DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.45394#0071
TESTIMONY OF L. P. Di CESNOLA.
69
Q. What is it ?
A. There it is ; it goes all around there.
Q. There in front, between the ankles, do you
see any signs of fracture ?
A. I do not know what you mean.
Q. You do not know what I mean ? Turn it to
the jury and see if you understand me ; this
line of fracture here is perfectly visible in the
ankles ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And it is visible behind here, and the origi-
nal fracture you say, extends all the way through
the centre ; now, I will ask you if you can see
any fracture in that part of it, aud if so, what
is it ?
A. Yes, sir, I can see it very easily.
Q. Where is it ? A, There it is.
Q. You turn it upside down to look at it ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Stand it up on end; do you now see it ?
A. Yes, sir.
(2642) Q. By a Juror: Were the ankles mend-
ed with shellac ?
A. They had been put together with shellac in
Cyprus.
Q. Is that just as good as cement ?
A. No, sir.
Q. Is it just as good as plaster ?
A. No, sir, it does not keep the air out.
Q. You do not see any shellac between the
ankles there, do you ?
A. Yes, sir, you can see it there to-day.
Q. I do not mean around the ankles, but be-
tween the ankles, along the line of fracture ?
A. Yes, sir, I see it there.
Q. Have you any objection to drawing a pencil
line along the place where you say there is a
visible line of fracture; is there harm in it ?
A. None whatever; you must remember that
this has been washed and scrubbed by at least a
hundred people since this suit was commenced.
Q. Have you any objection to a sponge and
water being applied to it here ?
A. No, sir, not the slightest; put it in a bath,
if you want to.
Q. Where do you say the fracture is, just at
the lower edge of the drapery, or down about the
base ? A. Here it is.
Q. You see it right along the under side of the
drapery ? A. Yes sir.
Q. And you do not see any other line of frac-
ture than that just below the line of the drapery ?
A. It is only one piece.
Q. Is there any near the base ? A. No, sir.
(2643) Q. What is that stuff in there?
A. Shellac.
Q. This white stuff?
A. I don’t know ; it has been washed and
scrubbed so much, that I don’t know.
Q. Can’t you tell what it is?
A. Yes, sir ; I suppose some wash that is put
over the break.
Q. What kind of a wash?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Is it the wash you described?
A. Yes, sir, that made of milk and something
else.
Q. Does that kind of a wash go as far as to
conceal the fracture as it is there?
A. It was used to conceal the edge of the
break.
Q. It answers the purpose, as it is shown
there?
A. Yes, sir, it answers the purpose of keeping
the air from the break.
Q. Were you present when this was dug up?
A. No, sir; it is very difficult for me to say
whether I was or not, when there are thousands
of objects found.
Q. Did you see this dug up?
A. No, sir; it is difficult to remember.
Q. Is it a wall statue or a round statue?
A. It is a round statue.
Q. How do you account for this flatness on the
back?
A. I don’t know; it is a round statue; this is
an appendage to it; it is flat there, but it is not a
wall statue; any sculptor will tell you that.
(2644) Q. How do you know what, any sculptor
will tell me?
A. Any sculptor that knows anything will tell
you that. He might take it for a thick stone, but
not a flat stone. He would not take it for a flat
or wall statue. I say that is a round statue.
Q. Have you any objection to that being put in
a pail of water and allow it to be soaked?
A. Not the slightest.
Q. Dr. Barnard stated that you testified or
stated to the committee that there had been an
incrustation of lime on that statue; did you so
state?
A. I did not say “of lime I said an incrus-
tation of something.
Q. Do you not know what the report of the
committee says on that subject?
A. I think I do.
Q. What is your recollection of what it says?
A. They found traces of incrustation there.
Q. Is the undercutting on that statue around
that disk modern;—is it modern around the edge
of that mirror, or is it not modern?
A. It is not modern.
Q. Down there?
A. No, sir.
Q. Wasn’t that undercutting done by Baillard?
A. He was cleaning it, and in cleaning it he en-
larged it with a piece of wood.
Q. When did he do that ?
A. When he cleaned it.
(2645) Q. Four years ago? A. In 1879 ; yes,
sir.
Q. Then its shape and appearance has been
altered in modern times; four years ago is pretty
modern, is it not?
A. I do not understand your question.
Q. Didn’t you say the other day that this un-
dercutting was done by Mr. Baillard with a
wooden stick or a soft piece of wood?
A. I said that the traces were all there, and in
talcing the encrustation off with a piece of wood,
he went deeper than the original was perhaps ; I
do not say that he made it.
Q. Does work affect the stone?
A. Yes, sir, to a certain extent.
Q. Is that under the edge of the mirror?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. On this side? A. All around it, I think.
Q. Then that much is modern?
A. No, sir; it is not modern.
Q. It is Baillard’s work? A. No, sir.
Q. Certainly the cutting that he did is his work?
A. He did not cut it.
Q. What do you call the process of cutting on
stone?
A. I call it a strong rubbing on the stone.
Q. The removal of matter from that statue is
modern? A. It was removed in 1879.
Q. Then it is not as it was dug up?
A. On that point, no, sir.
Q. What is the period of that statue?
A. That statue is about the same age as the
other, about 600 years before Christ.
Q. (2646) Of the same age with the dog?
A. Yes, sir, about the same.
Q. What style of sculpture does it belong to.
A. What they call archaic-Greek, coming from
the Egyptian style; it is pure Cyprian style.
Q. It is pure Cyprian style of art?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You remember seeing that statue with the
ankles off, do you? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you actually witness the process of
putting it together? Yes, sir.
Q. Where was that done? A. In Cyprus.
Q. By whom? A. By myself.
Q. With any assistance?
A. No, sir, I had no assistant then.
Q. What do you call that, a repair or a resto-
ration?
A. Neither one thing nor the other; it is just
attaching the pieces together.
Q. You have three different processes now, a
restoration, a repair and attaching, and this is an
attachment? A. Yes, sir, nothing else.
Q. If you saw it put together then, you know
exactly what has been applied there between the
ankles, don’t you?
A. I do not say that I did put the thing together
as it is to-day; it has been bathed and bathed by
the Investigating Committee and others; I said
that I put it together in Cyprus.
Q. When you put that together in Cyprus, and
stuck that shellac in the ankle, did it appear as
it is now between the ankles?
(2647) A. I think so; I have no recollection,
. but it is about the same thing as it is to-day.
Q. Then you know what stuff there has been
put between the ankles?
A. There is nothing there between the ankles.
Q. You know what the little wash is?
A. I said so already.
Q. Did you see it in Cyprus?
A. In Cyprus there was no such wash.
Q. When was it put on? A. In Central Park.
Q. Then its appearance has been altered since
it went to the Central Park?
A. I do not see any difference in it.
Q. Is the point of junction apparent as it was
in Cyprus? A. No, sir, certainly not.
Q. Then this change has taken place, that the
point of junction has been concealed?
A. It is not concealed; it can be seen.
Q. Didn’t it used to be just as apparent as it
was in the ankles?
A. It was all covered up, before the Com-
mittee washed it; you could not see the joint at
all.
Q. What covered it up?
A. This bit of cement, and then it was covered
with a little wash, which I ordered to done.
Q. What do you call that., an attachment, a
repair or a restoration? A. I call it a repair.
Q. The putting of a wash on you call a re-
pair? A. No, sir.
Q. You Said it was concealed?
A. I said it was covered.
Q. Was it visible when it was covered?
A. No, sir.
(2648) Q. What do you call that, rendering the
joint invisible by covering it up; is it a repair, a
restoration or an attachment?
A. It is a repair when’the pieces are of the
same kind.
Q. And in your articles, you did not mean to
deny that a good deal of that kind of work had
been done?
Witness: Where?
Counsel: Anywhere in the collection?
Witness: When—that is the question—just tell
me when?
Counsel: You made a communication to the
Committee, didn’t you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You denied something, didn’t you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you deny that that kind of repair had
been made? A. No, sir.
Q. You admitted that repairs had been made?
A. Yes, sir; I admitted it.
Q. That kind of repair which consists in cov-
ering up the points of juncture? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is that true? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Of how many statues in the collection is
that true? A. I do not remember.
Q. Of many thousands?
A. No, sir; the collection don’t count many
thousands.
Q. I mean many, in proportion to the total
number; how many do you say that collection
contains?
A. My collection has about 20,000 pieces. If
you ask me what are the proportion of the stat-
uary, I will tell you.
(2649) Q. The stone objects?
A. About 1,200 or 1,300.
Q. What proportion of those had pieces de-
tached, which were attached again?
A. Perhaps one-third, or perhaps one-fourth.
Q. That one-third or one-fourth which had
had pieces detached, and then stuck on again
and had the points of junction covered by a
wash? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that was concealed? A. No, sir.
Q. What made it visible? A. It was covered
Q. Did the covering make it visible?
A. It was not done for the purpose of conceal
ing it.
Q. It was in fact covered? A. I could see it.
69
Q. What is it ?
A. There it is ; it goes all around there.
Q. There in front, between the ankles, do you
see any signs of fracture ?
A. I do not know what you mean.
Q. You do not know what I mean ? Turn it to
the jury and see if you understand me ; this
line of fracture here is perfectly visible in the
ankles ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And it is visible behind here, and the origi-
nal fracture you say, extends all the way through
the centre ; now, I will ask you if you can see
any fracture in that part of it, aud if so, what
is it ?
A. Yes, sir, I can see it very easily.
Q. Where is it ? A, There it is.
Q. You turn it upside down to look at it ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Stand it up on end; do you now see it ?
A. Yes, sir.
(2642) Q. By a Juror: Were the ankles mend-
ed with shellac ?
A. They had been put together with shellac in
Cyprus.
Q. Is that just as good as cement ?
A. No, sir.
Q. Is it just as good as plaster ?
A. No, sir, it does not keep the air out.
Q. You do not see any shellac between the
ankles there, do you ?
A. Yes, sir, you can see it there to-day.
Q. I do not mean around the ankles, but be-
tween the ankles, along the line of fracture ?
A. Yes, sir, I see it there.
Q. Have you any objection to drawing a pencil
line along the place where you say there is a
visible line of fracture; is there harm in it ?
A. None whatever; you must remember that
this has been washed and scrubbed by at least a
hundred people since this suit was commenced.
Q. Have you any objection to a sponge and
water being applied to it here ?
A. No, sir, not the slightest; put it in a bath,
if you want to.
Q. Where do you say the fracture is, just at
the lower edge of the drapery, or down about the
base ? A. Here it is.
Q. You see it right along the under side of the
drapery ? A. Yes sir.
Q. And you do not see any other line of frac-
ture than that just below the line of the drapery ?
A. It is only one piece.
Q. Is there any near the base ? A. No, sir.
(2643) Q. What is that stuff in there?
A. Shellac.
Q. This white stuff?
A. I don’t know ; it has been washed and
scrubbed so much, that I don’t know.
Q. Can’t you tell what it is?
A. Yes, sir ; I suppose some wash that is put
over the break.
Q. What kind of a wash?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Is it the wash you described?
A. Yes, sir, that made of milk and something
else.
Q. Does that kind of a wash go as far as to
conceal the fracture as it is there?
A. It was used to conceal the edge of the
break.
Q. It answers the purpose, as it is shown
there?
A. Yes, sir, it answers the purpose of keeping
the air from the break.
Q. Were you present when this was dug up?
A. No, sir; it is very difficult for me to say
whether I was or not, when there are thousands
of objects found.
Q. Did you see this dug up?
A. No, sir; it is difficult to remember.
Q. Is it a wall statue or a round statue?
A. It is a round statue.
Q. How do you account for this flatness on the
back?
A. I don’t know; it is a round statue; this is
an appendage to it; it is flat there, but it is not a
wall statue; any sculptor will tell you that.
(2644) Q. How do you know what, any sculptor
will tell me?
A. Any sculptor that knows anything will tell
you that. He might take it for a thick stone, but
not a flat stone. He would not take it for a flat
or wall statue. I say that is a round statue.
Q. Have you any objection to that being put in
a pail of water and allow it to be soaked?
A. Not the slightest.
Q. Dr. Barnard stated that you testified or
stated to the committee that there had been an
incrustation of lime on that statue; did you so
state?
A. I did not say “of lime I said an incrus-
tation of something.
Q. Do you not know what the report of the
committee says on that subject?
A. I think I do.
Q. What is your recollection of what it says?
A. They found traces of incrustation there.
Q. Is the undercutting on that statue around
that disk modern;—is it modern around the edge
of that mirror, or is it not modern?
A. It is not modern.
Q. Down there?
A. No, sir.
Q. Wasn’t that undercutting done by Baillard?
A. He was cleaning it, and in cleaning it he en-
larged it with a piece of wood.
Q. When did he do that ?
A. When he cleaned it.
(2645) Q. Four years ago? A. In 1879 ; yes,
sir.
Q. Then its shape and appearance has been
altered in modern times; four years ago is pretty
modern, is it not?
A. I do not understand your question.
Q. Didn’t you say the other day that this un-
dercutting was done by Mr. Baillard with a
wooden stick or a soft piece of wood?
A. I said that the traces were all there, and in
talcing the encrustation off with a piece of wood,
he went deeper than the original was perhaps ; I
do not say that he made it.
Q. Does work affect the stone?
A. Yes, sir, to a certain extent.
Q. Is that under the edge of the mirror?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. On this side? A. All around it, I think.
Q. Then that much is modern?
A. No, sir; it is not modern.
Q. It is Baillard’s work? A. No, sir.
Q. Certainly the cutting that he did is his work?
A. He did not cut it.
Q. What do you call the process of cutting on
stone?
A. I call it a strong rubbing on the stone.
Q. The removal of matter from that statue is
modern? A. It was removed in 1879.
Q. Then it is not as it was dug up?
A. On that point, no, sir.
Q. What is the period of that statue?
A. That statue is about the same age as the
other, about 600 years before Christ.
Q. (2646) Of the same age with the dog?
A. Yes, sir, about the same.
Q. What style of sculpture does it belong to.
A. What they call archaic-Greek, coming from
the Egyptian style; it is pure Cyprian style.
Q. It is pure Cyprian style of art?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You remember seeing that statue with the
ankles off, do you? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you actually witness the process of
putting it together? Yes, sir.
Q. Where was that done? A. In Cyprus.
Q. By whom? A. By myself.
Q. With any assistance?
A. No, sir, I had no assistant then.
Q. What do you call that, a repair or a resto-
ration?
A. Neither one thing nor the other; it is just
attaching the pieces together.
Q. You have three different processes now, a
restoration, a repair and attaching, and this is an
attachment? A. Yes, sir, nothing else.
Q. If you saw it put together then, you know
exactly what has been applied there between the
ankles, don’t you?
A. I do not say that I did put the thing together
as it is to-day; it has been bathed and bathed by
the Investigating Committee and others; I said
that I put it together in Cyprus.
Q. When you put that together in Cyprus, and
stuck that shellac in the ankle, did it appear as
it is now between the ankles?
(2647) A. I think so; I have no recollection,
. but it is about the same thing as it is to-day.
Q. Then you know what stuff there has been
put between the ankles?
A. There is nothing there between the ankles.
Q. You know what the little wash is?
A. I said so already.
Q. Did you see it in Cyprus?
A. In Cyprus there was no such wash.
Q. When was it put on? A. In Central Park.
Q. Then its appearance has been altered since
it went to the Central Park?
A. I do not see any difference in it.
Q. Is the point of junction apparent as it was
in Cyprus? A. No, sir, certainly not.
Q. Then this change has taken place, that the
point of junction has been concealed?
A. It is not concealed; it can be seen.
Q. Didn’t it used to be just as apparent as it
was in the ankles?
A. It was all covered up, before the Com-
mittee washed it; you could not see the joint at
all.
Q. What covered it up?
A. This bit of cement, and then it was covered
with a little wash, which I ordered to done.
Q. What do you call that., an attachment, a
repair or a restoration? A. I call it a repair.
Q. The putting of a wash on you call a re-
pair? A. No, sir.
Q. You Said it was concealed?
A. I said it was covered.
Q. Was it visible when it was covered?
A. No, sir.
(2648) Q. What do you call that, rendering the
joint invisible by covering it up; is it a repair, a
restoration or an attachment?
A. It is a repair when’the pieces are of the
same kind.
Q. And in your articles, you did not mean to
deny that a good deal of that kind of work had
been done?
Witness: Where?
Counsel: Anywhere in the collection?
Witness: When—that is the question—just tell
me when?
Counsel: You made a communication to the
Committee, didn’t you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You denied something, didn’t you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you deny that that kind of repair had
been made? A. No, sir.
Q. You admitted that repairs had been made?
A. Yes, sir; I admitted it.
Q. That kind of repair which consists in cov-
ering up the points of juncture? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is that true? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Of how many statues in the collection is
that true? A. I do not remember.
Q. Of many thousands?
A. No, sir; the collection don’t count many
thousands.
Q. I mean many, in proportion to the total
number; how many do you say that collection
contains?
A. My collection has about 20,000 pieces. If
you ask me what are the proportion of the stat-
uary, I will tell you.
(2649) Q. The stone objects?
A. About 1,200 or 1,300.
Q. What proportion of those had pieces de-
tached, which were attached again?
A. Perhaps one-third, or perhaps one-fourth.
Q. That one-third or one-fourth which had
had pieces detached, and then stuck on again
and had the points of junction covered by a
wash? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that was concealed? A. No, sir.
Q. What made it visible? A. It was covered
Q. Did the covering make it visible?
A. It was not done for the purpose of conceal
ing it.
Q. It was in fact covered? A. I could see it.