restrictions. If required, we ask you to request access from the relevant archive directly.

3. The blacked-out sections within the text relate to facts that could only be gathered from files or documents made accessible to the SPK by the claimants. Usage was limited to deployment within the proceedings before the Advisory Commission. SPK therefore does not have the right to make these facts and evidence public.

4. The SPKs evaluation of the facts on the basis of the Guidelines (Handreichung) and the Washington Principles, which contains an evaluation of the prerequisites for a restitution from the perspective of the SPK, will currently not be published due to data protection issues. Only the SPKs summarising conclusion is included.

5. Insofar as conversions of foreign values into Reichsmark (RM) were made, this was carried out using a currency chart provided by the Bundesbank and included as Attachment II.

I. The sale and purchase attempts of the 1920s

We were delivered records showing that the first sale efforts by the house of Brunswick-Lneburg for the Guelph Treasure, which at that time was located in Gmunden, Austria, took place in the early 1920s. Both the Director of the National Gallery of Ireland, Robert Langton Douglas1 and employees of the renowned art dealership, Duveen Brothers2 inspected the Treasure. After his visit in 1921, Langton no longer occupied himself with the relics, as in his opinion the Duchy was demanding much more than the pieces were actual worth.3 Initially, the main obstacle to a purchase for Duveen was

1 Getty Research Institute (GRI), Duveen Brother Records (ID: 960015), Box 234, Folder 15, Cumberland

Collection, ca. 1923-1954, Letter from London to New York dated 8 May 1925.

2 Fowles Edward: Memories of Duveen Brothers, London 1976, p. 162 et seq.

3 GRI, Duveen Brother Records (ID: 960015), Box 234, Folder 15, Cumberland Collection, ca. 1923-1954, Letter from London to New York dated 8 May 1925.

2

that the Duke only wished to sell the Treasure in its entirety.4 In 1927, Duveen then learned that the main pieces were now being sold separately and the Domed reliquary had been priced at USD 1.0 million (RM 4.12 million). 5 This offer was described by the company in a letter as "ridiculous"; a purchase did not occur.

Sales talks were also taken up with the Metropolitan Museum of Art New York in at latest December 1927.6 From the very beginning, the Metropolitan had no interest in acquiring the entire collection.7 After it asked the House of Brunswick-Lneburg regarding the sales arrangements, the Director of the Department of Applied Arts, Joseph Breck, commented that the total prize of ten to twelve million USD (RM 41.9 to 50.28 million) being demanded was obviously absurd.8 In the same year, the House of Brunswick-Lneburg insured the entire Guelph Treasure at an insurance value of RM 15.470 million.9 Breck appraised the pieces of interest to the Metropolitan, the Domed Reliquary and Portable Altar of Eilbertus, at ca. USD 100,000 (RM 419,000) each10 . An art dealer, who was specified no further, appraised the Domed Reliquary for Breck at USD 250,000 (RM 1,047,500) and the portable altar at an amount slightly less than this price. 11 During the year 1928, the asking price for the entire treasure was reduced by more than 40% to the new asking price of USD 6.0 (RM 25.14 million).12 The Metropolitan believed the reduced purchase price to be too high, as well; Breck suggested that they wait: In the event that no museum or buyers group would be found in the United States to acquire the entire treasure for the price of six to ten million - and Breck emphasized that he would be very surprised, if this occurred - a new offer would be made with a much more reasonable asking price, based on which negotiations for two pieces of interest could then be conducted.13

The Viennese art dealer, Glckselig, stood in negotiations with the Victoria and Albert Museum in London as a negotiator (Unterhndler) of the Guelph Duchy since 1928 at the latest. In June 1928, the Director of the museum, Maclagan first reported the possibility of acquiring the Guelph Treasure for one and a half million pounds sterling [RM 30,585,000].14 The asking price of the House of Brunswick for the entire Guelph Treasure then went down 65% to 527,000 pounds sterling [RM 10,745,530].15 On 13 September 1928, Maclagan informed Glckselig that neither the Victoria & Albert Museum, nor the British government, saw itself in the position to purchase the Guelph Treasure or pieces thereof.16

In 1925, Austria secured a purchase option in the context of issuing the export licenses for the Guelph Treasure.17 The Directorates of the Collection of Sculptures and Applied Arts at the Kunsthistorisches National Museum and the Austrian Museum for Art and Industry estimated the amount of S 2.5 million (RM 423,729) as the minimum purchase price.18 With reference to the general state financial situation, the Federal Ministry for Education officially waived the purchase option in January 1930.19

In July 1927, Dr. Paul Knoke, head of the Supreme Administration of the House of Guelph also tried before the Secretary of the Reichs Interior Ministry, Dr. Erich Zweigert, to bring about a purchase of the Treasure by the German Reich.20 The Prussian Prime Minister, the Prussian Minister of Finance

4 GRI, Duveen Brother Records (ID: 960015), Box 234, Folder 15, Cumberland Collection, ca. 1923-1954, Letter from Paris to New York dated 19 December 1923. 5 GRI, Duveen Brother Records (ID: 960015), Box 234, Folder 15, Cumberland Collection, ca. 1923-1954, Letter from Paris to London dated 9 December 1927.

6 Archives of The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Letter from H. Buck dated 10 December 1927. 7 Archives of The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Letter from Breck to Robinson dated 16 March 1928. 8 Archives of The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Letter from Breck to Robinson dated 16 March 1928.

9 Bundesdenkmalamt Wien (BDA, Federal Monument Office Vienna), Karton Ausfuhr 24 (Export Box 24), Fasz.

(Fascicle) Cumberland (1922-1939), ln. 1760/1928.

10 Archives of The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Letter from Breck to Robinson dated 16 March 1928. 11 Archives of The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Letter from Breck to Forest dated 26 November 1928. 12 Archives of The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Letter from Breck to Robinson dated 16 March 1928. 13 Archives of The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Letter from Breck to Forest dated 13 December 1928. 14 V&A Archive, Letter from Maclagan to Symonds dated 26 June 1928.

15 V&A Archive, Letter from Maclagan [assumed to R.S. Wood, Deputy Secretary of the Board of Education] dated

11 September 1928.

16 V&A Archive, Letter from Maclagan [assumed to R.S. Wood, Deputy Secretary of the Board of Education] dated

11 September 1928 and ibid., Letter from Maclagan to Glckselig dated 13 September 1928.

17 BDA, Karton Ausfuhr 24, Fasz. Cumberland (1922-1939), Ln 2044/1928. 18 BDA, Karton Ausfuhr 24, Fasz. Cumberland (1922-1939), Ln 3732/1928. 19 BDA, Karton Ausfuhr 24, Fasz. Cumberland (1922-1939), Ln 305/1930. 20 Germanisches Nationalmuseum Nrnberg - Deutsches Kunstarchiv (GNM-DKA, Germanic National Museum

3

and the Prussian Minister of Science, Art and Popular Education were also informed by the House of Brunswick-Lneburg regarding the intention to sell,21 as was also the Provincial Directorate of Hannover.22 So as to bring about a purchase in Hannover, Glckselig was also in contact with the Kiel Provincial Curator, Dr. Sauermann, who was in contact with the Provincial Directorate of Hannover, in particular its treasurer (Schatzrat) Hartmann.23 Moreover, Duke Ernst August III of Brunswick-Lneburg personally approached the former Director General of the National Museums, Wilhelm von Bode, to share his decision regarding the sell.24 Particularly intensive sales efforts were made with German authorities by the antiquities dealer, Dr. Richard Gaettens from Halle, who was also active as a negotiator. He solicited both the Secretary of the Ministry of Finance, Prof. Dr. Johannes Popitz25, as well as the President of the Reichs Bank, Hjalmar Schacht,26 the Secretary of the Prussian Ministry of State, Robert Weismann,27 the ministerial director responsible for financial matters28 in the Prussian Ministry of Science, Art and Popular Education, Paul Nentwig; the Chairman of the Prussian Episcopate, Cardinal Adolf Bertram;29 the Director of the Kestner Museum in Hannover, Dr. Carl Kthmann; and the City of Hannover through its Lord Mayor, Dr. Arthur Menge,30 and the former Municipal Director, Dr. Tramm, and the Province of Hannover through the First Senior President, Gustav Noske, and numerous members of the Provincial Assembly, including the industrialist Berentzen.31

Furthermore, various German state agencies took initiative and explored possibilities of a purchase, while simultaneously a large circle of influential personalities made appeals, in part in public, to acquire the Treasure for Germany. In order to gain clarity for Prussia about the possibility of a purchase or partial purchase of the Guelph Treasure, Prof. Dr. Robert Schmidt, Director of the Berlin Palace Museum (Schlossmuseum), traveled in March in 1928 to Gmunden.32 On 16 October 1928, the subject was discussed in a meeting with the First Senior President of the Province of Hannover, the Prussian Minister of Finance, the Reichs Minister of Finance, the Reichs Minister of the Interior, the Prussian Minister of the Interior and the Director General of the National Museums.33 In the correspondence between Hannover and Prussia, a previous estimate made by the well known expert von Falke [Otto von Falke, Director of the Berlin Palace Museum 1908-28] of RM six to eight million for the entire treasure was proposed.34 Prussia decided against providing funds for the purchase of the Guelph treasure;35 partly because of its general financial situation and because "the value of the Guelph Treasure, apart from particular individual pieces, was not undisputed in the least.36

In another attempt, the art dealer Gaettens tried to arrange that the province and city of Hannover contribute RM 4 million, while 10 million was to be assumed by Prussia and the Reich, and a further 11 million by private donations, but this failed as well.37 In a previous letter the Vicar of the Hannover cathedral Dolfens had warned of the profiteering of Gaettens and warned against purchasing the

Nuremberg German Art Archive), Nachlass (Estate) Otto von Falke, Copy of a letter from Knoke dated 29 July 1927. 21 Bundesarchiv Berlin (BAB, Federal Archive Berlin), R2 12033, Copy of a letter from Senior Administration to Minister of Science [etc.] dated 21 February 1928.

22 Niederschsisches Landesarchiv, Hauptstaatsarchiv Hannover (NLA-HH, State Archive Lower Saxony, Main

State Archive), Hann. 151, no. 166, p. 3. 23 NLA-HH, Hann. 152 Acc. 2006/013 No. 32, p. 140. 24 GNM-DKA, Nachlass (Estate) Otto von Falke, Copy of a letter from Ernst August III. Prince of Hannover dated

2 April 1928.

25 Stadtarchiv Hannover (SAH, Municipal Archive Hannover), HR 10, no. 1383, p. 29. 26 SAH, HR 10, no. 1383, p. 34. 27 Geheimes Staatsarchiv Preuischer Kulturbesitz (GStA-PK, Secret State Archives Prussian Cultural Heritage

Foundation), I.HA (I. Main Archive) Rep.151 HB no. 869/1, Letter Weismann to Gaettens dated 3 July 1929. 28 BAB, R2 12033, Letter from Gaettens to Popitz dated 11 March 1929. 29 BAB, R2 12033, Letter from Gaettens to Meiner dated 9 October 1929 30 SAH, HR 10, no. 1383, p. 29. 31 NLA-HH, Hann. 122a no. 3518, page 70 + back side. 32 BAB, R2 12033, Copy of a letter from Schmidt to the Minister of Science [etc.] dated 22 March 1928.

33 GStA-PK, I. HA Rep.151 HB no. 869/1, Prussian Minister for Science, Art and Popular Education dated 12

October 1928. 34 GStA-PK, I. HA Rep.151 HB no. 869/1 Copy of a Letter of the Provisional Directorate to Senior President dated

26 September 1928.

35 GStA-PK, I.HA Rep.151 HB no. 869/1, Copy of the Minutes for the Minister Meeting of 17 October 1928. 36 BAB, Aktenbestnde 'Kunst und Wissenschaft' der Reichskanzlei (File 'Art and Science of the Reichs Chancellery), R 43 I/819, p. 198 and back side. 37 BAB, R2 12033, Letter Gaettens to Popitz dated 9 October 1929.

4

Treasure at a price of 25 million, because the price exceeds the real value of the Treasure by 100 to 150%.38 Moreover, in 1929 a plan to buy the Treasure, whereby the City of Hannover could have acquired both the Guelph Treasure, and the Royal Gardens in Hannover (Herrenhuser Grten) for RM ten million and partial assumption of House of Guelphs pension expenses, did not materialize. This was in spite of the fact that it was repeatedly pointed out how cheap this deal was for Hannover. Reference was made in particular to new estimates, which estimated the value of the Treasure to be between RM 1418 million, if it were sold piece by piece, but due to its cohesive nature promised a value of 25 million, if it were to remain together.39 Earlier statements by the museum directors, Wilhelm von Bode and Schmidt, claiming that the Domed Reliquary could be sold anytime for 4 million marks and that one could get 10 million marks any day for the portable altar [plenary] Otto the Mild and for the Gertrude Crosses and the Guelph Cross were reiterated.40 The argument against the purchase was that "a municipal administration (cannot make) such purchases in times of hardship", particularly because the Guelph Treasure could not present a large group of buyers, only a few museums could be considered as potential buyers and, considering the European circumstances, only America was a serious possibility .41 After this rejection, the House of Brunswick-Lneburg presented Hannover with another offer. This provided that the Domed Reliquary, being valued at RM 3 million would be sold otherwise and the remaining 81 pieces given to Hannover for RM six million; however, this also did not take place.42 Ultimately, it was the difficult public financial situation triggered by the economic crisis that made the purchase of even parts of the Guelph Treasure impossible for the Reich as well.43

II. The sale by the House of Guelph to the Consortium on 05 October 1929

Nothing is known about the negotiations between the Supreme Administration of the House of Brunswick-Lneburg, that is, the House of Guelph, and the three Frankfurt art dealer companies, J. & S. Goldschmidt, ZM Hackenbroch and J. Rosenbaum that ultimately led to the signing of an Purchase Agreement on October 5, 1929; in particular, no files could be found in the possession of the House of Guelph regarding the transaction. The Agreement itself did however, survive.44 The main provisions are summed up here in brief:

The contract signatories were the Supreme Administration of the House of Brunswick-Lneburg, represented by Knoke and Buck on the one side, and the antiquity dealers, J. & S. Goldschmidt, Z.M. Hackenbroch and J. Rosenbaum, on the other side.

A purchase price of RM 7.5 million was agreed, which was to be paid in four installments over a time period of 12 months. A staggered profit sharing for the House of Guelph was included, which was supposed to be triggered when the proceeds of any subsequent resale(s) exceeded the fixed price of 7.5 million.

On account of the profit sharing, the Purchase Agreement demanded that the purchasers could not keep any of the items purchased in whole or in part, and had to endeavor by all means to make a sale, and to report on resale(s) quarterly. Note: These reports have not yet been found.

The House of Guelph had a right to withdrawal subject to payment of a forfeit penalty, if the negotiations that had already been initiated by the negotiators of the House of Guelph led to the sale within the two subsequent months. However, this this not occur.

Finally, the Agreement included language that allowed for other parties to participate in the entire transaction on the buyers side. Furthermore, the Agreement provided that the entire treasure could be sold on to another art dealer for resale with the Consortium also sharing in the profits, if this party transacted a successful sale.

In cannot be said with certainty from the surviving documents, whether and in which manner, in addition to the three Frankfurt art dealer firms, other art dealers, investors and banks were already involved at that time. However, there is evidence in the correspondence at that time that further

38 NLA-HH, Hann. 151 no. 166, p. 57 et seqq.

39 SAH, HR 10, no. 1383, p. 150 et seq. und ibid. Expert Report Schmidt.

40 SAH, HR 10, no. 1383, p. 179. 41 SAH, HR 10, no. 1383, p. 164. 42 SAH, HR 10, no. 1383, p. 248-251. 43 BAB, R2 12033 Letter Graf Schwerin of Krosigk to Dr. Demmler dated 13 September 1930. 44 BDA, Karton Ausfuhr 24, Fasz. Cumberland (1922-1939), Ln 35/1930.

5

parties were involved.45 Moreover, the legal relationship amongst the buyers side participants in the Agreement dated 5 October 1929 are not known. Without knowing their exact composition and legal form, in this opinion we will refer to this group of persons by the term, Consortium, which is frequently used.

III. The sale and purchase attempts of the 1930s

In the following years, the Consortium sold all the pieces of the Guelph treasure, a process that was completed when agreement (Contract) was reached on 14 June 1935. This process will be described in detail below. An overview of all pieces, and, insofar as known, the buyers and sale prices is attached to this opinion as Appendix III.

From the end of 1929, the art dealer Zacharias M. Hackenbroch tried to win the City of Hannover as a buyer, yet received a refusal from the Lord Mayor Menge on 13 January 1930. 46 So as to garner German interested institutions for a purchase, Hackenbroch approached the President of the German and Prussian Municipal Assemblies, Oskar Mulert,47 whom he knows very well personally.48 Hackenbroch availed himself directly of Mulerts expert knowledge and contacts from his brokerage services with respect to the Sigmaringer Collection49 which also involved a large consortium transaction in the arts50. Accordingly, immediately after connecting with Hackenbroch, Mulert sought to enter into discussions with the Reichs Ministry of Finance and the Director of the Berlin Palace Museum, Robert Schmidt51 . In addition, he also turned to Dr. Krupp of Bohlen and Halbach, the President of the Bank for Corporate Bonds (Bank fr Industrieobligationen), as he hoped that the Bank would participate in efforts to purchase the art; to Dr. Btzkes, the management chairman of the aforementioned bank; Dr. Paul Kempner of Bankhaus Mendelssohn & Co.; Hans Luther, the President of the Reichs Bank52 and the ethnic German banker and art collector, Dr. Fritz Mannheimer, in Amsterdam53 .

On 17 June 1930, Hackenbroch brought pieces of the Guelph Treasure to Berlin to make them available for viewing for a meeting at the Reichs Chancellery, chaired by the Reichs Chancellor, Heinrich Brning, with the Reichs Economics and Finance Minister, Paul Moldenhauer, the Prussian Minister of Finance, Hermann Hoepker-Aschoff Secretaries of State Otto Meissner, Hermann Pnder, Hans Schaeffer and Erich Zweigert, the Deputy Secretary, Richard Wienstein, the President of the German and Prussian Municipal Assemblies, Oskar Mulert, and the Director General of the National Museums in Berlin, Wilhelm Waetzoldt, as well as the former Director of the Palace Museum, Otto von Falke present. 54 A joint purchase by the Reich and the state of Prussia was considered, which did not come about however as Prussia could not see its way to participating due to the economic situation.55

In parallel to this, the art dealer Julius Goldschmidt had already contacted the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York in January 1930, in order to bring a possible acquisition to its attention.56 From there, he was informed that there was still no interest in buying the entire treasure, however possibly individual pieces would be considered.57

An eight-week sales exhibition in the Stdel Art Institute Frankfurt was held under the auspices of

45 GRI, Duveen Brother Records (ID: 960015), Box 234, Folder 15, Cumberland Collection, ca. 1923-1954, Letter from Paris or London to New York dated 3 October 1929.

46 SAH, HR 10, no. 1383, p. 252. 47 Landesarchiv Berlin (LAB, State Archive Berlin), Teilnachlass (Partial Estate) Oskar Mulert, E Rep. 200-34, no. 13, p. 4-8, esp. 7., daily notes 13 February 1930.

48 SAH, HR 10, no. 1383, p. 279. 49 LAB, partial estate Oskar Mulert, E Rep. 200-34, no. 13, p. 7. daily notes 13 February 1930. 50 Ibid. and Stdel Art Institute, Municipal Art Gallery, Archive (Stdel), File 752, Consortium Agreement Sigmaringer Collection dated 14 July 1928.

51 LAB, Teilnachlass Oskar Mulert, E Rep. 200-34, no. 13, p. 10 et seqq. (daily notes 14 February 1930) and 13 et seq. (daily notes 15 February 1930).

52 LAB, Teilnachlass Oskar Mulert, E Rep. 200-34, no. 13, p. 77 et seqq., daily notes 4 April 1930. 53 LAB, Nachlass (Estate) Oskar Mulert, FB 1287 N, Letter from Mulert to Mannheimer dated 9 October 1930. 54 BAB, Aktenbestnde 'Kunst und Wissenschaft' der Reichskanzlei, R 43 I/819, p. 242 et seqq. 55 Federal Archive, cited from Estate Ktzsche, Note of the Secretary of State in der Reichs Chancellery of 14

August 1930 (p. 250) and Letter Prussian Prime Minister to Reichs Minister of the Interior dated 30 July 1930.

56 Archives of The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Letter from Breck to Robinson dated 17 January 1930. 57 Archives of The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Letter from Breck to Robinson dated 17 January 1930.

6

Georg Swarzenski from August 1 to September 25, 1930. Swarzenski had - like Oskar Mulert been involved two years earlier in the joint German acquisition of Sigmaringer Collection from the House of Hohenzollern.58 As artistic director of the Sigmaringer Consortium, he invited the ca. 30 members of that consortium, including luminaries in industry and banking, such as Robert Hirsch, Ottmar E. Strauss and Albert Hahn.59 In addition, numerous other potential buyers were also invited to the preview and exhibition opening, including the major banker, Jakob Goldschmidt, who collected art and was networked worldwide, and the Director of the Kestner Museum in Hannover, Dr. Carl Kthmann. 60 The exhibition was accompanied by a sales catalog, which was lavishly produced at the highest level of craftsmanship as a 200-page deluxe publication with golden etchings, a moroccan leather cover and numerous collotype printing plates. The authors were Prof. Dr. Otto von Falke [Director of the Museum of Decorative Arts in Cologne 1895-1908, Director of the Palace Museum Berlin 1908-1928, Director General of the Berlin National Museums 1920-1927], Prof. Dr. Robert Schmidt [Director of the Palace Museum Berlin 1928-1947] and Prof. Dr. Georg Swarzenski [Director of the Stdel Art Institute 1906 to 1937, Director of the Municipal Gallery from 1907 to 1933, Director of Municipal Sculpture Collection in Liebighaus 1909 to 1933, Director General of the Frankfurter Museums 1928-1933].61 In addition, a 68 page brief catalog with 24 illustrations was made available.62 A Berlin exhibition followed from 1 to 12 October 1930 in the building of the Deutsche Gesellschaft.63 The exhibition originally planned for the Palace Museum could not take place in public spaces, because the government feared that the Guelph Party would be strengthened thereby.64 Very few specific negotiations appear in the records during this exhibition on German soil. Only the letter of the art historian and former museum director, Prof. Dr. Theodor Volbehr, who submitted an offer to Swarzenski for two pieces on behalf of a third party is known. 65 He offered a total price of USD 40,000 (RM 167,600) for the two manuscripts, Plenary for Sundays [cat. no. No. 41 Note: All catalog numbers used below refer to the catalog of Falcon / Schmidt / Swarzenski 1930] and Sermons Otto the Mild [cat. no. 42].66 Museum Director Swarzenski replied that the first piece "requires a multiple of the amount of your bid; the other manuscript (no. 41) with the silver cover would possibly be sold at a price of ca. 100,000 [R]M."67 Both pieces were not sold and remained at the disposal of the art dealers until 1935.

The Bremen businessman, Ludwig Roselius, hoped to acquire some pieces for Bremen, but regretted that he saw no manner of bringing the greater part of the Guelph Treasure to Bremen, because it would not only have exceeded his powers by far, but he also because he did not believe that in Bremen large sums can be freed for it at that time.68 He eventually purchased three pieces [cat. no. 49, 66, 67] for a total of RM 11,650.69 At the end of the exhibition tour through the USA, the art dealer J. & P. Goldschmidt urged Ludwig Roselius to pay the amount with the note the he needed the amount urgently.70

58 Stdel, Welfenschatz (Guelph Treasure) 1907 - ca. 1931 A-Z, [Sauermann] to Swarzenski dated 19 August 1930. 59 LAB, Nachlass Oskar Mulert, FB 1287 N, Letter from Gebrder Bethmann to Mulert dated 12 July 1930. Stdel, File 752, attachment to contract Konsortium Sigmaringer.

60 Stdel, Welfenschatz 1907 - ca. 1931 A-Z, Administration Goldschmidt to Stdel dated 29 July 1930 and SAH, HR 10, no. 1383, p. 283 et seqq.

61 Otto von Falke/Robert Schmidt/Georg Swarzenski (publ.), Der Welfenschatz, Der Reliquienschatz des Braunschweiger Domes aus dem Besitze des herzoglichen Hauses Braunschweig Lneburg, Frankfurt 1930.

62 Stdelsches Kunstinstitut (Stdel Art Institute) (publ.): Der Welfenschatz. Katalog der Ausstellung im Stdelschen Kunstinstitut, Frankfurt 1930.

63 Vossische Zeitung, 1 October 1930, no. 462. 64 I.a. Vossische Zeitung, 20 September 1930, No. 445. 65 Stdel, Wissenschaftliches (Scientific), January 1928 to December 1931, Letter from Volbehr to Swarzenski dated 4 September 1930.

66 Stdel, Wissenschaftliches, January 1928 to December 1931, Letter from Volbehr to Swarzenski dated 4

September 1930.

67 Stdel, Wissenschaftliches, January 1928 to December 1931, Letter from Swarzenski to Volbehr dated 6 September 1930.

68 Bttcherstrae GmbH, Archive, Letter from Roselius to Mllershausen dated 14 August 1930. 69 Archiv Bttcherstrae (Archive Bttcherstrae), Bremen, Ordner: K Allgemein/Alte Deutsche Kunst/ Alte

Kaufunterlagen/ Roseliushaus (File: K General / Old German Art / Old Purchase Documents / Roselius House)

1931 -1940, Payment Instruction dated 24 December 1931; Kunstsammlungen Bttcherstrae (Art Collections Bttcherstrae) Bremen, Akte 'Gegenstnde die fehlen' (File: 'Missing Objects'), index cards. 70 Archiv Bttcherstrae, Bremen, Ordner: K Allgemein/Alte Deutsche Kunst/ Alte Kaufunterlagen/ Roseliushaus 1931-1940, Goldschmidt to Roselius dated 23 December 1931.

7

The Focke-Museum in Bremen purchased three smaller pieces [cat no. 46, 69, 70] via the dealer Rosenbaum, of which a total revenue of RM 5,000 is known for two of them (cat. no. 46, 70). 71 One piece acquired by the Frankfurt industrialist and Sigmaringer Consortium member, Robert Hirsch [cat. no. 19] was probably sold at a price of RM 60,000.72 Smaller pieces were also sold to Baron Maximilian von Rothschild-Goldschmidt [cat. no. 80] and to the banker Falk Simon from Gothenburg, Sweden [cat. no. 63, 74]. The prices are not recorded here. A comparatively significantly larger transaction was concluded with the curator and later director of the Cleveland Museum of Art, William M. Milliken: He bought a total of six pieces for his house for a total of USD 259,500 (single prices: cat. no. 2: USD 14,000 (RM 58,660), cat. no. 8: USD 65,000 (RM 272,350), cat. no. 10: USD 28,200 (RM 118,158), cat. no. 30, USD 46,800 (RM 196,092), cat. no. 32: USD 40,000 (RM 167,600) and cat. no. 43: USD 65,500 (RM 274,445).73 According to Milliken, to his astonishment the representatives of the major European and American museums remained away from the exhibition in Frankfurt.74

Following the two sales exhibitions in the German Reich, the 64 still-unsold pieces were shipped to the United States in October and November 1930 via Rotterdam. A comprehensive insurance policy was concluded that provided insurance for the transportation over any port in Holland to New York and the transportation to every city within the U.S.75 Costs of about RM 58,000 were incurred for this as the insurance value was listed as USD 1.75 million (equaling approx. RM 7 million).76 Six sales exhibitions were held in America: Four weeks in the Goldschmidt and Reinhardt Galleries in New York (30 November - 31

December 1930); Three weeks the Cleveland Museum of Art (10 January to 1 February 1931); Two weeks Detroit Institute of Arts (10 to 25 February 1931); One week Pennsylvania Museum of Art in Philadelphia (16 to 23 March 1931); Three weeks Art Institute of Chicago (31 March - 20 April 1931) and Four weeks M. H. de Young Memorial Museum in San Francisco (1 to 31 December 1931).

Potential buyers at the exhibitions were given an lavishly produced catalog in English that was analogous to the German version and also an English version of the 68-page brief catalog with 24 illustrations, which was republished by each particular exhibition house. 77 Neither the German, nor the English catalog, were even close to sold out, as emerges from a letter between William Milliken in Cleveland and George Swarzenski in Frankfurt. 78 With respect to the exhibition in Cleveland at any rate it is known that the art dealers were present at the exhibition opening that took place with great public participation and endeavoured to sell objects there on site. 79 In America as well, potential buyers were targeted: Accordingly, an honorary committee of American billionaires was formed for the exhibition in New York which consisted of representatives of the business elite, who were known for their art collections and patronage, including the media-tycoon Randolph Hearst, the major financier, Clarence H. MacKay, the investment bankers, Philip Lehman and JP Morgan junior, and major banker, Jules S. Bache. 80 The expert from the Cleveland Museum of

71 Acc. to Information of Dr. Karin Walter, Focke-Museum, Bremen, dated 29 June 2009. 72 Zentralarchiv der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin (ZA-SMB, Central Archive of the National Museums in Berlin), I/GG 21, Letter from Kmmel to Reichs and Prussian Minister for Science etc. dated 28 October 1935.

73 Acc. to original documents from an auctioned Guelph Treasure catalog; assumed from the property of Goldschmidt, currently in private ownership.

74 Milliken, William M.: Born under the Sign of Libra. An Autobiography. Cleveland 1977 (Western Reserve

Historical Society publication 142), p. 90.

75 Acc. to original documents (here: insurance documents) from an auctioned Guelph Treasure catalog; assumed

from the property of Goldschmidt, currently in private ownership [reference updated in January 2015].

76 Acc. to original documents (here: insurance documents) from an auctioned Guelph Treasure catalog; assumed

from the property of Goldschmidt, currently in private ownership [reference updated in January 2015].

77 Otto von Falke/Robert Schmidt/Georg Swarzenski (publ.), The Guelph Treasure, The sacred relics of Brunswick cathedral formerly in the possession of the ducal house of Brunswick-Lneburg, Frankfurt 1930 and The Goldschmidt Galleries/The Reinhardt Galleries (publ.): The Guelph Treasure. Catalogue of the Exhibition by the Goldschmidt Galleries and the Reinhardt Galleries. New York, NY, U.S.A 1930.

78 Stdel, Wissenschaftliches, January 1928 to December 1931, Letter from Swarzenski to Milliken dated 28

February 1931.

79 McCune Bruhn, Heather: The Guelph Treasure, The Travelling Exhibition and Purchases by Major American Museums, in: Bradforth Smith, Elizabeth (publ.), Medieval Art in America, Patterns of Collecting 1800-1940, Exh. Cat., Pennsylvania 1996, 199-202, here 201.

80 Stdel, Welfenschatz 1907 - ca. 1931 A-Z, Letter Swarzenski to Clemen dated 13 December 1930 and McCune

Bruhn, Heather: The Guelph Treasure, The Traveling Exhibition and Purchases by Major American Museums, in:

8

Art, who was admired for his Guelph Treasure acquisitions,81 William Mathewson Milliken, gave an opening lecture.82 Amongst the many visitors to the opening were many members of the upper class 83 including in addition to those named above, John Hays Hammond, whose great wealth came from mining, and the German-born banker, Otto H. Kahn. The latter was contacted by post by the art dealers once more during the exhibition, 84 but refrained from making a purchase. 85 Georg Swarzenski had already estimated the sales chances as questionable during the exhibition in New York. In December 1930 he wrote to Prof. Clemen, that it was doubtful in the current economic climate, whether the sales success being anticipated by the Consortium would be realized and that if they were unsuccessful they would try to dispose of the Treasure again in Germany. If this were to occur, having offered the Treasure in America in vain would be seen however as a serious blemish.86 Clemen replied that he doubted very much whether the exhibition in America would have the expected success and he feared that a failure there would reduce the entire valuation greatly.87

During the New York, opening exhibition in December 1930, the art dealer Goldschmidt again submitted a specific offer to the Metropolitan Museum of Art. The Head of the Department of Applied Arts Breck then informed the Purchasing Committee that the most important pieces were still available and these would be important acquisitions for the Metropolitan Museum; Breck as well was assuming that the aforementioned asking prices allowed for some leeway.88 The pieces of interest to him were the Domed Reliquary [cat. no. 22] being offered for the price of USD 600,000 (RM 2,514,000), the Portable Altar of Eilbertus [cat. no. . 17] for USD 580,000 (RM 2,430,200), the Gertrude Portable Altar and the two Gertrude Crosses [cat. no. 3, 4, 5] for USD 450,000 (RM 1,885,500) and the Guelph Cross [cat. no. 1] for USD 280,000 (RM 1,173,200).89 No purchase was made and no further negotiations took place.

Throughout the various exhibitions in the USA, some other items were sold to private and institutional collectors. Further details are known about the following sales:

Milliken was once more able to raise a significant amount for Cleveland, and he was able to secure at a price of USD 320,000 (RM 1,347,200) the Portable Altar of Countess Gertrude and the two Gertrude Crosses [cat. no. 3, 4, 5], while returning a previously acquired object [cat. no. 8] in lieu of payment to the art dealers.90 In addition, the Cleveland Museum of Art received a monstrance as a free bonus with this transaction [cat. no. 65].

Mrs. Chauncey [Marion Deering] McCormick acquired via the art dealer Goldschmidt the Veltheim Cross for USD 8,000 (RM 33,680) [cat. no. 48]91, another cross [cat. no. 60] USD 10,000 (RM 42,100),92 two monstrances [cat. no. 56 and 72] for respectively USD 8,000 (RM 33,680) and USD 4,000 (RM 16,840)93 and a Pyxis [cat. no. 58] for USD 8,000 (RM 33,680);94

Kate S. Buckingham also bought two monstrances via Goldschmidt [cat. no. 54 and 61] each for

Bradforth Smith, Elizabeth (publ.), Medieval Art in America, Patterns of Collecting 1800-1940, Exh. Cat.,

Pennsylvania 1996, 199-202, here 200.

81 Stdel, Wissenschaftliches, January 1928 to December 1931, Letter from Swarzenski to Milliken dated 28

February 1931.

82 Acc. to original documents (here: Invitation card) from an auctioned Guelph Treasure catalog; assumed from the property of Goldschmidt, currently in private ownership.

83 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,752596-2,00.html, last viewed: 17 June 2010. 84 Princeton University Library, Otto Kahn Papers, Box 99, Folder 12, Goldschmidt, Julius F. Goldschmidt to Otto

Kahn dated 16 December 1930. 85 Princeton University Library, Otto Kahn Papers, Box 99, Folder 12, Goldschmidt, Letter from Goldschmidt to Kahn dated 16 December 1930 and of Kahn to Goldschmidt dated 17 December 1930. 86 Stdel, Welfenschatz 1907 - ca. 1931 A-Z, Letter Swarzenski to Clemen dated 13 December 1930. 87 Stdel, Welfenschatz 1907 - ca. 1931 A-Z, Letter Clemen to Swarzenski dated 24 December 1930. 88 Archives of The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Letter from Breck to Purchasing Committee dated 13 December 1930. 89 Archives of The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Letter from Breck to Purchasing Committee dated 13 December 1930.

90 Acc. to original documents from an auctioned Guelph Treasure catalog; assumed from the property of Goldschmidt. 91 http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/88422, last viewed: 1 December 2010. 92 http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/88419, last viewed: 1 December 2010. 93 http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/88416, last viewed: 1 December 2010 and acc. to Christina Nielsen, Information Art Institute, Chicago dated 7 July 2009.

94 Acc. to Christina Nielsen, Information Art Institute, Chicago dated 7 July 2009.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,752596-2,00.htmlhttp://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/88422http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/88419http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/88416

9

USD 8,000 (RM 16,840);95

the Antiquarian Society acquired a cross through Rosenbaum [cat. no. 50] for USD 3,870 (RM 16,293);96 and

the Fogg Art Museum in Cambridge bought an object [cat. no. 12] for USD 8,000 (RM 33,680).97

Other smaller pieces were acquired by John Gelathly of Cleveland [cat. no. 36], Charles D. Hart of Philadelphia [cat. no. 45], Frederick Hausman of New York [cat. no. 52], Gustav Oberlnder of Reading [cat. no. 57, 62], the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art of Kansas City [cat. no. 64], Remont Holland of New York [cat. no. 73] and Paul Capton of New York [cat. no. 75]. Prices are not known for these sales.

Parallel to the US tour, the art dealers were also pursuing opportunities in Europe whenever they emerged. As the Board of the Museum and Library Foundation of House and Province of Brunswick began to consider selling Jan Vermeers the Girl with a wine glass' from the Duke Anton Ulrich Museum for the purpose of budget consolidation, and was sharply criticized in professional circles for this, the museum administration proposed compensation by acquiring some pieces from the Guelph Treasure. 98 The Director of the Supreme Administration, Dr. Paul Knoke, spoke on behalf of the House of Brunswick-Lneburg not only in favor of the Vermeer sale in connection with a Guelph Treasure purchase, but also in March 1931 promptly informed the art dealer Hackenbroch, who was staying in America at that time, of the opportunity becoming available. 99 The representative of the Consortium subsequently started negotiations with various people involved100 , 101 . Not only were concessions on price offered, but also the possible addition of smaller, bonus pieces. 102 Brunswick did not consider the Domed Reliquary or the Eilbertus-portable altar any further, because they were being offered for over 2,000,000 RM per piece. In particular, acquiring the following eight pieces was considered, regarding which not only the originally named prices are known, but also the prices that were reduced by Rosenberg during the negotiations

Portable Altar of Adelvoldus [cat. no. 14] initially RM 120,000, then 85,000 RM; Standing Cross on Lions [cat. no. 16] initially RM 220,000, then 160,000 RM; Arm Reliquary of St. Sigismund. [cat. no. 25] initially RM 200,000, then 160,000; Head Reliquary of St. Blasius [cat. no. 40] initially RM 250,000, then 190,000 RM; Plenary for Sundays [cat. no. 41] initially RM 125,000, then 90,000 RM; Plenary Otto the Mild [cat. no. 42] initially RM 900,000, then 700,000 RM; Arm reliquary St. George [cat. no. 44] initially RM 200,000, then 160,000 RM; Reliquary Cross [cat. no. 81] initially 65,000 RM, then RM 55,000.103

Another possibility was negotiated regarding a group of six pieces, which did not include the Plenary of Otto the Mild [cat. no. 42] and two other pieces [cat. no. 14 and 44]; the Head Reliquary of St. Blasius [cat. no. 40] would have been acquired for a further reduced price of 160,000 RM and the Guelph Cross [cat. no. 1] would have been added for a price of RM 1,000,000. 104 During the negotiations, the purchase of the Domed Reliquary for a price of 1,900,000 RM was also discussed, yet ultimately the talks failed due the resistance regarding the sale of the Vermeer. 105 In connection

95 http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/29719 and http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/29723, last

viewed: 1 December 2010. 96 http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/8254, last viewed: 1 December 2010. 97 Acc. to Information Fogg Art Museum about Laurie Stein dated 7 July 2009. 98 Cf. re the entire matter, Dring, Thomas: Herzogliches Museum - Landesmuseum - Herzog Anton Ulrich-

Museum: 1887 bis 1954, in: Luckhardt, Jochen (publ.), Das Herzog Anton Ulrich-Museum und seine Sammlungen

1578 - 1754 - 2004, Munich 2004, 254-304, here 277-280.

99 Herzog Anton Ulrich-Museum - Kunstmuseum des Landes Niedersachsen (HAUM, Duke Anton Ulrich-Museum - Art Museum of the State (Province) of Niedersachsen), Archivbestnde Neu (archival resources new) 305, Letter from Knoke to Zimmermann dated 5 March 1931. 100 GRI, Duveen Brother Records (ID: 960015), Series II. Papers and correspondence, 1901-1981, Box 300, Vermeer, Copy of Western Union Telegram of Hackenbroch to Duveen dated 30 March 1931.

101 HAUM, Archivbestnde Neu 595, Note Fink dated 1.3.1931 and ibid. new 305, Letter from Bohlmann to

Zimmermann dated 21 March 1931. 102 HAUM, Archivbestnde Neu 305, Letter from Bohlmann to Zimmermann dated 21 March 1931. 103 HAUM, Archivbestnde Neu 595, Note Fink dated 1 March 1931, and HAUM, Archivbestnde Neu 305, Letter from Zimmermann to Reichsinnenministerium dated 19 March 1931. 104 HAUM, Archivbestnde Neu 595, Note Fink dated 1 March 1931. 105 HAUM, Archivbestnde Neu 305, Letter from Flechsig to Museum and Library Foundation dated 13 June 1931

http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/29719http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/29723http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/8254

10

with these negotiations, the museum director, retd. Dr. Meier indicated to the Minister of Popular Education that in his opinion the quoted price was much too high, as it was doubtful whether given the economic situation the Consortium could even redeem its acquisition price in turn (in so doing interestingly enough, he was assuming the acquisition price to be 6 million RM, an amount exactly equivalent to the purchase price for the pieces which had not been sold by that time.) 106 The Director of the Painting Department of the Duke of Brunswick-Anton Ullrich Museum expressed himself even more clearly when pointing out in a letter dated 13 June 1931 that in one year the price of the Domed Reliquary was lowered from 2.7 million RM to 1.9 million RM and would certainly drop further, such that the Consortium must be interested in selling the piece as soon as possible. 107 In a letter to Professor Dr. Fuhse of the Municipal Museum Brunswick, the director of the Museum of Hamburg History, Prof. Lauffer, wrote on 21 July 1930, that the dealers had simply invested poorly by purchasing the Guelph Treasure, because they had overestimated the international trade value. Accordingly, if Brunswick now were to acquire the Domed Reliquary, it would save a poor investment in the last minute from the art dealers perspective. 108

The archival documents that were inspected provide no evidence of sales efforts by the Consortium from the second half of 1931 onward. The next buying and selling efforts that could be traced took place in November 1933. Swarzenski first drew the attention of the Lord Mayor of Frankfurt, Friedrich Krebs to the possibility of acquiring, in particular, the Gospel Book of Heinrich der Lwe, but also on the available Guelph Treasure, in November 1933.109 Krebs turned with this matter and additional information to the Reichs Chancelor on November 9, 1933. 110 With wording that was in part identical to Swarzenskis letter, Krebs campaigned for the restoration of the honor of the German people through the purchase and reported that in America some key pieces of the Guelph Treasure had been sold to the museum in Cleveland and that the greatest part of the Guelph Treasure [...] according to reliable reports had not yet been sold and that according to an expert assessment [...] the purchase is possible at about 1/3 of its current value. 111 The Reich Chancellery stated that it had no funds available for a purchase and forwarded the request to the Ministry of the Interior with reference to the latters competence over the matter; said Ministry in turn forwarded it to the Ministry of Public Edification and Propaganda, including a negative message thereto.112

Moreover, the Director of the Frankfurt Museum of Applied Arts, Prof. Dr. Adolf Feulner, turned to the President of the Association for the Promotion of Sciences and Humanities (Notgemeinschaft der deutschen Wissenschaft) and Chairman of the Kaiser Friedrich Museum Association, Dr. Friedrich Schmidt-Ott, in November 1933, in order to communicate the opportunity to acquire the art113. Feulner made reference to a conversation with Hackenbroch and reported that the older pieces and most of the unimportant works of art had been sold, that the owners [would be] very happy to enter negotiations with the Reich, that Hackenbroch believes that he can ensure that the owners would be willing to compromise with respect to price at any time, that in the event of serious negotiations the list with the purchase prices would be made available and also made reference to the participation of foreign capital. 114 Schmidt-Ott followed up on the efforts made in 1930 and answered It would be very welcome, if the Prussian state were able to make amends for what the mistakes the previous government had made by rejecting the purchase. 115 He then contacted - attaching the Feulner letter in particular, the Secretary in the Prussian Ministry of Science, Education, and Popular Education, Wolfgang Meinhard Wilhelm von Staa and the Conservator of Art-Monuments, Robert Hiecke." 116

and Dring, Thomas: Herzogliches Museum - Landesmuseum - Herzog Anton Ulrich-Museum: 1887 bis 1954, in: Luckhardt, Jochen (publ.), Das Herzog Anton Ulrich-Museum und seine Sammlungen 1578 - 1754 2004, Munich 2004, 254-304, here 277-280.

106 GNM-DKA, Nachlass Otto von Falke, Letter Dr. Meier dated 18 April 1931. 107 HAUM, Archivbestnde Neu 305 Letter from Flechsig to Museums- and Library Foundation dated 13 June

1931. 108 HAUM, Archivbestnde Neu 305, Letter Lauffer to Fuhse dated 21 July 1931. 109 Institut fr Stadtgeschichte - Frankfurt a. M. (Municipal Historical Institute - Frankfurt a. M.), Magistratsakten (Magistrate files) 7,863; Letter from Swarzenski to Krebs dated 6 November 1933. 110 BAB, Aktenbestnde 'Kunst und Wissenschaft' der Reichskanzlei, R 43 II/1235, p. 32-33. 111 BAB, Aktenbestnde 'Kunst und Wissenschaft' der Reichskanzlei, R 43 II/1235, p. 32-33. 112 BAB, Aktenbestnde 'Kunst und Wissenschaft' der Reichskanzlei, R 43 II/1235, p. 35-36. 113 GStA-PK, VI. HA Nl Schmidt-Ott (M), no. C 37, p. 1, 1 back side.

114 GStA-PK, VI. HA Nl Schmidt-Ott (M), no. C 37, p. 1, 1 back side.

115 GStA-PK, VI. HA Nl Schmidt-Ott (M), no. C 37, p. 6.

116 GStA-PK, VI. HA Nl Schmidt-Ott (M), no. C 37, p. 6.

11

Ministerial Director von Staa also believed one could assume that Minister Rust had strong interest. 117 In a memo composed at the instigation of Ministerial Director von Staa dated 14 July 1934, it was stated: In this manner, when Prussia is merged into the Reich, it would be in a position to bring into the Reich the Guelph Treasure which is of historical, artistic and national-political value, in addition to many other valuable art treasures.118 Moreover, a plan was developed in the letter of after consultation with the Prime Minister Hermann Goering - placing a straw man as a potential private buyer with a lower bid, and then for price-tactical reasons, Theodor Stern would be deactivated, who as Director of the Dresdner Bank was to negotiate for a higher price under the concealed orders of Prussia. 119 However, this plan was not put into action. Up until the conclusion, Stern led and was responsible for the sale negotiations, in which the Dresdner Bank represented Prussian State120. There is likewise no evidence that Goering was involved.

IV. Negotiations between Dresdner Bank and the Consortium

In as early as January 1934, the Directors of the Berlin State Museums were conducting a lively exchange with the Dresdner Bank with the participation of the Reichs Bank, with the aim of valuing a large group artworks that were stored there and working out how they could be bought by the Prussian State. The Director of the Dresdner Bank Stern, who was commissioned with this task, noted on 15 January 1934: The museum directors, in particular, Prof. Koetschau, had already pointed out during previous visits that it is of great interest to create the possibility of involving the Guelph Treasure in the pending negotiations. 121 As a result, due to a proposal from Stern and at the behest of the Ministerial Director in the Ministry of Culture, Hans-Werner Oppen, Alfons Heilbronner, owner of the Berlin art dealership Max Heilbronner, who was heavily indebted with the Dresdner Bank, was requested to mediate. 122 Heilbronner was known to Stern as a co-owner/ joint owner of the Guelph Treasure, on the one hand, and a very well qualified debtor, who might be able to fulfill his obligations if the conditions improved, on the other hand. 123 For one and a half years Heilbronner took over the correspondence between Stern and the Consortium and promoted the conclusion of a contract. 124

In the one and a half years, the Dresdner Bank - in particular, its Director Stern, but also Samuel Ritscher and Gustav Nollstadt in part - attempted to purchase the Guelph Treasure for their client, the Prussian state, for the best possible price: On 24 January 1934, Stern noted that the negotiations [had] already been initiated, and that it could be expected that they would run according to plan. 125 A part of the strategy begun by Stern was for price-tactical reasons to receive an offer by the Consortium through its appropriate intermediary Heilbronner. 126 Counteracting this strategy, however,, a representative (Vertrauensmann) of the museum directors and the museum directors themselves were also involved and revealed to the seller side at what price negotiations for the purchase could even be started. 127 Stern then named an alternative purchase price to Heilbronner, 128 but gave the Director of the Palace Museum Schmidt the clear instruction that it is wrong to allow the negotiations to progress such that the other side is expecting a bid, but rather that it is imperative that our middleman, Mr. Heilbronner, receive an offer which he forwards to us. 129 A meeting of the Ministry of Culture confirmed that this was Sterns strategy, whereby if contact were made by a third party with the Guelph Treasure Consortium, this could only affect an increase in prices, and that it is advisable to wait to see the success of the ongoing negotiations, particularly because it would be desirable, if it were possible to receive an offer

117 GStA-PK, VI. HA Nl Schmidt-Ott (M), no. C 37, p. 8. 118 GStA-PK, I. HA Rep. 151 Finanzministerium (Ministry of Finance), HB no. 1234, p. 55-57.119 GStA-PK, I. HA Rep. 151 Finanzministerium, HB no. 1234, p. 55-57.120 Historisches Archiv der Commerzbank (HAC, Historical Archive of Commerzbank)-500/12571-2001-, internalnote dated 28 November 1935 [reference updated in January 2015].

121 HAC-500/24575-2001.BE, p. 208-209 [reference updated in January 2015]. 122 HAC-500/24575-2001.BE, p. 203-204 [reference updated in January 2015]. 123 HAC-500/24575-2001.BE, p. 250 [reference updated in January 2015]. 124 HAC-500/24575-2001.BE, p. 208-209, 203-204 and ibid. 20541-2001.BE, pg. 238-239 [reference updated inJanuary 2015].

125 HAC-500/24575-2001.BE, p. 201 [reference updated in January 2015].126 HAC-500/24575-2001.BE, p. 208-209 and ibid. 203-204 [reference updated in January 2015].127 HAC-500/24575-2001.BE, p. 203-204 and ibid. p. 154-155 [reference updated in January 2015].128 HAC-500/24575-2001.BE, p. 168-169 [reference updated in January 2015]. 129 HAC-500/24575-2001.BE, p. 154-155 [reference updated in January 2015].

http:HAC-500/24575-2001.BEhttp:HAC-500/24575-2001.BEhttp:HAC-500/24575-2001.BEhttp:HAC-500/24575-2001.BEhttp:HAC-500/24575-2001.BEhttp:20541-2001.BEhttp:HAC-500/24575-2001.BEhttp:HAC-500/24575-2001.BEhttp:HAC-500/24575-2001.BEhttp:HAC-500/24575-2001.BE

12

in this manner and not have to make an offer. 130 So as to not to increase the price, Stern gave no information regarding actual interested purchasers, but rather made efforts to convey the impression to the opposite party that a certain party wanted to purchase the Guelph Treasure, so as to further gift it forward to the museums. 131 When this plan was disturbed by an indiscretion in early 1935, Stern also stressed to his superior Director Nollstadt, that negotiating from two different positions must be absolutely avoided; the targeted price range can only be brought about if the matter is further handled by the Bank and its representative (Vertrauensmann). 132

Stern was steadfast with the strategy of not wanting to make an offer, even after an offer from the seller side was available. 133 He only deviated from this in April 1935, after Heilbronner had emphatically pointed out that they would only progress by naming a figure. 134 The acquisition strategy of acquiring the Guelph Treasure as cheaply as possible through Dresdner Bank and without the influence of third parties was also continued when the Minister of Finance Popitz shared with the Lord Mayor of Hannover, Dr. Arthur Menge that he was leading negotiations for the Prussian State regarding the purchase and he would be grateful, if the City of Hannover would keep out of the negotiations, so as to not drive up the prices. 135 Eleven days before the actual signing of the purchase contract, the Lord Mayor Menge turned to the Reichs Minister for Science, Rearing, and Popular Education, Rust, and shared his concern that the Treasure would be lost for Hannover, and signaled not only that he considered the price being circulated as acceptable, but that also he would, if necessary, exceed it in the interest of the City of Hannover, and he also announced that he would intervene in the purchase negotiations and would himself bid in an appropriate manner, if binding assurances from Minister Popitz were not reached. 136 Rust then turned directly to Popitz. 137 He wrote to Menge only about two weeks after he received Menges letter. Because adverse consequences [...] for the whole matter (are) inevitably, Rust emphasized - while threatening adverse consequences for Menge - that any further involvement in the art matter in question was to be avoided. 138 By this time, the contract between the Consortium and the Dresdner Bank had already been signed for five days.

1. Negotiations for the purchase price

In as early as January 1934, Stern knew the exact acquisition price the Consortium had paid of RM 7.5 million, the value of the pieces sold in the amount of about RM 1.5 million, and had been informed on the failed involvement of the industrialist, Baron Heinrich Thyssen-Bornemisza. 139 In January 1934, Stern shared that the Guelph Treasure belongs to an art dealer group, that would be willing to liquidate this poorly running transaction, [ ] because due to the deterioration of the economic situation other large buyers were not being found 140. Stern`s subsequent negotiations were marked by this position: When Heilbronner, contrary to plan, did not receive an offer, because a representative (Vertrauensmann) of the museum directors had made contact with the Consortium which informed him that the acquisition price of the Guelph Treasure must be recovered in the sale, and that they would not go below 6 1/2, or in the most extreme case, 6 million mark, it appeared to Stern however as clear that the art dealer Consortium must go below its acquisition costs, if it wants to cease its involvement in the near future, and one can assume that the asking price should not exceed the sum of 3 1/2 Mill. 141 Two months later, in May 1934, Stern communicated this expected price to Heilbronner, however because his plans had been disturbed by an indiscretion once more, the Consortium came to believe it would receive an offer of RM 7,000,000 from the State if it calmly waited . 142 Stern commented internally that he could not judge whether a figure of 5 million is too high, however he objected to 7,000,000 RM, because that is a bit more than the presumed acquisition price. 143 In contrast, the Museum expert Koetschau commented that the price of RM

130 HAC-500/24575-2001.BE, p. 151-152 [reference updated in January 2015].



133 HAC-500/20541-2001.BE, p. 232 [reference updated in January 2015]. 134 HAC-500/20541-2001.BE, p. 238-239 [reference updated in January 2015]. 135 SAH, HR 10, no. 1383, p. 327. 136 SAH, HR 10, no. 1383, p. 327 and ibid. 328. 137 GStA-PK, I. HA Rep. 151 Finanzministerium HB no. 869/1, Letter from Rust to Popitz dated 4 June 1935.

138 SAH, HR 10, no. 1383, p. 328. 139 HAC-500/24575-2001.BE, p. 208-209 [reference updated in January 2015]. 140 HAC-500/24576-2001, p. 208-209 [reference updated in January 2015]. 141 HAC-500/24575-2001.BE, p. 203-204 [reference updated in January 2015].



http:HAC-500/24575-2001.BEhttp:HAC-500/24575-2001.BEhttp:HAC-500/24575-2001.BEhttp:HAC-500/24575-2001.BEhttp:HAC-500/20541-2001.BEhttp:HAC-500/20541-2001.BEhttp:HAC-500/20541-2001.BEhttp:HAC-500/20541-2001.BEhttp:HAC-500/24575-2001.BE

13

3,500,000 being envisioned by Stern was very cheap. 144 It was not until approx. a year later, in April 1935, that Heilbronner was able to obtain a first binding offer of 5,000,000 RM from Saemy Rosenberg, because, as he writes, he was successful in convincing Rosenberg there was a window of opportunity that could not be expected to occur again in the foreseeable future. 145 In the course of the exchange, Rosenberg also handed over a list of the acquisition prices of pieces that had already been sold146 - as Feulner had already offered during serious negotiations in 1933 after consultation with Mr. Hackenbroch. 147

The first binding bid from Dresdner Bank given at Heilbronners demand was specified on April 10, 1935 at 3,700,000 RM, though Heilbronner "did not believe that the transaction could be completed on the basis of this, while being however convinced that we would henceforth make progress. 148 About two weeks later, on 26 April 1935, Rosenberg declined the bid and submitted a binding offer of 4,350,000 RM net with no deductions. 149 The Dresdner Bank responded immediately and for one, asked the Consortium members for a time extension, while also stating without authorization (ultra vires) that it feared that with such a wide spread between bid and offer, its client will not increase in that manner. 150 Contrary to this assessment, Popitz wished to reduce the price by only 250,000 RM, so as to account for the (import) sales tax that would potentially be due. 151 The Consortium then made a final counter offer of 4,250,000 RM, which the Dresdner Bank accepted. 152

2. Negotiations regarding the arrangements of the purchase price payment to the foreign Consortium members

The second important negotiation point, in addition to the purchase price, concerned the currency exchange problem. The foreign exchange controls that were (re)introduced by law in July 1931 due to the economic crisis provide the background for this. Initially, only the outflow of currency abroad was regulated, however in time incrementally numerous other payment transaction were then generally obliged to be authorized. The introduction phase of the exchange regulations ended in mid-1932. The main instruments of the exchange regulation were present at this time, yet were constantly being changed until they were finally repealed in the 1960s. This led to the situation where transfers of Reichsmark payments and other assets abroad were heavily regulated and usually entailed large financial losses. 153 In as early as 1933, from his discussions with Hackenbroch, Feulner informed Schmidt-Ott not only that the owner [would be] very gladly ready to enter into negotiations with the Reich, but also that the Guelph Treasure was bought abroad and, in fact, through foreign capital with the participation of the German art trade and that the Treasure is still being stored abroad. 154 Heilbronner also asked in as early as the first meeting on 14 January 1934, whether foreign currency could be made available for the foreign joint-venture partners (Metisten). 155 The two offers of the Consortium of 10 and 26 April were also explicitly linked to the condition that the foreign co-owners [...] take possession of the equivalent exchange value in a form which they find satisfactory. 156 Moreover, the President of the German and Prussian Municipal Assemblies Mulert, who had been active in the acquisition of the Guelph Treasure in as early as 1930 and had been informed by Stern of the negotiations in part, emphasized in a discussion that "he does not underestimate the difficulties of concluding the transaction due to currency payment'. 157 In January 1934, Stern believed that it was unlikely that foreign currencies would be made available,


145 HAC-500/20541-2001.BE, p. 232 [reference updated in January 2015].


147 GStA-PK, VI. HA Nl Schmidt-Ott (M), no. C 37, p. 1, 1 back side. 148 HAC-500/20541-2001.BE, p. 233 [reference updated in January 2015].



151 HAC-500/20541-2001.BE, p. 215-217, here 215 [reference updated in January 2015].


153 Verordnung des Reichsprsidenten ber die Devisenbewirtschaftung v. 1.8.1931 (Reichs President Ordinance

on Foreign Exchange Control dated 1 August 1931), RGBl. (Reichs Law Bulletin) I (1931), p. 421 and Banken, Ralf: Das nationalsozialistische Devisenrecht als Steuerungs- und Diskriminierungsinstrument 1933-1945, in: Bhr, Johannes / Banken, Ralf (publ.), Die Wirtschaftssteuerung durch Recht im Nationalsozialismus. Studien zur Entwicklung des Wirtschaftsrechts im Interventionsstaat des Dritten Reichs, Frankfurt am Main 2006, p. 121 236. 154 GStA-PK, VI. HA Nl Schmidt-Ott (M), no. no. C 37, p. 1, 1 back side.

155 HAC-500/24575-2001.BE, 206-207 [reference updated in January 2015].

156 HAC-500/20541-2001.BE, p. 238-239, 232 and 225 [reference updated in January 2015]. 157 HAC-500/24575-2001.BE, 170-171 [reference updated in January 2015].

http:HAC-500/24575-2001.BEhttp:HAC-500/20541-2001.BEhttp:HAC-500/24575-2001.BEhttp:HAC-500/20541-2001.BEhttp:HAC-500/20541-2001.BEhttp:HAC-500/20541-2001.BEhttp:HAC-500/20541-2001.BEhttp:HAC-500/20541-2001.BEhttp:HAC-500/20541-2001.BEhttp:HAC-500/20541-2001.BEhttp:HAC-500/24575-2001.BE

14

but reserved the right "as necessary, to evaluate whether the foreign exchange control authority of the Dresdner Bank would possibly approve. 158 As the first bid of the Consortium was transmitted, the Dresdner Bank did then in fact consider with reference to the high amount to satisfy the claims of foreign Consortium members with foreign currency. 159 However, the members of the Consortium did not take up this option, but rather agreed with the Dresdner Bank pursuant to their earlier expressed wish to receive the sale proceeds for the foreign Guelph Treasure owners through the purchase and export of works of art. 160 Stern and Heilbronner agreed that the free disposal would be guaranteed and that the foreign co-owners would only be running the risk of losses of the onward sale, if a credit for the portion were placed on a blocked mark account, and they were allowed to buy and export works of art at their discretion. 161 Stern had already procured in advance the general readiness of the Director of the Palace Museum Schmidt to endeavor to lift an existing export ban, if necessary. 162 The Director of the Berlin Museums had even already conceded the possibility of using works of art from the national museums in lieu of payment. 163

V. Conclusion of Contract on 14 June 1935 between the Consortium and Dresdner Bank

1. Contents

The contract was concluded on 14 June 1935. Copies of the contract have been preserved in the records of the German Federal Ministry of Finance and Dresdner Bank, respectively. The main points of the contract are summarized below. 164

The signatories of the contract were, on the buyers side, Dresdner Bank, represented by its Directors Nollstadt and Dr. Zinsser and, on the seller side, the companies I. and S. Goldschmidt and Z.M. Hackenbroch company, and Messrs. I. Rosenbaum and S. Rosenberg as former owners of the company I. Rosenbaum OHG (tr.: General Partnership},

The contract made reference to the purchase in 1929 and pointed out that the three aforementioned companies had involved domestic and foreign business friends in the transaction.

The pieces being sold to the bank were listed in an Appendix. A purchase price of RM 4,250,000 was agreed. This was to be paid in three parts: RM 100,000 as a brokers commission to a German (domestic currency) resident, who is not

further identified in the contract; RM 3,371,875 to the company Z.M. Hackenbroch; and RM 778,125 to a blocked Mark account in the name of S. Rosenberg. The purchase price was to be paid out immediately upon receipt of the pieces sold.

According to the contract, the amount paid into the blocked mark account was to be used by Rosenberg to acquire works of art that would then be exported to satisfy the claims of the foreign stakeholders. These works of arts could be purchased either on the open market or, alternatively, by acquiring pieces from the inventories held by the Dresdner Bank or the national museums. The contract provided a price-setting mechanism for such out-of-inventory purchases. If the parties failed to reach agreement on the exact pieces to be purchased within four weeks, the Consortium would have the right to rescind the contract. The Guelph Treasure was to be handed over in Amsterdam to the Director of the Berlin Palace Museum. The costs of insurance and transport to Berlin would be assumed by the Consortium.

2. Composition of the Consortium at the conclusion of contract

The composition and legal structure of the Consortium at the time of the contracts conclusion on June 14, 1935 have not been clarified definitively, given that no consortium agreement or other documentation elucidating the consortium structure has yet been found. The contract itself mentions the participation of domestic and foreign business associates / friends (see above). In addition, repeated mention is made of certain joint-venture partners (Metisten). 165 A letter from Professor Feulner speaks of an international consortium also comprising three Frankfurt dealers 166. On the

158 HAC-500/24575-2001.BE, 206-207 [reference updated in January 2015].



161 HAC-500/20541-2001.BE, p. 198-199 [reference updated in January 2015]. 162 HAC-500/20541-2001.BE, p. 243 [reference updated in January 2015].

163 GStA-PK, I. HA Rep. 151 Ministry of Finance, HB no. 1234, p. 91-92.


165 Inter alia HAC-500/20541-2001.BE, p. 198-199 and ibid. p. 228 [reference updated in January 2015]. 166 Archiv des Deutschen Archologischen Instituts (Archive of the German Archaeological Institute), Nachlass

http:HAC-500/20541-2001.BEhttp:HAC-500/20541-2001.BEhttp:HAC-500/20541-2001.BEhttp:HAC-500/20541-2001.BEhttp:HAC-500/20541-2001.BEhttp:HAC-500/20541-2001.BEhttp:HAC-500/24575-2001.BE

15

other hand, the participation of specific individuals as well as the size of their stakeholdings in certain cases is documented:

The largest known stake was held by Hermann Netter, a co-owner of the renowned Robert Koch jeweler dealership. Documents pertaining to a tax audit of the company Robert Koch OHG indicate that Netter held a 25% stake in the Guelph Treasure until selling off the same in 1935.167

As of March 1, 1935, the company J. & S. Goldschmidt still held a 1/40 (i.e. 2.5%) stake in the Guelph Treasure by way of a 100%-owned subsidiary. This is evidenced by a foreignexchange-control auditors report, which describes the transfer of the stakeholding to the company Mavah (MV Maatschappij voor Antiquiteitenhandel) in Amsterdam; this was a subsidiary of J. & S. Goldschmidt.169

A further stake of 1/40 (2.5%) was still held at the time of sale by Alfons Heilbronner, owner of the company Max Heilbronner. This is evidenced by the records of Dresdner Bank.170

There are also indications of a stakeholding on the part of the Mendelssohn Banking House in Berlin and/or its proprietor, Dr. Fritz Mannheimer, but here, too, the size of the stake is not documented. 172 In a letter to Dr. Mulert, however, Theodor Stern contradicts the assumption that Mannheim himself had been a Consortium member. 173

Furthermore, there are indications that certain British merchants and banks participated in the deal, but here again, the stakes involved are unknown. 174 The only one mentioned by name is the art dealership S.J. Phillips175, but this company no longer has any records at its disposal.

Finally, there is evidence for involvement by the banker Willy Dreyfus176 and by the art dealerships AS Drey in Munich and J. Glckselig & Sohn in Vienna. 177

The composition of the Consortium did not remain constant during its existence; rather, certain stakes were sold off, at least within the Consortium itself. Thus, it is known that Hackenbroch and Rosenberg sold stakes to Goldschmidt. 178 He in turn had taken out a loan for the purchase of the Guelph Treasure in December 1929, whereby the loan amount corresponded to a 1/20 stake. 179 By 1935, however, he only held a stake of 1/40.

VI. Implementation of the contract

(Estate) Theodor Wiegand, Letter Feulner to Wiegand dated 3 February 1934. 167 Hessisches Hauptstaatsarchiv (HHStA, Hessen Main State Archive), Div. 676 no. 6866, p. 38. 168 INFORMATION REMOVED As far as information has been removed in the following text, these deletions concern statements based on facts from files that were made accessible to the SPK by the heirs. They were only to be used in the proceedings before the Advisory Commission. The SPK is therefore not authorized to make

these facts and documentations available to the public.

169 Compensation Authority of the States (Province) of Berlin (LABO), Reg. no. 41175, p. D52-53. 170 HAC-500/20541-2001.BE, p. 236 [reference updated in January 2015].

171 INFORMATION REMOVED 172 GRI, Duveen Brother Records (ID: 960015), Box 405, p. 169-170. 173 HAC-500/24575-2001.BE, p. 170-171 [reference updated in January 2015]. 174 GRI, Duveen Brother Records (ID: 960015), Box 405, p. 169-170 and ibid., Box 375, London to N.Y. 18

September 1935.

175 The Wallace Collection, Herbert Bier Archive [reference updated in January 2015]. 176 HAC-500/20541-2001.BE, p. 243 [reference updated in January 2015]. 177 GRI, Duveen Brother Records (ID: 960015), Box 234, Folder 15, Cumberland Collection, ca. 1923-1954, Letter from Paris or London to New York dated 3 October 1929. 178 LABO, Reg. no. 41175, p. D52-53. 179 HHStA, Abt.: 519/3, no. 37854, p. 35 [reference updated in January 2015].

http:HAC-500/20541-2001.BEhttp:HAC-500/24575-2001.BEhttp:HAC-500/20541-2001.BE

16

Directly after the contract was concluded, Dresdner Bank obtained the necessary permits from the Foreign-Exchange Control Office, in particular with respect to exporting the works of art. 180 Also in the wake of the contracts conclusion, Alfons Heilbronner was commissioned by Saemy Rosenberg, the so-called "leader of the owner consortium",181 to carry out certain duties in connection with implementing the contract182. About one month after the contract had been signed, Rosenberg asked that Dresdner Bank be commissioned to act as joint trustee for both himself and the Prussian state in order to help implement the transaction with respect to the works of art selected for export. 183

1. Brokerage commission payable to German resident

As had been agreed, Heilbronner, received a brokerage commission from the Consortium in the amount of RM 100,000. 184 Even before the commissions amount had been set, it was clear that Heilbronner had agreed to pay one third of the commission to Dresdner Bank. 185 The sum of 34,000 RM ultimately credited to the debtor account by Dresdner Bank186 covered only about 6% of the debts of the company Heilbronner, which amounted to RM 600,000 at the time. 187

2. Handover of the pieces of the Guelph Treasure

As agreed in the contract, Prof. Robert Schmidt traveled to Amsterdam to take custody of the pieces comprising the Guelph Treasure. Their outbound dispatch from Amsterdam to Germany occurred on 17, 18 and 19 July 1935, respectively.188 .

3. Portion of purchase price payable in cash

On 15 June 1935, Z.M. Hackenbroch presented an invoice for RM 3,371,875 to Dresdner Bank. This amount was to be settled in four tranches: The sum of RM 1,000,000 was to be paid to Dreyfus & Co. in Berlin and placed to the disposal

of Hackenbroch; Thus sum of RM 100,000 was to be paid to Mendelssohn & Co. in Berlin and placed at their

disposal; The sum of RM 2,257,875 was to be paid to the Deutsche Effecten- und Wechselbank,

Frankfiurt am Main, where it was to be credited to the account of Hackenbroch; Finally, the sum of RM 14,000 was to be used to cover the Consortiums expenses for stamp

duties.189 In a letter dated 19 July 1935, Dresdner Bank confirmed to Hackenbroch that payment had been made as requested190; a copy of the banks in-house payment order is preserved. 191 Earlier, on 16 July 1935, the Prussian Ministry of Finance had instructed the Prussian State Bank to transfer the sum of RM 4,264,166 to Dresdner Bank and at the same time had ordered payment for the works of art that were being acquired in lieu of payment. 192 Dresdner Bank then confirmed receipt of payment on 17 July 1935. 193 On 22 September 1935, August Herrgen, the long-time auditor of the Rosenbaum company, contacted Dresdner Bank and stated that he had been charged with carrying out the final settlement of accounts for the Consortium. He stated that the underlying amount of the final settlement would be RM 4,000,000, given that the surplus sum of RM 150,000 was intended as a special remuneration for the Consortiums foreign members that would also be invested in works of art which in turn were to be exported abroad. In this connection, he asked that an arrangement be made with the Foreign

180 HADrB Inv.-no. 20541-2001.BE, p. 191-192 [reference updated in January 2015].

181 HADrB Inv.-no. 20541-2001.BE, p. 238-239 [reference updated in January 2015]. 182 HADrB Inv.-no. 20541-2001.BE, p. 137 [reference updated in January 2015].

183 HADrB Inv.-no. 20541-2001.BE, p. 134 and ibid. 151-152 [reference updated in January 2015]. 184 HADrB Inv.-no. 20541-2001.BE, p. 3-7 [reference updated in January 2015].

185 HADrB Inv.-no. 20541-2001.BE, p. 236 [reference updated in January 2015].

186 HADrB Inv.-no. 20541-2001.BE, p. 49 [reference updated in January 2015].

187 HADrB Inv.-no. 21571-2001-, Letter of Stern to the Law Office dated 30 July 1935. 188 HADrB Inv.-no. 20541-2001.BE, p. 87-88 [reference updated in January 2015].

189 HADrB Inv.-no. 20541-2001.BE, p. 120 [reference updated in January 2015]. 190 HADrB Inv.-no. 20541-2001.BE, p. 80 [reference updated in January 2015].

191 HADrB Inv.-no. 20541-2001.BE, p. 79 [reference updated in January 2015]. 192 HADrB Inv.-no. 20541-2001.BE, p. 75 [reference updated in January 2015].

193 GStA-PK I.HA Rep.151 HB no. 869/1, Letter Dresdner Bank to Ministry of Finance dated 17 July 1935.

http:20541-2001.BEhttp:20541-2001.BEhttp:20541-2001.BEhttp:20541-2001.BEhttp:20541-2001.BEhttp:20541-2001.BEhttp:20541-2001.BEhttp:20541-2001.BEhttp:20541-2001.BEhttp:20541-2001.BEhttp:20541-2001.BEhttp:20541-2001.BE

17

Exchange Control Office. 194 This jibes with an memorandum from a tax auditor to Hermann Netter dated August 1935, which states that Netter received exactly RM 1 million for his 25% stake in the Guelph Treasure in July 1935. 195

4. Portion of purchase price payable in the form of artworks

Pursuant to the Agreement, Dresdner Bank, having obtained permission from the Foreign Exchange Control Office, established a blocked mark account in the name of Saemy Rosenberg. Except for RM 100,000, which he used to acquire works at Hackenbroch, 196 Rosenberg used this amount exclusively to select works from the Berlin museums; Rosenberg and Schmidt agreed on the selection made on 9 July 1935197. Even at the outset of negotiations with the Berlin Museums, Rosenberg appears to have reckoned with having RM 100,000 at his disposal at Hackenbroch; thus, on 1 July 1935, he had already provided Dresdner Bank with a bona fide assurance that, even in case a small variance should arise whereby he mentioned about RM 100,000 he would not exercise the right of rescission [...]".198 The sum of RM 100,000 was paid out to Z.M. Hackenbroch by Dresdner Bank on July 22, 1935. 199 The course of the negotiations over the selection of the other pieces, can also be deduced from the records or at least in part. For example, Stern and Schmidt needed only one day of inspections to agree that the process of selecting suitable pieces would require more than merely presenting the art collections warehoused by Dresdner Bank or kept in the museum storage; rather, the collections themselves would have to be made available. 200 A memo from Rosenberg dated the following day has been preserved in which he reports that my work is progressing well and that the museum directors, following a discussion, have even shown understanding for the fact that it will be necessary to cooperate in the interests of reaching contractual agreement and to place suitable pieces on offer. 201 We have at least partial indications why certain pieces were not included, particularly those from the Figdor Collection, which belonged to Dresdner Bank at the time. Thus, regarding pieces such as the Dowry Chest by Domenico di Bartolo, Rosenberg could not express himself very optimistically [...], because pieces that have already been offered several times are difficult to sell on the international market; 202 on the other hand, the Dresdner Bank was unwilling to offer any pieces whose removal would endanger the collection as a whole: Without the Echternacher Plates, for example, the Ivories group would be diminished in value. 203 Also on record is a comment from Hackenbroch regarding the selection process in general, with a particular focus on the Crivelli: Of the small and large paintings which we had selected at the time, all except the Crivelli were struck from the list; Saemy thereupon proceeded to select mid-level arts and crafts pieces from the Berlin Palace Museum. 204 This statement is not entirely accurate, however, for it fails to consider the painting by Lancret and a number of ecclesiatical sculptures from the Sculpture Division. In finalizing the selection, direct agreement was reached on certain prices, while other prices were agreed upon through the mediation of von Falke. 205 The selection consisted of two pieces from the paintings gallery, six pieces from the Division Sculpture Across the Christian Eras and twelve pieces from the Berlin Palace Museum.206 .

The following details are known regarding these works: According to the records, there was an earlier proposal from the Director of the Paintings Gallery

194 HADrB Inv.-no. 20541-2001.BE, p. 31-32 [reference updated in January 2015]. 195 HHStA, Div. 676 no. 6866, p. 38 196 HADrB Inv.-no. 20541-2001 .BE, p. 89 [reference updated in January 2015]. 197 HADrB Inv.-no. 20541-2001.BE, p. 161-162 [reference updated in January 2015]. 198 HADrB Inv.-no. 20541-2001.BE, p. 174-175 [reference updated in January 2015]. 199 HADrB Inv.-no. 20541-2001.BE, p. 61 [reference updated in January 2015]. 200 HADrB Inv.-no. 20541-2001.BE, p. 172 [reference updated in January 2015]. 201 HADrB Inv.-no. 20541-2001.BE, p. 168-169 [reference updated in January 2015]. 202 HADrB Inv.-no. 20541-2001.BE, p. 174-175 [reference updated in January 2015]. 203 HADrB Inv.-no. 20541-2001.BE, p. 168-169 [reference updated in January 2015]. 204 The Wallace Collection, Herbert Bier Archive [reference updated in January 2015]. 205 HADrB Inv.-no. 20541-2001.BE, p. 161-162 [reference updated in January 2015]. 206 HADrB Inv.-no. 20541-2001.BE, p. 161-162 [reference updated in January 2015]. 207 INFORMATION REMOVED

http:20541-2001.BEhttp:20541-2001.BEhttp:20541-2001.BEhttp:20541-2001.BEhttp:20541-2001.BEhttp:20541-2001.BEhttp:20541-2001.BEhttp:20541-2001.BEhttp:20541-2001.BEhttp:20541-2001.BE

18

(Gemldegalerie) Koetschau regarding Lancrets Pastoral Scene, whereby this painting was to be traded away in 1934 in the context of acquiring another work; the proposal did not meet with the approval from the Prussian Minister for Science, Art and Popular Education, however, 208 as Museum Director Hermann Voss had objected strenuously, arguing that this was part of the Frederick the Great collection and also had significant market value. 209

The record contains an indignant, follow-up communication from the responsible Museum

Director, Mr. Khnel regarding the Silk Animal Carpet; he had not been informed in advance and spoke of the giving away of one of the collections most precious pieces of Islamic art, which he considered unique in Germany and doubted any justification for it being alienated. 210 This piece had been acquired in 1894 for 10,900 marks by Bode. The carpet had also attracted the attention of the renowned art dealership, Duveen Brothers, which was aware of expert John PopeHennessys opinion that this was the finest animal rug existing and also attentively followed its sale to art dealer, Calouste Gulbenkian.211

Crivellis St. Madeleine, a painting from the collection of 'Frederick II, is mentioned repeatedly in

the records. The Duveen employee Fowles was already told in 1931 as he was being led through the storage of the Kaiser Friedrich Museum by museum expect Friedlnder, that the Crivelli was surely of commercial interest as well, as it was a very showy picture for the American taste. 212 Although Friedlnder did not entirely rule out giving up the work, he suggested that this would be a very difficult matter, given that the painting was very well known and popular with the public; presumably, it was because of these reservations, that Friedlnder ultimately made no effort to offer the work. 213 Yet on July 9. 1935, the day on which agreement (Contract) was reached on the works selected, Duveen was contacted directly by the art dealers and asked to respond immediately regarding whether he would be interested in acquiring the work. 214 Whereupon the New York branch office sent the following response to Paris: Like Crivelli immensely, naturally would like to buy but I do not wish to engage myself for the present. 215 In fact, Duveen proceeded to continuously monitor the whereabouts of the Crivelli up until 1940 via a wide range of informants; the work ultimately ended up in the Rijksmuseum by way of the collector and banker Fritz Mannheimer. 216 Fritz Mannheimer ordered Crivellis St. Madeleine for a viewing and kept the work longer than agreed, to the chagrin of the other members of the Consortium. 217 This is why Duveens attempt to inspect the work in September 1935 remained fruitless. At this time, Duveen was working on the premise that he could purchase the painting from Rosenbaum for between GBP 17,500 to 19,500 (or RM 213,000 to 237,000). Mannheimer, for his part, wanted to acquire the work cheaply to compensate for the fact that, in contrast to the other stakeholders, he had only received what he considered to be lower-value blocked marks in return for his stake; 218 it seems that this is what ultimately occurred. Duveen mentions a probable acquisition price of USD 110,000 (or RM 273.000) in this context.219

208 SMB-ZA, I/GG 208, p. 33.

209 SMB-ZA, I/GG 208, p. 20-21 and ibid. p. 25-26. 210 SMB-ZA, I/IM 4, Letter from Khnel to Kmmel dated 28 March 1936. 211 GRI, Duveen Brother Records (ID: 960015), Box 462, Gulbenkian, C.S. 1926-1942, Paris to New York and

Note dated 3 March 1936.

212 GRI, Duveen Brother Records (ID: 960015), Box 234, Folder 6: Crivelli, Carlo "St. Madeleine", 1931-1938, Paris to New York dated 17 November 1931.

213 GRI, Duveen Brother Records (ID: 960015), Box 234, Folder 6: Crivelli, Carlo "St. Madeleine", 1931-1938,

Paris to New York dated 17 November 1931. 214 GRI, Duveen Brother Records (ID: 960015), Box 234, Folder 6: Crivelli, Carlo "St. Madeleine", 1931-1938, Paris to New York dated 9 July 1935.

215 GRI, Duveen Brother Records (ID: 960015), Box 234, Folder 6: Crivelli, Carlo "St. Madeleine", 1931-1938,

New York to Paris dated 30 July 1935.

216 GRI,