The History of Loot and Stolen Art: From Antiquity until the Present Day by Ivan Lindsay was published by the British publisher Unicorn Press in 2014.
It is a huge and heavy volume: a hardcover book published in a large format with more than 400 pages. A long book deserves a long and detailed review.
According to a brief biography printed on the dust jacket, Ivan Lindsay is an art dealer who specialises in European and Russian paintings. He was educated at Eton College and the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst.
After four years in the British Army in South East Asia, he worked in the City of London before becoming an art dealer. He writes and lectures on art and the art market and is currently a contributing editor at Spears Magazine.
The book opens with a brief introduction and ends with a brief conclusion. The main text in between is divided into 15 chapters, which follow a chronological line from antiquity until the present day.
Here is the table of contents:
# 01. Ancients, Greeks, Romans, Vikings, Moors and Charlemagne
# 02. The Crusades and the sack of Constantinople
# 03. The fourteenth and fifteenth centuries AD, the Renaissance and the dissolution of the monasteries
# 04. Spanish colonization of the Americas, Francisco Pizarro and Hernan Cortes
# 05. Sir Francis Drake
# 06. The emergence of Sweden
# 07. Cromwell’s disposal of the collection of Charles I
# 08. Napoleon
# 09. Greece and Lord Elgin
# 10. Egypt
# 11. The British Museum and punitive expeditions against Ashanti and Benin
# 12. World War II, Hitler, Goering and the other Nazi leaders
# 13. 1945, the Soviets and Stalin
# 14. 1945, the US army
# 15. 1945-2009
At the end of the book, we find notes with references, a bibliography listing books and articles, and a general index.
The book comes with 200 colour illustrations and 50 black-and-white archive photographs.
Covering the history of loot and stolen art from antiquity until the present day is an ambitious project. Can the author pull it off?
At first glance, the answer is yes. The author has produced a beautiful book that covers an interesting topic in great detail.
But if you take a closer look, it turns out that the answer is no. The author has not completed the project he set out to do. While the book is beautiful, it has several flaws which can be divided into four categories:
# 1. THE STYLE OF WRITING
A well-known statement says:
“A single death is a tragedy. A million deaths, is a statistic.”
This statement indicates that if we hear about one case, we can understand it and respond to it. If, on the other hand, we hear about a million cases, we cannot understand it, and therefore we cannot respond to it.
The statement catches something that is real. Every author should remember this statement when he or she is writing about a topic: keep it simple!
One case we can understand. A million cases we cannot grasp. This is true when we are talking about murder. It is also true when we are talking about the theft of paintings and other works of art.
If we hear about the theft of one painting, we can understand it and respond to it. If we hear about the theft of thousands of paintings, we cannot understand it and therefore we cannot respond to it.
The author of this book did not follow this golden rule when he wrote his account of loot and stolen art. Or perhaps I should say sometimes he seems to be aware of the golden rule, because sometimes he covers a single case in great detail.
When this happens, his account works quite well. But at other times he ignores the golden rule and when this happens, his account becomes an endless list of items that were stolen:
** 1,234 paintings were stolen by person A
** 2,345 books were stolen by person B
** 3,456 other works of art were stolen by person C
When this happens, his account becomes boring and uninteresting, because it is reduced to a list of numbers that cannot catch the interest of the reader.
I assume the publisher appointed a book editor who worked on the manuscript before it was published. If this is the case, I have to say that the book editor is not very professional.
The book editor should have told the author to improve his style of writing, which is often poor.
The book editor should have told the author to remove the numerous passages which resemble endless lists of numbers or rewrite them in order to make them more readable.
# 2. THE FOCUS OF THE BOOK
Since the title of the book is The History of Loot and Stolen Art, I expect the author to focus on this topic – all the way from the beginning to the end. But this is not the case.
On many occasions, throughout the book, he fails to focus on his main topic; he fails to stay on the track he has chosen. Instead, he makes digressions; he offers basic and general information about the period on which he is working.
When he mentions Queen Christina, he not only talks about the books and paintings she told her army to steal, he also offers basic and general information about her.
But this is not relevant; this is not necessary. This is not a biography of Queen Christina.
When he mentions Stalin, he not only talks about the items he told his army to steal, he also offers basic and general information about him.
Again, this is not relevant; this is not necessary. This is not a biography of Stalin.
The worst (and the longest) digression is found in chapter 15, which covers the time from 1945 until the present day.
In this chapter, there is a long section (more than five pages) about Switzerland (pp. 372-378). But nothing about loot or stolen art. I have to ask: what is this section doing here?
The author should have deleted all digressions from the main topic. Unfortunately, he did not do this. The book editor should have told him to do this. Apparently, this did not happen. Again, we can see that the book editor is not very professional.
# 3. FACTS AND FIGURES
In a book such as this, there are many facts and figures. This is unavoidable. When dealing with facts and figures, you must be careful. Unfortunately, the author is careless when it comes to facts and figures. Here are some examples:
Page 4
“During the Fourth Crusade Doge Enrico Dandolo sacked and looted Constantinople in 1196.”
But the Fourth Crusade did not take place in 1196. It happened 1202-1204. The Fourth Crusade is mentioned again on page 32, and this time we have the correct date: 1204. If the author knows the correct date on page 32, why does he not know it on page 4?
Page 18
“…including the practice of Proskyneis, a symbolic kissing of the hand of a ruler.”
The Greek word is misspelled. The correct spelling is proskynesis. The definition of the word is also wrong. It means a prostration in front of a ruler. Kissing the hand of the ruler is a secondary aspect.
Page 24
“Cicero had served as quaestor in Sicily in 75 BC and so had seen Verres’ looting.”
Cicero and Verres both served in Sicily, but not at the same time. While Cicero was quaestor in 75, Verres was governor from 73 to 71. Cicero did not see any looting by Verres.
Page 25
“Verres was convicted on all counts.”
No! Verres was not convicted of anything. He was accused on all counts. When he realised how much evidence Cicero had collected against him, he was afraid that he was going to lose. His lawyer told him to go into exile, which he did. This is why the trial was never completed.
Two Latin words mentioned on this page are misspelled:
** “vensutas” should be “venustas.”
** “elaborate” should be “elaboratus”
Page 27
We are told that two ancient obelisks were transported from Egypt. The first to London and the second to New York. We are told they were moved “at the same time.”
But this is not true. The first “needle” was transported to London in 1877 and raised there in 1878. The second “needle” was transported to New York in 1880 and raised there in 1881. These two events did not happen at the same time.
Page 31
“Only the top piece survives today above a plaque showing Emperor Theodosius as he offers a laurel wreath to the victor of the Kathisma (Imperial Box) at the Hippodrome.”
The author misunderstands the situation. The emperor is standing in the Kathisma (the Imperial Box) while he offers a laurel wreath to the victor of the race at the Hippodrome.
Page 32
Regarding the horses of St. Mark’s:
“… it is believed that Nero managed to secure the four horses for Rome around AD 50, where they were displayed either in the Domus Aurea or on top of Trajan’s Arch.”
This passage is unfortunate. For several reasons.
(1) Nero was not emperor in AD 50. He ruled 54-68.
(2) There is no solid evidence that Nero managed to get the four horses to Rome.
(3) There is no arch named after Trajan in Rome. There is an arch named after Titus (see below about page 170).
Incidentally, several phrases on this page are borrowed (word for word) from a website established by Thomas K. Wukitsch, but the source is not revealed.
Page 62
“In 1528, King Frederick of Denmark followed suit, seizing the 15 richest monasteries in Denmark.”
This is not true. Frederick I was king of Denmark 1523-1533, but the reformation in Denmark did not take place until 1536 during the reign of Christian III. The author does not present any evidence to support his claim that 15 monasteries were seized eight years before the reformation took place.
Page 103
The helmet of Ivan the Terrible. How did the helmet of this Russian czar get to Sweden? According to the text on this page, it came to Sweden via Poland. This information also appears on page 121. But the caption to the illustration on page 122 has another version: it came directly from the Russians to the Swedes.
According to the caption, the helmet was “seized during a battle near Lode Castle in Estonia when, in 1574, Swedish troops gained victory over the Russian army.”
In other words: there are two versions of the story; one version is told in the text; the other version is told in a caption to an illustration. Which one is true? Which one does the author prefer? We cannot know; because he does not even point out that there are two versions of the story.
Page 110
“Artificialia.” The Latin word is misspelled.
The correct spelling is “Artificalia.”
It is not necessary to use Latin words in an English book, but if you want to do this, you should be careful about the spelling.
Page 116
“On 5th June 1654 Christina abdicated in Uppsala castle.”
No. The abdication took place the following day, on 6 June 1654. Further down, on the same page, the text says:
“On 24th December 1654 she formally converted to the Catholic faith in Archduke Leopold’s chapel in Brussels. She arrived in Rome on 23rd December riding through the Porta Flaminia.”
This is puzzling. If she was in Brussels on 24 December, how could she arrive in Rome on 23 December? The answer is that the author forgets to tell us that Christina arrived in Rome the following year: on 23 December 1655. The journey from Stockholm to Rome took several months.
Page 155
“In 1798 events in France moved rapidly towards revolution…”
At first, I was puzzled, because the French revolution does not begin in 1798. Then I realised what was wrong: it is a misprint! A silly misprint, which causes confusion.
The correct year is 1789. When the last two digits are inverted, everything makes sense. How could the author and his book editor fail to notice such a silly misprint?
Page 170
“... showing an idealised depiction of the procession recalling the plaque on the inside of the Arch of Trajan.”
What he should say is “the frieze on the inside of the Arch of Titus.” This arch is shown on page 22 and mentioned in the text on page 23. The author has confused two emperors: Titus (79-81) and Trajan (98-117).
Page 181
“The Duke was just as forthright with his own collection of pictures captured…”
When we read on, we can see that this is not true at all. The Duke of Wellington wanted to keep his own collection, while insisting that other commanders should hand over their collections. He made an exception for himself.
Page 183
“…the sack of Carthage in 149 BC.”
The third war against Carthage began in 149 BC. It ended three years later, in 146 BC. The Roman sack of Carthage was in 146 BC (not in 149 BC).
Pages 183-184
“Ribbentrop marched into the Louvre with troops and demanded to see Denon before starting to remove all Prussian material. When Denon objected, Ribbentrop threatened Denon with force before gathering all Prussian material, private and state owned, and returned it to its owners.”
This passage is puzzling.
What is wrong?
Please look at these dates:
** Ribbentrop, 1893-1946
** Denon, 1747-1825
How could these two persons meet each other? When Ribbentrop was born, Denon had already been dead for decades.
Ribbentrop could demand to see Denon, but Denon would hardly show up to meet him.
How can the author write such nonsense? How can the book editor fail to notice such nonsense and correct it?
The puzzling passage appears in chapter 8 about Napoleon and the Napoleonic Wars. Denon, who was the first director of the Louvre, belongs here. But Ribbentrop does not.
He belongs in chapter 12 about World War Two. He is actually mentioned in this chapter.
Page 214
“Carter and Carnarvon’s successful partnership lasted from 1907 until the Earl’s death in 1922.”
But Carnarvon died in 1923. Carnarvon is mentioned again on page 217. This time we are told he died in 1923, which is correct.
Page 232
“…acting consul James Phillips arrived in January 1897 to take up his post.”
No. The chronology is wrong.
Phillips arrived in October 1896.
Page 233.
“In December 1896 he requested permission from the Foreign Office to depose and remove the King of Benin. Without waiting for the reply, he set off for Benin…”
Again, the chronology is wrong. He made the request in November and set off for Benin in December.
Chapter 12 about World War Two (pages 241-290)
In this chapter, the author tells us how the Nazi leaders confiscated private art collections in France, but he fails to tell us the fascinating story about the Louvre and the war.
In 1939, shortly before the war broke out, the director of the Louvre organised a huge rescue operation: the major items from the museum were packed in crates, loaded on trucks and transported to secret locations in the south and the west of France. This is how they were saved.
The name of the director is Jacques Jaujard
(1895-1967). He is not mentioned in the book.
The stolen art was stored at a French museum next to the Louvre called Jeu de
Paume. The curator of this museum secretly recorded all the items that were
sent from the museum to locations in Germany.
Her documents were later used to recover most of the stolen items. While the author mentions the museum Jeu de Paume, he does not mention the name of the curator:
Rose Valland (1898-1980)
Page 291
We are told that Germany was divided into three zones after the end of the war in 1945. We are also told that Berlin was divided into three zones. Both statements are false. Germany was divided into four zones, while Berlin was divided into four sectors.
Apparently, Lindsay is not aware that there was a French zone of Germany and a French zone of Berlin.
On the same page we are told that the Cold War lasted for 40 years. This is not true. It lasted for 45 years, from 1945 to 1990.
Page 292
According to the author, Operation Barbarossa, the German invasion of the USSR, began on 2 June 1941. This is not true. It began on 22 June 1941. Operation Barbarossa is also mentioned on page 267. This time we have the correct date: 22 June 1941.
Page 337.
According to the author, the state of Israel was founded on 14 May 1949. This is not true. It was founded on 14 May 1948.
Page 340.
“The Memling of the Madonna and Child…”
This description is unfortunate.
It should be:
Memling’s painting Madonna and Child…
Page 383
“A recent major robbery of a couple of masterpieces was from the Bührle collection in Zurich in 2009.”
Details about the robbery are added on the following page where a paragraph begins:
“On 10th February 2008, four paintings worth CHF 180m were stolen by three armed and masked gunmen.”
Now we have to wonder: when did this robbery take place? In 2009 or in 2008? The answer is 2008. The date offered on page 384 is correct, while the date offered on the previous page is false.
Incidentally, all four paintings that were stolen in Zürich in 2008 have since been recovered:
Two in 2008 and two in 2012.
But this fact is not mentioned in the book, even though it could and should have been mentioned. His manuscript was completed in 2013 and the book was published in 2014.
As you can see, the author is quite careless when it comes to facts and figures. The book editor is supposed to help the author, to improve the quality of the manuscript, but it seems the book editor was just as careless as the author, so no help was offered.
Ivan Lindsay is not a historian. I do not blame him for that. Any person has the right to write about history if he or she wants to. But if you want to venture into unknown territory, you should be careful with facts and figures. Ivan Lindsay is not, and for that I blame him.
He is in over his head when writing about ancient history. His most glaring mistakes are found in the first chapter. But it is not only ancient history that causes problems for him, as you can see from my list. Mistakes appear throughout the book, all the way until chapter 15 about the present day.
# 4. ILLUSTRATIONS AND CAPTIONS
As stated above, the book comes with 200 colour illustrations and 50 black-and-white archive photographs. The number of illustrations is impressive. The quality of the illustrations as well as the choice of illustrations are fine. I do not wish to complain about this aspect of the book. My problem concerns the captions.
The captions identify the illustrations, but that is all. When a painting appears on a page, there is no information about why it is there. We may assume that this painting was stolen at some point, but the caption offers no clue.
Somewhere in the text, perhaps a few pages further on, the painting is usually mentioned in the text. Now we know why the painting appears in the book. But there is no cross-reference from illustration to text or the other way, from text to illustration. Why not?
Given that this is a book about loot and stolen art, I find it most unfortunate that so many paintings appear in the book without a caption which tells me what they are doing there. Why do I have to be a detective every time? Why must I try to match an illustration with a certain point in the text?
CONCLUSION
Ivan Lindsay embarked on a huge project when he wanted to write this book. It seems the project was too big for him. He could not write a great book about loot and stolen art from antiquity to the present day.
If you ask me, the project was a good idea, but Ivan Lindsay was not the right man to pull it off. It could - and should - have been a great book. Unfortunately, it is not:
** The style of writing is often poor
** The author fails to focus on the main topic – fails to stay on the track he has chosen - there are too many digressions
** The author is careless with regard to facts and figures
** Illustrations and text are not integrated
I am sure Lindsay has good intentions, but good intentions do not guarantee a good result. When we are talking about a book, a movie or any work of art, the only thing that matters is the result. And in this case, the result is simply not good enough.
There are many flaws, which cannot be ignored, because they cannot be described as minor. I have to remove two stars because of them. This is why I think this book deserves a rating of three stars (60 percent)
PS # 1. There are eight reviews of this book on Amazon. The average rating is 4.8 stars. Not a single review mentions the flaws of this book. This fact is quite surprising.
PS # 2. For more information, see the following books, which are not listed in Lindsay’s bibliography:
** Museum of the Missing by Simon Houpt (2006) (2009) (Lindsay uses the phrase “Museum of the Missing” on page 354)
** Loot: Inside the World of Stolen Art by Thomas McShane and Dary Matera (2007)
PS # 3. Art of the Heist is a documentary film in 14 parts that was aired on Ovation TV in 2007 and released on DVD in 2015.
PS # 4. Two paintings by Van Gogh are listed as missing on page 366. They were stolen from the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam in 2002.
Both paintings have since been recovered.
They were found in Italy in 2016.
For details, see this item:
Sophie Eastaugh, “Stolen Van Gogh paintings found after 14 years in raid on Italian mafia group,” CNN News, 30 September 2016.
PS # 5. Saving Mona Lisa: The Battle to Protect the Louvre and its Treasures during World War II by Gerri Chanel was published in 2014.
PS # 6. Illustre et inconnu: Comment Jacques Jaujard a sauvé le Louvre is a documentary film which premiered on French television in 2014.
It was released on DVD in 2016.
*****
The History of Loot and Stolen Art:
From Antiquity until the Present Day
By Ivan Lindsay
424 pages
(2014)
*****
No comments:
Post a Comment