Reading a Historical Document
Archival documents provide a rich basis of information to deepen and expand our understanding of the context of cultural objects. In the case of the Adolphe Schloss Collection, two surviving inventories constitute the main object-based reference documents for the collection and for the pilot project: the French inventory of the collection drawn up on 13 August 1943 and a German inventory created in October-November 1943.
The French and German inventories differ in many ways. For instance, information in one is absent from the other, or there are misspellings of names, locations, and entities, which make further research challenging and add the complicated task of reflecting these discrepancies in the data model. Based on disparate mentions in these two inventories, it was possible to assemble a catalogue of individuals associated with many of the paintings in the Schloss Collection.
The inventories provide a key for reading all subsequent documents pertaining to specific paintings from the Schloss Collection: the inventory number (label) assigned to each painting. The French inventory of August 1943 numbered each painting sequentially (tableau numéro 1, etc.). The German inventory divided the Schloss Collection into sub-groups, thus altering the French numbering sequence. This produced two different numbers referring to the same painting. Whether examining postwar correspondence between Allied investigators discussing the search for missing paintings or wartime and postwar transaction reports, it is important to interpret the cited painting numbers.
Comparing inventories
When Edgar Breitenbach, an officer with the MFA&A (Monuments, Fine Arts and Archives Service) in Munich investigating missing works from the Führerbau, recounted the recovery of Schloss 5 on 14 June 1947, he repeatedly referred to the painting as “Schloss 5” —which he found buried in a vegetable garden not far from the Führerbau—as Schloss 5. Which Schloss 5 is it?
Is it a painting by Cornelis Beelt? Or one by Ludolf Backhuyzen?
In the German inventory, we read:
Schloss 5
Beelt, Cornelis
WinterlandschaftLinks unten bezeichnet: K. Beelt
Holz. 46:61 cm
The same painting is labeled Schloss Nr. 7 in the French inventory:
Tableau Nr. 7, représentant l’hiver en Hollande, attribué à Beelt (Cornelis), signé en bas vers la gauche «K. Beelt», peinture sur bois, dimensions 46 x 61
Or was he referring to Tableau Nr. 5 in the French inventory?
Tableau Nr. 5 représentant un paysage (Marine) sur toile attribué à Backhuyzen (Ludolf) portant une trace de signature en bas à gauche sur une épave, dimensions 59 x 80. Le catalogue indique que ce tableau provient de la vente Delassert, Paris, 18 mars 1859, Nr. 2 (3.500), puis de la vente Delacour, Paris, 13 Décembre 1905, Nr. 78 (à Monsieur Ducrey, 3.000frs.)
In the German inventory (B323/1212, Bundesarchiv Koblenz), Tableau Nr. 5 is Schloss 3:
Schloss 3
Backhuyzen, Ludolf d. j.
Seestück
Links unten auf einem Pfahl bezeichnet
Leinwand. 59:80 cmVersteigerung:
Delessert, Paris, 18. März 1859, Nr. 2, frs.3500 an Delacour, Paris
13. Dezember 1905, Nr. 78, frs.3000, an M. DucreyIn den Catalogen der Versteigerungen Delessert und Delacour sind die Masse mit 78:87 cm angegeben.
Lit.: Smith, Nr. 108,
HdG VII, Nr. 428 (nicht angegeben, dass in Besitz Schloss)Schloss Nr. 5
Klares, charakteristisches Bild
The correct answer? Schloss 5 is a painting by Cornelis Beelt—Schloss 5/Tableau Nr. 7. As it turns out, Edgar Breitenbach routinely used the German inventory numbers to refer to all Schloss paintings under investigation, while the French government used the numbers assigned to the paintings when the Banque Dreyfus inventory was drawn up on 13 August 1943, which in this case, is the painting by Ludolf Backhuyzen (Schloss 3/Tableau Nr. 5). Christine Hauser buried the Beelt painting in a vegetable garden after the Führerbau theft. Needless to say, the painting was severely damaged, but it was restored after its return to the MCCP (Munich Central Collecting Point).
Identifying useful data
This two-page letter from Edgar Breitenbach dated 14 June 1947 contains a multitude of information for research and cross-referencing with other individuals, objects, entities, and places.
Basic data extraction involved the creation of a list of:
individuals (last name, first name, occupation)
addresses (street, number, city)
objects (author, title, label)
entities (names, locations)
The next step is to give the document a closer reading.
This makes it possible to draw relationships between the listed individuals, locations, objects, and entities as presented by the author. If dates and places are given, these relationships can be anchored in a specific time slot and constitute a recordable event. It is important to see how the document improves understanding of the fate of objects listed in it, and how the information fits into the overall story. Does it confirm or refute what is already known? What inconsistencies are there, if any? Is the author presenting accurate or misleading information?
Parsing of the 14 June 1947 report by Edgar Breitenbach to Mr. Rae regarding “Recovered Schloss paintings”
There are 12 numbered paragraphs:
Paragraph 1 states that Wilhelm Hozzel was responsible for helping the MCCP with the recovery of three paintings from the Schloss Collection. Included are the names of the artists, the titles of the works and a Schloss label (Schloss 5, Schloss 47, Schloss 139).
Paragraph 2 introduces Mr. Schneider, who had shown Hozzel photographs of looted paintings.
Paragraph 3 mentions that Breitenbach confiscated three paintings from the Schloss Collection—numbers 52, 102, and 106—without providing any additional details.
Paragraph 4 reveals that the confiscated paintings were with Christina Hauser.
Paragraph 5 refers to Hauser as having received three paintings from an American and having had “no other paintings than the three mentioned.”
Paragraph 6 relates how Hozzel went back to Schneider about the photos of the stolen paintings. Schneider introduced him to Hauser, who told him that she had “three more” which she had hidden.
Paragraph 7 indicates that Hozzel gained the confidence of Hauser, who took him at midnight to the hiding place at the home of her brother, Mr. Faulhaber.
Paragraph 8 relates how Faulhaber drove the group to a site in ruins where Hauser began to dig for the buried paintings. These turned out to be the ones mentioned in paragraph 1 of this letter. One of the paintings was severely damaged (Schloss 5).
Paragraph 9 indicates that Schloss 5 was handed over to Breitenbach for restoration. Meanwhile, the two others were offered for sale to Hozzel. The deal was to be concluded at Hauser’s apartment. By prior arrangement, KRIPO investigators intervened and seized the two remaining paintings and arrested Hauser.
Paragraph 10 reveals the identity of the paintings whose photographs Hozzel saw at Schneider’s: Schloss 52 and Schloss 106.
Paragraph 11 confirms that Schloss 5 was completely restored.
Paragraph 12 suggested that Hozzel be offered a reward for helping in the recovery of the Schloss paintings.
Breitenbach discussed two groups of paintings in this letter. The task has been to discern which individuals are associated with which paintings, where the paintings were and when they were recovered. There are also vague references to dates; they are presented in ranges. Part of the task has been to ascertain the exact dates of recovery of the paintings and their location on exact dates, if at all possible.
There are two stories:
Story #1 is about Schloss 5, Schloss 47, and Schloss 139.
Paragraphs 1, 7, 8, 9, 11 are about Story #1.
Story #2 is about Schloss 52, Schloss 102 and Schloss 106.
Paragraphs 2, 3, 6, 10 are about Story #2.
Paragraphs 4 and 5a,b carry elements of both Stories #1 and #2 without providing any details.
Paragraph 1 states that Schloss 5, Schloss 47 and Schloss 139 were recovered between 11 and 12 June 1947.
Paragraph 3 notes that Schloss 52, Schloss 102, and Schloss 106 were recovered between 18 and 23 April 1947.
There is uncertainty in paragraph 5a as to which three paintings (two sets of three paintings are discussed in this letter) were allegedly given to Hauser by “an American.” In paragraph 5b, it is unclear as to which paintings are the “three mentioned above.”
Paragraphs 8, 9, 11 relate the recovery and restoration of Schloss 5.
The document confirms that Wilhelm Hozzel played a significant role in the MCCP’s recovery of Schloss 5, 47, 52, 102, 106, and 139. The recoveries occurred between 18 April 1947 and 12 June 1947. Based on paragraphs 7-9, Schloss 5 was recovered on 11 June 1947 while Schloss 47 and Schloss 139 were confiscated by KRIPO on the evening of 11 June 1947 and returned to the MCCP on 12 June 1947. It is not clear exactly when Schloss 52, 102, and 106 were actually recovered.
At this stage, it is necessary to carry out due diligence and check Edgar Breitenbach’s assertions about the paintings, their whereabouts and the dates of recovery. Therefore, additional research is needed on the individuals mentioned in the letter, on the paintings themselves (checking the accuracy of numbers and descriptions) and consulting several online databases to ascertain recovery dates. The ERR database (www.errproject.org) provided the MCCP registration numbers for the recovered Schloss paintings. The Deutsches Historisches Museum database (www.dhm.de) of works and objects of art registered at the MCCP confirmed the exact date of recovery of Schloss 52, 102, and 106, showing that Schloss 52 and Schloss 106 were recovered on 17 April 1947 and Schloss 102 on 21 April 1947.
A more detailed check on Schloss 52 and 106 revealed that those two paintings were not in Hauser’s hands at the time of confiscation but with a Mr. Rohse.
As for the paintings that Hauser received from “an American,” supplementary research strongly suggests that the paintings in Story #1 were the ones that Hauser received—Schloss 5, 47, 139.