The Glitter and the Gold: Luigi Palma di Cesnola

Luigi Palma di Cesnola (1832-1904) was the first director of the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art. He held the post from 1879 until his death in 1904. The Glitter and the Gold by Elizabeth McFadden is a detailed and well-documented biography about this controversial figure who had a colourful and dramatic life. The book was published by the Dial Press in 1971. On the dust jacket the author is presented in the following way:

“Elizabeth McFadden, a working journalist with the Evening News of Newark, researched her book in Turin, New York, Cyprus, Leningrad [today St. Petersburg], and at the Cesnola collection at Dartmouth. She has produced a vivid, lively, carefully documented work, worthy of the glamour of the man and his times.”

[The Evening News of Newark, New Jersey, was founded in 1873. It ceased publication in 1973, only two years after this book was published.]

The main text is divided into sixteen chapters, which follow a chronological line. At the end of the book there are notes with references, a bibliography and an index. The book is illustrated with 32 well-chosen drawings and photos placed in a block between pp. 150 and 151. All illustrations are in black-and-white.

Cesnola was born in 1832 in Rivarolo in Piedmont (in Italian: Piemonte) in the northwest of Italy. At that time Italy was a geographical area, and not the name of a state. The modern state of Italy was not proclaimed until 1861. Cesnola served as a soldier in the army of Piemonte (1852-1854) and with the British army during the Crimean war (1854-1855). After returning to Italy, he immigrated to the United States. According to his own account he arrived in 1860, but as McFadden says, there is evidence that he arrived in 1858 or 1859. His first years in the US were not very successful, and that is probably the reason why he decided to forget about them. As McFadden shows, this was not the only time used he fiction in an attempt to impress the people around him.

In the US he met Hiram Hitchcock, who was born ca. 1833. With two partners, Hitchcock ran the famous Fifth Avenue Hotel in New York City, before retiring in 1866 to pursue his interests in travel and archaeology. The two men formed a strong friendship which lasted until Hitchcock died in 1900.

When the US civil war broke out in 1861, Cesnola signed up to fight for the Union (the northern states). Because of his previous military experience in Europe, he began his career as an officer. His service record in the US was not so glorious. McFadden provides the details: Cesnola resigned. One week later he was arrested for slandering his former commander. He was dishonourably discharged, accused of stealing government property. But each time he managed to extricate himself and start over. In June 1863 he was captured by the enemy and forced to spend several months in a confederate prison in Richmond. He was liberated as a result of a prisoner exchange in March 1864 and when the war ended in 1865 he had the rank of a colonel.

After the war, he managed to get a government job: he was appointed as the US consul of Cyprus. At the time this Mediterranean island was still a part of the Ottoman Empire. During the journey to Europe, he decided to “upgrade” his military rank. From now on he described himself as a former general, although he had only been a colonel.

While working as a US consul, Cesnola started on a new path: he became an archaeologist who was digging for antiquities on the island. Or to put it more precisely: he became a collector who hired a number of workers to do the digging for him. He himself was not always present. He would show up when the workers found something of interest and then take credit for finding it. Working this way he built up a substantial collection of antiquities, which he tried to sell to museums around the world: the Berlin Museum, the British Museum in London, the Louvre in Paris, and the Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg. However, he was not very successful.

McFadden demonstrates how he tried to play one institution against another, telling one museum that they had better hurry up and make an offer, because another museum had already shown much interest in his collection. In the end, he was able to sell his collection “en bloc” to a new museum, which mostly existed on paper: the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art (colloquially known as the Met) had been founded in 1870, but at first it had no collections and no permanent address.

The Cesnola collection of ancient art from Cyprus was for many years the largest and most important collection of the Met. He was hired to prepare his collection for public display, since nobody knew it as well as he did. In 1879, he was hired as the first director of the Met. Before accepting the offer, he made sure he could keep the job until he died. And he did. Even though there were several crises and at least one serious attempt to remove him from his post, he served until the end of his life in 1904.

As stated above this is a detailed and well-documented biography. McFadden’s account is based on primary material from the key characters in her book, including Hitchcock and Cesnola. The private letters of Cesnola are highly revealing, because they were not written for publication.

As for the quality of McFadden’s writing, I think it improves the further you get. The first few chapters may be a bit slow, but once Cesnola gets to Cyprus, the account starts to take off and when he arrives at the Met, it becomes really captivating.

One of the high points of the book is in chapter eleven: first McFadden describes how Cesnola discovered the treasure of Curium; then she reveals is was a hoax!

Another high point is covered over several chapters: the conflict between Cesnola and Gaston L. Feuardent, who tried to expose the director of the Met as a fraud.

I like this book, but I have to mention a few things which bother me:

(1) The first point concerns Cesnola himself. On page 1 McFadden claims Cesnola was born on 28 June, but all other sources I have seen say 29 June – even his tombstone, which is not shown in the book. Obviously, the tombstone may not be reliable, since it describes him as a former general, which is not true.

(2) The second point concerns the general background which is added from time to time to make us understand the social context. On page 142 McFadden says:

“The talk of the soirées at the end of the Christmas holidays in 1872 was of European royalty. Napoleon the Third had died…”

But Napoleon III, the former emperor of France, died on 6 January 1873, so any talk about his death during the Christmas holidays in 1872 would be premature.

(3) The third point concerns the geography of Cyprus. On page 157 McFadden says:

“In a five-hour ride, they skirted Limassol, the largest town on the south coast besides Larnaca and, passing the ancient villages of Kolossi and Episcopi, came at last to the western shore. There stood the remains of the royal city of Curium.”

But Curium (or Kourion) is not located on the western coast; it is on the southern coast.  There is no map of Cyprus in the book. If the author had studied the map one more time, she might have avoided this error.

(4) The fourth point concerns the spelling of foreign names. I can accept Piedmont, the English version of Piemonte, which is mentioned several times, but I have to object when McFadden gives the king of Italy the name “Humbert” (page 208). His name is Umberto!

Cesnola was a most controversial figure. He had many enemies, but he also had friends, and many of them remained loyal to him when he was in trouble (which happened frequently). Even after his death he had supporters who refused to believe he did anything wrong. A case in point is Arthur Fairbanks (1864-1944) who worked for the Boston Museum of Fine Arts as curator of classical art (from 1907) and as director (1908-1925). In 1917 the Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences published a brief note written by Fairbanks. In this note he gives a very positive survey of Cesnolas’s life and career (vol. 52, no. 13, October 1917, pp. 833-834).

PS # 1. The Cesnola collection disappeared into the basement of the Met during the twentieth century, but it came back again in a much-reduced version in 2000. For information about the Cesnola collection currently on display in the Met, see Art of the Classical World in the Metropolitan Museum of Art (2007) pp. 222-263. There is a good map of Cyprus on page 456 of this book.

PS # 2. For general information about the history of the Met, see Rogues’ Gallery by Michael Gross (hardcover 2009, paperback 2010). Chapter 1 of this book covers the founding of the museum in 1870 and the long period when “the former general” served as its director (1879-1904).

***

Elizabeth McFadden,

The Glitter and the Gold:

A spirited account of the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s first director,

The audacious and high-handed Luigi Palma di Cesnola,

The Dial Press: New York, 1971, 277 pages

* * *

Ammianus Marcellinus and the Historia Augusta

Ronald Syme (1903-1989) was a classical scholar. Although born in New Zealand, he lived most of his adult life in England. He was Camden Professor of Ancient History at Brasenose College, Oxford University, from 1949 until he retired in 1970.

He is the author of several books. His main work The Roman Revolution was first published in 1939. Since then it has been reprinted several times. Among other works I can mention Tacitus (2 volumes, 1958),  Sallust (1964), and History in Ovid (1978).

In the 1960s, Syme began to focus on the controversial Historia Augusta (abbreviated HA). He wrote two books and several articles on this topic:

(1) Ammianus and the Historia Augusta (1968)

(2) Emperors and Biography (1971)

(3) Historia Augusta Papers (1983; a collection of fifteen articles written since 1971).

Ammianus and the Historia Augusta (which is under review here) was reprinted by Sandpiper Books in 2001. It is still in print and not expensive. The main text is divided into 30 short chapters, including an introduction and an epilogue. At the end of the book we find a bibliography, an index of names (but no topics), and an index of HA passages discussed in the book.

It is an academic work: quotations from ancient sources are given in the original language (usually Latin), and in most cases they are not translated into English. Quotations from modern scholars are also given in the original language (sometimes German or French). In addition, the author assumes the reader has a basic knowledge of Roman history.

For these reasons this book is not recommended for the beginner. If, on the other hand, you are already familiar with ancient history, and if you wish to learn more, this book might be just the right one for you.

What is the HA? It is a collection of imperial biographies which covers emperors, princes, and usurpers. According to the text, these biographies were written by six different authors during the reign of Diocletian and Constantine the Great, i.e. around the year AD 300.

Syme does not accept this. He thinks there is only one author, although he is not able to provide his name. Moreover, he wants to move the date of publication to the reign of Theodosius, i.e. about one hundred years later. To more specific, he believes the HA was published in 395.

Syme is not the first to make this claim. Hermann Dessau - a German scholar, who lived 1856-1931 – first presented this theory in an article published in 1889. Dessau’s pioneering work on the HA is mentioned several times. Syme gives credit where credit is due.

Modern scholars often mention or quote a passage from the HA. When this happens, they usually issue a warning, such as: “This source is unreliable and should be used with extreme caution.” But in most cases they do not go any further than that. While the warning is justified, it is not really helpful, because we are not told how or why this source is considered unreliable.

Syme can tell us. He is ready to face the problems and the questions which are connected with the HA. He is ready to approach the HA from many different angles in order to determine authorship and the date of publication. He is prepared to study every single statement in order to find out what is true and what is false, in order to sift fact from fiction. It is a difficult process which demands patience and knowledge. Fortunately, Syme had both these qualities.

In general, the early biographies are relatively reliable, because the author had several sources he could follow. He did not have to invent much. The later biographies, on the other hand, are relatively unreliable, for two reasons: the author was running out of sources, and at the same time he was getting more experienced. He had learned the tricks of the trade. He knew how to invent what he needed: names, places, events, even official sources.

Spurious names are equipped with inverted commas in the text as well as in the index. There are many of them. To give just two examples, we have ‘Ceionius Postumus’ and ‘Clodius Celsinus’ on page 155. This system is very helpful, because it reminds the reader how many bogus names there are in the HA.

Ammianus is mentioned in the title of the book. Who is he and why is he mentioned? Ammianus Marcellinus (born 320/325/330) was a soldier in the Roman army. He was from the eastern part of the empire and his first language was Greek, but he also knew Latin. When he retired from the army, he decided to become a historian and wrote an account of the Roman Empire in Latin - Res Gestae - in 31 books. The early books are lost, but the later books are preserved. We do not know exactly when these books were written, but modern scholars agree that it was somewhere between 382 and 397. To be more specific, Syme believes the RG was published in 392.

Ammianus is mentioned because maybe he or rather his work can help us when we wish to determine when the HA was published. If a key point in the RG can be found in the HA, we have proof that the HA was written and published after the publication of the RG. Syme can show several parallel points, but he says we cannot be sure of them. They could be explained in another way. We do not have proof, he says, but we are close. It is possible and likely that the author of the HA had read the RG, that he remembered some of the points made there and used them in his own work.

Among modern scholars who study Roman history, Syme is considered one of the most important in the twentieth century.

When you read this book, you will understand why. When you read this book, you will see a great scholar in action.

He has his own distinct style of writing. His sentences are not long and complicated. He likes short statements. He likes to say: “So far so good.”

He likes the odd word. The word “sundry” appears more than ten times.

[Pages 2, 4, 11, 20, 21, 78, 79, 103, 161, 177, 181, 210]

He likes the odd phrase. He says “not but what” instead of “nevertheless.”

[Pages 84, 122, 161]

He is not afraid to make strong statements about ancient sources. On page 86 he says: “The scholia on Latin poets tend to be ignorant or silly on points of history.” On page 110 he returns to this topic and says: “The scholia on the Latin poets are a sad chapter in the history of scholarship.”

What is important is that his word carries a lot of weight. Why? Because he is a careful and methodical scholar, who knows his topic very well: not merely the ancient sources but also relevant modern scholarship.

When he wants to make a case, he presents his arguments and his evidence. You can see what he does. Step by step. If there is no proof, he will say so himself. As regards the authorship and the date of publication of the HA, there is no proof, but he is right when he says his theory is possible and likely; and if you ask me, his arguments are very convincing.

Perhaps some modern scholar wants to disagree with him. If so, I think it must be about how to interpret a minor detail. As far as I can see, there are no obvious or factual mistakes in this work.

The HA is a controversial source. We should not believe everything in it. On the other hand, we should not discard the whole work, just because it is difficult to evaluate. On page 205 Syme says: “Features of that genre in any age may be adduced for comparison. It is a mixture of fact and fiction.”

In this review I would like to mention three recent examples from the world of journalism:

** Janet Cooke (born 1954) worked for the Washington Post. A story published in that paper in September 1980 won the Pulitzer Prize in April 1981. Later that year her story was exposed as a fraud.

** Stephen Glass (born 1972) worked for the New Republic. In 1998 it was revealed that much of his work was based on his imagination. He reported events that never took place, and interviewed persons who did not exist. He made (almost) everything up, and managed to make it seem credible (for a while). His sad career is described in a movie called Shattered Glass (2003).

** Jayson Blair (born 1976) worked for the New York Times. In 2003 he resigned from the paper after it was revealed that much of his work was based on fraud.

The anonymous author of the HA worked much in the same way as these modern reporters. He invented and added details when he needed them in order to make his account seem more credible. He transformed himself into six different authors and transported the whole package about one hundred years into the past. Syme explains not only how but also why this was done.

Ammianus and the Historia Augusta is great work by a great scholar. If you want to know how history could be written in antiquity and how it should be written in our own times, you should read this book. It is highly recommended.

* * *

Ronald Syme,

Ammianus and the Historia Augusta,

Oxford University Press, hardcover, 1968,

Reprinted by Sandpiper Books, hardcover, 2001, 238 pages

* * *

 

Ronald Syme (1903-1989)

This picture is borrowed from Wikipedia

* * *