Report of the Spoliation Advisory Panel in respect of an oil sketch by Sir Peter Paul Rubens, 'the Coronation of the Virgin', now in the possession of the Samuel Courtauld Trust |
|
| Author:
| Spoliation Advisory Panel, |
| Contribution by:
| Sir Hirst, David |
| Series title: | House of Commons Papers |
| ISBN: | 978-0-10-297004-3 |
| Publication Date: | Dec 2010 |
| Publisher: | Stationery Office, The
|
| Book Format: | Paperback |
| List Price: | AUD $13.95 |
Book Description:
|
The sketch, owned by Herbert M. Gutmann, was sold at auction in 1934 in order to help repay a substantial debt owed to the Dresdner Bank. The sketch was then sold at Sotheby's in 1958 to Count Antoine von Seilern, and formed part of his Princes Gate Collection bequeathed to the Courtauld in 1978. The relatives of Gutmann made a formal claim for restitution in 2009 following access to the Bank archives and obtaining details of Gutmann's financial situation and the circumstances of the...
More DescriptionThe sketch, owned by Herbert M. Gutmann, was sold at auction in 1934 in order to help repay a substantial debt owed to the Dresdner Bank. The sketch was then sold at Sotheby's in 1958 to Count Antoine von Seilern, and formed part of his Princes Gate Collection bequeathed to the Courtauld in 1978. The relatives of Gutmann made a formal claim for restitution in 2009 following access to the Bank archives and obtaining details of Gutmann's financial situation and the circumstances of the 1934 sale. The Courtauld's legal title to the painting is not contested. The claimants argue that the debts being repaid were fictitious, imposed by the Bank because Gutmann was Jewish, and that the sale was forced on him. Consequently, there is a moral obligation for return of the painting. The Panel's investigations find that the debts were genuine, and the calling in of the debts by the Bank was for financial, not anti-semitic reasons. (Gutmann was not treated differently from a non-Jewish co-investor in one scheme.) Gutmann also, it was claimed, lost income through anti-semitism leading to his removal from supervisory boards of companies. The Panel concludes this may have had some bearing on his decision to sell, but that it was not the prime motivating factor, nor was it the main cause of his inability to meet his debts. The Panel concludes that the strength of the moral case is insufficient to recommend return of the painting or an ex gratia payment to the claimants.