DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.45394#0072
TESTIMONY OF L. P. Di CESNOLA.
70
Q. Was it in fact covered?
A. It was not concealed. r
Q. Was it visible to the ordinary observer?
A. Yes, sir. j
Q. Any more than it is there now between the
ankles of Little Venus? ;
A. A connoisseur could see it. <
Q. But a visitor who was not a connoisseur t
would not observe it? <
A. If he studied it, he would.
Q. But if he did not study it? <
A. Then he would not see it.
Q. Were your visitors connoisseurs! ]
A. They were the usual persons coming to a
museum who don’t want information. 1
Q. Have you any objections to applying a
sponge to that statue? A. None whatever. ;
(2650) Q. Do you think that the material there,.
the surface of the mirror, is of the same degree
of roughness or smoothness as the surface around i
it?
A. It has been rubbed so much for the last i
three or four months, that it don’t look as rough
as it was.
Q. Who rubbed it?
A. First the committee of investigation; then
the Trustees; and then the sculptors, and I think
even the plaintiff did.
Q. What did the defendant do about it?
A. The defendant didn’t care anything about
it.
Q. He didn’t regard it as important; can you
tell whether or not that wash, that you speak of,
. has been applied to the surface of that button?
A. Never.
Q. You are quite certain of that?
A. Quite positive.
Q. Here is what you say in your communica-
tion to the Executive Committee: “ When the
statuette was found, parts were covered with
dirt, hard as and resembling the stone itself, and
a peculiar lime deposit which the committee will
find immovable on several other objects. It was
never washed or cleaned until in 1879, in the
course of my repairs.” Is that so? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where was the dirt that you described as
an incrustation of lime? Is that what you des-
cribed as being an incrustation of lime?
A. Yes, sir.
(2651 Q. You say, “it was never washed or
cleaned until 1879 in the course of my repairs,”
is that so? A. Yes, sir, that is so too.
Q. Photographs which I submit will show you
the old accumulation of dirt on this aud other
objects; let us see the photographs.
A. You can see it to-day if you will look at it?
Q. What?
A. The incrustation and accumulation of dirt.
Q. Are there any photographs that show the
accumulation of dirt?
A. I do not recollect where they are. They
were in the hands of the executive committee.
Q. You said “photographs which I submit
will show7 you the old accumulations of dirt on
this and other objects.”
A. Yes, sir, so I did.
Q. Where are they?
A. In the museum, I suppose.
Q. Who took them?
A. I do not remember ; some were taken here
and some were taken in Cyprus.
Q. Who took the photographs?
A. I said some were taken here and some were
taken in Cyprus.
Q. Who" took the photographs mentioned here
which showed the old accumulation of dirt; did
you exhibit any such photographs to the com-
mittee? A. Yes, sir, certainly I did.
Q. Where did you get those photographs; can
you produce the duplicates of them?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Are they in Colvin?
A. Probably there are some.
Q. Please to find them; I want the photo-
graphs that show the old accumulation of dirt?
A. Mr. Stickney, have you any?
(2652) Q. Can’t you tell without asking your
counsel for information where the photographs
came from?
A. They came from the museum either from
my albums or they were loose.
Q. Have you any duplicate of any such photo-
graph? A. I may have, I will look for it.
Q. By the Court: Do you recollect what photo-
graphs they were which you submitted to the
committee upon this point of incrustation;
that is the point Mr. Bangs refers to; do you re-
collect what those photographs were?
A. I remember presenting photographs to the
committee of objects with incrustations on them.
Q. By the Court: Do you recollect what those
photographs were? A. I do not now remember.
Q. Where are they; were they loose or were
they in album, or what ?
A. Some were loose and some were in an
album.
Q. Of this picture?
A. I did not say anything about a picture; I
said incrustation.
Q. You say here “the photographs which I
submit will show you, the old accumulation of
dirt on this and other objects”; where are those
photographs; I have no objection to your asking
Mr. Prime from the witness stand, if you want
to?
A. I know there tvere such photographs, but I
do not remember whether they were loose or not.
(2653) Q. Confine yourself to this statue now;
is there any photograph of that statue in exist-
ence, except in Colvin ?
A. Yes, sir, there must be.
Q. Who made it? A. I made it in Cyprus.
Q. Did you show that to the Committee?
A. I suppose I did; I will look for it.
Q. Can’t you tell? A. I cannot remember.
Q. Besides the one made in Cyprus and Col-
vin’s, do you know of any photograph of that
statue? A. I don’t know of any now.
Q. You do not now, at this present speaking,
remember any? A. Yes, sir.
The Court: It is not the incrustation upon
this particular statue, that you are enquiring for,
but you ask for the photograph which exhibits
the fact that the incrustation had been upon it.
Mr. Bangs: If the Court please, he don’t say
anything about an incrustation; he says that he
submitted photographs which will show the ac-
cumulation of dirt on this and other objects.
Q. You say in your communication to the
committee that you directed careful washing and
removal of the dirt with a wooden point; is that
so? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you see the wooden point used?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Whom did you see using it?
A. Mr. Baillard.
(2654) Q. Outside of the bath?
A. Yes, sir, when he showed me the statuette.
Q. Was he then using the wooden point?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you see him remove dirt with the
wooden point? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was that wooden point an instrument in
common use?
A. It was nothing but a piece of wood made
with the blade of a knife.
Q. Pine wood? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that removed the dirt?
A. Yes, sir, after it had been bathed.
Q. You say the bath softened the dirt?
A. All around the mirror; yes, sir.
Q. What kind of dirt was it?
A. It was this incrustation of dirt—it was dirt
—it was not a clean thing.
Q. There is not an unmixed incrustation?
A. I think it was mixed.
Q. There was an incrustation on the surface
of the statuette?
A. Yes, sir; probably it was dirt—it was an
incrustation, you may take it as you like.
Q. You distinguished, then, between dirt and
incrustation?
A. Not in this case; I say there was both.
Q. Were they indiscriminate on the surface?
A. That is my belief,
Q, They were mixed up together?
A. That is my belief.
(2655) Q. What kind of dirt was that stuff
made of; was it dirt that had got on itin Cyprus?
A. Yes, sir,
Q. Was it clay?
A. It was a mixture of dirt and earth.
Q. A kind of dirt from which water evapo-
rates freely—which becomes dry freely?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Don’t you know' whether it was or not?
A. No, sir.
Q. As to the dirt alone, could it not have been
removed with the finger ?
A. In most of the cases, yes, sir.
Q. In that case? A. Probably so.
Q. Did you find the statues, which were dis-
covered by you, buried in earth, and were they
sometimes surrounded with clay where they
lay?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And did you take any means to soften it
and remove the dirt?
A. Not in Cyprus; I had too much to do.
Q. Is that a true statement; listen to what’I
will read to you: “When the profile of this stat-
ue became visible, there were over six feet of
cemented earth to be removed from its back, and
each blow of the pickaxe made me shiver, even
in that hot climate, as I thought the reverbera-
tion of the blows alone might injure what prom-
ised to be a statue of unusual interest and value;
I amused myself for several days in the interim
w’itli a wet sponge and a knife in removing the
clayey earth around the head, and from time to
time made some new and delightful discovery;
first its hair and beard were beautifully curled,
after the Assyrian fashion; then that the curls,
when wret by the application of the sponge,
showed traces of red color; then an almond-
shaped eye became visible, with the pupil col-
ored, also in red. But the most prominent feat-
ure, which was to give character to the whole
face, and either enhance or destroy its beauty,
would that be found uninjured? Alas! It w’as
too much the ordinary fate of ancient statues to
be deprived of this essential feature to hope for
better fortune in that instance, but I worked on
slowly and with increasing precaution, replacing
the knife by a piece of soft wood and applying
the sponge freely. Finally, the nose appeared in
all its perfection, but the anxiety to find the rest
of the head intact increased, and intensified my
fears and hopes.” Is it true that by this wetting
you succeeded in removing the earth around the
statues with the use of a sponge, knife and soft
wood? A. From the outline of the head.
(2656) Q. From the statue?
A. bio, sir, I was only working on the head.
Q. You used a sponge, a knife, and a soft
piece of wood for that purpose? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And in that way you cleared your way to
the nose? A. Yes, sir.
Recess taken.
(2657) New York, December 18, 1883.
(After Recess.)
Louis P. Di Cesnola’s cross-examination by
Mr. Bangs continued as follows :
Q. Colonel, I want to read you some more
lines from your book on Cyprus, and ask you if
it is a correct statement. The title of the pre-
ceding page is “difficulties of excavating sculp-
tures,” and on page 144 is this “Nearly all the
statues along the line were by this time unearthed,
and placed upright in one of the large Turkish
tents w’hich the Pasha had lent me. This pre-
caution against rapid evaporation after the moist-
ure they had absorbed, was seen to be very
necessary, as any fragments, which had been in-
cautiously left under the burning sun, began to
split.” Was that a fact ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. That the pieces of Cypriote stone or statuary
which absorb moisture, split if exposed to the
burning sun ?
A. Yes, sir, as long as they were taken out of
the ground.
Q. How did they absorb the moisture ?
A. In the ground.
Q. You mean the ordinary moisture of the
earth ?
70
Q. Was it in fact covered?
A. It was not concealed. r
Q. Was it visible to the ordinary observer?
A. Yes, sir. j
Q. Any more than it is there now between the
ankles of Little Venus? ;
A. A connoisseur could see it. <
Q. But a visitor who was not a connoisseur t
would not observe it? <
A. If he studied it, he would.
Q. But if he did not study it? <
A. Then he would not see it.
Q. Were your visitors connoisseurs! ]
A. They were the usual persons coming to a
museum who don’t want information. 1
Q. Have you any objections to applying a
sponge to that statue? A. None whatever. ;
(2650) Q. Do you think that the material there,.
the surface of the mirror, is of the same degree
of roughness or smoothness as the surface around i
it?
A. It has been rubbed so much for the last i
three or four months, that it don’t look as rough
as it was.
Q. Who rubbed it?
A. First the committee of investigation; then
the Trustees; and then the sculptors, and I think
even the plaintiff did.
Q. What did the defendant do about it?
A. The defendant didn’t care anything about
it.
Q. He didn’t regard it as important; can you
tell whether or not that wash, that you speak of,
. has been applied to the surface of that button?
A. Never.
Q. You are quite certain of that?
A. Quite positive.
Q. Here is what you say in your communica-
tion to the Executive Committee: “ When the
statuette was found, parts were covered with
dirt, hard as and resembling the stone itself, and
a peculiar lime deposit which the committee will
find immovable on several other objects. It was
never washed or cleaned until in 1879, in the
course of my repairs.” Is that so? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where was the dirt that you described as
an incrustation of lime? Is that what you des-
cribed as being an incrustation of lime?
A. Yes, sir.
(2651 Q. You say, “it was never washed or
cleaned until 1879 in the course of my repairs,”
is that so? A. Yes, sir, that is so too.
Q. Photographs which I submit will show you
the old accumulation of dirt on this aud other
objects; let us see the photographs.
A. You can see it to-day if you will look at it?
Q. What?
A. The incrustation and accumulation of dirt.
Q. Are there any photographs that show the
accumulation of dirt?
A. I do not recollect where they are. They
were in the hands of the executive committee.
Q. You said “photographs which I submit
will show7 you the old accumulations of dirt on
this and other objects.”
A. Yes, sir, so I did.
Q. Where are they?
A. In the museum, I suppose.
Q. Who took them?
A. I do not remember ; some were taken here
and some were taken in Cyprus.
Q. Who took the photographs?
A. I said some were taken here and some were
taken in Cyprus.
Q. Who" took the photographs mentioned here
which showed the old accumulation of dirt; did
you exhibit any such photographs to the com-
mittee? A. Yes, sir, certainly I did.
Q. Where did you get those photographs; can
you produce the duplicates of them?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Are they in Colvin?
A. Probably there are some.
Q. Please to find them; I want the photo-
graphs that show the old accumulation of dirt?
A. Mr. Stickney, have you any?
(2652) Q. Can’t you tell without asking your
counsel for information where the photographs
came from?
A. They came from the museum either from
my albums or they were loose.
Q. Have you any duplicate of any such photo-
graph? A. I may have, I will look for it.
Q. By the Court: Do you recollect what photo-
graphs they were which you submitted to the
committee upon this point of incrustation;
that is the point Mr. Bangs refers to; do you re-
collect what those photographs were?
A. I remember presenting photographs to the
committee of objects with incrustations on them.
Q. By the Court: Do you recollect what those
photographs were? A. I do not now remember.
Q. Where are they; were they loose or were
they in album, or what ?
A. Some were loose and some were in an
album.
Q. Of this picture?
A. I did not say anything about a picture; I
said incrustation.
Q. You say here “the photographs which I
submit will show you, the old accumulation of
dirt on this and other objects”; where are those
photographs; I have no objection to your asking
Mr. Prime from the witness stand, if you want
to?
A. I know there tvere such photographs, but I
do not remember whether they were loose or not.
(2653) Q. Confine yourself to this statue now;
is there any photograph of that statue in exist-
ence, except in Colvin ?
A. Yes, sir, there must be.
Q. Who made it? A. I made it in Cyprus.
Q. Did you show that to the Committee?
A. I suppose I did; I will look for it.
Q. Can’t you tell? A. I cannot remember.
Q. Besides the one made in Cyprus and Col-
vin’s, do you know of any photograph of that
statue? A. I don’t know of any now.
Q. You do not now, at this present speaking,
remember any? A. Yes, sir.
The Court: It is not the incrustation upon
this particular statue, that you are enquiring for,
but you ask for the photograph which exhibits
the fact that the incrustation had been upon it.
Mr. Bangs: If the Court please, he don’t say
anything about an incrustation; he says that he
submitted photographs which will show the ac-
cumulation of dirt on this and other objects.
Q. You say in your communication to the
committee that you directed careful washing and
removal of the dirt with a wooden point; is that
so? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you see the wooden point used?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Whom did you see using it?
A. Mr. Baillard.
(2654) Q. Outside of the bath?
A. Yes, sir, when he showed me the statuette.
Q. Was he then using the wooden point?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you see him remove dirt with the
wooden point? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was that wooden point an instrument in
common use?
A. It was nothing but a piece of wood made
with the blade of a knife.
Q. Pine wood? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that removed the dirt?
A. Yes, sir, after it had been bathed.
Q. You say the bath softened the dirt?
A. All around the mirror; yes, sir.
Q. What kind of dirt was it?
A. It was this incrustation of dirt—it was dirt
—it was not a clean thing.
Q. There is not an unmixed incrustation?
A. I think it was mixed.
Q. There was an incrustation on the surface
of the statuette?
A. Yes, sir; probably it was dirt—it was an
incrustation, you may take it as you like.
Q. You distinguished, then, between dirt and
incrustation?
A. Not in this case; I say there was both.
Q. Were they indiscriminate on the surface?
A. That is my belief,
Q, They were mixed up together?
A. That is my belief.
(2655) Q. What kind of dirt was that stuff
made of; was it dirt that had got on itin Cyprus?
A. Yes, sir,
Q. Was it clay?
A. It was a mixture of dirt and earth.
Q. A kind of dirt from which water evapo-
rates freely—which becomes dry freely?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Don’t you know' whether it was or not?
A. No, sir.
Q. As to the dirt alone, could it not have been
removed with the finger ?
A. In most of the cases, yes, sir.
Q. In that case? A. Probably so.
Q. Did you find the statues, which were dis-
covered by you, buried in earth, and were they
sometimes surrounded with clay where they
lay?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And did you take any means to soften it
and remove the dirt?
A. Not in Cyprus; I had too much to do.
Q. Is that a true statement; listen to what’I
will read to you: “When the profile of this stat-
ue became visible, there were over six feet of
cemented earth to be removed from its back, and
each blow of the pickaxe made me shiver, even
in that hot climate, as I thought the reverbera-
tion of the blows alone might injure what prom-
ised to be a statue of unusual interest and value;
I amused myself for several days in the interim
w’itli a wet sponge and a knife in removing the
clayey earth around the head, and from time to
time made some new and delightful discovery;
first its hair and beard were beautifully curled,
after the Assyrian fashion; then that the curls,
when wret by the application of the sponge,
showed traces of red color; then an almond-
shaped eye became visible, with the pupil col-
ored, also in red. But the most prominent feat-
ure, which was to give character to the whole
face, and either enhance or destroy its beauty,
would that be found uninjured? Alas! It w’as
too much the ordinary fate of ancient statues to
be deprived of this essential feature to hope for
better fortune in that instance, but I worked on
slowly and with increasing precaution, replacing
the knife by a piece of soft wood and applying
the sponge freely. Finally, the nose appeared in
all its perfection, but the anxiety to find the rest
of the head intact increased, and intensified my
fears and hopes.” Is it true that by this wetting
you succeeded in removing the earth around the
statues with the use of a sponge, knife and soft
wood? A. From the outline of the head.
(2656) Q. From the statue?
A. bio, sir, I was only working on the head.
Q. You used a sponge, a knife, and a soft
piece of wood for that purpose? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And in that way you cleared your way to
the nose? A. Yes, sir.
Recess taken.
(2657) New York, December 18, 1883.
(After Recess.)
Louis P. Di Cesnola’s cross-examination by
Mr. Bangs continued as follows :
Q. Colonel, I want to read you some more
lines from your book on Cyprus, and ask you if
it is a correct statement. The title of the pre-
ceding page is “difficulties of excavating sculp-
tures,” and on page 144 is this “Nearly all the
statues along the line were by this time unearthed,
and placed upright in one of the large Turkish
tents w’hich the Pasha had lent me. This pre-
caution against rapid evaporation after the moist-
ure they had absorbed, was seen to be very
necessary, as any fragments, which had been in-
cautiously left under the burning sun, began to
split.” Was that a fact ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. That the pieces of Cypriote stone or statuary
which absorb moisture, split if exposed to the
burning sun ?
A. Yes, sir, as long as they were taken out of
the ground.
Q. How did they absorb the moisture ?
A. In the ground.
Q. You mean the ordinary moisture of the
earth ?