сообщения государственного эрмитажа lxix reports the state

СООБЩЕНИЯ
ГОСУДАРСТВЕННОГО
ЭРМИТАЖА
LXIX
Санкт-Петербург
Издательство Государственного Эрмитажа
2011
REPORTS
OF
THE STATE HERMITAGE
MUSEUM
LXIX
Saint Petersburg
Th e State Hermitage Publishers
2011

Editorial Committee:
Georgy Vilinbakhov (chairman), Mikhail Balan (secretary), Mariam Dandamaeva,
Lydia Dobrovolskaya, Anna Geyko, Alla Kamchatova,
Elena Khodza, Elena Korolkova, Tatyana Kustodieva, Andrey Nikolaev, Elena Petrukhina, Mikhail Piotrovsky,
Alla Rodina, Nina Tarasova and Elena Zviagintseva
Translated from the Russian by Maria Artamonova,
David Hicks, Yuri Kleiner, Natalia Magnes and Catherine Philipps
Editor of the English version: Julia Redkina
On the cover: Sitting elephant. Bronze, champlevé enamel, patina. Japan, late 18th – early 19th century.
Th e State Hermitage Museum
ISBN 978-5-93572-446-7
Published by the decision of the State Hermitage Editorial Board
Th e Reports of the State Hermitage Museum are published
in Russian and English.
Photography by
Natalia Antonova, Pavel Demidov, Leonard Kheifets, Alexander Koksharov, Yuri Molodkovets, Inessa Regentova,
Kirill Shapovalov, Konstantin Siniavsky, Svetlana Suetova, Andrey Terebenin and Vladimir Terebenin
© State Hermitage Museum, 2011
Almost any object in Peter the Great’s Siberian collection
(Hermitage) off ers a vast research arena for art
historians. Even the keen attention of many experts that
the collection has captivated for nearly two centuries
has not been able to make up for the absence of reliable
data about these artefacts, oft en becoming a source of
confusion rather than clarity.
In this article we will focus on just one item from the
Siberian collection, namely a decoration representing an
imaginary bird of prey, oft en described as a griffi n, tormenting
a mountain goat (Inv. No. Си 1/131; ill. 1(left )).
We will attempt to provide reliable information about
this object as well as dispel a number of conjectures and
misconceptions.
Th ousands of ancient artefacts in museums around
the world, despite being widely known and studied in
numerous publications, remain shrouded in mystery.
Objects of greatest artistic merit, especially those made
from precious metals, are extremely attractive for thieves,
treasure hunters and jewellers and are more likely to
have been obtained through tomb robberies rather than
systematic archaeological excavations; therefore, reliable
information about these art works is oft en unavailable.
As a rule, the exact fi nding spot in such cases is not
known or at least not disclosed, and the circumstances
under which the objects surfaced are oft en deliberately
concealed.
Th e same statement can be made with respect to
many of the world’s best-known unique jewellery collections,
including Peter the Great’s Siberian collection
in the Hermitage and the famous Oxus Treasure (aka.
Amu Daria Hoard) in the British Museum. Both these
COLLECTION STUDIES
ELENA KOROLKOVA
A HORSE “AIGRETTE” WITH A SCENE OF A PREDATOR TORMENTING ITS PREY
FROM PETER THE GREAT’S SIBERIAN COLLECTION
5
collections have similar histories and contain items of
similar origins; both comprise precious art works that
echo stylistically and technically and off er a vast ground
for cultural and chronological comparisons. In addition,
these ancient rarities are virtually unparalleled with any
other artefacts of documented origins; their cultural and
historical identity is obfuscated by the lack of reliable
evidence, seriously complicating their attribution (Korolkova
2004b: 56).
Upon detailed analysis of the information on the
sources of the Oxus Treasure, Oscar White Muscarella,
USA, concluded that the collection was actually a fake
(Muscarella 2003). Muscarella was extremely critical
about the generally accepted museum-constructed version
based on extremely scant and imprecise evidence
and corrupted by conjectures and assumptions which
later came to be perceived as fact. He severely criticised
the faulty reasoning based on the fi ctional accounts
concerning ancient objects bought from dealers, and labelled
it “bazaar archaeology” (Muscarella 2003: 264).
Although information about accidental fi nds and
purchases of archaeological items must be approached
with caution, one should not completely ignore it as a
historical source. Ancient objects are scientifi cally signifi
cant by virtue of their existence. Th eir cultural identity
can be determined on the basis of their typological,
stylistic and technological features. However, their
analysis calls for a meticulous scrutiny of any available
information as well as extreme caution in conclusions.
According to most researchers, many of the gold
decorations from Peter the Great’s collection can be associated
with Achaemenid Iran (Rudenko 1948; 1953;

1961; 1962; Artamonov 1973; Lukonin 1977; Zeymal
1979; Ivanov, Lukonin, Smesova 1984; Korolkova 2004а;
Korolkova 2008). However, their connection with Persian
art forms varies in degree and character, allowing
for a vast range of explanations and interpretations by
art historians.
Th e adornment with an expressive scene of a predator
tormenting its prey was contained in the second
parcel sent to Peter the Great from Tobolsk by Prince
Gagarin on 12 December 1716 together with other gold
objects found in Siberia. Item 14 on the parcel inventory
list reads “An Eagle Devouring a Ram. Weight: fortynine
zolotniks” (Zavitukhina 1977: 42).
Th e object, made of 916° gold, measures 15.6 cm in
height, 16 cm in width, and weighs 209.76 g. Th e pattern
combines fl at parts and volumes: the body and paws of
the winged monster carrying a prostrate goat in its claws
are fl at, while the head on the long neck is three-dimensional
(ills. 1 (right), 2). Th e fi gure of the bird of prey
was decorated using the cloisonné inlay technique; intricately
shaped compartments for colour inserts with a
characteristic double contour were located on the hip of
the goat, forming a symmetrical composition of two differently
directed curvilinear triangles grouped around
a circle (Korolkova 2008).
Th e lost inserts may have been made of red and light
blue smalt. Th e tubular loops arranged in parallel vertical
rows on the tail plume may have held real bird feathers
(although the small diameter of the apertures leaves
some room for doubt in this matter) or some other additional
decorative element intended for threading or
fastening.
Th e purpose of this jewellery item is not known.
It is oft en described as an aigrette, or an ornament for
a human headdress (Tolstoy, Kondakov 1890: 45, 56;
Rudenko 1962: 16; Lukonin 1977: 91; Ivanov, Lukonin,
Smesova 1984: 18, Cat. No. 5), which is hardly correct.
Th is opinion was mainly based on the analogy with the
aigrette from the Oxus Treasure which shared many stylistic
features with its Siberian counterpart.
Th e suggestion that the object studied was used as
a headdress decoration is hypothetical, to say the least,
as no similar fi nds in situ have been registered so far.
However, other interpretations for this artefact can be
off ered (Korolkova 2004а: 54–58).
Th e aigrette version was fi rst introduced by Nikodim
Kondakov and Ivan Tolstoy, who claimed that “the object
is a headdress adornment, a sultan-aigrette or tash,
commonly worn in the East until these days” (Tolstoy,
Kondakov 1890: 46). Th is passage is followed by a description
of the object including the techniques employed,
which needs to be quoted in full: “Th e image is
embossed, with engraved parts; the body and wings of
the bird carry semi-circular gold strips forming compartments
which used to contain pieces of cherry-red
glass; the body of the goat has compartments that were
formerly fi lled with light-blue glasslike paste. Th e tail
feathers are separated with grooves that have gold loops
into which pearl strings (possibly quite large) used to
be inserted” (Tolstoy, Kondakov 1890: 46). At the end
of the excerpt, the authors mention that the glass and
pearls have been lost.
Th e authors date the object to the “period aft er the
rule of Alexander the Great” and link it to the art of
the late 2nd century B.C. – 7th century A.D. (Tolstoy,
Kondakov 1890: 68, 69). Th eir description also mentions
colourful inserts: “Th e eagle’s breast and wings
used to be decorated with pieces of red and blue glass
inserted into compartments” (Tolstoy, Kondakov 1890:
68). Th is comment is of particular importance as subsequent
publications reiterate Kondakov and Tolstoy’s
hypotheses as the ultimate truths.
Th e authors then proceed to describe the tail of the
bird: “Th e tail is divided into separate feathers; the thin
feathers between (tinted blue-grey, much like the colour
of crow plume) were rendered in the following manner:
fi rst, a groove was made with four small gold brackets
in it, aft er which emerald cylinders were inserted in the
grooves between the brackets to produce the required
colour” (Tolstoy, Kondakov 1890: 69). In his study of the
Siberian gold, Mikhail Artamonov described the object,
stating that “the purpose of this remarkable jewel from
the Siberian collection remains unknown” (Artamonov
1973: 189). Following his predecessors’ opinion, Artamonov
stresses the similarity between the item studied
here and the aigrette from the Oxus Treasure, referring
to Kondakov and Tolstoy’s defi nition (Tolstoy, Kondakov
1890: 46). To do him justice, Artamonov was more cautious
and tentative in his suggestions. He admitted, for
example, that no headdress decorations of this type had
ever been registered anywhere in the Scytho-Siberian
world (Artamonov 1973: 189). Artamonov also remarked
on the obvious similarity of the animal style employed in
the object under study and in leather appliqué fragments
from Pazyryk Kurgan II, dating the Siberian decoration
by the 4th century B.C. (Artamonov 1973: 190).
Ill. 1. “Aigrette” from Peter the Great’s Siberian collection. Th e State Hermitage Museum
Like Kondakov and Tolstoy, Artamonov points out
that parts of the inlays survived till the present, namely
a black glass insert in the eye of the goat and blue enamel
in the compartments on the animal’s body as well as
“cherry-red enamel in the leaf-shaped cells along the
upper edge of the wing” (Artamonov 1973: 190).
In his monograph “Th e Art of Ancient Iran” [Iskusstvo
Drevnego Irana], Vladimir Lukonin describes the jewel
as an aigrette inlaid with red and blue smalt, failing to
point out that none of the inlays had survived. Lukonin
supported Artamonov’s opinion that the object had
been produced some time in the 4th century B.C. (Lukonin
1977: 91); however, the album “Eastern Jewellery.
Ancient Period and the Middle Ages” [Juvelirnyje izdelija
Vostoka. Drevnij, srednevekovyj periody] (Ivanov,
Lukonin, Smesova, 1984: 18) suggests a broader dating,
namely, the 5th or 6th century B.C. Th e catalogue also
mentions residual colour inserts: “Only fragments of the
inlays have survived, including a chip of black glass in
the eye of the goat, light-blue paste on the goat’s body
and red enamel in one of the cloisons on the wing of
the griffi n” (Ivanov, Lukonin, Smesova 1984: 18). Note
6 7
that all the authors quoted here claim that the light-blue
paste used to fi ll the compartments on the body of the
griffi n, not the goat, as mentioned by Artamonov.
Mordvintseva in her monograph “Polychrome Animal
Style” [Polikhromnyj zverinyj stil'] (Mordvintseva
2003: 85, Cat. No. 44, fi g. 19) describes the object as made
of “gold with dark red, blue, and black glass”, adding that
“the body, neck and short feathers of the bird are executed
in the cloisonné technique and are made up of compartments
fi lled with red glass”; in the chapter analysing Peter
the Great’s Siberian collection, she comments that “the
cloisons on the wings of the bird contained red enamel”
(Mordvintseva 2003: 32). All the compartments in the picture
are fi lled; however, the author fails to indicate that the
picture is her own reconstruction or to provide any references
to the source identifying the inlay material. Incidentally,
Mordvintseva suggested a new interpretation of the
bird image, describing it as a peacock (Mordvintseva 2003:
26). Th is statement is hardly correct as the appearance of
the feathered monster has some marked characteristics of
a predator that are completely absent in the peacock, while
the large comb and long ears are typical of the griffi n.

Ill. 2. “Aigrette” from Peter the Great’s Siberian collection.
Detail: griffi n’s head
All imaginary creatures fashioned by human mind
within the mythological framework are “synthetic” images
manifesting the principle of complementarity –
a cognitive universal underlying all art forms (Danin
1966: 70–72). Th e mysterious monsters in the art of the
early nomads are a whimsical blend of features present
in real animals; “what makes them bizarre and singular
is the combination of the incompatible” (Danin 1966:
71). Th ese images cannot be assigned to any existing
species on the basis of biological characteristics as they
were not meant to signify a real animal. Irina Zasetskaya
criticised the idea of identifying this creature as
a peacock (Zasetskaya 2006: 126), and I wholly support
her opinion.
Th e identifi cation of this clearly mythological animal
is further complicated by the fact that the griffi n
is, strictly speaking, a monster with bird features and
a lion body. However, Iranian and Scytho-Siberian art
abounds with images of bird-like monsters with a characteristic
comb and ears, also frequently referred to as
griffi ns (Rudenko 1960; Barkova 1987).
To clarify the issue with the inlay material, we should
stress that the only surviving insert (badly damaged) in
the eye of the goat is made of black glass. Although the
cloisons on the goat’s body have retained some material,
it is not light-blue glass. Th e analysis performed by
jewellery experts of the Russian State Assay Chamber in
2002 did not identify any traces of colour glass. Sergey
Khavrin of the State Hermitage Department for Scientifi
c and Technical Examination also conducted a series
of tests to verify the available data concerning the materials
used in the object and confi rmed the absence of
colour glass.
It may be suggested that the remaining inlays have
been lost fairly recently, well aft er the release of the publications
quoted here; however, the fact that the location
of the residual inlays diff ers from one account to
another strikes a warning note. Moreover, the weight of
the object is the same as specifi ed in the inventory of
Prince Gagarin’s parcel to Peter I in 1716 that registered
the initial state of the object (the present weight even
exceeds the weight as per the inventory list by 1 g). Consequently,
the fi rst authors to present their hypothesis
regarding the lost inlays were Kondakov and Tolstoy.
Th eir reconstruction of the object was confi dent and
persuasive to such an extent that some of their followers
thought it unnecessary to quote their work and replicated
their hypothesis in further studies without feeling
much need for verifi cation.
Another puzzling issue is the execution technique,
which is of immense signifi cance for attribution. Th us,
Kondakov and Tolstoy claim that the adornment is embossed,
with some engraved parts (Tolstoy, Kondakov
1890: 46). Mordvintseva’s catalogue repeats the version
about embossment, possibly borrowed from them,
although no reference to the data source is provided
(Mordvintseva 2003: 85). Аnatoly Ivanov, Vladimir Lukonin
and Lyudmila Smesova in their catalogue (Ivanov,
Lukonin, Smesova 1984: 18) described this technique as
“dishing”, which is essentially correct although terminologically
not quite accurate. For the sake of clarity, let
me mention that the decoration is mainly executed in
the basma technique whereby a raised image was produced
on the metal using a special matrix. Parts of the
image are embossed. Th e prominent hollow head of the
griffi n as well as the neck were produced separately in
the basma technique and welded on to the relief body
with wings spread out in plane. Th e reverse side carries
two weld-on metal plates, each with six loops running
along the upper edge of the wings. Th e loops served
for fastening the object to some base, possibly made of
leather (ill. 3). 1
Iconographical and subject parallels to the jewel can
be found among the materials recovered from Pazyryk
Kurgan II, as pointed out by Artamonov (Artamonov
1973: 190) and later by the authors of the album “Eastern
Jewellery. Ancient Period and the Middle Ages”
(Ivanov, Lukonin, Smesova 1984: 18).
A similar composition can be reconstructed on the
basis of a small leather appliqué fragment found in
Pazyryk Kurgan II which used to form part of a decorative
system, possibly composed of horse bridle attachments
(Rudenko 1948: table XXVI, 4; Rudenko
1953: table LXXXI, 13; Artamonov 1973; Korolkova,
2004c: 48, 50, Cat. No. 50) (ill. 4). Findings retrieved
from this mound demonstrate obvious stylistic and
iconographic affi nities with works of Iranian art (Korolkova
2004а: 56, 57).
One of the closest analogies for the image of the
bird of prey on the Siberian aigrette is a carved wooden
fi gurine of a griffi n with spread wings, which used to
serve as a horse brow attachment and was found on the
headgear from Kurgan I of the Ak-Alakha-3 Gravesite
(ill. 5). Natalia Polosmak correctly emphasises the similarity
in the rendition of the images on the brow attachment
and on the aigrette (Polosmak 2001: 85, fi g. 60).
Th e bird’s posture, the scaly feathers on the neck and
breast, the cylindrical protrusion along the upper edges
of the wings, the long feathers as well as the caruncle are
identical in both the wooden carving and the jewel. Th e
fan-like tail of the wooden bird from the Altai kurgan
has a clear two-tier structure. Th e tiers are marked with
horizontal segmentation and relief (the top tier, with a
diff erent vertical grooving rhythm obtained with cut-in
parallel lines, protrudes above the bottom tier). Th e parallel
vertical lines in the narrower upper part of the tail
resemble the rendition of the feathers on the claws of
1 I owe a debt of gratitude to Rafael Minasyan for consultancy
support.
8 9
the gold griffi n from the Siberian collection. As evident
from the archaeological context, the Altai plaque was a
horse headgear attachment. Th e griffi n-shaped plaque of
a similar structure and composition found in the same
Kurgan among the fourth bridle set (Polosmak 2001: 82,
fi g. 58а), according to the author, may have served as the
breast strap centerpiece (Polosmak 2001: 85). Kurgan I
of the Ak-Alakha-5 Gravesite was also found to contain a
composite wooden griffi n-shaped plaque (the sculptural
head and neck were attached to the fl atter carved body
with spread wings). Th e ears, judging by the apertures,
were insertable (Polosmak 2001: 88, fi g. 65а, b). Similar
objects were retrieved from the fi rst (Polosmak 2001: 46,
fi g. 25), third and fourth horse in Kurgan I of the Ak-
Alakha-1 Gravesite (Polosmak 1994: 50, fi gs. 54, 55; 51,
fi g. 58, 3; 52, fi gs. 59, 61; Polosmak 2001: 49, fi g. 26; 51,
fi g. 27). Judging by Polosmak’s observations, the fi gurines
used to adorn the bridle and were located at the
intersection of headgear straps near the ears and nose
strap. Th e horse bridle sets from the Kuturguntas Kurgan
also contained similar gold-plated wooden fi gurines
of griffi ns which served as headgear decorations and as
plaques covering the intersections of the brow and nose
straps with side straps (Polosmak 1994: 87, fi g. 108; Polosmak
2001: 104, fi g. 82а–в).
Interestingly, the decorative plaques did not bear any
images of the prey, normally represented by some hoofed
animal. In this case, the prey may have been rendered in
a diff erent manner; cf. masks from No. 10 and No. 5 bridle
sets, Pazyryk Kurgan I (No. 10 with deer horns and
a spread-eagled panther on the face part; No. 5 with a
tiger and lion griffi n). Th e breast strap of bridle set No. 5
was decorated with leather fi gurines of a spread-winged
griffi n and a goat (Gryaznov 1950: table XII, 1–3; Rudenko
1950: 26, table VI, 1–3). In the nomad culture of
the Scythian period the decor as well as any set of several
objects performing a common function (i.e. bridle
set) was seen as an integral visual message which could
only be “read” and understood in its entirety. Outside
the context of this message, zoomorphic decorative motifs
fail to provide any idea about the meaning of the
whole message or off er any opportunities for its reconstruction.
Th us, the dynamic scenes of “good torment”
or hunting may be interpreted as part of an associative
set of images.
Th e fi gure of the griffi n on the breast strap of bridle
set No. 5 from Pazyryk Kurgan I is apparently linked with
the image of the goat, symbolising prey, although the

Ill. 3. “Aigrette”. Reverse side
torment itself is only implied. Th e reconstruction of the
Pazyryk fi nds where the griffi n was found to have been
located in the centre of the breast strap, and a similar image
on the brow attachment of the horse from Kurgan I
of the Ak-Alakha-3 Gravesite suggest that the so-called
aigrette from the Siberian collection may have served for
the same purposes (Korolkova 2004b: 59). If the “aigrette”
was indeed used as a bridle decoration, it was probably
located on the headgear rather than the breast strap as
the small loops arranged in parallel vertical rows on the
griffi n’s tail may have served for inserting real feathers.
Th is opinion was shared by the authors of the album
“Eastern Jewellery. Ancient Period and the Middle Ages”
(Ivanov, Lukonin, Smesova 1984: 18) as well as Kondakov
and Tolstoy (Tolstoy, Kondakov 1890: 45, 46). Artamonov
supposed that “a thread with some beads may
have been run into the loops” (Artamonov 1973: 189),
echoing another suggestion made by Kondakov and Tolstoy
in the same article whereby strings of pearls were
run through the loops or, alternatively, emerald cylinders
were inserted in the grooves (Tolstoy, Kondakov 1890:
69). However, the exact additional decor for this artefact
remains a hypothesis as the structure of the object may
suggest other arrangements and techniques.
Th e stylistics and iconography of the Siberian decoration
display genetic links with art works found in
Nimrud, despite the wide chronological gap. Th us, the
cloisonné ivory objects (8th century B.C.) retrieved
from Fort Shalmaneser share a number of iconographic
features with the Siberian artefacts, including the rendition
of wing feathers in various imaginary creatures,
the polychrome inlays and the decoration with vertical
rows of small cylinders, possibly with cloisonné inserts
between them (Mallowan 1966: 566–569, ills. 513, 514,
515). Another interesting iconographical parallel for the
Siberian “griffi n” is the fragmented leather plaques from
the Alexandropol Kurgan (4th century B.C.), which
obviously formed part of the same object decorated on
both sides (Alexeyev 2011). One of the plaques represented
two griffi ns (ill. 6), whose proportions as well as
the rendition of the plume and comb resemble the fi gure
portrayed on the Siberian jewel. Th e fi nds recovered
from the Alexandropol Kurgan and the Siberian item
may have common genetic roots, judging by the “Oriental”
features and approximately identical periods of
origin. Th e Alexandropol griffi ns were painted red, blue
(cyan) and white with gilding (Alexeyev 2011).
Ancient authors oft en described griffi ns and the
colour of their plume. According to Aelian, for example,
the griffi n’s back is covered with black feathers; the
plume is red in front, dark-blue on the neck and white
on the wings. Ktesias also holds that the griffi n’s plume
is black, red, white and dark-blue (Pyankov 1976: 22).
Of course, the possibility of the exquisite gold plaque
Ill. 4. Fragment of the leather appliqué from Pazyryk Kurgan II
from the Siberian collection being used as a decoration
for a ceremonial horse bridle is hypothetical but quite
plausible.
Analogues to the jewel from Peter the Great’s collection
can be found among archaeological material coming
from diff erent chronological, geographical and cultural
contexts. Given that objects similar to the Siberian
jewel are extremely rare, even very remote cultures need
to be taken into consideration. Th e latest iconographical
parallel is the four identical gold plaques from the Paul
Ghetty Museum (possibly horse bridle adornments);
no accurate information about their origins is available.
Th e plaques were bought in Europe but obviously
date from a much later period than the “aigrette”, possibly
the 1st century B.C. – 1st century A.D. (Pfrommer
1993: 202, Cat. 81–84). Th e question about the purpose
of these objects remains open – they are too numerous
to be identifi ed as brow plaques, which normally come
10 11
Ill. 5. Wooden browband from Kurgan I,
Ak-Alakha-3 Gravesite (drawing)
Ill. 6. Drawing of the object of unknown purpose from the Alexandropol Kurgan

as single units. In all probability, the plaques decorated
headgear strap intersections, as did some of the Altai
fi nds. According to the catalogue, the griffi n’s head and
neck were made of cast gold, while in the Siberian “aigrette”
these parts are hollow. However, the description
of the technique used in the plaques from Paul Ghetty’s
collection may be faulty as the weight specifi ed in the
catalogue is too low for cast gold articles of this size. Th e
plaques stand apart stylistically; the inserts are quite different;
the central inlay was made of lazurite, which is
uncommon for the Siberian collection. Mordvintseva
believes that the Paul Ghetty plaques were sewn-on
(Mordvintseva 2003: 60) (this is unlikely as the fastening
loops on the reverse side are too large and may have
been intended for straps) and agrees with Pfrommer,
who identifi ed the prey as a hare. However, the prey
is actually a coarsely rendered ungulate animal as the
lower parts of the limbs enhanced with inserts suggest
hooves, not claws.
Th e gold articles from Peter the Great’s collection
may have been retrieved from South Siberia or Central
Asia; however, it is possible that some of the fi nds were
made in East Kazakhstan or Middle Asia as the Governor
of Siberia was also in charge of the Middle Asian
territories. One can also suggest that the jewels were recovered
at the site of their production. Some of the Siberian
fi nds may well have originated from East Iran and
the peripheral areas of the Achaemenid state (possibly
Bactria). In addition, one should not rule out the possibility
that the art works were produced by the nomads
under the cultural infl uence of Achaemenid Iran.
In terms of execution, the “aigrette” is clearly related
to Iranian jewellery with polychrome inlays typical of
the Achaemenid and later periods. Th e same concerns
the Oxus Treasures, which display obvious iconographical
and stylistic links with ancient Altai art and objects
from Peter the Great’s Siberian collection.
To conclude, the jewel, which may have served as the
decorative brow centrepiece from a horse bridle set, displays
some typical stylistic and technical features which
enable to link it with objects of the 4th and 3rd centuries
B.C. (Korolkova 2004b; Korolkova 2008).
References
Alexeyev 2011
Alexeyev, Аndrey. “Neizvestnyje grifony Aleksandropolskogo
kurgana [Unknown Griffi ns from the Alexandropol Kurgan]”.
In: Scripta Antiqua. 2011 (in print).
12
Artamonov 1973
Artamonov, Мikhail. Sokrovišča sakov [Saka Treasures].
Мoscow, 1973.
Barkova 1987
Barkova, Lyudmila. “Obraz orlinogolovogo grifonа v iskusstve
Drevnego Altaja (po materialam Bol'šix Altajskix kurganov)
[Image of an Eagle-Headed Griffi n in Ancient Altai
Art (Based on the Data from the Large Altai Kurgans)]”.
Arxeologičeskij sbornik Gosudarstvennogo Ermitaža. Leningrad,
1987. [Vol.] 28.
Danin 1966
Danin, Daniel. “Start kentavristiki [Beginning of Centauristics]”.
Nauka i žizn’. 1966. No. 5.
Gryaznov 1950
Gryaznov, Мikhail. Pervyj Pazyrykskij kurgan [Pazyryk Kurgan
I]. Leningrad, 1950.
Ivanov, Lukonin, Smesova 1984
Ivanov, Аnatoly, Vladimir Lukonin and Lyudmila Smesova.
Juvelirnyje izdelija Vostoka. Drevnij, srednevekovyj periody
[Eastern Jewellery. Ancient Period and the Middle Ages].
Мoscow, 1984.
Korolkova 2004a
Korolkova, Elena. “Zoloto Sibirskoj kollekcii i derevjannaja
rez’ba iz pamjatnikov Altaja [Gold Objects from the Siberian
Collection and Carved Wooden Items from the Altai Monuments]”.
Juvelirnoje iskusstvo i material’naja kul’tura. Proceedings
of XIII Colloquium. 1 St. Petersburg, 2004а.
Korolkova 2004b
Korolkova, Elena. “Sibirskaja kollekcija Petra I i kul’tura
drevnix iranojazyčnyx pamjatnikov [Siberian Collection of
Peter I and the Culture of Ancient Iranian Pieces]”. Izučenije
persidskoj kul’tury na Zapade: s XVI do načala XX veka. Conference
Proceedings. St. Petersburg, 2004b.
Korolkova 2004c
Korolkova, Elena. “Ukrašenije: grifon, terzajuščij gornogo
kozla [Ornament: A Griffi n Tormenting a Mountain Goat]”.
In: Iran v Ermitaže. Formirovanije kollekcii. Exhibition Catalogue.
St. Petersburg, 2004c.
Korolkova 2008
Korolkova, Elena. “Sarmatskije ukrašenija i sibirskoje zoloto
drevnix [Sarmatian Ornaments and Ancient Siberian Gold]”.
In: Sokrovišča sarmatov. Exhibition Catalogue. St. Petersburg;
Azov, 2008.
1 Presented at the XII Colloquium, 2003.
Lukonin 1977
Lukonin, Vladimir. Iskusstvo Drevnego Irana [Th e Art of Ancient
Iran]. Мoscow, 1977.
Mallowan 1966
Mallowan, Max Edgar Lucien. Nimrud and Its Remains. London,
1966. Vol. 1.
Mordvintseva 2003
Mordvintseva, Valentina. Polixromnyj zverinyj stil’ [Polychrome
Animal Style]. Simferopol, 2003.
Muscarella 2003
Muscarella, Oscar White. “Museum Constructions of the Oxus
Treasures: Forgeries of Provenance and Ancient Culture”. An
International Journal of Comparative Studies in History and
Archaeology. 2003. Vol. 9, No. 3–4: Ancient Civilisations from
Scythia to Siberia: 259–275.
Pfrommer 1993
Pfrommer, M. Metalwork from the Hellenized East: Catalogue
of the Collections. Malibu: J. Paul Getty Museum, 1993.
Polosmak 1994
Polosmak, Natalia. Stereguščije zoloto grify (ak-alaxinskije
kurgany) [Griffi ns Guarding the Gold (Ak-Alakha Kurgans)].
Novosibirsk, 1994.
Polosmak 2001
Polosmak, Natalia. Vsadniki Ukoka [Ukok Horsemen]. Novosibirsk,
2001.
Pyankov 1976
Pyankov, Igor. “Baktrijskij grifon v antičnoj literature [Th e
Bactrian Griffi n in Ancient Literature]”. In: Istorija i kul’tura
narodov Srednej Azii. Мoscow, 1976.
Rudenko 1948
Rudenko, Sergey. Vtoroj Pazyrykskij kurgan [Pazyryk Kurgan
II]. Leningrad, 1948.
Rudenko 1953
Rudenko, Sergey. Kul’tura naselenija Gornogo Altaja v skifskoje
vremja [Culture of the Altai Mountains Population in the
Scythian Period]. Moscow; Leningrad, 1953.
Rudenko 1960
Rudenko, Sergey. Kul’tura naselenija Central’nogo Altaja v skifskoje
vremja [Culture of the Central Altai Population in the
Scythian Period]. Moscow; Leningrad, 1960.
Rudenko 1961
Rudenko, Sergey. Iskusstvo Altaja i Perednej Azii (seredina
I tysjačeletija do n.e.) [Th e Art of the Altai and Middle Asia
(Middle of the 1st Millennium B.C.)]. Мoscow, 1961.
Rudenko 1962
Rudenko, Sergey. “Sibirskaja kollekcija Petra I [Siberian Collection
of Peter I]”. Svod arxeologičeskix istočnikov. Мoscow;
Leningrad, 1962. Д3–9.
Tolstoy, Kondakov 1890
Tolstoy, Ivan and Nikodim Kondakov. Russkije drevnosti v
pamjatnikax iskusstva [Russian Antiquities in Art Works].
St. Petersburg, 1890. Vol. 3.
Zasetskaya 2006
Zasetskaya, Irina. “O novom issledovanii po problemam polixromnogo
zverinogo stilja [New Research of Polychrome
Animal Style Problems]”. Vestnik drevnej istorii. 2006. No. 2.
Zavitukhina 1977
Zavitukhina, Мaria. “Sobranije M.P. Gagarina 1716 goda v Sibirskoj
kollekcii Petra I [Th e 1716 Collection of Prince Matvey
Gagarin in the Siberian Collection of Peter I]”. Arxeologičeskij
sbornik Gosudarstvennogo Ermitaža. Leningrad, 1977.
[Vol.] 18.
Zeymal 1979
Zeymal, Evgeny (introduction and compilation). Amudarjinskij
klad [Amu Daria Hoard]. Exhibition Catalogue. Leningrad:
State Hermitage Museum, British Museum, 1979.
Translated by Natalia Magnes

In 2008 the Laboratory for Scientifi c Restoration of
Objects Made of Organic Materials started restoration
works on a wooden scoop from Tuekta Kurgan I (burial
mound) (State Hermitage Department of the Archaeology
of Eastern Europe and Siberia, Inv. No. 2187-983,
Curator Lyudmila Barkova) as part of the preparatory
activities for the Siberian Antiquities permanent exhibition.
Like most of the other exhibits, the scoop had
undergone fi eld conservation and restoration; however,
further restoration was required to prepare the object
for display (see ill. 6).
Th e scoop was retrieved as a result of excavation
works on Tuekta Kurgan I (Ursula River valley, Central
Altai) conducted in 1954 under the leadership of
Sergey Rudenko by the Institute for the History of Material
Culture, USSR Academy of Sciences; the expedition
materials were published in Rudenko 1960. As follows
from the description of the burial, the vessel was found
crushed at the bottom of the sarcophagus. Th e restoration
team reinstated the scoop to its original shape. Th e
monograph describes the scoop as “a ball-shaped dish
carved from wood (cedar outgrowth) with thin walls, a
spherical bottom, a slightly defl ected upper edge and a
short handle, the fi tted-on part of which was stolen by
robbers. Th e dish is 12.5 cm high and measures 17.5 cm
in diameter at the upper edge and 19 cm in the widest
part” (Rudenko 1960: 116). A detailed description
of traces left by metal patches is provided, which were
NATALIA VASILYEVA
THE REPEATED RESTORATION OF A WOODEN VESSEL FROM TUEKTA KURGAN I
“It is by reason of that gold cup that the Scythians still
even to this day wear cups attached to their girdles …”
Herodotus. History IV:10
stolen by robbers (ill. 1); one of the patches, it is claimed,
was a small sheet of silver fi xed with seventeen iron rivets
to mend a crack in the dish (ill. 2). Th is means that
the fi rst restoration of the scoop was performed while
the dish was still in use.
Wooden dishes with traces of repair are a common
fi nd in the nomad tombs of the Scythian period. Broken
dishes were oft en repaired with metal brackets or leather
straps (e.g. in the Sayan-Altai Region) as well as “gold,
silver or bronze threads” (e.g. in the Northern Black Sea
Coast Region) (Mantsevich 1966: 25). Th e tradition to
repair wooden dishes persisted during later periods.
Th us, dishes retrieved from the Kenkolsky Gravesite
had cracks “fi xed with herringbone stitches by means of
copper wire or copper patches on spigots” (Bernshtam
1997: 33); cf. Nikolay Sokolsky’s observation about the
“preventive” reinforcement of the rims of wooden dishes
with metal patches (Sokolsky 1971: 197).
A feature that makes the Tuekta scoop unique
among the Sayan-Altai wooden dishes of the Scythian
period is the trace of a patch around the rim, possibly
made of gold (Rudenko 1960: 116), which most likely
served as an adornment. Th is decor was typical of
nomadic dishes in the Black Sea Region (Mantsevich
1966; Ryabova 1984) and the South Urals (Zolotyje oleni
Jevrazii 2001). Th e pattern on the patches is diff erent
from the animal style commonly used for wooden
dishes in Tuva and Altai, where only scoop handles
Ill. 1. Traces of patches on the wall of the scoop from Tuekta Kurgan I. In: Rudenko, Sergey.
Kul’tura naselenija Central’nogo Altaja v skifskoje vremja [Culture of the Central Altai Population in the Scythian Period].
Moscow; Leningrad, 1960: 117
Ill. 2. Traces of a repair patch Ill. 3. Strap opening
were decorated in imitation of hooves or carried an
image of an animal or bird.
Like most Scythian wooden vessels, the Tuekta
scoop had a round aperture at the bottom of the handle
for a strap by which the dish was hung (ill. 3). Th e
handle also has some original features unprecedented in
the Sayan-Altai Region. Scoops with detachable handles
are rare; all of them were retrieved from royal burial
mounds across Tuva (Arzhan-2 Kurgan, Graves 5 and
20; Chakul’ Gravesite, Kurgan 92, Tomb 4) and Altai
14 15
(two from Pazyryk Kurgan II and the scoop from Tuekta
Kurgan I studied here) (ill. 4). Th e way the detachable
handles were fi xed to the body of the scoop largely depended
on the handle material (horn or wood). Handles
made of hollow horn were normally “capped on” to the
pin located on the scoop body; 1 if a handle was made of
wood, its “plug” was inserted into a slot on the scoop.
1 Only one horn handle from Pazyryk Kurgan II was plugged in
similarly to wooden handles, which may have been due to the structure
of the horn (it was massive, not hollow).

a
d
b
Ill. 4. Scoops with detachable handles
а – scoop from Tomb 5, Arzhan-2 Kurgan (Aržan 2004: 20); b – handle of the scoop from Tomb 20, Arzhan-2 Kurgan
(Aržan 2004: 59); c – scoop from Tomb 4, Kurgan 92, Chakul’ Gravesite (Poltoratskaya 1966: 98); d – handle of the scoop
from Pazyryk Kurgan II (Rudenko 1953: table XXI-3); e – scoop from Pazyryk Kurgan II (Rudenko 1953: table XXI-1)
c
e
Ill. 5. Attaching point for the handle on the body of the scoop Ill. 6. General aspect of the object before restoration
Th e Tuekta scoop has a double “cap/plug” attachment
nozzle (ill. 5), suggesting the use of two handles (one
made from horn, one wooden). 1 Th e handle may have
been replaced aft er being lost or damaged. Th e two types
of patch (the decorative gold patch and the silver repair
patch) indirectly support this version. As it is technically
simpler to shape a wooden handle than select a horn
of the required size, one may suggest that the original
handle was wooden. Th e less marked trace of the rim
patch compared with the repair patch indicates that the
gold patch was probably older than the silver patch. Th e
insertable wooden handle may have been decorated
with gold foil in the same manner as the dish found in
Arzhan-2 Kurgan (ill. 4а). In all probability, the wooden
handle and the gold rim were used – and lost – at the
same time. Th e scoop was then repaired with a silver
patch and the wooden handle was replaced with horn.
None of them have survived as the tomb was robbed.
Th e dish arrived for restoration in fragments: thirteen
pieces previously glued together had fallen out (ill. 6).
Th e remaining glue seams were fi lled with compressed
dirt. Th e surface was considerably soiled. In places, the
scoop walls were covered with a white substance; a dark
smudge was visible on the inside. Th e trace of the silver
patch was found to carry a black-coloured mass. Th e
wood on the bare edges of the fragments had decayed
into fi ne dust; traces of glue were preserved.
1 Th e plug-in horn handle from Pazyryk Kurgan II allows to suggest
that diff erent types of horn may have been used for diff erent handles,
e.g. the hollow handle was made from bull horn, the massive
handle from deer horn.
16 17
A series of tests was performed on the scoop prior to
restoration procedures; some of the previously conducted
tests were repeated using modernised techniques
and equipment. Detailed microscopy was performed on
the dish surface; the traces of patches and residual infi
ll paint were photofi xed (ill. 7). 2 It was found that the
black-coloured mass on the site of the lost silver patch is
a silver corrosion product containing a large amount of
silver and sulphur. 3 Th e patch had been fi xed with rivet
nails. Th ree of the surviving nails were made of iron (as
mentioned previously, Rudenko claims that all the seventeen
rivets were iron); the rest were made of fi ne silver
(98.0–98.8%) with admixtures of gold (1–2%) and copper
(0.2–0.5%). Th e red decorative stains were painted
in cinnabar. Th e white substance (calcium and strontium
compounds with sulphur and phosphorus) had
formed while the object remained in the tomb. An ink
stain was clearly visible on the inside surface. Th e colourless
transparent glue on the edges of the fragments
was a synthetic polymer soluble in ethanol, acetone and
chloroform. Th e body of the scoop was carved from
birch (Betula sp.).
2 Th e photofi x with a Leica MZ 6 microscope was performed by
the author.
3 Th e tests were conducted in the Hermitage Department for
Scientifi c and Technical Examination by Senior Researcher Sergey
Khavrin, (X-ray/fl uorescence assays with ARTAX and microscopy
of the surface; Expert Report 1388), Researcher R. Rumyantseva
(chemical microanalysis; Expert Report 996) and Researcher Maria
Kolosova, D.Sc. (wood microscopy and species identifi cation by anatomical
characteristics; Expert Report Д4762).

a
b
Given the current state of preservation (wood lightness,
deformation, previous gluing, lost fragments), we
decided not to dismantle the scoop completely. Instead,
the surface contaminations, including the white substance
and the ink stain, were removed and the cinnabar
was fi xed with a 5% Ftorlon solution in methylethylketone.
The traces of old glue on the edges of the fragments
were removed with compresses soaked in ethanol,
recommended on results of the testing. Given the lightness
of the wood (possibly due to lignin loss) and the
consequent increase in porosity, we rejected synthetic
polymer for fear of causing irrevocable damage to the
weakened wood cells and applied conservation solution
(2–3% PVB in alcohol) only to the edges of the seams
c d
Ill. 7. Scoop parts (macro images)
a; b – traces of patching with residual paint fi lling. 10x; c – nail on the repair patch trace. 20x;
d – traces of glue on the edges of the fragments. 6x
and to the dusting sites. During the pre-assembly of the
scoop the restoration team found out that the scoop
fragments matched but did not fi t together smoothly
as a result of deformation (ill. 8). To accurately recreate
the shape of the scoop, the fi tting angles were slightly
changed. Th e fragments were fastened together using
8% PVB solution in alcohol. Th e mastic for the seams
was based on PVB and wood fl our. As a result, the object
was restored to an exhibitable standard (ill. 9). Th e
preliminary tests helped to develop the restoration plan
and introduce some amendments to the previous publications
about the Tuekta scoop.
As mentioned before, the repair patch had been attached
with both iron and silver nails or with silver nails
which were replaced with iron ones as the original nails
were lost.
Contrary to Rudenko’s suggestion (Rudenko 1960:
116), the scoop was made from birch rather than cedar,
which is typical of Sayan-Altai vessels dating from the
Scythian period. Archaeologists have oft en pointed out
that ancient nomads had a clear preference for dishes
made of birch. “Birch was used to make large detachable
tray table tops, oft en table legs or wooden dishes”
(Rudenko 1953: 237). “Wooden vessels in the Saglyn culure
were mostly made of birch root” (Grach 1980: 34).
“Birch was the material predominantly used for mug-like
cups” (Kubarev 1992: 49). “Wood for making dishes had
to have good density (ability to hold liquids), durability
and plasticity. Birch wood met all these requirements…”
(Mylnikov 2003: 19). Th is preference may partly be explained
by the physical and mechanical properties of
birch wood; however, special attitude of the nomads
to the birch also has a key role to play. Historians have
oft en pointed out that the nomads associated the birch
with sacral purity; its colour was compared with the colour
of milk. Ethnographical materials seem to support
this opinion (Sagalayev, Oktyabrskaya 1990: 53). Th e
peoples of South Siberia value trees not only as a natural
resource – they believe that each tree has a soul. Th e
connection between humans and trees underlies many
ancient beliefs, legends and traditions.
Wooden dishes held a special place in the life of the
nomads, accompanying their owners throughout their
lifetime and oft en into the aft erlife. Each nomad had
a dish for their own individual use. “It was considered
a sin and a sacrilege to partake of food or drink out of
someone else’s dish… Th e Abii (Scythians) of Homer
were known to share ownership of everything except for
18 19
their swords and cups. It is to be suggested that every
Pazyryk dweller had a small wooden cup, mug or scoop
of their own, which they never parted with aft er death
and which was oft en found in tombs” (Polosmak 2001:
199). Despite the readily available material, wooden
dishes were usually mended rather than thrown away
due to the particular importance attached to this object.
To return to the Tuekta scoop, it should be pointed
out that wooden dishes were frequently left in graves
with food for the aft erlife. However, the material, the
rare morphological type and the sparsity of similar
objects allow to suggest that the scoop was a religious
object which served for drink off erings. According to
Elena Korolkova, “dishes of unusual shape, structure,
Ill. 8. Restoration. Fragments matching

material and decor which occupy topographically important
locations in tombs must not be regarded only
as precious or valuable objects and symbols of wealth;
this class of things is of tremendous signifi cance and is
doubtless connected with the ritual” (Korolkova 2003:
28). Besides, “sacred drinks were not poured into dishes
used for everyday purposes, just into special dishes
which diff ered from the others – sometimes in shape,
oft en in the material and most defi nitely in the decor”
(Polosmak 2001: 191). Th e traces of repair and remodelling
on the Tuekta scoop demonstrate that the ritual use
transformed the vessel into a rare and unique object.
References
Ill. 9. General aspect of the object aft er restoration
Aržan 2004
Aržan: Istočnik v doline carej. Arxeologičeskije otkrytija v Tuve
[Arzhan: A Source in the Royal Valley. Archaeological Discoveries
in Tuva]. Exhibition Catalogue. St. Petersburg, 2004.
Bernshtam 1997
Bernshtam, Аlexander. Izbrannyje trudy po arxeologii i istorii
kyrgyzov i Kyrgyzstana [Collected Papers on the Archaeology
of the Kyrgyz and Kyrgyzstan]. Bishkek, 1997. Vol. I.
Grach 1980
Grach, Аlexander. Drevnije kočevniki v centre Azii [Ancient
Nomads in the Centre of Asia]. Мoscow, 1980.
Herodotus
Herodotus. History (in Russian: translated by Georgy Stratanovsky.
Leningrad, 1972; English translation: Macaulay, G.;
published by Macmillan, London and New York, 1890).
Korolkova 2003
Korolkova, Elena. “Ritual’nyje čaši s zoomorfnym dekorom
v kul’ture rannix kočevnikov [Ritual Cups with Zoomorphic
Decor in the Early Nomad Culture]”. Arxeologičeskij sbornik.
St. Petersburg, 2003. No. 36: 28–67.
Kubarev 1992
Kubarev, Vladimir. Kurgany Sajljugema [Kurgans of Saylyugem].
Novosibirsk, 1992.
Mantsevich 1966
Mantsevich, Аnastasia. “Derevjannyje sosudy skifskoj epoxi
[Wooden Vessels from the Scythian Epoch]”. Arxeologičeskij
sbornik. Мoscow; Leningrad, 1966. No. 8: 23–38.
Mylnikov 2003
Mylnikov, V. Derevoobrabotka v epoxu paleometalla (Severnaja
Azija) [Wood Treatment in the Palaeolithic Metal Age
(North Asia)]. Abstract from Doctoral Th esis. Novosibirsk,
2003.
Polosmak 2001
Polosmak, Natalia. Vsadniki Ukoka [Ukok Horsemen]. Novosibirsk,
2001.
Poltoratskaya 1966
Poltoratskaya, Vera. “Pamjatniki epoxi rannix kočevnikov
v Tuve (po raskopkam R. Teplouxova) [Artefacts from the
Early Nomad Epoch in Tuva; Based on R. Teploukhov’s Excavations]”.
Arxeologičeskij sbornik. Мoscow; Leningrad, 1966.
No. 8: Epoxa bronzy i rannego železa. Slavjane: 79–102.
Rudenko 1953
Rudenko, Sergey. Kul’tura naselenija Gornogo Altaja v skifskoje
vremja [Culture of the Altai Mountains Population in the
Scythian Period]. Moscow; Leningrad, 1953.
Rudenko 1960
Rudenko, Sergey. Kul’tura naselenija Central’nogo Altaja
v skifskoje vremja [Culture of the Central Altai Population
in the Scythian Period]. Moscow; Leningrad, 1960.
Ryabova 1984
Ryabova, Valentina. “Derev’jani čaši z obbivkami z kurganiv
skifskogo času”. Arxeologija. 1984. Vol. 46.
Sagalayev, Oktyabrskaya 1990
Sagalayev, Аndrey and I. Oktyabrskaya. Tradicionnoje mirovozzrenije
tjurkov Južnoj Sibiri. Znak i ritual [Traditional
Worldview of the South Siberian Turks. Symbol and Ritual].
Novosibirsk, 1990.
Sokolsky 1971
Sokolsky, Nikolay. Derevoobrabatyvajuščeje remeslo v antičnyx
gosudarstvax Severnogo Pričernomorja [Wood Craft in the
Ancient States of the Northern Black Sea Region]. Мoscow,
1971.
Zolotyje oleni Jevrazii 2001
Zolotyje oleni Jevrazii [Gold Deer of Eurasia]. Exhibition Catalogue.
St. Petersburg: State Hermitage Publishers, 2001.
Translated by Natalia Magnes
Th e Oriental Department of the State Hermitage
possesses eleven Ancient Egyptian funerary cones
(on this type of artefact see Manniche 2001; Davies,
Macadam 1957; Dibley, Lipkin 2009; Zenihiro 2009; also
see the bibliography in Th e World of Funerary Cones:
Abbreviations and References). Th ese are relatively small
cone-shaped objects made of fi red clay, 15 to 30 cm in
length, with the base diameter of little over 10 cm (ill. 1).
1
ANDREY NIKOLAEV
ANCIENT EGYPTIAN CONES IN THE HERMITAGE COLLECTION
8
2
9
3
21
Th e inscriptions on the fl at end of the cones reveal that
these objects come from six diff erent tombs.
Th ree of the cones (ДВ-2258, ДВ-18065, ДВ-18066),
related to the same person, the ruler of Egyptian Ethiopia
Meri-mesu, were published in 1972 by Evgeny
Bogoslovsky (Bogoslovsky 1972), while the remaining
eight have not previously received any signifi cant
attention.
Ill. 1. Funerary cones at the Hermitage. Left to right and top to bottom: 1 – ДВ-2259, 2 – ДВ-5519, 3 – ДВ-7060, 4 – ДВ-2512,
5 – ДВ-7059, 6 – ДВ-18064, 7 – ДВ-2258, 8 – ДВ-13235, 9 – ДВ-18065, 10 – ДВ-18066, 11 – ДВ-7058
4
5
6
10 11
7

It is worth noting that three more cones bear the
name of one and the same person (cf. Davies, Macadam
1957: No. 271; Wiki: Data on Funerary Cones
(URL: http://dataonfunerarycones.wetpaint.com/page/
Davies+%26+Macadam+%23+261-280; last accessed
09.09.2011)). Th e artefacts ДВ-7058, ДВ-7059, ДВ-
7060, two of which lack the upper part, clearly display
two rectangular stamps with two columns of raised hieroglyphs
in a thin frame (ill. 2). Th e text itself is very
concise:
1. aA n wab nj Imn
2. ©Hw.tj-mc
1. Chief wab-priest of Amun
2. Djehutymose.
Ill. 2. Inscriptions on the fl at end of the cones ДВ-7058,
ДВ-7059, ДВ-7060
Both the name and the title in each rectangle are
well attested in the New Kingdom: there also exist numerous
analogues of these objects – there are 39 cones
in the Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, London,
with the same two stamps located on the same
level or on diff erent levels with regard to each other
(Stewart 1986: 40), as well as two bricks with the same
stamps (Stewart 1986: 40) also in this museum. Moreover,
the British Museum has another example (BM /
Big number 35653; registration number 1861,0618.28).
Th e fully identical inscriptions on all the 45 objects
from London and St. Petersburg testify to the fact that
they come from the same tomb of the Dra-Abu-an-
Naga necropolis close to Th ebes (which is where the
objects from the Petrie Museum were found), but it is
as yet unclear which tomb it was (Northampton 1908:
4, pls. 2, 24). Nothing is known about the origin of the
Hermitage items, while the Djehutymose ones were
discovered by the British archaeologist William Petrie
in the sand spoil heaps, far from the tomb buildings
themselves. It seems that further analogues of the Hermitage
cones can be found in two more objects only
known from late nineteenth-century drawings. Th e
presence of two stamps on the cone and the majority
of the hieroglyphs are the same, with the exception of
three characters. Th e description was made by Georges
Daressy (Daressy 1893 (1894): 285, No. 149), who did
not see the water symbol n, which was almost certainly
present between the hand a and the vessel above the
leg (wab) pouring water. Th e reason for such a reading
seems to be the unusual thickness of the signs along
the edges, which can also be seen in the Hermitage objects.
Daressy may have made two more minor errors:
there is no phonetic complement c next to the double
consonant mc, while the determinative form is slightly
diff erent as well. Th ese cones also come from Dra-Abuan-Naga
(Gauthier 1908: 129).
Th e next cone (Daressy 1893 (1894): 297, No. 261;
Davies, Macadam 1957: No. 605; Wiki: Data on Funerary
Cones (URL: http://dataonfunerarycones.wetpaint.
com/page/Davies+%26+Macadam+%23+601-611; last
accessed 09.09.2011)), Inv. No. ДВ-18064; ill. 3, is an illustration
of how the matrix mould could have been applied
inaccurately during the stamping process, causing
the text to become displaced and leaving no imprint in
the lower left part of the clay surface. In the upper part,
one can see the Sun boat, under which there are four
columns of text with symbols legible to the right and left
of the centre. In the outer columns, the name of a person
is followed by images of the cone owner sitting in the
orans position on a basket (nb), which should be understood
as a well-wishing symbol rather than a meaningful
part of the sentence.
1. Wcjr sS-Htp-nTr nj [pr-Imn
2. Nj-tA]
3. Wcjr Hm-nTr tpj nj aA-xprkA-Ra.w
m [Xnm.t-anx]
4. Nj-tA
1. Osiris, scribe of the divine
off erings [in the temple
of Amun
2. Ni-ta]
3. Osiris, high priest of Aa-kheper-ka-ra
in [his mortuary temple] Khenmet-ankh
4. Ni-ta.
Ill. 3. Flat end of the cone ДВ-18064
Th e inscriptions in the left column and in the lower
part of two central columns have been lost but are easily
reconstructed. Khenmet-ankh is the name of the mortuary
temple of Th utmose I in the area of the Greater
Th ebes, on the western bank of the river, which has
not survived, unlike similar buildings of the later kings
of the same 18th Dynasty (PM II: 535). Th e cone was
transferred to the State Hermitage Ancient Egyptian collection
from the USSR Academy of Sciences Institute
of the Book, Document, and Writing in 1938 as part of
the collection presented to the Academy of Sciences by
the famous researcher and collector Nikolay Likhachev.
He, in turn, had obtained the cone from the collection
of the prominent art historian Adrian Prakhov, who had
brought it from Egypt. No tomb of a man called Ni-ta is
known. Beside the Hermitage cone, there are three more
objects bearing similar stamps but diff erent names: one
22 23
from the Th eban tomb TT 39 (Davies 1922–1923: 62) of
Pu-im-ra (PM II: 71); one from the D tomb next to tomb
TT 373 of Amunmes (Seyfried 1990: 269; PM I: 433);
and one from the al-Asasif area (Budka 2010: 318, 740).
Nothing is known about the origin of another
Hermitage artefact, ДВ-5519; ill. 4; cf. (Davies, Macadam
1957: No. 389; Wiki: Data on Funerary Cones
(URL: http://dataonfunerarycones.wetpaint.com/page/
Davies+%26+Macadam+%23+381-400; last accessed
09.09.2011)). Th e fl at base of the cone is quite badly
damaged, and there are lacunae in place of some of the
symbols. However, it is possible to provide a full reconstruction
of the inscription arranged in fi ve horizontal
registers:
1. imj-rA pr [mw.t] nj-cw.t
2. imj-rA Snw.t t, imj-rA nSmw.t,
imj-rA ic.t-
3. irp, [Hcb] t nj [Sma.w-mHw]
4. sS-pr-anx jaH-Htp Dd.w n=f
5. pA-n-iTA
1. Steward of the King’s [mother],
2. overseer of the granary of bread,
overseer of the game and scales,
overseer
3. of the wine cellar, [counter]
of the bread [of Upper and Lower Egypt],
4. scribe of the House of Life, Iah-hotep, called
5. Pa-en-itja.
Ill. 4. Flat end of the cone ДВ-5519

Th e owner of the cone has a widespread name of Iahhotep,
especially common in the early New Kingdom.
However, it has an interesting and unique addition,
“called Pa-en-itja”. Th e man’s titles show that among
other things, he was a well-educated temple priest, the
scribe of the “House of Life”, which was a storeroom of
ritual texts used, for instance, in royal coronations, as
well as a centre entrusted with preserving and passing
on the traditions and the knowledge of ancient ceremonies
and cult practices (see, inter alia, Gardiner 1938;
Doxey 2001: 71). Th e tomb of Pa-en-itja is unknown.
Th e most enigmatic of the cones considered here
bears Inv. No. ДВ-2259 (ill. 5) (cf: Golénischeff 1891: 324;
Davies, Macadam 1957: No. 374; Wiki: Data on Funerary
Cones (URL: http://dataonfunerarycones.wetpaint.
com/page/Davies+%26+Macadam+%23+361-380; last
accessed 09.09.2011)). Th is is a possible reconstruction
of the inscription:
Ill. 5. Flat end of the cone ДВ-2259
Th e diffi culty lies in the reading of the inscription,
or the impossibility of providing such a reading, which
begs the question of whether this may be a forgery. Unlike
the other cones, there is not a hint of horizontal or
vertical registers, while the shapes of the symbols are
distorted. Each of the hieroglyphs can be read separately,
but their combinations make no sense, have no
analogues and are impossible anyway since they cannot
be combined into words. Th e only exception is the
legible name of “Amun” at the very bottom of the inscription,
followed by one of four determinatives in the
shape of a sitting man. It is not entirely clear what the
other three stand for. Th e topmost of them may be a female
determinative, judging by the hairstyle. Her name
may be read as Renenu (Rnnw), if written horizontally.
In this case, the symbols preceding the determinative
of the man below should also be read horizontally,
but that means that the hieroglyph which looks like
a curved knife (ds or dm) is out of place. Th e symbol
below it looks like a feather (DnH or dnH) and is followed
by what may be a placenta x and an owl m. But
these suggestions shed no light on the general meaning
of the phrase or word. Th e proper name before the
third determinative can theoretically be read as nb.t,
but this makes little sense, since the name is written
with the grammatical indicator of the female gender,
but the determinative to it is a man holding his fi nger
near his mouth. Th e topmost hieroglyphs also seem to
be a jumble of symbols, one of which, looking like two
upturned arms connected in the lower part with a horizontal
link, which can be interpreted as a water sign,
has no close analogues whatsoever. All of this seems
to point to forgery, which was the opinion of Wolfgang
Helck (Helck 1959: 372), especially since forged cones
have been attested, albeit rarely (see, for instance, Hari
1979: 31). However, the origin of the cone contradicts
this idea. It came to the Hermitage from the Chamber
of Curiosities in 1862 as part of the collection of
the Italian numismatist Carlo Ottavio Castiglione. It
is hard to believe that such unrepresentative artefacts
could have been forged as early as the 1820s (the Castiglione
collection was acquired by the Chamber of Curiosities
in 1825), only a few decades aft er Napoleon’s
Egyptian campaign, when the antiquarian market had
hardly emerged. Th e inscription can also be regarded
as an unskilled imitation made in the Antiquity, but
this is ruled out by the fact that the status of an owner
of a tomb with cones would suggest education.
Moreover, an identical strange inscription can be seen
on the cone at the British Museum (BM / Big number:
9653, registration number 1839,0921.527) bought from
the Greek collector Giovanni Athanasi in 1839.
Another object bearing the same stamp is in the
Museum of Liverpool (Inv. No. 1973.1.339; URL:
http://www.globalegyptianmuseum.org/record.
aspx?id=3162; last accessed 09.09.2011). Th e site where
it was found is unknown. In 2008, Tefnin discovered 74
cones with the same stamp (Tefnin 2008: 346). He believed
that they had come from an as yet unexcavated
tomb in the Sheikh Abd el-Qurna necropolis.
Th e ДВ-13235 cone (ill. 6) (see Daressy 1893 (1894):
277, No. 45; Davies, Macadam 1957: No. 73; Wiki: Data on
Funerary Cones (URL: http://dataonfunerarycones.wetpaint.com/page/Davies+%26+Macadam+%23+61-80;
last accessed 09.09.2011)), is 7 cm in length and slightly
fl attened on top, which distorts the topmost symbols
in the second column.
1. jmAx.jj xr
2. Wcjr sS-[Hcb] jt n
3. Imn jmj-rA AH.wt Imn-
4. m-jp.t Dd(.w) n=f TA-nfr
1. Justifi ed before
2. Osiris, accountant
of the grain of
3. Amun, overseer of the fi elds
4. Amun-em-opet, called Tja-nefer.
Ill. 6. Flat end of the cone ДВ-13235
24 25
Th is cone was acquired by the Hermitage in 1937
for 30 roubles from a Mr. Borovsky; it comes from the
tomb TT 297 (Strudwick 2003: 5; PM I: 379). Further
95 analogues from the tomb TT 297 itself are known
(Strudwick 2003: 20), as well as 16 more from the tomb
TT 196 (Graefe 2003: 203, Taf. 113, Kat. 508), from al-
Asasif (Carter 1903: 178; Budka 2010: 318, 736) and
those found near tombs TT 196 and TT 192 (Habachi
1958: 332).
Th e origin of the last cone – ДВ-2512 (ill. 7)
(cf. Daressy 1893 (1894): No. 68; Davies, Macadam
1957: No. 367; Wiki: Data on Funerary Cones (URL:
http://dataonfunerarycones.wetpaint.com/page/Davies+%26
+Macadam+%23+361-380; last accessed
09.09.2011)) is unknown. Th e stamp is a little skewed
to the right, and nearly all the symbols are damaged and
distorted. Th e titles on the cones are written horizontally,
while the name of the owner is written vertically.
Th e inscription reads:
1. sS-nj-cw.t
2. imj-rA-Sna.w nj Imn
3. Imn-mc
1. King’s scribe,
2. overseer of the storeroom
(Perepelkin 1962;
Perepelkin 1988) of Amun
3. Amun-mes.
Ill. 7. Flat end of the cone ДВ-2512

It is interesting that we have more information about
this man, and, primarily because of the exact correspondence
between the titles and the name, his tomb
is known to us. It is TT 251 (PM I: 336). It is located
on the western bank of Th ebes in Sheikh Abd el-Qurna,
which used to be a vast cemetery of private individuals,
most of which, including Amun-mes, were buried
on a relatively high hill (aerial pictures showing the ruins
of the tomb TT 251 can be seen at: http://upload.
wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/Valley_of_
the_Nobles_(Luxor)_-_aerial_view.jpg; last accessed
09.09.2011). Th ere are over 150 burials in this site, with
over a half dating from the 18th Dynasty, and around
25 dating from the 11th and early 12th Dynasties (Polz
2001: 109). Th e general plan of the tomb of Amun-mes
is known (PM I: 334), as well as a few wall paintings and
a fragment of a stele. On the left , it shows a fi eld being
ploughed by several men, and on the right there is a text
which tells us that the owner, traditionally, inherited his
title from his father, who was called Nesu and was also
the head overseer of the storeroom of Amun. Th e Oxford
University archives have several photographs of the
burial made in the 1930s, but I have not been able to
access these yet.
All the cones mentioned above are dated to the fi rst
half of the 18th Dynasty on the basis of the characteristic
names, titles, specifi c offi ce names, and analogues.
It has to be said that there are several images of cones
made by the Egyptians themselves – these come from
the paintings found in the tombs (TT 41, TT 49, TT 55,
TT 78, TT 159, TT 178, TT 181) of the Th eban necropolis
(Borchardt, Königberger, Ricke 1934: 28; Davies
1938: fi gs. 2–4; Th e World of Funerary Cones. Original
Locations (URL: http://www.funerarycones.com/Original_locations/Original_locations.htm;
last accessed
09.09.2011)). With all the peculiarities of Egyptian
pictorial art, it is still easy to see several rows of cones
which form cornices above the whole length of the wall,
including above the doorway.
Th ere were only three cases of cones found in
situ. For two of them, only verbal descriptions remain,
both dating from the second half of the 19th
century (Rhind 1862: 136–137 (URL: http://books.
google.com/books?id=3V1McZG_oeEC&dq=
intitle:%22Thebes%22%20rhind&lr=&as_brr=0&hl=
ja&pg=PA136#v=onepage&q&f=false; last accessed
09.09.2011); Reeves, Ryan 1987: 47–48; Th e World of Funerary
Cones. Original Locations); there is a photo of an
11th-Dynasty tomb excavated in 1925 by the Metropolitan
Museum team headed by Herbert Winlock (Winlock
1928: fi g. 3), and of the tomb TT 74 (Brack, Brack
1977: Taf. 52a). We have no knowledge of the name of
the man in whose tomb the earliest known cones were
found (11th Dynasty), although a stele with his image
survives. Th e cemetery itself, created under the 11th-
Dynasty King Mentuhotep Nebhepetre, was fi lled in
570 years later and buried during the construction of
the road to the famous temple of Hatshepsut in Deir el-
Bahri. Although the entrance to the tomb was carefully
bricked in, robbers were able to penetrate it aft er forcing
a hole near the doorway (according to Winlock, this happened
during the construction of the road in the early
18th-Dynasty period; see Winlock 1928: 7). Nevertheless,
two rows of cones above the door remained undisturbed,
and several more were found fallen on the fl oor
next to the passage. Th ey had been cemented together by
means of a limestone solution and measured just over 50
cm in length, which makes them much longer than the
later specimens, including the Hermitage ones. Th e wide
fl at parts of the cones were smooth, without any inscriptions
or traces of painting; it remains unclear how the
space between the entrance and the rows of cones was
decorated and what was placed above them. It looks like
the Egyptians were using the cones to make a cornice
similar to that made of logs supporting the roof of the
building and whatever was above the roof. In this case,
the 11th-Dynasty cones are an evidence of the transition
from the imitation of reed architecture typical of the Old
Kingdom to the imitation of wooden architecture.
Th ese artefacts were no longer in use aft er the end of
the 11th Dynasty, in the Middle Kingdom and the Second
Intermediate Period (c. 500 years). But they suddenly
got a new and considerable lease of life during the
early 18th Dynasty, with many dozens of known objects,
each bearing a much higher meaningful and informative
load. Th ey were now inscribed, with the inscriptions
providing a lot of data about the owner. However,
this fi ve-century-long break is huge and unique even by
Egyptian standards. Th ere can be no straightforward explanation
for such a phenomenon, but it is worth considering
two circumstances which may be related to it.
First of all, there is the geographical distribution of the
fi nd sites. Th e map made by the Japanese Egyptologist
Kento Zenihiro (URL: http://www.funerarycones.com/
Geographical_distribution/Geographical_distribution.
html; last accessed 09.09.2011) shows all the locations
in Egypt known from published archaeological reports
that document cone fi ndings. What is immediately
striking is their considerable concentration in the area
around Th ebes and their complete absence from Middle
and Lower Egypt. Th e presence of a small number
of New Kingdom cones in the far south of the country
can be explained as an imitation of a tradition used in
the metropolitan region of Th ebes: these cones are not
inscribed, roughly fashioned objects. Several cones bear
the names of offi cials who served in Lower Egypt, but
the funerary artefacts themselves were found in Sheikh
Abd el-Qurna. All of this makes it possible to state that
this was a local phenomenon. Secondly, if the periods of
cone use are superimposed on the chronology of Egypt,
an interesting observation can be made: both the 11th
Dynasty and the 18th Dynasty which replaced it aft er
500 years resided in the city of Th ebes. Amenemhet I,
the founder of the 12th Dynasty, moved the capital to
Itj-tawy in Middle Egypt, brining to an end the making
of the cones in the Middle Kingdom. During the reign
of the 19th Dynasty, when the capital was once again
moved to Pi-Ramesse in the Delta, and from there to
Memphis, the cones continued to be used in the Th eban
necropolises for some time, but much less oft en than
before.
It is very probable that the funerary cones, including
the eight Hermitage ones, were a Th eban innovation
which appeared under the 11th Dynasty in its simplest
form and was revived once again under the 18th Dynasty.
It is to the 18th Dynasty that all the St. Petersburg
cones belong. Th e unusual character of this decorative
element of an Egyptian tomb is not in its localisation
or the limited time of its use but in the reconceptualisation
of the cone by the Egyptians themselves – from a
simple imitation of a common architectural detail, the
butt end of a log or beam, to an important attributive
artefact which bore a signifi cant textual load by stating
the full titles of the owner. Moreover, it was also a solar
symbol, which is proved by the presence of the Sun boat,
which can be seen, for instance, on the ДВ-18064 cone
(see ill. 3). All the suggestions ever put forward concerning
the functional use of these objects (a peculiar type
of stamp; stamping matrices; “passports”, architectural
ornaments; bread off ered to the dead man; a symbolic
off ering; a solar symbol; an architectural device for reinforcing
the outer wall; a symbolic representation of the
fl at butts of beams and fl oorings), are collected at: (Th e
World of Funerary Cones. Functions. URL: http://www.
26 27
funerarycones.com/Functions/Functions.html; last accessed
09.09.2011).
Th e objects themselves and their inscriptions off er
several questions, some of them of a historical nature.
Individual problems include the technology of their
making, which is where we tend to agree with the opinion
of previous researchers who have long noted that
the cones were always hand-sculpted from clay and then
burned (Dibley, Lipkin 2009: 1–3; Th e World of Funerary
Cones. Manufacturing Methods (URL: http://www.
funerarycones.com/Manufacturing_Methods/Manufacturing_methods.html;
last accessed 09.09.2011)). In
rare cases, the larger objects turned out to be hollow
insides. Before the burning, the inscribed stamp was
made on the fl at end of the cone, held in one hand, by
means of what was probably a wooden matrix held in
the other hand. An important question deals with the
total number of the cones which could be incorporated
in one and the same tomb. According to a photograph of
an 11th-Dynasty tomb, there were at least 42; 50–70 can
be counted in the Egyptian paintings. According to our
approximate estimate, at most one quarter of the tombs
in the metropolitan Th eban necropolis contained cones.
Th is leads us to an essential question: why were tombs
decorated in this way, and what purpose did the owners
have in including such objects in the overall design?
Th is question remains open as the available information
concerning the surviving burials is insuffi cient for a
clear and unambiguous answer. At present, it is possible
to state that the use of the cones was not directly dependent
on the income of a certain offi cial, since a number
of sumptuous tombs have no hint of a cone. Th e underlying
reason or ideology for their use remains elusive.
References
Bogoslovsky 1972
Bogoslovsky, Evgeny. “Konusy namestnika jegipetskoj Efi opii
Maimase v Ermitaže [Th e Cones of Maimase, the Steward of
Egyptian Ethiopia, at the Hermitage]”. Soobščenija Gosudarstvennogo
Ermitaža. Leningrad, 1972. [Issue] 35: 62–66, 91.
Borchardt, Königberger, Ricke 1935
Borchardt, Ludwig, Otto Königberger and Herbert Ricke.
“Friesziegel in Grabbauten”. Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache
und Altertumskunde. Leipzig; Berlin, 1934. Bd. 70: 25–35.
Brack, Brack 1977
Brack, Annelies and Artur Brack. “Das Grab des Tjanuni”. Th eben.
Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1977. Nr. 74.

Budka 2010
Budka, Julia. Bestattungsbrauchtum und Friedhofsstruktur im
Asasif. Eine Untersuchung der spätzeitlichen Befunde anhand
der österreichischen Ausgrabungen in den Jahren 1969–1977.
Wien: Verlag der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaft
en, 2010.
Carter 1903
Carter, Howard. “Report of Work Done in Upper Egypt
(1902–1903)”. Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte.
1903. T. 4: 171–180.
Daressy 1893 (1894)
Daressy, Georges. “Recueil des cônes funéraires”. Mémoires
publiés par les members de la Mission archéologique française
du Caire. 1893 (1894). T. 8. Fasc. 2: 269–352.
Davies 1922–1923
Davies, Norman de Garis. Th e Tomb of Puyemrê at Th ebes.
New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1922–1923. Vol. 2.
Davies 1938
Davies, Nina. “Some Representations of Tombs from the Th eban
Necropolis”. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology. London,
1938. Vol. 24: 25–40.
Davies, Macadam 1957
Davies, Norman de Garis and Miles Frederick Laming Macadam.
A Corpus of Inscribed Egyptian Funerary Cones. Oxford:
printed for the Griffi th Institute at the University Press
by Charles Batey, 1957.
Dibley, Lipkin 2009
Dibley, Gary and Bron Lipkin. A Compendium of Egyptian Funerary
Cones. London: Dr Bron Lipkin and Gary Dibley, 2009
(Excerpts available at: http://www.egyptianfunerarycones.
com; last accessed 09.09.2011).
Doxey 2001
Doxey, Denise. “Priesthood”. Th e Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient
Egypt, ed. by Redford, Donald. Oxford: University Press,
2001. Vol. 3: 68–73.
Gardiner 1938
Gardiner, Alan. H. “Th e House of Life”. Journal of Egyptian
Archaeology. London, 1938. Vol. 24: 157–179.
Gauthier 1908
Gauthier, Henri. “Rapport sur une campagne de fouilles
à Drah Abou’l Neggah en 1906”. Bulletin de l’Institut Français
d’Archéologie Orientale. Le Caire, 1908. Vol. 6: 121–171.
Golénischeff 1891
Golénischeff , Wladimir. Ermitage Impérial. Inventaire de la
collection égyptienne. Leipzig, 1891.
28
Graefe 2003
Graefe, Erhart. Das Grab des Padihorresnet, Obervermogensverwalter
der Gottesgemalin des Amun (Th ebanisches Grab
Nr. 196): 2 Bde. Turnhout: Brepols Publishers, 2003. Bd. 1.
Habachi 1958
Habachi, Labib. “Clearance of the Tomb of Kheruef at Th ebes
(1957–1958)”. Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte.
1958. T. 55: 325–350.
Hari 1979
Hari, Robert. “Faux et usage de faux ou: le commerce des
dieux égyptiens”. Bulletin de la Société d’Egyptologie de Genève.
No. 1, mai (1979): 27–35 (URL: http://www.segweb.ch/
fi chpdf/Hari.pdf; last accessed 09.09.2011).
Helck 1959
Helck, Wolfgang. “Review of A Corpus of Inscribed Egyptian
Funerary Cones by Davies, Norman de Garis and Miles Frederick
Laming Macadam”. Orientalistische Literaturzeitung.
1959. Bd. 54 (7/8): 369–373.
Manniche 2001
Manniche, Lisa. “Funerary Cones”. Th e Oxford Encyclopedia
of Ancient Egypt, ed. by Redford, Donald. Oxford: University
Press, 2001. Vol. 1: 565–567.
Northampton 1908
Northampton, William Compton, Marquis of. Report on
Some Excavations in the Th eban Necropolis during the Winter
of 1898–9. London; Constable, 1908.
Perepelkin 1962
Perepelkin, Yuri. “Dom Šnau v Starom carstve [Th e Shnau
House in the Old Kingdom]”. Trudy XXV Meždunarodnogo
kongressa vostokovedov. Moskva, 9–16 avgusta 1960. Moscow,
1962. Vol. 1: 138–142.
Perepelkin 1988
Perepelkin, Yuri. Xozjajstvo starojegipetskix vel’mož [Th e
Household of Ancient Egyptian Noblemen]. Moscow: Nauka,
1988: 210–228.
PM I
Porter, Bertha and Rosalind L.B. Moss. Topographical Bibliography
of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Statues,
Reliefs, and Paintings. Assisted by Ethel W. Burney. Vol. I:
Th e Th eban Necropolis. Part I: Private Tombs. 2nd ed.
Oxford, 1960.
PM II
Porter, Bertha and Rosalind L.B. Moss. Topographical Bibliography
of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Statues, Reliefs,
and Paintings. Assisted by Ehel W. Burney. Vol. II: Th e Th eban
Temples. 2nd ed. Oxford, 1972.
Polz 2001
Polz, Daniel. C. “Qurna”. Th e Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient
Egypt, ed. by Redford, Donald. Oxford: University Press, 2001.
Vol. 3: 109–110.
Reeves, Ryan 1987
Reeves, Nicholas and Donald Ryan. “Inscribed Egyptian Funerary
Cones in situ: An Early Observation by Henry Salt”.
Varia Aegyptiaca. San Antonio (TX), 1987. Vol. 3: 47–49.
Rhind 1862
Rhind, Alexander Henry. Th ebes: Its Tombs and Th eir Tenants,
Ancient and Present, Including a Record of Excavations in the
Necropolis. London: Longman, Green, Longman and Roberts,
1862.
Seyfried 1990
Seyfried, Karl-Joachim. Das Grab des Amonmose (TT 373).
Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1990.
Stewart 1986
Stewart, Harry. Mummy Cases & Inscribed Funerary Cones in
the Petrie Collection. Warminster: Aris & Phillips / Oak Park,
Bolchazy-Carducci, Publishers, 1986.
Strudwick 2003
Strudwick, Nigel. The Tomb of Amenemopet Called Tjanefer
at Thebes (TT 297). Berlin: Achet, 2003.
Tefnin 2008
Tefnin, Ronald. “Report on the Eighth Season of Excavation
and Conservation in the Th eban Tombs of Amenemope
TT 29 and Sennefer TT 96A in Sheikh Abd el-Qurna (January
2 – February 19, 2006)”. Annales du Service des Antiquités de
l’Égypte. 2008. T. 82: 343–373.
Winlock 1928
Winlock, Herbert. “Th e Egyptian Expedition 1925–27”. Th e
Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York, February
1928. Vol. 23, Sect. 2: 3–58.
Th e World of Funerary Cones. Abbreviations and References
Th e World of Funerary Cones. Abbreviations and References.
URL: http://www.funerarycones.com/References/ References
(last accessed 09.09.2011).
Th e World of Funerary Cones. Original Locations
Th e World of Funerary Cones. Original Locations. URL: http://
www.funerarycones.com/Original_locations/Original_locations.htm
(last accessed 09.09.2011).
Zenihiro 2009
Zenihiro, Kento. Th e Complete Funerary Cones. Tokio, 2009
(URL: http://www.funerarycones.com/Profile/profile.html;
last accessed 09.09.2011).
Translated by Maria Artamonova

Discoveries made during the course of excavations
carried out by Pyotr Kozlov in the environs of Noin-Ula
in Northern Mongolia include a Chinese polychromic
fi gured silk with a woven repeat composition of mountains,
birds, a tree and fantastic mushrooms, found in
burial mound No.6, one of the burials of the Hun nobility.
Since the 1930s the silk has been in the State Hermitage
Museum where it is one of the main exhibits in
the permanent display “Th e Culture and Art of China”
(Inv. No. MP-1330; 184 x 35 cm, the selvage has survived
on one side; ill. 1). Presumably the original silk was longer,
as other fragments of it were discovered in the burial
mound. Since the late curator of the Noin-Ula collection,
Evgeny Lubo-Lesnichenko (1929–2001), wrote about
this silk on a number of occasions, publishing its full description,
this paper will not focus on technical details
(Lubo-Lesnichenko 1961: 51–54; Lubo-Lesnichenko
1995: 62–69). Th e silk has also been published by other
scholars of Chinese silks and of Chinese art in general.
Th e silk under consideration is unusual and in many
ways unique. Its design is not embroidered but woven
on a loom with coloured silk threads. It is a long horizontal
picture with a repeating composition. 1 “Th e silk
displays a certain originality in the technique used to
make the pattern. In all the known silks from the Han
period the pattern runs in the direction of the weft from
edge to edge, repeating itself towards the base, i.e. this
silk is turned 90 degrees in comparison with other silks
of its time. Th is unusual technique may be explained
1 No analysis of the silk’s technique is off ered in this article as it
has been published many times before. See Lubo-Lesnichenko 1961:
51–54; Riboud, Vial 1977: 51–68.
MARIA MENSHIKOVA
FIGURED SILK WITH ROCKS, TREE, BIRDS AND MUSHROOMS FROM NOIN-ULA. A POSSIBLE
INTERPRETATION OF THE SUBJECT
by the master’s desire to create an unbroken landscape
composition” (Lubo-Lesnichenko 1961: 52). Although
the silk has darkened considerably and the colours have
altered, the main subject is fully visible. On the silk
“…is a woven pattern consisting of two rocks with jagged
rectangular edges tapering upwards. In a deep crevice
between the rocks is a stylised tree with three symmetrical
pairs of branches and fruit at the top. A stooping bird
with a long tail and a crest is depicted on top of each
of the rocks. Th e heads of the birds are turned towards
what looks like a mushroom with three large off shoots
in the large space between the crags” (Lubo-Lesnichenko
1961: 52).
What we have here is a schematic picture, its subject
is created according to the principles of Chinese Daoist
landscape painting but most unusual is the fact that the
design is woven in silk. No similar landscapes from the
turn of the era have been discovered, such that authors
state that “the subject on the silk has no analogies in the
art of the Han period” (Sullivan 1962). “Some scholars
have attributed the origin of the silk’s pattern, the method
of its manufacture and its symbolism to Western infl
uences” (Lubo-Lesnichenko 1961: 52). Several attempts
have been made to interpret the subject. Some scholars
have suggested that the silk may depict the sunny Eastern
mountain of Taodu from Chinese mythology, with
the Taodu tree growing on it and a bird. According to
Chinese beliefs, lingzhi mushrooms, like the Taodu tree,
grow on islands in the Eastern Sea and bestow immortality.
An examination of the silk in ultraviolet light reveals
a fantastical face and zoomorphic images in the outlines
of the crag. Th is fully corresponds to ancient concepts,
Ill. 1. Polychromic fabric. Silk, weaving. Noin-Ula. Eastern Han dynasty (25–220 A.D.).
a – general view; b – fragment. Th e State Hermitage Museum
since in the “Shanhaijing” [Th e Book of Mountains and
Seas] there are descriptions of deities in the form of zoomorphic
creatures that inhabit the mountains.
Modern analysis has suggested that the polychromic
silk, whose weaving technique sets it apart from the
majority of known Chinese silks, was woven in the Sichuan
Province, where there were already famous silk
workshops in the Han period. Such was Evgeny Lubo-
Lesnichenko’s opinion. If that is the case, the discovery
of the silk in a site so far removed from its place of manufacture
is evidence of developed trading links between
the Chinese and the tribes who populated the extreme
Western lands, in this case the Huns. Amy Heller drew
attention to these means of the spread of items in a work
devoted to discoveries of silks in Dulan (Heller 1998).
Th e mythological concepts of the people who lived
in ancient times in what is today the province of Sichuan
refl ect a number of characteristic beliefs that were
not apparently widespread in central regions of China.
30 31
One of them led to the appearance of the so-called money
tree and its proliferation for a fairly short period in
rituals and burial rites during the Eastern Han dynasty
(25–220 A.D.). About 50 bronze trees have been found
during archaeological excavations so far (ill. 2), in varying
states of condition – severely damaged, fragmented or
archaeologically intact, but some are very well preserved.
It is interesting that these trees diff er in appearance and
stylistic features from other trees depicted in ancient
China during the Han period. A map of the fi nds was
made by the researcher Susan Erickson (Erickson 1994),
which demonstrated that money trees have been discovered
mainly in burials of the Eastern Han dynasty in the
south-west of China – in the province of Sichuan and in
the south of the Shaanxi Province, which borders on the
Sichuan Province. Many scholars have thus agreed that
money trees became widespread in these areas and were
characteristic works of Sichuan masters. Th ere is no trace
of similar symbols in other districts.
a
b

Th e trees are set on ceramic or stone bases, but their
trunks and branches with leaves are made of bronze.
Th e branches were cast in fl at moulds and are very
delicate. Images of Xiwangmu (the Queen-mother of
the West) can be seen on the branches. On the bases
and on the branches are various symbols connected
with Daoist concepts of immortality – the sun and the
moon symbolise Heaven; the trunks of some trees even
feature images of the seated Buddha (such examples
can be seen, for instance, at the Asian Art Museum
in San Francisco).
Ill. 2. Money tree. Bronze, ceramics. Height 122 cm.
Eastern Han dynasty (25–220 A.D.). © Kaikodo Journal.
Hong Kong, 1996. Spring: 119
Ill. 3. Fragments of a money tree. Drawing
a – branch; b – treetop
Th e bases, which symbolise the Earth, can take the
form of mountains with caves or reliefs with animals –
real and mythical – and legendary anthropomorphic
creatures. All these images are connected with prosperity
and longevity. A straight trunk emerges from the base.
Th e branches are mostly perpendicular to the trunk and
are arranged at various levels in pairs, mirroring one another,
symmetrically to each other or separating radially;
the number of levels of branches varies from three
to fi ve but there might be several pairs of branches at
each level.
Flat images are attached almost perpendicularly
to the branches (ill. 3). Leaves in the shape of Chinese
coins hang down from the stalks – small round plaques
with square holes from which radiate needle-rays. On
the branches we fi nd a whole world of creatures, corresponding
to Daoist ideas of the universe: in the centre
is Xiwangmu, the Queen-mother of the West, who
guarantees longevity (ill. 4). She sits on a throne beneath
a canopy, sometimes with lingzhi mushrooms, and on
either side of her there might be a hare, pounding powder
for the elixir of life in a mortar, and a toad bringing
her a lingzhi mushroom, which was also used as a drug
a
b
for pills of immortality. Sometimes birds are seen sitting
on the ends of the branches: occasionally a bird is
perched on top of the tree, but the treetop is more oft en
occupied by Xiwangmu.
Th ese trees are seen as a vertical connecting the
Heaven and the Earth; all the creatures inhabiting the
tree, including the birds, and all the images indicate longevity
and immortality in the other world, in the land of
the deceased.
Th ese trees were found in burials in the Sichuan
Province and neighbouring regions. Th e type of tomb
that was most common in these areas in the Eastern
Han period – mainly the yamu type – was a chamber
hewn out of the side of a mountain like a cave. Burials
in the mountains contained symbolic depictions of a
vertical “penetrating the world”, in this case a tree. Th e
composition of its symbols was linked to the prevalent
concepts of immortality and the fact that it might be
achieved with the aid of particular drugs.
Some authors consider that money trees were placed
in burials not so much to provide the deceased with
coins as to guarantee their immortality. Th is is why the
images are full of Dao symbols relating to longevity –
mountains, trees, Daoist deities, birds linked to the sun
and the sky, and the mushrooms that were used in the
elixir of immortality and to ensure longevity.
Th ese trees were called qian shu (money tree; tree attracting
coins), as coins were always woven into their
branches. It is interesting that no mention of them in the
literature of the Han period has yet been found, though
they relate principally to this dynasty, dating from the
very end of the 1st century B.C. to the early 3rd century
A.D. It is also interesting that the Han coin moulds that
have been found resemble a tree with a vertical trunk
and symmetrically arranged branches with little round
coins at the ends.
Th e echoes of Daoist traditions concerning the
money tree survived in China for a long time. Th ere are
mentions of a New Year ritual in the Qing period (1644–
1911): “Take a large branch of pine or cypress, place it in
a vase, then tie old coins, paper pomegranates and fl owers,
etc. to it. What you will have is a so-called yao qian
shu – a tree from which money can be shaken” (Bodde
1987: 103). Amulets in the shape of money trees have
also survived (ill. 5). Other items that can be mentioned
are swords made of coins, which were customarily given
to children as presents (ill. 6), and sheaves of paper
money, which are still burned in large incense-burners
32 33
in temples to worship the souls of ancestors. Th e idea
behind these customs is not only to attract funds and to
wish wealth both to the living and to the souls of ancestors,
but also to provide protection from evil spirits.
Th e depictions of birds on the branches of the money
tree are a reminder of the birds encountered in Han
texts: fenghuang (phoenixes) or luan (similar to pheasants),
whose presence preserves peace in China.
Depictions of trees are, of course, found in Chinese
art even before the Han period. For example, in the
“Shujing” (in the section “Shangshuyi pian”) it says that
“on the Great Altar of the Deity of the Earth you should
place a pine, on the altar of the Earth in the east – a cypress,
in the south – a catalpa, in the west – a chestnut,
in the north – an acacia”.
Th e dominant image of a tree in the “Shanhaijing” is
the fusang tree, which serves as a place of habitation for
ten suns and is found in the east.
Various trees are mentioned in the description of the
Kunlun Mountains in the “Huainanzi”: “In the centre
of the land is a jiang tree, with spreading branches over
the centre; it casts no shadows at midday, and immortals
Ill. 4. Xiwangmu on a throne.
Rubbing from a relief on a stone sarcophagus. Sichuan Province.
Eastern Han dynasty (25–220 A.D.)

Ill. 5. Money tree. Amulet. Bronze, patina. China. 19th century.
Height 29 cm. Th e State Hermitage Museum.
Until 1945 – in the Museum für Völkerkunde, Berlin
34
use it to climb up to Heaven and climb down to Earth.
In the east is a fusang tree. Th ere are ten suns in its
branches” (see Major 1993: 158, 204). Th e fusang tree,
however, usually has the outlines of a spreading tree
with interlacing branches and birds sitting in it.
Depictions similar to the trees on the silk can be seen
on a lacquered box from the 433 B.C. burial of Marquis
Yi, a ruler of the Zeng kingdom, and are also possibly
linked with concepts of a tree supporting ten suns
(ill. 7). Here, however, we see a pattern in the branches
resembling coins.
Han paintings and reliefs also feature a cinnamon
tree that grows on the moon and has a crown with
branches bending down. Lingzhi, the mushrooms of immortality,
also occur quite frequently, and on some reliefs
they have a strong resemblance to the mushrooms
on the silk (see ill. 4).
All these trees except the money trees, however, differ
from the tree on the silk in their confi guration.
Th us the depiction of a tree on this silk from a Hun
burial in Noin-Ula is closest in outline to the money
tree, which was widespread in Sichuan in the period
of the Eastern Han dynasty. It diff ers from the threedimensional
bronze trees because it has been stylised
Ill. 6. Sword made of coins. Amulet. Bronze, patina, threads. China. 19th century. Length 53 cm.
Th e State Hermitage Museum. Until 1945 – in the Museum für Völkerkunde, Berlin
through adaptation to the weaving technique; it is not
only two-dimensional but on a diff erent scale.
Th is interpretation of the tree depicted on the silk
does not contradict the central signifi cance, interpretation
and concept of the subject, which is one of the
earliest surviving landscapes in the Chinese art of the
Eastern Han period. Another distinctive feature of this
silk is that it was made not for clothing but as a picture,
incorporating Daoist concepts of longevity, immortality
and prosperity in the other world, and the protection
of the soul of the deceased from evil spirits. Nor
did the Huns cut it to turn it into clothing. Th is long silk
with its repeat pattern was probably used according to
some ritual to adorn the earthen perimeter “walls” of
the burial chamber.
References
Ill. 7. Trees and birds on a lacquered box. Wuhan Province. 433 B.C. Drawing
Bodde 1994
Bodde, Derk. Annual Customs and Festivals in Peking. Hong
Kong, 1987.
Erickson 1994
Erickson, Susan. “Money Trees of the Eastern Han Dynasty”.
Bulletin of the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities. Stockholm,
1994. No. 66: 5–116.
Heller 1998
Heller, Amy. “Some Preliminary Remarks on the Excavations
at Dulan”. Orientations. Hong Kong, 1998. October.
Lubo-Lesnichenko 1961
Lubo-Lesnichenko, Evgeny. Drevnije kitajskije šjolkovyje tkani
i vyšivki v sobranii Gosudarstvennogo Ermitaža [Ancient Chinese
Silks and Embroidery in the State Hermitage Museum
Collection]. Catalogue. Leningrad, 1961.
Lubo-Lesnichenko 1995
Lubo-Lesnichenko, Evgeny. “Concerning the Chronology and
Ornamentation of Han Period Textiles”. Orientations. Hong
Kong, 1995. May: 62–69.
Major1993
Major, John. Heaven and Earth in Early Han Th ought: Chapters
Th ree, Four, and Five of the Huainanzi. Albany, NY, 1993.
(SUNY Series in Chinese Philosophy and Culture).
Riboud, Vial 1977
Riboud, Krishna and G. Vial. “A Detailed Study of the Figured
Silk with Rocks, Birds and Trees from the Han Dynasty”. Bulletin
de Liaison du CIETA. 1977. No. 45.
Sullivan 1962
Sullivan, Michael. Th e Birth of Landscape Painting in China.
Berkeley; Los Angeles, 1962.
Translated by Catherine Philipps

In 1862 the Imperial Hermitage acquired the collection
of antiquities of the Roman banker Marquis Giovanni
Pietro Campana (see Neverov 1993; Sarti 2001;
Cappelli, Salvatori 2006). Amongst these was a blackfi
gure olpe Б. 1395 (which today has the inventory
number ГР 4320; ill. 1). Although this olpe has never
previously been published, the number Б. 1395 was mistakenly
given in a work by Jack Leonard Benson (Benson
1953: 25, 9) with reference to a diff erent Hermitage
vase of the same shape (its correct number is Б. 1396),
long known to scholars as the work of Th e Painter of
Vatican 73 (Stephani 1869: No. 147; Payne, NC 1931:
277, No. 149, pl. 11, 1; Hoff mann 1963: 214–216; Amyx,
Lawrence 1964: 387–389; Gorbunova, Saverkina 1975:
No. 4; Amyx, CorVP 1989: 69, 305, No. 30; Neeft 2000:
29, Cat. 19). Th e Painter of Vatican 73 is considered one
of the best vase-painters of the Protocorinthian Transitional
period (c. 630 – c. 620/615 B.C.). 2 A comparison
of the Campana olpe with the work of the Painter
of Vatican 73 reveals it to be much closer to vases of
this latter group than to olpai of the Late Protocorinthian
(c. 650 – c. 630 B.C.) or the Early Corinthian
(c. 620/615 – c. 595/590 B.C.) periods. Th ere are notable
diff erences in the treatment of fi gures and in the
nature of the ornament. Moreover, before the vase underwent
conservation it was possible to say of the vase
only that in its shape and painting type it recalled olpai
ANASTASIA BUKINA, OLGA SHUVALOVA
THE RESTORATION AND ATTRIBUTION OF A BLACK-FIGURE OLPE
FROM THE COLLECTION OF MARQUIS CAMPANA 1
1 Th e authors could not have written this article without the
contributions of Sergey Khavrin, Ksenia Chugunova and Irina
Grigoryeva.
2 Th e standard chronology is based on: (Amyx, CorVP 1989:
397–428), see also: (Harrison 1996: 193–216).
of the Protocorinthian Transitional period, although it
was not possible to attribute the vase nor even produce
a detailed description of it. It was even hard to decide to
what degree the vase was authentic.
It is well known that many of the vases in the celebrated
Campana collection were skilfully restored,
even reconstructed, before they were acquired for the
Imperial Hermitage. Th e Marquis himself would seem
to have had a restoration workshop that took care of
items in his collection. Th is is the conclusion that can be
drawn from the very similar technical approach and the
absolutely identical materials used for the restoration of
ancient ceramics acquired from Campana (Pavlukhina
1995: 732). For many years works that had been heavily
restored or “supplemented” were accepted as wholly
authentic works even by specialists and only the most
careful study in the late 20th century made it possible
to identify the restoration from the original parts and to
uncover the original painting beneath early nineteenthcentury
overpaintings.
Analysis of works from the Campana collection
demonstrates that during the fi rst half of the 19th century
the approach was very much of restoration rather
than conservation, the aim being to “return” to a work
of art its supposed “original” appearance. An object was
valued for the integrity of its overall appearance and all
traces of intervention were thus carefully covered up.
Th e dominant feature was a desire to reconstruct the
original appearance of the vase as perceived by the restorer.
Such an approach, reinforced by the demands of
the antiquarian market, determined the principles and
methods of restoration practice (Pavlukhina 1995: 731)
but it was to lead to many of the inaccuracies, distortions
of shape and drawing on ancient vases that were for so
long not realised to be such even by leading scholars.
In Campana’s workshop two main methods were
used, diff ering in the degree to which they aff ected the
material structure of the object.
Many items with signifi cant damage (broken into
fragments, large losses, severe fl aking of the surface
etc) were treated by a method which frequently led to
further damage of the original. Mechanical cleaning
of the surface from archaeological dirt oft en resulted
in scratches and wear to the surface; acids used for the
36 37
same purpose also had a destructive eff ect on the object’s
state of preservation. Where there were losses of
individual parts, the craft sman might make additions
either through analogy with surviving objects or by selecting
more or less suitable fragments from other vases
which were then inserted into the place of loss, a process
that all too oft en required that the chosen fragments
be fi led down to just the right shape. Th e way in which
the fragments were attached was also far from perfect.
Edges were sanded down, which in turn caused fl aking
of the glaze, thus hindering later conservation, since it
is no longer clear just how diff erent fragments relate to
a b
Ill. 1. Black-fi gure olpe. Late 7th – early 6th century B.C.(?) Th e State Hermitage Museum.
First publication

one another; space too was oft en left along the joins,
which resulted in distortion of shape. Th ere are widespread
incidences of vases being reinforced through
the application to the inside of a whole new coating of
clay slip of varying thickness (from several millimetres
to 1.5–2 cm). Stylistic unity was not always maintained
with the “alien” fragments inserted into areas of loss often
having diff erent shades of glaze or clay or slip used
for the drawing to those on the main body. Th e pieces
of pottery might be of diff erent thicknesses. What we
might call “Campana restoration” of this type is characterised
by a careful covering up of all traces of restoration
and intervention and the “correction” of all
minor surface defects. For this purpose the whole vase
might be covered with a layer of paint over a preliminary
ground.
Ill. 2. Black-fi gure amphora. Late 6th century B.C.
Th e State Hermitage Museum
Th is method can be illustrated by a Panathenean
amphora (Inv. No. Б. 1510; Stephani 1869: No. 230;
IGAIMK: No. 3, p. 95, fi g. 5; ills. 2, 3). Additions and
retouching of the kind typical in the Campana workshop
were employed to “refresh” the vase. Several lost
fragments were replaced with pieces sawn off ancient
black-glaze vessels, which diff er from the original in
the nature of the clay, the thickness of the walls and the
quality of the glaze. Th e original glaze is of a slightly
diff erent colour and is more shiny. Other additions are
also of fragments from authentic ancient vases but given
a ground and painted to imitate the original. Th e lost
neck, handles and foot of the amphora and several fragments
of the body were replaced with new pieces of fi red
clay that were given a ground of lead white and painted
(ill. 4). Th e paints used on the additions are a mixture
of mineral pigments containing iron, lead, aluminium
and bone black bound with gelatine glue. In terms of
quality the new painting is inferior to the original. On
the front of the vessel the joins were carefully given a
ground and painted over, oft en covering up some of
the original decoration. During restoration of the vase
1997–2007 all the overpainting was removed, revealing
previously unknown areas of the original painting, but
the earlier replacements of the neck, handles and foot
were retained.
Th e second restoration method visible on objects
that passed through the Campana workshop might be
described as non-destructive. Th is was applied to works
in a good state of preservation and involved above all
overpainting to mask minor damage such as scratches,
dents, small chips, patches of insoluble salts etc. Such retouching
was applied rather broadly and oft en covered
fi gure painting or fi elds of black glaze and the proportion
of the surface covered might be quite high. One example
of this “non-destructive” method is Corinthian
olpe Б. 1395.
Judging by the notes in the record card for the vase in
the archive of the Department of Classical Antiquity, in
1999–2000 a study was made of it by the keeper, Sophia
Boriskovskaya, and Natalia Pavlukhina of the Hermitage’s
Laboratory for Scientifi c Restoration of Ceramics
and Glass. Microscopic analysis of the surface was carried
out and trial attempts were made to clean the paint
surface in diff erent areas. It was concluded that the olpe
was probably an authentic ancient vessel that had been
subjected to “commercial” restoration. Loss of the neck
rim had been fi lled with plaster, probably in the 1950s or
1960s (conclusion of Natalia Pavlukhina, 30.03.2000; archive
of the Department of Classical Antiquity). Moreover,
Sergey Khavrin of the Laboratory for Technical and
Technological Examination in the Hermitage’s Department
for Scientifi c and Technical Examination studied
the clay from which the olpe is made, by the thermoluminescence
method (using a Daybreak-1100), which
confi rmed the authenticity of the object.
Between 2005 and 2010, during the preparation of a
systematic catalogue of Corinthian vases in the Hermitage
Museum, including both their ancient and modern
imitations, Sergey Khavrin and Ksenia Chugunova undertook
new technical analysis of the object, and a new
study of its state of preservation and possible conservation
was made by Olga Shuvalova. Th is established that
wear, scratches and relatively small losses of paint on
the olpe had been covered over by later painting. All
the fi gures had been repainted but the new painting lay
almost within the borders of the original contours. Th e
paint was applied in too thick a layer, leading to distortion
of the original silhouettes (ills. 5, 6). X-ray luminescence
of the surface with a Bruker ARTAX spec-
Ill. 3. Black-fi gure amphora during conservation
38 39
Ill. 4. Fragment of a black-fi gure amphora during removal
of later overpainting
trometer and microscopic study of the paints used in
the overpainting revealed that they contain lead white.
Th e presence of lead white accords with the suggestion
that the overpainting was carried out in the early 19th
century, presumably by craft smen working for Campana.
Lead whites were also known in Antiquity – the
Greeks called them psimition (ψιμύθιον; Latin psimithium),
the Romans cerussa (Pliny, Natural History,
XXXIV, 175–176). Other, more widespread white pigments
(zinc and titanium white, neither of which were
revealed by analysis) appeared considerably later: zinc
white in the late 1840s, titanium white in the 1920s
(Kiplik 1998: 32). Th e main pigment in the added red
(pale brown) in the overpainting on the Hermitage olpe
is cinnabar, while the “black” (dark brown) is a mixture
of ochre and weak cinnabar. Th e medium used by the
Campana masters is animal glue (gelatine).
Since the late overpainting hid much of the relatively
well-preserved original painting, it was decided
to remove it and thus reveal the entire original surface.
Removal of the overpainting also revealed the author’s
original incising of the surface. Further study at this
stage by Ksenia Chugunova and Irina Grigoryeva established
that the original painting was in the standard
black-fi gure technique (see Jones 1986: 749–820, with

Ill. 5. Black-fi gure olpe. Fragment, state before restoration Ill. 6. Black-fi gure olpe. Fragment, state aft er restoration
bibliography). Th e fi gures are applied using dark, fritted
and slightly shiny paint, containing only elements
found in the clay itself (iron, calcium, potassium and
other trace elements), i.e. it is a glaze. Th e density of this
glaze diff ers in places, being almost transparent at times,
and it is fl aking in some areas. Contours of details are
incised. Some parts of the image are touched with added
red (a matt reddish paint based on ochre), applied over
the glaze on both the fi gures and the rosettes, but this is
worn or lost in places.
It was thus incontrovertibly established both through
technical analysis and through an analysis of the vase’s
physical state – typical for vases of the late 7th to 6th
century B.C. – that the vase is authentic.
It is important to note that the olpe arrived in the
Hermitage in 1862, i.e. before European fakers and
restorers had mastered the techniques of black- and
red-fi gure painting, and they therefore used other techniques
to create the appearance of Ancient Greek vases.
Campana’s craft smen, as has been demonstrated, overpainted
the surface of vases they restored, sometimes
applying fi rst an all-over ground, using paints with an
organic medium.
A similar technique was used by Neapolitan restorers
of the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Th ey chose
shellac as their medium, with a mixture of soot and
iron oxide to imitate the tone of ancient glaze, sometimes
with an addition of cinnabar, lead white and small
quantities of chrome yellow pigment (Bourgeois, Balcar
2007: 42). With the aid of these paints Neapolitan masters
imitated the characteristic visual eff ect of authentic
glaze (convex lines, uneven layers, alterations in colour
depending on thickness etc).
Ancient techniques for producing potter’s glazes
were reconstructed by the German scholar Th eodor
Schumann, his methods published in the early 1940s
(Schumann 1942). It was only in the 1960s, aft er publication
of the fundamental work of Joseph Noble on the
techniques of Athenian vase-painting (Noble 1965), that
the techniques became widely known and a vast mass
of fakes was produced using the genuine black-fi gure
technique.
Th us the date the vase was acquired by the museum
and the technical analysis confi rm the authenticity of
both the vessel and the painting on it. Full conservation
allows us now to describe the work in detail.
Large jug on a round base with an oval body narrowing
towards the top (the walls of the body convex);
funnel-shaped fl ared neck with concave walls and projecting
rim; profi led fl at handle attached to the rim,
the join hidden with a pair of small discs. Dimensions:
height 28.7 cm, height of neck 7.3 cm, height of handle
10.2 cm, width of handle 2.4 cm, diameter of rim
c. 14 cm, height of discs c. 3 cm, maximum diameter of
body 15.8 cm, height of base 0.9 cm, diameter of base
8.6 cm. Pale warm yellowish clay; dark glaze, brown in
the light. Neck (outside and inside), handle with discs
and rim of base coloured with glaze. Bands of glaze divide
the body into fi ve horizontal friezes. Th e four upper
friezes (from 4.5 to 5 cm high) contain fi gure painting.
In the fi rst (top) register are six fi gures: three riders, one
person without a horse and two fl ying birds (see ill. 9).
Th e remaining fi gure friezes are fi lled with 25 images of
animals. In the second register are eight fi gures: a lion,
a goat, two lions framing a pair of seated sphinxes with
a snake between them (ill. 7), another goat. In the third
are eight more: a boar (see ill. 6), a lion, a bird on long
legs with a long neck, a lion, a fl ying bird, a panther,
a goat and another lion. In the fourth are another eight:
a lion, a bull (ill. 8), a lion, a goat, a lion, a bird, a lion
and a deer. In the background of all the fi gured friezes
are large dotted rosettes. Th e bottom frieze is decorated
with rays.
It is important to note that the olpe of the Protocorinthian
period published to date mostly bear images of
animals, both real and imagined. Not only a frieze containing
a whole scene with human fi gures but human
fi gures of any kind are extremely rare on these vases (see
the olpai in the Museo Gregoriano Etrusco in the Vatican
and the Villa Giulia in Rome).
Th e incisions on the fi gures on the Hermitage olpe
create an ambiguous impression: the larger details (outlines
of body parts of the lions, goats and horses, the
horses’ manes, the sphinxes’ wings, the panther’s face)
are broadly, even crudely drawn. Particularly lacking in
skill are the drawing and incisions of the boar (see ill. 6)
and bull (see ill. 8). Th e unusual appearance and crude
drawing is particularly notable when we compare, for
instance, the sphinxes (see ill. 7) with the majority of
such fi gures on olpai of the Protocorinthian period. Th e
iconography of this group is unusual: as a rule sphinxes
that appear in such groups on Protocorinthian olpai are
shown fl anking a fi gure of a bird or another sphinx, but
not a snake. In some small details (the facial features
of the riders, the heads of the birds and lions) the incisions
are more skilfully made. Nonetheless, the skill of
the painting is insuffi cient for us to seek him amongst
the best painters of Corinthian Kerameikos, who were
decorating olpai in the 620s B.C.; these painters have
been described by Amyx as Th e Painters of Oinochoai
and Olpai (First Group) (Amyx, CorVP 1989: 66–75).
In the case of the Hermitage exhibit we are dealing with
a vase-painter who only imitated the works of these
more skilful artists.
If the vessel was created in Corinth (which cannot
be excluded, since it is made of the characteristic pale
clay), it can be compared only with the works of one of
the secondary masters placed by Amyx in his Painters of
Oinochoai and Olpai (Second Group), i.e. with the olpai
and fragments attributed to Th e Clermont-Ferrand
40 41
Ill. 7. Black-fi gure olpe. Fragment, state aft er restoration
Ill. 8. Black-fi gure olpe. Fragment, state aft er restoration
Painter (Amyx, CorVP 1989: 78). Th ese come from
French, Swiss and Italian private collections and from
excavations of Megara Hyblaea in Sicily. It is thought
that the painter worked at the end of the Transitional
and start of the Early Corinthian period, i.e. in the late
620s to 610s B.C. While the low quality of execution of
the fi gures on these olpai and on the Hermitage vase are
comparable, however, the animal types on the latter are
totally diff erent. We should also particularly note that
the Hermitage olpe has very individual large rosettes,
not characteristic of the work of Th e Clermont-Ferrand
Painter.
Th us we can propose two hypotheses. Firstly, that
the Hermitage olpe was painted by one of the more

mediocre Corinthian vase-painter of his generation who
yet managed to create a piece that was unique in the late
7th century, with fi gures in a narrative scene. Secondly,
that this is an ancient imitation of a Corinthian olpe
of the Transitional period, created outside Corinth, in
which the overall decorative system was borrowed from
the original model (along with the form of vessel).
Up to this time only Italiote imitations of Corinthian
olpai of the Transitional period have been known, most
of them Etruscan. Th is item also has an Italian provenance.
Today the Hermitage has thirteen Corinthian and
Italo-Corinthian vessels purchased from Marquis Campana.
Since parts of this collection were acquired by
a number of leading museums around the world the
history of the collection is perpetually in the eye of
scholars, with new facts and interpretations being put
forward. It has been suggested, for instance, that the
Protocorinthian vases belonging to Campana may have
been collected in the region of Cerveteri (Neeft 2000:
28), on the territory of ancient Etruria.
Study of the catalogue of objects acquired from the
Campana collection (Archives of the State Hermitage
Museum, Fund 1, Register 2, Folder 16, f. 243) 1 has convinced
us that olpe Б. 1395 (whether Corinthian or an
ancient copy of a Corinthian vase) comes from Italy, but
not that it defi nitely came from an Etruscan necropolis.
Th is is important since it is now clear that Corinthian
ceramics and their copies had become extremely
widespread in Italy by the last third of the 7th century
B.C., when this olpe may have been made (Coldstream
1994; Morgan 1998; Jacobsen 2007; Franciosi 2002).
Aft er 750 right up to the middle of the 6th century
B.C. vases from Corinth dominated the make-up of
Greek ceramic imports all over Italy, just as they did in
the Mediterranean overall (Jacobsen 2007: 18).
Ceramics of the Middle Protocorinthian period have
been found at Policorno and Incoronata “greca” (near
Metaponto) (Dehl 1984: 111, 112). Moreover, the objects
discovered at Incoronata indicate that ceramics of
typically Greek appearance were produced locally. Th e
style of local products, with relief decoration, forces us
to consider that around 650 B.C. there may have been
1 See: Bukina, Anastasia, Anna Petrakova, with Catherine Phillips
and Hans Caspar Mayer. Greek Vases in the Imperial Hermitage
Museum, 1814–69: the History of a Collection. Oxford, 2012 (forthcoming).
very close contacts between Incoronata and the Doric
regions of Greece (Rhodes, Crete, Corinth) and that
Greek craft smen worked locally (Carter 2005). We
know from Pliny that Corinthian ceramists (in this case
coroplasts) were working aft er the mid-7th century B.C.
in Latium (Pliny, Natural History, XXXV, 16, 152).
Excavations and stylistic analysis of artefacts (socalled
colonial products) also show that in the middle
and second half of the 7th century B.C. there were several
workshops in Magna Graecia producing polychrome
vases with painting in which the motifs were borrowed
from orientalising vase-painting in Corinthia and Eastern
Greece. One of these was located at Incoronata
“greca” (Carter 2005). Th e vase-painter Aristonothos,
whose name appears on the celebrated dinos found at
Cerveteri (Martelli 1987: Cat. 40), was also working at
a workshop the precise location of which is unknown
but which may have been in Southern Italy.
Over the last couple of decades several potters’ workshops
of the 7th to 6th century have been identifi ed
in Sicily, particularly on the eastern end of the island.
Not all the materials from these excavations have been
published but it is already clear that in most cases the
workshops produced simple crockery for domestic use
(Lyons 1996: 55; Nijboer 1998).
Lastly, thanks to Amyx we know of unpublished
Corinthicising vases – items from unknown workshops,
possibly in Sicily – that are to be found in local Sicilian
museums. In his short essay on Southern Italiote imitations
of Corinthian ceramics he mentioned, among
other things, an olpe which “is indeed a close imitation
of TR Corinthian ware, so faithful in its general outward
aspect as to have been accepted by more than one scholar
as Corinthian” (Amyx, CorVP 1989: 685; on other
unpublished Southern Italiote Corinthicising vases see
Leinster 1993). Such vases sometimes crop up at auction
(see, for instance, an olpe sold in 1997: Christie’s, New
York, 30 May 1997, p. 58, lot 123). Th e centres where such
pieces were made have not been established, although it
has long been suggested that potters from Corinth must
have worked in the Sicilian colonies (Leinster 1993: 13)
and that high-quality pale clay may have been brought
to these colonial workshops from the metropolis (Stissi
1999: 85, with bibliography).
Suggestions have been made with somewhat more
confi dence that there might have been such workshops
at Tarento during the fi rst quarter of the 6th century
B.C. (Denoyelle, Iozzo 2009: 66–69). Th ese workshops
may also have included potters and vase-painters from
Corinth. Th eir products are extremely close to Corinthian
pieces in both form and painting, and some of them
are even made of true Corinthian clay, perhaps brought
to Italy specially (Denoyelle, Iozzo 2009: 68).
We have considerable greater knowledge of the
workshops painting vases in Etruria. Th e production of
Etrusco-Corinthian ceramics began in the last quarter
of the 7th century B.C. (Szilágyi 1992; Leinster 1993:
22–23, with bibliography). Th e main centres of production
are now thought to have been Vulci, Caere and,
perhaps, Tarquinia. On the other hand there are whole
classes of Etrusco-Corinthian vases for which the place
of production is unknown (Szilágyi 1998: 685–702). It
was not so long ago that a proposal was put forward to
place another workshop, producing what János Szilágyi
called vessels in a hybrid style, neither Etruscan nor
Corinthian, far outside Etruria itself, at Pontecagnano,
such that Szilágyi even proposed the use of the term
“Campano-Corinthian vase-painting” (Szilágyi 1990).
Yet it has not been possible to fi nd direct analogies
for the Hermitage olpe among any of the published
Etruscan or Campanian vessels of the last third of the
7th or early 6th century B.C.
Th e diffi culties that emerge in the study of the Hermitage
olpe only serve to further demonstrate that we
have much to learn about Italiote workshops where Corinthian
ceramics were copied. Th e study undertaken in
the Hermitage laboratory allows us to put forward another,
unique product of an ancient workshop for consideration
as part of the process. In the authors’ opinion,
the Hermitage vase is an Italiote imitation of a Corinthian
olpe, created at the end of the 7th or start of the
6th century B.C. We hope eventually to establish where
it was produced and to give it a more precise chronological
context.
In conclusion we should look in some detail at the
composition contained in the upper frieze on the olpe
(ill. 9). Th is image, like the vessel overall, fi nds no analogies
in scholarly publications. As is usual in such cases,
we assumed that the composition with warrior fi gures
may have been intended to depict some episode from an
epic cycle. Indeed, most depictions of warrior scenes in
the archaic art of Greece and in those centres where they
imitated the work of artists from the Greek metropolis
derive from the epic.
It is our opinion that the key to identifying the precise
subject lies in the fi gure with hands outstretched,
42 43
who seems to be squatting (3). Two lines running horizontally
from the back of his head are very like the shaft s
of the spears held by the rider (2) but lack by the hurrying
rider (6). Th is leads us to compare the image with
descriptions in literary sources of a hero being pierced
with spears, particularly with spears to the head. Here
we should look fi rst to the Iliad, in which, as Boedeker
noted, Homer paid particular attention to the method
of death; he has more than a hundred cases in which
a named individual appears only at the point of his or
her death (Boedeker 2003: 17–36). In Book XIV we
come across a description of how the Boethian Penelos
sought to kill Acamas, murderer of his relative, but Acamas
escaped and his blow fell upon the young warrior of
Pergamon, Ilioneus:
“... Howbeit Peneleos thrust and smote Ilioneus,
[490] son of Phorbas, rich in herds, whom Hermes
loved above all the Trojans and gave him wealth; and to
him the mother bare Ilioneus, an only child. Him then
did Peneleos smite beneath the brow at the roots of the
eyes, and drave out the eyeball, and the shaft went clean
through the eye [495] and through the nape of the neck,
and he sank down stretching out both his hands. But
Peneleos drawing his sharp sword let drive full upon
his neck, and smote off to the ground the head with the
helmet, and still the mighty spear stood in the eye; and
holding it on high like a poppy-head [500] he showed it
to the Trojans…” (transl. by Samuel Butler)
In our opinion, the image on the olpe shows the central
event in this episode, when the spear (in this case
two spears) pierce the head of the unlucky youth. In interpreting
the subject we must take into account the mediocre
skill of the painter and the fact that, as oft en happened
in works of the archaic period, the setting for the
battle is modernised, with the warriors shown mounted,
each with a pair of spears.
We should note that Ilioneus can be identifi ed because
he is shown on foot, or rather squatting with
arms outstretched. His name derives from Ilion and it
appears just once in the Iliad and indeed in classical
mythology, but Homer emphasises the signifi cance of
Ilioneus; in describing his death the poet deliberately
sets out to create a terrible picture that will strike horror
into the hearts of his audience (Janko 1992: 221).
Th e fate of Ilioneus thus seems to predict the fate of the
whole Trojan army and of Troy itself. Th e extremely
expressive nature of the image is the juxtaposition of
a touching element (the youth killed by accident, the

1
wealthy father left without an heir) with the terrible
and shocking (the fatal wound, the extreme cruelty –
the victim is beheaded, despite the outstretched arms
and begging for mercy (Sittl 1890: 294–295, 296), the
desecration of the remains). Homer’s nightmare image
(the head pierced through the eye, the simile of
the poppy head) became established as an expressive
cliché in archaic Greek literature, and is found, along
with other such epic images, in the works of others,
such as Herodotus (Boedeker 2003). To judge from
modern publications, the ancient iconography of Ilioneus
the youth of Pergamon is essentially unknown;
if our interpretation is correct, therefore, the Hermitage
olpe is unique in yet another way.
Several similarly gloomy subjects found their way
into sixth-century B.C. Italiote art (of which the art of
the Etruscans has been most fully studied). Particular
popularity was enjoyed by the story of the death of the
Trojan heir Troilus (LIMC, Vol. VIII: 91–94; LIMC,
Vol. I: 200–214), whose name is formed from the name
of his native city. In our opinion, the depiction of the
story of Ilioneus may have interested Italiote purchasers
of Corinthian and Corinthicising ceramics for
similar reasons to those of the more familiar images
of Troilus.
2
3
Ill. 9. Outline drawing of the image in the upper frieze on the black-fi gure olpe
4
References
5
Amyx, CorVP 1989
Amyx, Darrel Arlynn. Corinthian Vase-Painting of the Archaic
Period. Berkeley–Los Angeles, 1989.
Amyx, Lawrence 1964
Amyx, Darrel Arlynn and Patricia Lawrence. “Adversaria
critica: In and Around the Sphinx Painter”. American Journal
of Archaeology. 1964. Vol. 68: 387–389.
Benson 1953
Benson, Jack Leonard. Die Geschichte der Korinthischen Vasen.
Basle, 1953.
Boedeker 2003
Boedeker, Deborah. “Pedestrian Fatalities: Th e Prosaics of
Death in Herodotus”. In: Herodotus and His World: Essays
from a Conference in Memory of George Forrest. Ed. by Derow,
Peter and Robert Parker. Oxford, 2003: 17–36.
Bourgeois, Balcar 2007
Bourgeois, Brigitte. “ ‘Abili restauratori’: Naples and the Art
of Vase Restoration (Count Turpin de Crissé’s Collection,
Early 19th Century)”, in collaboration with Balcar, Nathalie.
In: Konservieren Oder Restaurieren: die Restaurierung
griechischer Vasen von der Antike bis heute. Hrsg. Zanker,
Paul. Munich, 2007 (Beiheft e zum CVA Deutschland, Bd. 3):
41–48.
6
Cappelli, Salvatori 2006
Cappelli, Giovanna and Isabella Salvatori. Frascati al tempo di
Pio IX e del Marchese Campana, exh. cat. Frascati, 2006.
Carter 2005
Carter, Joseph Coleman. Discovering the Greek Countryside at
Metaponto. Ann Arbor, 2005 (Th omas Spenser Jerome Lectures
23).
Christie’s, New York. Antiquities. 30 May 1997.
Coldstream 1994
Coldstream, John Nicholas. “Prospectors and Pioneers:
Pithekoussai, Kyme and Central Italy”. In: Th e Archaeology of
Greek Colonisation: Essays Dedicated to Sir John Boardman.
Ed. by Tsetskhladze, Gocha and Franco De Angelis. Oxford:
Oxford University Committee for Archaeology Monograph
40, 1994: 47–86.
Dehl 1984
Dehl, Christiane. Die korinthische Keramik des 8. und
frühen 7. Jhs. v. Chr. in Italien: Untersuchungen zu ihrer
Chronologie und Ausbreitung. Berlin, 1984.
Denoyelle, Iozzo 2009
Denoyelle, Martine and Vincenzo Iozzo. La cé ramique grecque
d’Italie mé ridionale et de Sicilie. Productions coloniales et
apparenté es du VIIIe au IIIe siè cle av. J.-C. Paris, 2009.
Franciosi 2002
Franciosi, Vincenzo. Importazioni ceramiche corinzie e imitazioni
locali dall’area archeologica di S. Restituta (Lacco Ameno
D’Ischia) VIII sec. a. C., con la collaborazione di S. Speranza.
Naples, 2002.
Gorbunova, Saverkina 1975
Gorbunova, Ksenia and Irina Saverkina. “Greek and Roman
Antiquities in the Hermitage”. In: Iskusstvo Drevnej Grecii i
Rima. Album, compiled with essays by Gorbunova, Ksenia
and Irina Saverkina. Leningrad, 1975.
Harrison 1996
Harrison, Ann. “Chronological Method and the Study of Corinthian
Pottery”. Hephaistos. 1996. Vol. 14: 193–216.
Hoff mann 1963
Hoff mann, Herbert. “Erwerbungen der Antikenabteilung
1961–1963”. HambJahrb. 1963. Vol. 8: 205–229.
IGAIMK
IGAIMK: Izvestija Gosudarstvennoj Akademii Istorii Material’noj
Kul’tury [Proceedings of the State Academy for the
History of Material Culture].
Jacobsen 2007
Jacobsen, Jan Kindberg. Greek Pottery on the Timpone della
Motta and in the Sibaritide from c. 780 to 620 B.C. Reception,
44 45
Distribution and an Evaluation of Greek Pottery as a Source
Material for the Study of Greek Infl uence Before and Aft er the
Founding of Ancient Sybaris. Proefschrift ter verkrijging van
het doctoraat in de Letteren aan de Rijksunivesiteit Groningen.
Groningen, 2007.
Janko 1992
Janko, Richard. Th e Iliad: a Commentary. Gen. ed. Kirk, Geoffrey
Stephen. Cambridge, 1992. Vol. 4: Books 13–16.
Jones 1986
Jones, Richard. “Greek and Cypriot Pottery: A Review of Scientifi
c Studies”. Th e British School at Athens, Fitch Laboratory
Occasional Papers 1. Athens, 1986.
Kiplik 1998
Kiplik, Dmitry. Texnika živopisi [Th e Technique of Painting].
Moscow, 1998.
Leinster 1993
Leinster, Anne Campbell. Th e Proschoros and Beyond: A Study
of Corinthian Infl uence in Southern Italy in the 7th and 6th
Centuries B.C. Doctoral Th esis, Brown University. Providence
(RI), 1993.
LIMC
Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae. Zürich; München;
Düsseldorf
Lyons 1996
Lyons, Claire. Morgantina Studies. Princeton (NJ), 1996.
Vol. V: Th e Archaic Cemeteries.
Martelli 1987
Martelli, Marina. La ceramica degli Estruschi. Novara, 1987.
Morgan 1998
Morgan, Catherine. “Euboians and Corinthians in the Area
of the Corinthian Gulf?”. In: Euboica. L’Eubea e la presenza
Euboica in Calcidica e in occidente. Atti del convegno internazionale
di Napoli, 13–16 novembre 1996. Ed. by Bats, Michel
and Bruno d’Agostino. Naples, 1998: 281–302 (Collection du
Centre Jean Bérard No. 16; AION, Quaderno 12).
Neeft 2000
Neeft , Cornelis Willem. “What is in a Name? Th e Painter of
Vatican 73 in the Getty”. Greek Vases in the J. Paul Getty Museum.
Los Angeles, 2000. Vol. 6: 1–34 (Occasional Papers on
Antiquities).
Neverov 1993
Neverov, Oleg. “Kampana [Campana]”. In: Sankt-Peterburg
i antičnost’. Exhibition Catalogue. St. Petersburg: State Russian
Museum, State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg Cultural
Foundation, 1993: 53–54.

Nijboer 1998
Nijboer, Albert. From Household Production to Workshops.
Archaeological Evidence for Economic Transformations, Premonetary
Exchange and Urbanisation in Central Italy from 800
to 400 B.C. Proefschrift ter verkrijging van het doctoraat in de
Letteren aan de Rijksunivesiteit Groningen. Groningen, 1998.
Noble 1965
Noble, Joseph Veach. Th e Technique of Attic Painted Pottery.
New York, 1965.
Pavlukhina 1994
Pavlukhina, Natalia. “Restoration of the Antique Vases from
the Collection Marquis of Campana in the Hermitage Museum
(Historical Pages and Actual Problems)”. In: Th e Ceramics
Cultural Heritage. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference
on Materials and Technologies (CIMTEC), Florence,
Italy. Faenza, 1995: 732.
Payne, NC 1931
Payne, Humfry. Necrocorinthia: A Study of Corinthian Art
in the Archaic Period. Oxford, 1931.
Sarti 2001
Sarti, Susanne. Giovanni Pietro Campana (1808–1880). Th e
Man and His Collection. Oxford, 2001 (BAR Series 971: Beazley
Archive – Studies in the History of Collections 2).
Schumann 1942
Schumann, Th aeodor. “Oberfl ächenverzierung in der antiken
Töpferkunst. Terra sigillata und griechische Schwarzrotmalerei”.
Berichte der deutschen keramischen Gesellschaft . 1942.
Vol. 32: 408–426.
Sittl 1890
Sittl, Carl. Die Gebärden der Griechen und Römer. Leipzig,
1890.
Stephani 1869
Stephani, Ludolph. Die Vasensammlung der Kaiserlichen
Ermitage. St. Petersburg, 1869.
Stissi 1999
Stissi, Vladimir. “Production, Circulation and Consumption
of Archaic Greek Pottery (6th to Early 5th Centuries B.C.)”.
Th e Complex Past of Pottery. Production, Circulation and
Consumption of Mycenaean and Greek Pottery (16th to Early
5th Centuries B.C.). Proceedings of the ARCHON international
conference, Amsterdam, 8–9 November 1996. Ed. by
Crielaard, Jan Paul, Vladimir Stissi, Gert Jan van Wijngaarden.
Amsterdam, 1999.
Szilágyi 1990
Szilágyi, János György. “Campano-Corinthian Figured Vase-
Painting: the Pontecagnano School”. ΕΥΜΟΥΣΙΑ. Ceramic
and Iconographic Studies in Honour of Alexander Cambitoglou.
Ed. by Descœudres, Jean-Paul Sydney, 1990: 141–146
(Mediterranean Archaeology Supplement 1).
Szilágyi 1992
Szilágyi, János György. Ceramica etrusco-corinzia fi gurata.
Florence, 1992. Parte I: 630–580 A. C. (Monumenti Etruschi
[fasc.] 7).
Szilágyi 1998
Szilágyi, János György. Ceramica etrusco-corinzia fi gurata.
Florence, 1998. Parte II: 590/580–550 A. C. (Monumenti
Etruschi [fasc.] 8).
Translated by Catherine Philipps
Th e State Hermitage collection includes the Attic
black-fi gure column-krater Б. 1525 (Inv. No. ГР 4452).
It was acquired by the museum in 1862 from the collection
of Giovanni Pietro Campana (Sarti 2001), as part
of a collection of black- and red-fi gure vases of varying
value and state of preservation (ills. 1, 2).
Kraters such as this were made in Athens in the 6th
century B.C. and were particularly widespread in the
second half of the century (Richter, Milne 1935; Boardman
1997:187; Schreiber 1999). Early column-kraters
were oft en decorated with paintings grouped in several
horizontal bands – like, for example, the Berlin krater
F.1966.17 (attributed to Th e KY Painter, 580s – 570s
B.C.) (CVA Berlin 7: Taf. 1–3), similar to the paintings
on kraters made by Corinthian masters, from whom
both the shape and the decoration were, in fact, borrowed
(Bakir 1974: 61–63). On kraters from the middle
to late 6th century B.C. the fi gures were grouped in large
metope-shaped fi elds, with ornamental bands round the
perimeter (in one fi eld on each side) – as, for example,
on the Geneva krater 15053.1937 (CVA Geneva 2: pl. 59,
1–4), or, as on the Hermitage krater – in a long frieze
encompassing the whole body, including the area below
the handles.
Th e Hermitage krater is black-fi gure (Beazley 1986).
Th e side of the krater’s rim is decorated with an ivy
branch, the neck and handles are black and there is a
band of tongues on the shoulders. Th e central section
of the body is occupied by a fi gurative frieze that is unbroken
even below the vessel’s handles; beneath that is a
wide black band; the body around the base is decorated
with base-rays. Th e stem of the krater, with the excep-
ANNA PETRAKOVA, NATALIA BORISOVA
A KRATER WITH SHIPS FROM THE HERMITAGE COLLECTION. THE IMPORTANCE
OF RESTORATION FOR ATTRIBUTION OF ANCIENT VASE-PAINTING
47
tion of the edge of the base, is black, which here, and
also in the lower part of the body, has a reddish-brown
colour, apparently the result of infringements of the
production technology (Noble 1965). On both sides of
the krater is a central element depicting two fi gures facing
each other – Dionysus and a woman in a veil, who
may be identifi ed as Ariadne (LIMC II: Ariadne) – and
of alternating satyrs and maenads, four of each on either
side of the central element. Th ere are three fi gures under
each of the handles: under handle A/Б (ill. 1c) are two
satyrs, one behind the other, and a maenad, and under
handle Б/A (ill. 1d) is a maenad between two satyrs.
Th e horizontal side of the krater’s rim is decorated with
a chain of buds, connected at the bottom by bow-shaped
stems; on the upper side of the handles is an ornamental
element in the form of two large palmettos and two
degraded lotus fl owers, connected by a chain of three
circles, and a network of stems of scrolls. On the inside
of the krater’s neck are depictions of four ships with oars
and sails and a dolphin swimming across a black sea,
whose surface is conveyed by an incised wavy line.
Krater Б. 1525 was mentioned in Ludolf Stephani’s
catalogue (Stephani 1869: Cat. 10) and in Oskar Waldhauer’s
catalogue (Waldhauer 1914: Cat. No. 191), but
in both cases with no discussion on the subject of its attribution.
In an 1885 article about a kylix of Th e Nikosthenes
Painter, Jane Harrison reproduced the Hermitage
krater and made a supposition concerning its possible
attribution to this master (Harrison 1885: pls. 24e, 25).
In their 1968 research into ancient Greek oared ships,
Roderick Williams and John Morrison published the
Hermitage krater and attributed it to Th e Nikosthenes

a b
c d
Ill. 1. Krater Б. 1525 before restoration. Exterior painting. Th e State Hermitage Museum
Painter on the basis of the similarity of the ships depicted
on it to those in the works of masters who were close
to him (Morrison, Williams 1968: 100, pl. 16c). It is
clear from the foregoing that foreign researchers, when
studying the krater, devoted their attention primarily to
the depictions of ships on its inner surface.
In 1983 krater Б. 1525 was published in a scientifi c
catalogue by Ksenia Gorbunova (Gorbunova 1983: 83–
85, Cat. No. 60, ills. on pp. 86–89). Although the photographs
in the catalogue are in black and white and quite
small, the quality is suffi cient to see that the exhibit was
published without restoration: the seams along the joins
are uneven and the surface is covered with numerous
painted additions. Th is is mentioned in the text of the
catalogue entry, where it is recorded that the krater is
“glued together from pieces, fi lled in with plaster and
partly repainted” (Gorbunova 1983: 85).
In Ksenia Gorbunova’s catalogue the krater is attributed
to Th e Painter of Berlin 1686 and dated to
530–525 B.C. on the basis of analogies with three amphorae:
Würzburg 246 and 249 (Langlotz 1932: Taf. 66,
80), attributed by John Beazley to Th e Painter of Berlin
1686 (Beazley 1956: 296, Nos. 8, 10) and Munich
1371 (CVA Munchen 1: Taf. 6, 3, 4, 12, 1, 2), dated in
the Munich publication to c. 540 B.C. and also attributed
to Th e Painter of Berlin 1686 (Beazley 1956: 297,
No. 14). Since all the three analogies quoted in Ksenia
Gorbunova’s catalogue depict Dionysus and his retinue,
as on the outside of the Hermitage krater, we may
conclude that the work on attribution in this case was
carried out on the basis of a study of the outside painting
only, without taking into account the depiction of
ships on the inner surface of the vase’s neck. As Ksenia
Gorbunova notes in her catalogue, “Morrison and
Williams attribute this krater to the circle of Th e Nikosthenes
Painter. Indeed, there are similar elements in
the ships to support this idea. However, a study of the
depictions themselves tends to render it closer to the
style of a master of amphorae, in particular Th e Painter
of Berlin 1686, though the composition goes back as far
as kraters from the mid-6th century B.C. – to the circle
of Lydos” (Gorbunova 1983: 85).
In 2009, in the course of preparations for an exhibition
devoted to seafaring in the ancient world (More
i morexodstvo 2009: Cat. No. 8, p. 49), the krater was
given to restorers for cleaning and reinforcement.
Although no precise information about previous
restorations of the krater has been found, a visual
48 49
Ill. 2. Krater Б. 1525 before restoration.
Painting on the inside of the neck
a
b
c
d

examination of the painting and a detailed study of the
krater with the aid of physical and chemical methods
have established that the vessel (judging by the materials
and technologies used) has undergone at least three
restorations.
Th e fi rst restoration was in the early 19th century
and was most probably carried out by Italian masters
(Shuvalova 2007: 29–33). In this period the vase was
apparently assembled from fragments, the lost pieces
were fi lled with clay and the joints sealed. To give the
impression of the krater’s integrity all the clay inserts,
seams and a signifi cant part of the surface were carefully
primed and covered with additional painting imitating
genuine painting. A chemical examination of this overpainting
carried out by Lyudmila Gavrilenko, Head of
the Hermitage’s chemical laboratory, showed that the
paints used were a mixture of mineral pigments containing
iron, titanium, white lead and burnt bone. Animal
glue and resin were used as binding substances. Th ese
substances were also used to glue together the fragments
of the krater and the seams, and for the internal puttying
that concealed and reinforced the glued seams. Such
restoration methods were typical of that period: “…in
the fi rst half of the 19th century the purpose of restoration
was considered to be the recreation of the supposed
original appearance of the piece, as the restorer understood
it to be… masters attempted to conceal all traces
of their work, and this led to many inaccuracies and
distortions in the shape and patterns of antique vases”
(Shuvalova 2007: 29). Th e State Hermitage’s Scientifi c
Restoration Laboratory quite frequently comes across
such restorations of ancient vases, and in every case detailed
physical and chemical examinations are carried
out. Th e similarity of the methods of restoration and the
materials used that comes to light in the examination of
exhibits leads to the supposition that such objects were
mass-produced by Italian masters.
Th e second restoration, judging by the glue (cellulose)
used, was carried out early in the 20th century. Th e
vase had evidently fallen into fragments at the seams as
a result of the deterioration of the binding materials and
was simply reglued, while retaining the nineteenth-century
clay inserts and renovations of painting, without
cleansing the vase of salts and soiling.
Th e third restoration was undertaken no earlier than
the 1950s, as evidenced by the use among the restoration
materials of polybutylene metacrylic, fi rst used in
1949 by Pavel Kostrov of the State Hermitage (Kostrov
1954: 192–193), but not later than 1957, since any later
the fact of the krater’s restoration would have been
documentarily recorded. In the postwar years the main
task of restorers was to preserve the Hermitage collection,
and there was no possibility of undertaking a full
scientifi c restoration of exhibits. Th e conservation work
consisted of reinforcing the shape with the aim of preventing
the vessel coming apart at the seams as a result
of the deterioration of the binding materials used in
previous restorations. Th e inside of the krater was glued
with strips of fabric and gauze impregnated with a thick
solution of polybutylene metacrylic – in this way an inner
framework was created, ensuring the stability of the
exhibit’s shape; the outer surface was left untouched.
It was in this condition that the krater was examined
by Ksenia Gorbunova and attributed to Th e Painter of
Berlin 1686 on the basis of analogies with the aforementioned
amphorae.
When the krater came to the State Hermitage’s Laboratory
for Scientifi c Restoration of Works of Applied Art
in 2009, it was in a state of gradual disintegration: the
old glues had dried out, the putty had been partly lost,
partly crumbled, the surface of the painting was distended
and cracked in places, while the whole vase was
soiled and rubbed away. Th e exhibit was clearly in need
of a full range of restoration work, including the removal
of the soiling and the reinforcement of its shape. Following
a number of restoration commissions, it was decided
not only to cleanse and reinforce the krater, but also to
try to establish whether it was possible to carry out the
deep cleansing of the surface of the numerous painted
additions of the 19th century to uncover the genuine antique
layers beneath them, with the aim of restoring the
authentic appearance of the sixth-century B.C. vessel.
Th e vessel was submitted to the museum’s Laboratory
for Technical and Technological Examination in the
Department for Scientifi c and Technical Examination
in order to establish the percentage ratio of genuine and
added in the 19th century parts of the krater, and also
to determine the location of the sections that had suffered
most from previous restoration work. Th e data obtained
from an analysis with the use of ultraviolet rays,
carried out by Alexey Sizov and Sergey Khavrin, Senior
Researchers in the Department for Scientifi c and Technical
Examination, showed signifi cant painted additions
on the krater’s neck and on the lower part of its body
around the stem, on sections that did not contain fi gurative
painting and that had most probably been daubed
with paint to give the object a more complete appearance
(ill. 3). A signifi cant number of pieces of clay with added
painting were also discovered in the centre of both sides
of the krater (approximately 1/6 of the painting on one
side and 1/5 on the other), as well as a large insert below
one of the handles and a small one below the other.
Since the laboratory’s facilities did not permit them to
see under the restoration layer and to fi nd out how well
the original painting beneath it had been preserved, trial
cleaning operations were carried out in several places
that had suff ered most from the additional painting on
the genuine ancient parts of the krater by the application
of a compress with solvents and the subsequent separation
of the soft ened layers. Th ese trial cleaning operations
revealed the presence of genuine painting, which
in some cases had suff ered considerably in the course
of preparatory work for the nineteenth-century restoration,
but was sometimes well preserved and did not
correspond to the painted additions on top of it. Despite
the fact that the percentage of later inserts and sections
covered in painted additions was quite large, these inserts
had not aff ected the most valuable painting on
krater Б. 1525 – the depiction of ships inside the rim.
Th e decision was taken to dismantle the krater and clean
it thoroughly, including the removal of the later pieces
of the body and the painted additions on the surface of
the ancient clay, photographing each stage of the restoration
process in detail (ill. 4).
First, with the aid of compresses with solvents, the
glued fabric and putty were removed from the inside of
the vessel. Th e remaining authentic parts of the krater
underwent several stages of cleansing. Th e dismantling
and cleaning of easily removed layers was carried out
in parallel by means of soaking, and the testing of water
on silver nitrate revealed dangerous chloride compounds
in the ceramic. Th e non-ancient pieces, made
by hand (as opposed to the genuine body of the krater,
which was moulded on a potter’s wheel) and covered
with nineteenth-century painting, were removed from
the dismantled fragments. Compresses with various
solvents were used to remove putty and old restoration
glues from the faces and inner walls of the fragments,
aft er which mechanical cleaning was carried out. Hard
layers had survived on the ceramic surface, and whereas
on the outside these were only small individual nidi,
on the inside a solid crust had formed, up to 0.5 mm
thick in some places. Th e removal of the hard layers was
achieved with the aid of a drill with rubber attachments.
50 51
And, fi nally, all the painting added in the 19th century
to give the vase a marketable appearance was removed
from the outside. Th is part of the work presented the
greatest diffi culty, as the painted additions had been applied
by the nineteenth-century restorers in several layers,
without cleaning the pottery surface. Th e archaeological
salt crusts had been reinforced with putty, paint
and glue, and the introduction of resin into the putty
by Italian masters had made it virtually impossible for
the layers to be removed by light chemical reagents. Th e
use of ordinary solvents did not produce the desired
result – the new layers hardly soft ened at all. Because
of the powerful adhesion of the restored layers to the
ceramic surface, mechanical removal would have had
irreparable consequences. It was therefore decided to
make use of the experience of British restorers, who had
removed stubborn old layers with a gel-like preparation
called “Nitromors”, which contained dichloroethane
and had already proved convenient to work with. Th e
gel was applied to the prepared surface in a thin layer
and covered with polythene fi lm. Aft er 10–15 minutes
the compress was taken off , the gel was removed with
a cotton-wool tampon soaked in water, and the soft ened
layers of later additions were carefully removed with
a scalpel. Th is procedure was repeated until the restoration
painting had completely disappeared. It is pertinent
to note that the solution had no eff ect on the surface of
the original painting, so its use was absolutely safe. Aft er
the fragments of the vessel had been fully cleaned, it was
discovered that in some places the original surface had
suff ered considerably from the work of the nineteenthcentury
restorers, who had ground the ancient ceramic
to prepare it for priming prior to painting. Th e next stage
of the restoration was to desalt the fragments, dry them,
then apply a preservative covering to protect the surface
of the ceramic during subsequent operations. Th e
shape of the vessel was restored and the gaps where the
non-authentic fragments had been removed were fi lled
with plaster and painted to match the glaze and clay in
the genuine parts of the krater. Th e clay additions that
had been removed were also cleaned, reinforced and put
into storage as historical material.
Aft er the restoration work, the exhibit, as is clear
from a comparison with old photographs, diff ers substantially
from the piece that arrived in the museum
in 1862 (ills. 5, 6, cf. ills. 1, 2). Th e surface of the vase,
cleared of the numerous painted additions, was now
of a bright colour, showing the original engraving and

the abundant use of additional colours, which diff ers
in many instances from the painting of the krater carried
out in the 19th century. Besides that, it became
clear that several large fragments of the original krater
had been lost – the nineteenth-century restorers had
moulded them by hand, then inserted them into the
body of the original krater, subsequently smearing the
whole surface with thick putty to conceal the diff erences
between the original and the new additions. Analysis
has shown that the composition of the clay in the new
additions, its age, and even its colour (as is clear from
a simple visual examination) diff ers substantially from
the analogical characteristics of the authentic parts of
the krater, while the quality of the later painting, like
the quality of the engraving, is many times worse than
on the genuine parts of the krater and does not correspond
to the style of the original. Th e later additions,
which had distorted the concept of a genuine monument
of ancient vase-painting, were removed. Along
with the additional pieces, the depiction of Ariadne on
a b
c d
Ill. 3. Krater Б. 1525. X-ray photographs (the parts covered with overpainting show up white on the photographs)
a b
c d
Ill. 4. Krater Б. 1525 in the process of restoration: a – dismantling; b – cleaning; c – assembling; d – reconstruction with plaster
Side A had been lost (all that remained were the feet,
the head and the right hand), the fi gure of Dionysus had
lost its legs below the knees, the maenad on the left her
legs below the thighs, the satyr to the left of Dionysus
his left leg below the knee, and the satyr to the right of
Ariadne his body in the area around the waist, with the
exception of the buttocks and legs, apart from parts of
the thighs. Many of the white patterns had disappeared
from Ariadne’s shawl and Dionysus’s beard had lost the
black paint that had covered the well-preserved red
paint of the original. Th e garland on Dionysus’s head
had been transformed from an indistinct element with
a wavy upper edge and was now clearly discernible as
a garland consisting of four ivy leaves at a distance from
52 53
one another. Incisions that had been daubed with black
paint also became visible. All this not only revealed the
authentic work of an Athenian vase-painter in the 6th
century B.C., but also changed our perception of the details
of the painting. On Side Б the whole of the added
fi gure of Ariadne had been lost, as well as Dionysus’ left
arm and his head, except the back of the head with the
garland; also now visible were the incisions on the body
of the satyr to the right of the central group that had
previously been covered by a thick layer of black paint,
as well as previously puttied incisions on the left forearm
of Dionysus and spots of white paint along the armhole
of his chiton. All the fi gures to the left of the central
group became much more clearly defi ned and, at the

same time, the removal of the later painting concealing
the fi gures to the right of the central group had revealed
the original incisions and patterns on their clothes in
the lower part of the depiction (in the upper half the
surface of the painting was badly worn, evidently as
a result of the work of the nineteenth-century restor-
a
c
Ill. 5. Krater Б. 1525 aft er restoration. Exterior painting
ers in their desire to prepare the surface of the vase for
painting). Under handle Б/A (ill. 1d) the upper halves
of the larger satyr and maenad had been lost, but under
handle A/Б (ill. 1d) – only a small piece in the area of
the satyr’s chest and the maenad’s waist. Th e insignifi -
cant losses on the neck and lower part of the krater do
b
d
not aff ect the fi gurative painting. Th e later paints were
removed from the ships, revealing the original incisions
and additional colours, though all four ships and
the dolphin remained intact.
As is clear from this description of the change in
the state of the krater’s preservation as a result of the
restoration work, the loss of some of the painting and
the revelation of the genuine ancient layers over whole
of the krater’s surface led to the fi gures, incisions and
additional red and white colours, on the basis of which
Russian and foreign researchers had made assumptions
concerning the attribution and dating of the piece, undergoing
substantial changes. Th e restoration of the
krater based on visual, chemical and physical examinations
obliges us to revisit these matters.
Th e fi gurative decoration of krater Б. 1525 consists
of a wide band with Dionysian scenes on the outside
and a narrow band depicting ships in sail on the inside.
Th e portrayal of Dionysian scenes on column-kraters
was very common in Attic black-fi gure vase-painting.
Among relatively early kraters they are typical of the
work of Lydos – there are two other column-kraters by
this master: London 1948.10–15.1 (Beazley 1956: 108,
No. 8) and New York 31.11.11 (Beazley 1971: 43), a close
study of which shows that the composition on the Hermitage
krater, as Ksenia Gorbunova quite rightly noted,
relates directly to them: on both Lydos’s kraters and on
the Hermitage piece the fi gures are painted in a frieze
that encompasses the whole body of the vase, unbroken
even under the handles. Many of the poses, details
of costumes and incisions also show a certain similarity
– this is particularly noticeable in the clothing of the
maenads and the legs of the satyrs.
Lydos’s works are examples of the early use of Dionysian
scenes in the painting of column-kraters, the greatest
proliferation of which in Attic vase-painting was in
the last third of the 6th century B.C. Th ey can frequently
be seen on the works of the so-called Leagros Group, e.g.:
Agrigento C 1535 (CVA Agrigento 1: tav. 5, 1, 2, 6, 1, 2);
Agrigento R 142 (CVA Agrigento 1: tav. 3, 1, 2, 4, 1, 2),
Bologna 52 (CVA Bologna 2: tav. 28, 1, 2), Brussels R 324
(CVA Brussels 2: pl. 16, 2a, 2b), Louvre F 308 (CVA Louvre
2: pl. 4, 2, 5), Osaka, Oka collection (CVA Japan 2:
Taf. 12, 3, 4, 24, 1, 2), Villa Giulia 18373 (CVA Villa Giulia
3: tav. 52, 3, 4), and others. Dionysian scenes are also
characteristic of column-kraters painted in the style of
Th e Lysippides Painter or “close to it”, such as Tubingen
S 10816 (CVA Tubingen 3: Taf. 8, 1, 2, 9, 1, 2), Villa Giulia
54 55
Ill. 6. Krater Б. 1525 aft er restoration.
Painting on the inside of the neck
a
b
c
d

25003 (CVA Villa Giulia 2: tav. 16, 1, 2) or Leiden 1954.2.1
(CVA Leiden 1: Taf. 19, 1, 2, 20, 1, 2). Th e subject is also
characteristic of column-kraters from the Group of Faina
75, such as Rome (private collection) (Beazley 1971: 144,
Nos. 4, 7) or Louvre CP 11270A (CVA Louvre 12: pl. 73,
1–4), in which not only the Dionysian scene on one side
of the krater but also the ships on the inside of the vase’s
neck should be mentioned. Th is combination is quite
rare. Th e scene features also on kraters by Th e Painter
of Louvre C 11287 such as Agrigento R 143 (CVA Agrigento
1: tav. 7, 1–3, 8, 1, 2) or Louvre CP 11287A (CVA
Louvre 12: pl. 186, 1–4), Th e Rycroft Painter (krater from
a private collection in Cambridge) (Carpenter 1989: 92),
Th e Painter of Louvre F 6 (fragment from Mytilene)
(Beazley 1956: 124, No. 18), Th e Acheloos Painter (krater
Gotha ZV 2476) (CVA Gotha 1: Taf. 38, 1, 2), Th e
Painter of Munich 1736 (Beazley 1956: 265, No. 2), Th e
Bucci Painter (krater Würzburg L 329) (Carpenter 1989:
85; Beazley 1971: 137, No. 9), Th e Group of Oxford 216
(Warsaw 331294) (CVA Poland coll. Diverses: pls. 1, 2a,
2b), on pieces in the style of Th e Antimenes Painter, e.g.
Naples 81307m (Beazley 1956: 279, No. 54), and also
on numerous column-kraters that have not been attributed
to any specifi c vase-painter: Fiezole (no Inv. No.)
(CVA Fiezole 1: tav. 27, 2, 4, 29, 1–3), Tokyo 8037 (CVA
Japan 2: Taf. 40, 1, 2), Louvre CP 11285 (CVA Louvre
12: pl. 184, 1, 2), CP 11279 (CVA Louvre 12: pl. 179, 1,
2), CP 11288 (CVA Louvre 12: pl. 188, 1, 2), F 311 (CVA
Louvre 2: pl. 5, 1, 4), Rhodes 13370 (CVA Rodi 1: tav.
2, 3, 5), Th essaloniki 9652 (CVA Th essaloniki 1: pl. 33,
1–3), Villa Giulia 753 (CVA Villa Giulia 2: tav. 15, 1, 2)
and others. In addition, similar scenes are also very common
on amphorae of the same period. However, despite
the similarity in subject and composition, and also in
the poses of individual fi gures, none of the kraters mentioned
above, as will become clear by comparison, is an
analogy of krater Б. 1525.
Depictions of small ships on the inner surface of vases
are also frequently encountered in black-fi gure vasepainting
of the last third of the 6th century B.C. Similar
depictions can be seen on dinoi (CVA Boston 2: 9, 10 –
list of 25 dinoi) such as Boston 90.154 (CVA Boston 2:
pls. 65, 2–4, 66, 1, 2), Cleveland 1971.46 (CVA Cleveland
2: pls. 63, 1, 2, 64, 1 – attributed to Th e Antimenes
Painter, the ships are similar to those on the Hermitage
krater), Louvre F 62 (CVA Louvre 2: pls. 1, 1, 2, 2, 1),
Warsaw 198561 (CVA Warsaw 1: pl. 24, 1–4), Madrid
10902 (Burow 1989: pls. 80, c–d, 81, 82 – attributed to
Th e Antimenes Painter, the ships are similar to those on
the Hermitage krater), Louvre F 61 (CVA Louvre 2: pl. 2,
2–4; Beazley 1956: 279, No. 50, defi ned by Beazley as being
“in the style of Th e Antimenes Painter” – the ships
are similar to those on the Hermitage krater), Paestum
sn (Carpenter 1989: 73; Beazley 1971: 122, No. 50 bis, defi
ned by Beazley as being “in the style of Th e Antimenes
Painter” – the ships are similar to those on the Hermitage
krater), as well as fragments of dinoi: Adria IG 22658
(CVA Adria 2: pl. 14, 1–3, defi ned by Bonomi as being
painted “in the style of Th e Antimenes Painter”), Villa
Giulia M 446 (Beazley 1956: 146, No. 20, attributed to
Exekias) and Würzburg L 527 (CVA Würzburg 1: Taf. 44,
1–6). Depictions of ships of a similar type are also found
on the inner and outer surfaces of drinking cups, for example
on the cup Louvre F 145 (CVA Louvre 9: pl. 88,
4–6, inside), Leipzig T 472 (CVA Leipzig 2: Taf. 31, 3, 4,
33, 2, 34, 3, inside) and Heidelberg 25.8 (CVA Heidelberg
4: Taf. 162, 10, 11, outside), on the fragment Tubingen
H 101206 (B 43) (CVA Tubingen 3: Taf. 26, 6, 7,
attributed by Morrison and Williams to the Leagros
Group, attributed by Burow to a master working in the
style of Th e Antimenes Painter), on a cup that was previously
part of Christos Bastis’s collection (Bothmer 1987:
272–273, No. 159), on the cups London B 4159 (CVA
London 2: pl. 12, 8), Brussels A 3645 (Beazley 1956: 2,
note 1, attributed by Beazley to Th e Lysippides Painter),
Louvre F 123 (CVA Louvre 10: pls. 95, 2, 3, 7–10, 12,
96, 1–4, signed by the potter Nikosthenes) , Paris, Cabinet
of Medals 322 (CVA Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale
2: pls. 52, 3–6, 53, 1–5, 54, 1–2, attributed by Beazley to
the Leagros Group, attributed by Smith to the Antiope
Group), New York 56.171.36 (Beazley 1956: 205, No. 14),
Munich 2044 (CVA Munich 13: Taf. 1, 1–2, 2, 1–3, 3, 1,
2) and Copenhagen 3385 (CVA Copenhagen 1: Taf. 23,
1, 2, 25, 1, 26, 1, 27, 1–3, 28, 1, 2). Occasionally ships
can be seen on hydrias – Louvre E 735 (Morrison 2000:
113, fi g. 31), on amphorae – London B 240 (CVA London
4: pl. 58, 4a); Tarquinia 678 (CVA Tarquinia 1: tav.
5, 1, 3); Villa Giulia 15534A (CVA Villa Giulia 1: tav. 8,
1, 2), on plates – Athens, National Museum, Acropolis
Coll. 1.2414 (Beazley 1956: 233), on oinochoes – London
B 508 (Morrison 2000: 117, fi g. 53B); Th ebes 17077
(CVA Th ebes, Archaeological Museum: pl. 70, 1–4), and
on coasters – Frankfurt, Liebighaus 560 (CVA Frankfurt
am Main 2: Taf. 46, 4–6), but depictions of sailing ships
on vase forms other than dinoi, kraters and kylixes are
exceptions rather than the rule.
Kraters with depictions of ships are rarer than dinoi
and drinking cups. A few badly fragmented columnkraters
featuring such depictions are known (CVA Boston
2: 5 – list of 12 kraters), like, for example, New York
07.286.76 (Morrison, Williams 1968: pl. 21a), Louvre
CP 11270A (CVA Louvre 12: pl. 173, 1–4) and Boston
68.777 (CVA Boston 2: pl. 109, 1, 2). Depictions on the
same column-krater of Dionysian scenes on the outside
and sailing ships on the inside are rarer (besides krater
Б. 1525 there are the aforementioned fragments from
Boston, the krater in the Louvre and a few others). Th e
Hermitage krater is, therefore, a rare example of a column-krater
with Dionysian scenes on the outside and
sailing ships on the inside, and its condition aft er restoration
is many times better than other such kraters.
A comparison of the decoration on the upper surface
of the handles of the Hermitage krater with the similar
decoration on the krater from Tokyo (CVA Japan 2:
Taf. 40, 1, 2) or on the krater from Leiden (CVA Leiden
1: Taf. 19, 1, 2, 20, 1, 2) enables us to see the decoration
on the handles of the Hermitage krater as a greatly
simplifi ed version of that on the krater from Tokyo. Th e
palmettos on the Hermitage krater are similar to those
on Class FP cups which date from the 540s to 530s B.C.
(CVA Amsterdam 2: 107–111) and on the Chalcidizing
cups which date from the 520s to 510s B.C. (CVA Amsterdam
2: 114–116).
We can see, therefore, that in its shape, ornamental
decoration and style of fi gurative painting, the Hermitage
krater has a great deal in common with other Attic kraters
from the 530s to 510s B.C., but it is a rather rare piece in
terms of the subject and character of its decoration.
So the restoration work to clear the krater of the
extensive later painting has enabled us to return to the
question of its attribution. As has already been stated,
several attempts to attribute the Hermitage krater have
been made, but the nineteenth-century overpainting
prevented Russian and foreign scholars from getting an
idea of the original ancient painting: all the attempts at
attribution have been made on the basis of distorted or
fake painting.
Let us fi rst take a closer look at the ships on the Hermitage
krater (see ill. 6).
Th e depiction of ships on cups and dinoi in the second
half of the 6th century B.C. is linked primarily with
Exekias and the so-called “E” Group (Morrison, Williams
1968: 91–97) and are dated between the 550s and
530s B.C. On the celebrated Exekias kylix Munich 2044
56 57
the parts of the ship are painted in great detail, including
a decoration on the stern in the form of a swan’s
head and a fi gurehead in the form of an animal’s muzzle
(it can be interpreted as the snout of a wild boar without
the ears, though it is sometimes called a dolphin’s snout).
Th e ships on Group “E” dinoi have the same features,
though in a simplifi ed form. Th e characteristic features
of the muzzle on the ship’s bow are an engraving in the
form of a double corner, which divides the bow from the
body of the ship, and a similar engraving between the
muzzle’s eye and nose. Th e eye is symbolised either by
a double or a single circle. Th e forward part of the deck
is covered with engraving in the form of a network (with
square or rhomboid cells). Other outstanding features
are the large fi gure of the helmsman and the engravings
above the fi gures of the oarsmen. Comparison of Group
“E” works with the Hermitage krater shows a substantial
diff erence in the forms of the same elements of the
ships, and also a substantial diff erence in the character
of the incisions (in Group “E” pieces they are strict and
angular, while on the Hermitage krater they are freely
drawn and rounded).
A second group consists of pieces united on the basis
of their similarity to the cup Louvre F 123, attributed
to Th e Nikosthenes Painter (Morrison, Williams 1968:
97–101). Th ey are dated to the period between the 530s
and 510s B.C. Ships of this group are characterised by a
fi gurehead in the form of a wild boar’s snout, and Morrison
and Williams included the Hermitage krater in
this group. A comparison of some details of the ships
on the Hermitage krater with some vases in this group
actually does reveal a defi nite similarity. However, the
form of the boar’s snout, the incisions on it and the
interpretation of the stern decoration on the Hermitage
krater shows very substantial diff erences from the
Nikosthenes group.
As has been pointed out, the Hermitage krater is
closer to a third group consisting of works by Th e Antimenes
Painter and those working in his style, and
also works by Th e Lysippides Painter (Morrison, Williams
1968: 102–106). Like the Nikosthenes group, they
are dated to the period between the 530s and 510s B.C.
Th is third group includes the dinoi Louvre F 61 (CVA
Louvre 2: pl. 2, 2–4; Beazley 1956: 279, No. 50), Madrid
10902 (Burow 1989: pls. 80 c–d, 81, 82), Hermitage
Б. 1527 (Gorbunova 1983: Cat. No. 46), Villa Giulia
959 (CVA Villa Giulia 3: tav. 55, 3, 56, 1–3; Pomey 1997:
pl. 68), Paestum (no number) (Beazley 1971: 122, No. 50

is; Carpenter 1989: 73), Boston 90.154 (CVA Boston 2:
pls. 65, 2–4, 66, 1, 2) and others.
Th e latest group in chronological terms consists of
pieces connected with the circle of Leagros (Morrison,
Williams 1968: 106–108), which date from approximately
510 B.C. onwards. Th is group includes several red-fi gure
cups, the black-fi gure cup Paris, Cabinet of Medals
322 (CVA Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale 2: pls. 52, 3–6,
53, 1–5, 54, 1, 2) and the amphora London B 240 (CVA
London 4: pl. 58, 4a). Th e depiction of ships on them
diff ers substantially from that on the Hermitage krater.
It can be seen, therefore, that of all the aforementioned
Attic black-fi gure vases with depictions of
ships – a total of about a hundred complete vases and
fragments, the ones most similar to the Hermitage
krater are those attributed by various scholars to Th e
Antimenes Painter (Burow 1989) or painted “in the
style of Th e Antimenes Painter” (ill. 7). Th e ships on
a dinos from the museum in Paestum (Beazley 1971:
122, No. 50 bis; Carpenter 1989: 73) show a similar
treatment of the oarsmen and the sail, and an almost
identical boar’s snout on the ship’s prow (except that the
incision on the ear is single, not double). Th e diff erences
lie in the closer crests of the waves and in the dimensions
of the helmsman and the stern decoration (on the
Hermitage krater these are large, on the Paestum dinos
small). John Beazley defi ned the Paestum dinos as being
painted “in the style of Th e Antimenes Painter”.
Another outstanding example for comparison is the
dinos Louvre F 61 (CVA Louvre 2: pl. 2, 2–4; Beazley
1956: 279, No. 50), also defi ned by John Beazley as being
painted “in the style of Th e Antimenes Painter”. As
in the previous example, the depictions of the ships, the
oarsmen and the sails can be called identical, though
the wild boar’s snouts that form the fi gureheads diff er
slightly in the incision of the eye (single on the Louvre
dinos, double on the Hermitage krater). In addition,
as opposed to the Paestum dinos, the stern decoration
and the large helmsman on the Louvre dinos are very
similar to those on the Hermitage krater. Another good
example for comparison is the Hermitage dinos Б. 1527
(Gorbunova 1983: Cat. No. 46), also painted in the style
of Th e Antimenes Painter. Although the boar’s snout on
the fi gureheads of the ships on the dinos are without
ears, the interpretation of the eyes, the transverse incision
on the snout and all the details of the deck and
stern are similar to those on the Hermitage krater. Also
very similar to the Hermitage ships are those on the di-
nos Villa Giulia 959 (CVA Villa Giulia 3: tav. 55, 3, 56,
1–3; Pomey 1997: pl. 68): this relates especially to the
incision of the eye on the boar’s snout. A comparison
of the Hermitage krater and the four dinoi in the style
of Th e Antimenes Painter already mentioned with the
dinos Madrid 10902 (Burow 1989: pls. 80c–d, 81, 82),
attributed by John Beazley to Th e Antimenes Painter,
also shows a signifi cant degree of similarity, except that
on all the ships in that master’s style the heads of the
oarsmen are depicted as black silhouette circles, while
in this work, attributed to the same master, the hair, the
ears and eyes are incised on these circles; the oars are
also conveyed in more detail by Th e Antimenes Painter
(the rowlocks are incised in a semicircle and the blades
symbolised by the application of white paint). Th e wild
boar’s snouts on the dinos from Madrid and on the
Hermitage krater are almost identical, except that none
of the four Madrid snouts have ears, but the depiction
of the eye with double engraving, the characteristic
blunt end of the snout with a complex incised element
and other details are the same. Th ese examples are quite
suffi cient to conclude that the depiction of the ships
with all their details, as well as the interpretation of the
waves and the dolphin on Hermitage krater Б. 1525, is
closest to the works characterised by scholars as “in the
style of Th e Antimenes Painter”.
Let us now return to the matter of the painting on the
outside of the Hermitage krater. In Ksenia Gorbunova’s
catalogue three amphorae by Th e Painter of Berlin 1686
were quoted as analogies: Würzburg 246 and 249 (Langlotz
1932: Taf. 66, 80) and Munich 1371 (CVA Munich
1: Taf. 6, 3, 4, 12, 1, 2). A comparison of these three amphorae
with Hermitage krater Б. 1525 when it was covered
in nineteenth-century overpainting indeed demonstrates
a defi nite similarity in the silhouettes of the
fi gures and in certain elements (for example, ornaments
that proved to be later additions and were removed in
the process of restoration). Aft er cleaning, however, the
genuine krater has enabled a detailed analysis to be carried
out, showing that the works of Th e Painter of Berlin
1686 cannot be called closer to the Hermitage krater
than the works of his contemporaries in the last third of
the 6th century B.C. Th is can be most clearly demonstrated
by a comparison of several elements of paintings
of a similar type on vases attributed to various painters.
ill. 8 shows the head of Dionysus with garland from
the restored Hermitage krater Б. 1525, heads of Dionysus
from the amphorae London B. 181 (CVA London
3: pl. 32, 4, a, b) and Mougins 316 (Beazley 1971: 196,
No. 8 bis), attributed to Th e Painter of Nicosia Olpe, the
head of Dionysus from an amphora in the style of Th e
Swing Painter (BADB, No.6271), as well as the head of
Dionysus from the amphorae of Th e Painter of Berlin
1686 – Würzburg 246 and 249 (Langlotz 1932: Taf. 66,
80), on the basis of which the Hermitage krater was attributed
to Th e Painter of Berlin 1686 in the catalogue
of 1983. Th e head of Dionysus on the Hermitage krater
before restoration certainly was very similar to elements
of the painting on amphorae by Th e Painter of Berlin
1686. However, the uncovering of the original painting
(including the strikingly specifi c incisions, the shape of
the face, the garland and the hairstyle, and the use of additional
colours) has revealed a much closer similarity
to works by Th e Painter of Nicosia Olpe. In exactly the
same way (ill. 9) we can compare the head of a satyr on
a work by Th e Painter of Berlin 1686, the painter who
decorated the Hermitage krater Б. 1525 and Th e Painter
58 59
a
c
Ill. 7. Comparison of depictions of ships: a – dinos Madrid 10902, Th e Antimenes Painter; b – krater Б. 1525;
c – kylix Munich 2044, Exekias; d – kylix Louvre F 123, Th e Nikosthenes Painter
of Nicosia Olpe. In its cleaned state the painting on the
Hermitage krater leaves no doubt of its similarity not to
the works of Th e Painter of Berlin 1686, but to the works
of Th e Painter of Nicosia Olpe. Th ese elements, along
with other parts of the painting, including the fi gures of
all the characters, their clothing, ornaments, attributes,
hairstyles, etc., as well as the poses and composition of
the fi gures, the incisions and the use of additional red
and white paint (particularly the ornament in the form
of little red circles on the clothing of the maenads), leads
to the acknowledgement that the master who painted
the outside of the Hermitage krater was close to Th e
Painter of Nicosia Olpe.
Besides changing opinions concerning the painter
who decorated krater Б. 1525, the restoration, carried
out with every possible physical and chemical analysis,
also provides certain information about the working
methods of Italian ceramic restorers in the 19th century.
On one of the later additions removed in the course of
b
d

the restoration is a depiction of a woman’s head, painted
in imitation of the women’s heads close in style to
those on the works of Th e Painter of Berlin 1686, which
is what had previously misled researchers. Th e shape of
the eye, the nose, the head, and particularly the large ear
with the S-shaped line inside it, are characteristic of the
fi gures of Th e Painter of Berlin 1686, but are not seen at
all on the cleaned original characters on krater Б. 1525,
i.e. we can draw the conclusion that nineteenth-century
Italian master-restorers had copied ancient examples
(evidently vases that they had had in their workshops
for restoration at the same time).
To sum up, then, we can say the following: of all the
black-fi gure paintings with ships, the decoration on the
inner surface of krater Б. 1525 is closest to those defi
ned by scholars as being “in the style of Th e Antimenes
Painter”. By works “in the style of Th e Antimenes Painter”
they mean those of a whole group of vase-painters,
none of whom, unfortunately, are known to have painted
ships and Dionysian scenes at the same time. On the
other hand, the exterior painting of krater Б. 1525 is
most similar to pieces by Th e Painter of Nicosia Olpe,
a b
c
who was working between the 530s and 510s B.C. – the
same time as the group of masters who painted vases
in the style of Th e Antimenes Painter. However, there
are no vases among those attributed to Th e Painter of
Nicosia Olpe featuring ships or dolphins. We surmise
that the master who painted krater Б. 1525 was working
in that period, and that his style can be defi ned as similar
to both Th e Antimenes Painter and Th e Painter of
Nicosia Olpe. It may be suggested that the interior and
exterior depictions might have been painted by two different
masters. However, in both the interior and exterior
painting there is one feature that, despite the diff erence
in subject, nevertheless suggests the individuality
of a single master. At a time when very signifi cant diff erences
can be seen in the work of many vase-painters, enabling
us to speak of various methods used by the same
master even in the painting of a single piece, the master
who painted krater Б. 1525, in repeating a similar depiction
four times, used completely identical elements
on three occasions, only slightly changed on the fourth.
Th is characteristic can easily be traced by comparing
with one another the four ships, all the surviving satyrs
d e f
Ill. 8. Comparison of depictions of the head of Dionysus: a – krater Б 1525; b – amphora London B. 181, Th e Painter of Nicosia Olpe;
c – amphora Mougins Museum of Classical Art, Th e Painter of Nicosia Olpe; d – amphora in the style of Th e Swing Painter (BADB,
No. 6271); e – amphora Würzburg 246, Th e Painter of Berlin 1686; f – amphora Würzburg 249, Th e Painter of Berlin 1686
and Dionysus, all the surviving maenads, and so on. In
addition, a comparison of the incisions on the interior
and exterior of the krater are undoubtedly by a similar
hand (for example, a comparison of Dionysus’s eye on
the outside with the dolphin on the inside of the vase).
We believe that the krater’s interior and exterior were
painted by the same master, relying on diff erent examples
in his imitation. In some aspects the painting of the
krater Б.1525 is also close to Th e Nikosthenes Painter
and his circle.
So now, instead of a krater of dubious quality, covered
entirely in 19th century paint and in a state of
gradual disintegration, since the nineteenth-century
restorers had applied their paints directly over the salts
that were eating away the surface of the ancient painting
and were continuing to destroy an outstanding example
of Athenian vase-painting from the last third of the 6th
century B.C., the State Hermitage is the owner of a good
work of Attic vase-painting, rare from the point of view
of its context and in its quite good state of preservation
(70% of the original krater has survived). Besides, the
uncovering of the authentic painting of krater Б. 1525
has changed our conception of its place among the
works of Attic vase-painters in the last third of the 6th
century B.C., i.e. it has brought clarity to its attribution,
previously hampered by the numerous additional paintings.
Th is type of restoration work, carried out with the
close cooperation of curators, ceramic restorers, specialists
from the laboratories of technical-technological and
physical-chemical analysis of materials, gives extremely
useful results for the museum and should, in our opinion,
become normal practice.
60 61
a b
c
Ill. 9. Comparison of depictions of the head of a satyr: a – amphora Würzburg 246, Th e Painter of Berlin 1686;
b – krater Б. 1525; c – amphora London B. 181, Th e Painter of Nicosia Olpe
References
BADB
Beazelay Archive Data Base. (URL: http://www.beazeley.ox.ac.
uk/index.html).
Bakir 1974
Bakir, Tomris. Der Kolonettenkrater in Korinth und Attica
zwischen 625 und 550 v. Chr. Würzburg: K. Triltsch Verl.,
1974.
Beazeley 1956
Beazley, John. Attic Black-Figure Vase-Painters. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1956.
Beazley 1971
Beazley, John. Paralipomena. Additions to Attic Black-Figure
Vase-Painters and to Attic Red-Figure Vase-Painters. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1971.
Beazley 1986
Beazley, John. Th e Development of Attic Black-Figure. Rev. ed.
by Bothmer, D. and M. Moore. Berkeley, Los Angeles, Oxford:
University of California Press, 1986.
Boardman 1997
Boardman, John. Athenian Black Figure Vases. London:
Th ames & Hudson Ltd., 1997.
Bothmer 1987
Bothmer, Dietrich et al. Antiquities from the Collection of Christos
G. Bastis. Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1987.
Burow 1989
Burow, Johannes. “Der Antimenesmaler”. In: Kerameus. Mainz:
Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1989. Vol. 7.

Carpenter 1989
Carpenter, Th omas et. al. Beazley Addenda, Additional References
to ABV, ARV2 and Paralipomena. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1989.
CVA
Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum
Gorbunova 1983
Gorbunova, Ksenia. Černofi gurnyje attičeskije vazy v Ermitaže
[Black-Figure Attic Vases in the Hermitage]. Catalogue. Leningrad:
Iskusstvo, 1983.
Harrison 1885
Harrison, Jane. “A Kylix by Nikosthenes”. Journal of Hellenic
Studies. 1885. Vol. 6.
Kostrov 1954
Kostrov, Pavel. “Texnika živopisi i konservacii rospisi Drevnjego
Pjandžikenta [Th e Technique of Painting and the Conservation
of Paintings from Ancient Penjikent]”. In: Živopis’
Drevnjego Pjandžikenta. Moscow, 1954: 192–193.
Langlotz 1932
Langlotz, Ernst. Griechische Vasen in Würzburg. München, 1932.
LIMC
Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae. Zürich;
München; Düsseldorf.
More i morexodstvo 2009
More i morexodstvo v antičnoj kul’ture: catalog vystavki v
Muzeje Mirovogo Okeana [Th e Sea and Seafaring in Ancient
Culture: Catalogue of the Exhibition in the Museum of
the World Ocean (Kaliningrad, 23 October 2009 – 9 March
2010)]. St. Petersburg: State Hermitage Publishers, 2009.
Morrison 2000
Morrison, John. Th e Athenian Trireme. Th e History and Reconstruction
of an Ancient Greek Warship. 2nd ed. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Morrison, Williams 1968
Morrison, John and Roderick Williams. Greek Oared Ships
900–332 B.C. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968.
Noble 1965
Noble, John. Th e Techniques of Attic Painted Pottery. New
York: Watson-Guptill Publications, 1965.
Pomey 1997
Pomey, P. (ed.). La Navigation dans l’Antiquite. Aix en Provence:
Édisud, 1997.
Richter, Milne 1935
Richter, Gisela Maria Augusta and Marjorie Josephine Milne.
Shapes and Names of Athenian Vases. New York: Plantin Press,
1935.
Sarti 2001
Sarti, Susanna. Giovanni Pietro Campana (1808–1880): the
Man and His Collection. Oxford: Archaeopress, 2001. (Studies
in the History of Collections. Vol. 2).
Schreiber 1999
Schreiber, Toby. Athenian Vase Construction. Malibu: J. Paul
Getty Museum, 1999.
Shuvalova 2007
Shuvalova, Olga. “K probleme restavracii proizvedenij antičnoj
keramiki kak xudožestvennyx i istoriko-dokumental’nyx pamjatnikov
(na primere dvux vaz iz sobranija Gosudarstvennogo
Ermitaža) [On the Problem of the Restoration of Ancient Ceramics
as Artistic and Historical-Documentary Monuments
(on the Basis of Two Vases from the State Hermitage Collection)]”.
Problemy restavracii pamjatnikov kul’tury i iskusstva v
muzejax Urala. Proceedings of the 2nd Regional Conference
to Mark the 10th Anniversary of the Hermitage School of Restoration
in Yekaterinburg, 2007: 29–33.
Stephani 1869
Stephani, Ludolph. Die Vasen-Sammlung der Kaiserlichen Ermitage.
St. Petersburg: Buchdruckerei der kaiserlichen Akademie
der Wissenschaft en, 1869.
Waldhauer 1914
Waldhauer, Oskar. Imperatorskij Ermitaž. Kratkoje opisanije
sobranija antičnyx raspisnyx vaz [Th e Imperial Hermitage.
A Short Description of the Collection of Ancient Painted Vases].
St. Petersburg: K. Mattisen Press, 1914.
Translated by David Hicks
Greek lamps (German: die griechische Lampen) is
the name given by modern researchers to oil lamps used
in mainland Greece, Southern Italy and Asia Minor
in the 5th – 4th centuries B.C.
Th ey originate from lamps shaped as an ordinary
saucer, more or less opened, with a later added pointed
nozzle on one side, which are thought to have been
used in Mediterranean countries beginning from the
2nd millennium B.C. Th e body of Greek lamps is always
circular. Clay lamps, which form the majority of
the surviving lamps of this type, were made on a potter’s
wheel. Th e half-fi nished lamp was removed from
the wheel and dried until it was leather-hard, then one
or more holes were cut in the sides, and one or more
nozzles, cast in a mould, were attached. A looped handle
molded from a strip of clay was also frequently added.
When the lamp was used, a wick of some kind of fi bre
was passed through the nozzle and the wick burned,
gradually drawing up the oil with which the lamp’s body
was fi lled.
Bronze Greek lamps were identical in shape to clay
ones. Th ey were cast in a mould, possibly several of
them at once, aft er which they were separated, the details
pressed, if necessary, and the handles, which were
cast separately, soldered on. Th ey were soldered either
on to the side or on to the top in the centre, depending
on the function and dimensions of the lamp. A cylindrical
plug in the centre of lamps of this type served either
NADEZDA GULYAEVA
GREEK LAMPS FROM PRIVATE COLLECTIONS IN THE STATE HERMITAGE 1
1 Th is article was prepared with the participation of Anastasia Bukina.
Th e author would also like to express her gratitude to Elena Vlasova,
curator of the collection of Taman antiquities, for her assistance and
consultations.
63
for fastening a tall massive handle or for hanging the
lamp on a candelabra. In the latter case apertures were
made in the plug for the chains.
Th ere are no relief fi gures or ornamental decor on
Greek lamps, such as can be seen on some Hellenistic
lamps and on many Roman lamps. Th e main merits
of these pieces are the high quality of the craft smanship
(bronze casting, pottery) and the pure, expressive
and – there is no other word for it – classical shape. Th e
ability to identify and acquire an antique of such kind
characterises the personality of the collector. In order
to appreciate the worth of such a piece, a collector must
have a substantial interest in the ancient world, a deep
profound understanding of the artistic culture of that
epoque and a very well-bred taste. Greek lamps formed
parts of several private collections acquired by the Hermitage
during the 19th – early 20th centuries.
Th e collection of the Department of Classical Antiquity
includes a bronze Greek lamp that has not previously
attracted the attention of researchers. Th e story
of its acquisition is quite fascinating and deserves to be
told here. On 16 March 1900 Ivan Vsevolozhsky, the Director
of the Imperial Hermitage, received a report from
Gangolf Kizeritsky, the senior curator in the Department
of Antiquities, concerning an off er of the Odessa
merchant Georges Kallo to purchase from him “ancient
items found in the village of Parutino, on the site of the
ancient city of Olbia. ”. “I consider it my duty to
add”, wrote the curator, “that despite the comparatively
high price demanded by the vendor, the acquisition of
these items is extremely desirable for supplementing our
collection of Greek antiquities from Southern Russia…

in view of the fact that these pieces, found on domestic
soil, represent types very interesting from an academic
and an artistic point of view, that do not currently exist
in the Hermitage Museum” (Archives of the State Hermitage
Museum, Fund 1, Register 5, Folder 8 (1900),
f. 110). Th is was followed by a similar report from Ivan
Vsevolozhsky to Konstantin Rydzevsky, the Minister of
the Imperial Court, with a request to “assign to the Hermitage
a special sum” (Ibid, f. 112). In response there was
a letter from the steward of the Cabinet of His Imperial
Majesty where he informed the Director about the minister’s
order to entrust an examination and evaluation of
the merchant Kallo’s collection to the special Commission
set up for the similar acquisition by the Hermitage
of the collection of the nobleman Novikov (Ibid, f. 113).
In a letter dated 11 May 1900 the Chairman of the Commission
Count Alexey Bobrinsky, Chamberlain of the
Court of His Imperial Majesty, requested to show him
the original application of Georges Kallo’s, which at that
moment was not in the Hermitage (Ibid, f. 114). Nevertheless,
Kallo’s letter with his personal seal dated 4 April
1900 is on fi le (Ibid, f. 109). It includes the address and
name of the shop: “Odessa, 36 Rue Richelieu. ‘Importation
d’articles de Japon et de Chine. Departements en
Kobe et Yokohama’”. Further correspondence concerns
the possibility and place of paying to the merchant the
rest of the required sum of money – 3,371 roubles 70
kopecks, as the Hermitage had already paid a part of it.
It can be seen from above that Georges Kallo’s collection,
in the opinion of the Hermitage curators of that
time, was of great academic and artistic interest and
they did not want to miss these pieces.
Indeed, the pieces from this collection are of excellent
quality, which can be clearly seen even on one
particular item – a bronze Greek lamp (list No. B. 977,
Inv. No. ГР 7986; length 14.5 cm, diam. 10.0 cm, total
height 3.5 cm, height of lamp 1.0 cm; acquired in 1900;
ills. 1, 2). It is a round, fl at, open lamp with two nozzles.
Th e broad fl at edge is turned inwards. Th e tall doubletube
looped handle is attached at its upper end to the
shoulder of the lamp, while the lower end is attached to
its body. In the middle of the lamp is a hollow cylindrical
plug with two holes, most probably for hanging the
lamp on a candelabra.
Th e only bronze analogy to this lamp can be the one
found in 1876 by Vladimir Tisengausen during the excavations
of the central part of the Seven Brothers IV
burial mound (Inv. No. C.Бр. IV. 20; diameter of body
Ill. 1. Lamp B. 977 (Inv. No. ГР 7986). Bronze. Early 5th century B.C.
Th e State Hermitage Museum. First publication
Ill. 2. Profi le of lamp B. 977 (Inv. No. ГР 7986)
15 cm, total height 17 cm, height of lamp 2 cm; acquired
in 1876 (Stefani 1880: 22–23, plate II, 7, 8; Gertziger
1984: Cat. No. 8; ill. 3). It is clear from this lamp that the
number of nozzles could vary, since this one has three
nozzles, not two. Ludolf Stefani remarks: “Th is is not
only the most ancient, but the only purely Greek-made
appliance of its kind currently known to us…” (Stefani
1880: 22). Dora Gertziger (Gertziger 1984: 85, 91–92)
aft er Ludolf Stefani (Stefani 1880: 15) thought the lamp
and the candelabra on which it stood to be among the
rare examples of early bronze Greek lamps made in
Magna Grecia in the early 5th century B.C.
All the other analogues are clay lamps. Th ey could
have one nozzle, like the clay Hermitage lamp from
the island of Berezan, made in Ionia in the 6th century
B.C. (Borisfen – Berezan’ 2005: 102, Cat. No. 173). Th ey
could have two nozzles, like the Hermitage lamp found
Ill. 3. Lamp (Inv. No. C.Бр. IV. 20). Bronze. Early 5th century B.C.
Th e State Hermitage Museum
in Myrmekion in 1963 (Gaydukevich 1987: 26, ill. 27).
All the fi nds from this site date from the fi rst quarter/
half of the 5th century B.C. (Gaydukevich 1987: 29).
Th e Kerch History and Culture Reserve has sixteen such
lamps – whole and fragmented – found during archaeological
excavations in various Bosporan cities. Th ey all
date from the second half or last quarter of the 6th to the
early/fi rst quarter of the 5th century B.C. (Zhuravlev,
Bykovskaya, Zheltikova 2007: 31–37, Cat. Nos. 1–16).
A similar lamp from the collection of the Römisch-Germanischen
Zentralmuseum in Mainz is interesting because
it comes from the south of Russia, possibly from
Olbia (Menzel 1954: Kat. Nr. 25, Abb. 2, 6). Heinz Menzel
believes that it is a Bosporan imitation of Attic blackglazed
lamps and makes reference to the Hermitage
lamp published by Oskar Waldhauer (Waldhauer 1914:
21, Cat. No. 24, plate II, 24). However it seems to us that
this reference is wrong since the lamp showed by Oskar
Waldhauer is actually a Bosporan imitation of Ionian,
not Attic lamps. A similar replica of an Ionian lamp is
kept in the Kerch History and Culture Reserve (Zhuravlev,
Bykovskaya, Zheltikova 2007: 37, Cat. No. 17). Th e
lamp from the Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseum
in Mainz, published by Heinz Menzel, is more likely to
be an original work of Ionian masters, like is a similar
lamp from the Louvre found on the island of Rhodes
and dating back to the last quarter of the 6th – fi rst
quarter of the 5th century B.C. (Lyon-Caen, Hoff 1986:
26–27, Cat. No. 3).
Th e problem of establishing the date and provenance
of early bronze lamps is diffi cult because only few of
them have survived. It can be said with certainty that
64 65
early bronze pieces were oft en melted down in ancient
times, since their outward apparent simplicity was, at
fi rst glance, of no artistic interest. Not too many clay
lamps of this type have also survived. Evidently such
pieces were not mass-produced and were characteristic
for a restricted circle of workshops. Th e analogues
found in other collections are, therefore, exclusively of
clay, as are the remaining Greek lamps currently kept
in the Hermitage. All researchers agree that these clay
lamps were made in the last quarter of the 6th century –
the fi rst quarter of the 5th century B.C. in Ionia and the
main centre of production was the island of Rhodes.
It is therefore possible to apply this dating to our bronze
lamp (No. B. 977) and to assume that it originated from
the cities of Ionian Greece.
All the other Greek lamps from private collections
remaining now in the Hermitage are made from clay.
Th e most signifi cant, both in quantity and variety, group
of Greek clay lamps, was purchased as part of a collection
brought to Russia by the Italian collector, medical
doctor and surgeon Antonio Pizzati. Antonio Pizzati was
an Associate Member of the Instituto di corrispontieza
archeologica (the predecessor of the German Archaeological
Institute in Rome) from Naples (BdI 1833: XIII)
and from Florence (BdI 1837: XIII) and was, according
to a contemporary, “esimio estimatore del bello nelle antiche
arti, e specialmente nei vasi fi ttili” [an outstanding
connoisseur of beauty in ancient arts, and particularly
in clay vases] (Inghirami 1837: 5).
Nine lamps were evidently purchased from Antonio
Pizzati in 1834. Th e earliest of them is a lamp with
a single nozzle and a bush in the centre of the body; the
shoulders are decorated with delicate relief cylinders
(Б. 994, Inv. No. ГР 2823; length c. 9.0 cm, diameter of
body 7.4 cm, total height 1.9 cm, diameter of bottom
5.8 cm; the edge of the bush has been broken off and
the surface is worn (Waldhauer 1914: Cat. No. 22; ills. 4,
5). Th is lamp has close analogues among those dating
from the last quarter of the 6th to the fi rst quarter of
the 5th century B.C. Such lamps were produced both in
Athens (cf. Bailey 1975: Cat. Nos. Q13–Q19, here and
subsequently with numerous analogues) and in Southern
Italy, from whence, according to the owner, most
of the exhibits in his collection came (cf. Bailey 1975:
Cat. Nos. Q639–Q650 – place of manufacture Sicily).
Another early lamp from Antonio Pizzati’s collection
(Б. 992, Inv. No. ГР 2821; length 12.3 cm, diameter of
body 8.2 cm, total height 2.3 cm, diameter of bottom

4.4 cm; the handle is made of pieces glued together and
the surface is worn (Waldhauer 1914: Cat. No. 16; ill. 6)
is also similar to the lamp in question.
Another lamp of the same period was acquired
in 1935 from a certain woman Efi mova (Б. 7853,
Inv. No. ГР 17830; length 1.5 cm, diameter of body
8.2 cm, total height c. 2.0 cm, diameter of bottom
6.9 cm; the surface is worn in places). Th e owner informed
that the items belonging to her (88 exhibits
in all) came from the collection of Alexander Musin-
Pushkin (Book for Recording New Acquisitions in the
Department of Antiquities No. III (for 1915–1919 and
up to 1957, page 179)). Count Alexander Musin-Pushkin
(1855–1918), at various times administrator of the
Kiev, Odessa and St. Petersburg educational districts
and a senator, owned the land where ancient Olbia was
situated. He was the fi rst of the local landowners to allow
the Imperial Archaeological Commission to begin
regular excavations of Olbia’s settlement and necropolis
(OAK for 1906: 1–2). Th e rich collection of Olbian
Ill. 4. Lamp Б. 994 (Inv. No. ГР 2823). Clay.
Late 6th – early 5th century B.C. Th e State Hermitage Museum
Ill. 5. Profi le of lamp Б. 994 (Inv. No. ГР 2823).
Th e State Hermitage Museum
Ill. 6. Profi le of lamp Б. 992 (Inv. No. ГР 2821).
Th e State Hermitage Museum
antiquities belonging to Alexander Musin-Pushkin was
kept in St. Petersburg (Farmakovsky 1916).
A similar lamp was acquired in 1904 from the Imperial
Archaeological Commission, which had purchased
it from the priest Levitsky (Б. 4678, Inv. No. ГР 11378;
in fragments). According to the seller, the group of pieces
in which it was included was “antiquities from Berezan”
(Memorandum of the Imperial Archaeological Commission
of 12 January 1904 No. 75; list – Archives of the
State Hermitage Museum, Fund 1, Register 5, Folder 17
(1904), ff . 5–7). “Received…items from Berezan, purchased
from Father Levitsky according to the inventory…”
(Book for Recording New Acquisitions in the Department
of Antiquities No. II (for 1893–1914, page 59)).
A slightly later lamp also comes from Antonio Pizzati’s
collection (Б. 1101, Inv. No. ГР 2830; length 10.9 cm,
diameter of body 7.2 cm, total length 3.4 cm, diameter
of bottom 4.4 cm; glued, surface worn (Waldhauer 1914:
Cat. No. 47; ill. 7). Th e profi le of its body has close analogues
with lamps of the second quarter of the 5th century
B.C. (Bailey 1975: Cat. No. Q26).
Another lamp, evidently from Antonio Pizzati’s collection,
can be dated to the fi rst half of the 4th century
B.C. (Б. 996, Inv. No. ГР 2825; length 13.6 cm, diameter
of body 7.4 cm, total height 6.3 cm, diameter of
bottom 4.2 cm; the handle is glued on and the surface
worn (Waldhauer 1914: Cat. No. 40); ill. 8). It is closest
in shape to the Howlander 23c type, which dates from
the fi rst quarter of the 4th century B.C.; it is possible
that this piece was made in an Attic workshop (cf. Bailey
1975: Cat. No. Q65, Q68, Q69 – Athens, dated to
the fi rst half of the 4th century B.C.). Similar in shape
and manufacture are two more lamps of the same origin
(Б. 999, Inv. No. ГР 2828; length 11.1 cm, diameter of
body 5.9 cm, total height 6.1 cm, diameter of bottom
3.9 cm; crack beneath the handle, surface worn (Waldhauer
1914: Cat. No. 43); Б. 1000, Inv. No. ГР 2829;
length 12.5 cm, diameter of body 6.7 cm, total height
5.3 cm, diameter of bottom 3.6 cm; surface worn).
Two other lamps from the same group are of the
same type, though the shape of their bodies is slightly
diff erent: the walls have a more upright profi le (Б. 997,
Inv. No. ГР 2826; length 8.5 cm, diameter of body 5.4 cm,
total height 4.7 cm, diameter of bottom 3.4 cm; surface
worn (Waldhauer 1914: Cat. No. 41); ill. 9; Б. 998,
Inv. No. ГР 2827; length 10.6 cm, diameter of body
5.9 cm, total height 5.8 cm, diameter of bottom 3.6 cm;
surface worn (Waldhauer 1914: Cat. No. 42)). Apparently
this allows us to date them as previous ones.
A similar lamp came to the Hermitage in 1888 as
a gift from the Full Councillor of State Grigory Chertkov
(Б. 4270, Inv. No. ГР 10398; length 11.9 cm, diameter
of body 6.0 cm, total height 5.5 cm, diameter of bottom
3.5 cm; surface worn; ill. 10). Th e donator was the son
of Alexander Chertkov (1789–1858), an archaeologist
and historian, Vice-President (from 1836) and Chairman
(1848–1857) of the Society of Russian History
and Antiquities. Alexander Chertkov was the author of
such works as “Th racian Tribes in Asia Minor” (1852),
“Th e Pelasgian-Th racian Tribes of Ancient Italy” (1853)
and “Concerning the Language of the Pelasgian Population
of Italy and Its Comparison with Ancient Slovenian”
(1855–1857). Kept in the Moscow house of Grigory
Chertkov, aft er his father’s death, was a huge library
with a collection of manuscripts, which later passed
to the Historical Museum (Murzakevich 1860; Russkij
arxiv 1863: 1–19). It is known that Alexander Chertkov
spent two years travelling in Austria, Switzerland and Italy,
and it may be that some of the ancient and imitation
ceramic pieces, now in the Hermitage, were purchased
in those countries (including the Etrusco-Corinthian
alabastron from the fi rst half of the 6th century B.C. and
Italian and Greek lamps from Roman times).
A lamp on a stand from Antonio Pizzati’s collection
probably dates from a slightly later period (Б. 1124,
Inv. No. ГР 2952; length 7.1 cm, diameter of body
4.8 cm, total height 10.4 cm, height of lamp 3.4 cm; surface
worn, covering partially missing (Waldhauer 1914:
Cat. No. 530; ill. 11)). Th e lamp’s profi le shows great
similarity to pieces from the end of the third quarter –
the last quarter of the 4th century B.C. (Bailey 1975:
Cat. Nos. Q671, Q672).
An example that stands out among the fourthcentury
B.C. lamps is one that was acquired in 1852
from the collection of the Counts Laval (Б. 1261,
Inv. No. ГР 3732; diameter of body 17.4 cm, total
height 9.9 cm, diameter of bottom c. 15.0 cm, length of
66 67
Ill. 7. Profi le of lamp Б. 1001 (Inv. No. ГР 2830). Th e State
Hermitage Museum
Ill. 8. Profi le of lamp Б. 996 (Inv. No. ГР 2825).
Th e State Hermitage Museum
Ill. 9. Profi le of lamp Б. 997 (Inv. No. ГР 2826).
Th e State Hermitage Museum
Ill. 10. Profi le of lamp Б. 4270 (Inv. No. ГР 10398).
Th e State Hermitage Museum

nozzle 4.8 cm; nozzles glued on, cracks in the walls and
in the bottom, surface chipped, lacquer partially missing,
deposit in places; (Waldhauer 1914: Cat. No. 539;
ills. 12–13)). Th e story of the Laval family – Ivan
(1761–1846) and Alexandra (1772–1850), their salon
and the collection that included a number of fi rst-class
works of ancient and Western European art – is well
known. Th is particular lamp is distinguished by its large
dimensions, it has three nozzles and the upper part of
the body is red-fi gured: with a chain of multi-petal rosettes
in the colour of the clay added with an imposed
white paint. Th is ornament made in a rather careless
manner, as well as the character of the lacquer and the
clay, leads to the suggestion that the Lavals’ lamp was
made in one of the Apulian vase-painting workshops.
Th e lamp’s profi le is very similar to that of two lamps
from Antonio Pizzati’s collection (Б. 997 and Б. 998),
and this, together with the character of the ornamentation,
argues in favour of dating this exhibit to the last
quarter or the end of the 4th century B.C.
Two other lamps from private collections were probably
purchased by their former owners in the Northern
Black Sea Area. One of them was acquired in 1924
from the collection of Nikolay Romanchenko (Б. 4823,
Inv. No. ГР 11547; length 7.7 cm, diameter of body
5.3 cm, total height of the preserved fragment 1.9 cm;
two parts glued together, handle broken off , surface
worn). Nikolay Romanchenko (1870–1923) was an architect-restorer,
archaeologist and Professor of the Moscow
Archaeological Institute. He was mainly known as a
numismatist and a collector of documents on the history
of Russia from the 15th to 19th centuries (Russian State
Historical Archives, Fund 1053; St. Petersburg Branch
of the Russian History Institute of the Russian Academy
of Sciences, Fund 116, Folder 1619–1889). From 1895
to 1897 Romanchenko took topographical photographs
and excavated the rural estates in the environs of Eupatoria,
in the area between Cape Quarantine and Lake
Moynaqi. At the same time, he carried out a selective
examination of Kerkinitida’s necropolis. Romanchenko’s
collection passed to the Hermitage aft er his death, and
there are currently around 400 items from it in the Department
of Classical Antiquity: about 350 fragments of
handles of tare amphorae with stamps, black-glazed and
red-glazed ceramics, as well as a fake relief vessel. One
lamp from Romanchenko’s collection fi nds analogies,
above all, in the pieces from excavations in the Northern
Black Sea Area and can be dated to the late 5th or
Ill. 11. Lamp Б.1124 (Inv. No. ГР 2952). Clay.
End of the third quarter – last quarter of the 4th century B.C.
Th e State Hermitage Museum
Ill. 12. Lamp Б. 1261 (Inv. No. ГР 3732). Clay.
Last quarter of the 4th century B.C.
Th e State Hermitage Museum
Ill. 13. Profi le of lamp Б. 1261 (Inv. No. ГР 3732)
4th century B.C. (cf. Bailey 1975: Cat. No. Q120 – from
Southern Russia, found at Panticapaion).
Another lamp came from the State Academy for
the History of Material Culture in 1931 (Б. 7036,
Inv. No. ГР 14855; length with both nozzles 11.9 cm,
diameter of body 8.3 cm, total height 3.4 cm, diameter
of bottom 3.7 cm; surface worn, covered in deposit).
According to Oskar Waldhauer, this lamp came from
Count Alexey Bobrinsky’s collection and was found on
Mount Mitridat in Kerch (Waldhauer 1914: Cat. No. 18).
Alexey Bobrinsky (1852–1927) was Chairman of the Imperial
Archaeological Commission (1885–1917), Vice-
President of the Academy of Arts, Marshal of the Nobility
in St. Petersburg, the fi rst Chairman of the Council
of United Nobility and (at various times) Chamberlain
and Chief-Chamberlain of the Imperial Court, a senator,
a member of the 3rd State Duma, a member of the State
Council and Minister of Agriculture. From 1888 he made
excavations in Kerch (including Mount Mitridat). Th e
lamp from his collection is of a type of local manufacture
that was widespread in the Northern Black Sea Area;
similar examples have been found in Berezan, in Chernosesos
and in many centres in the Bosporus, including
Panticapaion (Chrzanovski, Zhuravlev 1998: 37; Zhuravlev,
Bykovskaya, Zheltikova 2007: Cat. No. 289-37);
this type dates from the late 6th to the late 4th century
B.C., while the Berezan lamps are acknowledged to be
earlier than those from the Bosporus.
Th e latest Greek lamps illustrate a transition to the
forms of the Hellenistic period. Changes were also made
in the technology of their production: the lamps began
to be cast in moulds instead of being made on a potter’s
wheel. One such example was acquired in 1898 from
the collection of Vladimir Bok (1850–1899). According
to the owner, it was purchased in Egypt (Б. 2823,
Inv. No. ГР 9119; length of surviving fragment 7.4 cm,
diameter of body 5.6 cm, height 3.2 cm, diameter of bottom
3.8 cm; the end of the nozzle is broken off , the surface
worn; (Waldhauer 1914: Cat. No. 49); ill. 14). Vladimir
Bok was the curator of the Department of the Middle
Ages and the Renaissance in the Imperial Hermitage
and wrote works on early Christian art in the East. In
1888–1889 Bok visited Egypt, from whence he brought
a collection of Coptic art. During the second journey
in 1897–1898, along with Coptic pieces, he amassed
a signifi cant collection of lamps, and the ancient part of
this collection is now kept in the Department of Classical
Antiquity. Th e overwhelming majority of these
68 69
Ill. 14. Profi le of lamp Б. 2823 (Inv. No. ГР 9119).
Th e State Hermitage Museum
lamps belong to typical Egyptian types of the Hellenistic
and Roman periods. Th ey include defective examples
which were evidently found in the place of their manufacture.
Th is particular lamp shows close similarities to
lamps from both Egypt and Cyrenaica (cf. Bailey 1975:
Cat. No. Q523 – Egypt, dates from the late 4th – early
3rd century B.C.; the body and concave shoulders are
similar to the Howlander 32 type, while the nozzle is
similar to the Howlander 25 type; cat. No. Q625 – Cyrenaica,
dates from the second half of the 4th century B.C.;
similar to the Howlander 25 type). Th at’s why it can be
assumed that the Hermitage lamp was made in Northern
Africa, most likely in Egypt, in the second half of the
4th – the early 3rd century B.C.
Another lamp from the same period was acquired
in 1928 from the Shuvalov Palace (Б. 4337,
Inv. No. ГР 10918; length of the surviving fragment
9.9 cm, diameter of body c. 6.0 cm, total height of the
surviving fragment 3.6 cm, diameter of bottom 3.7 cm;
the handle is broken off , the surface worn, the lacquer
chipped off in places; ill. 15). At that moment the extensive
collections of art, which had evidently begun to take
shape in the palace in the mid-18th century, were kept
there. It is not possible to establish the provenance of the
exhibit that interests us, but it was probably purchased
in a European antiques market. Its shape is very close to
that of lamps of the Howlander 25 type. Similar lamps
probably were made in Athens’s workshops (Bailey
1975: Cat. No. Q101); they were evidently reproduced in
workshops in the Eastern Mediterranean (Bailey 1975:
Cat. Nos. Q431–Q433 – Kalymnos, Q508 – Al Mina).
To sum up, the State Hermitage collection contains
about twenty Greek lamps acquired from private
collectors or their descendants. Th ese lamps cover
a period from the second half of the 6th to the early

3rd century B.C. Th ey include pieces made in workshops
in all parts of the ancient world where such
lamps were produced (Mainland Greece, the Eastern
Mediterranean, the Northern Black Sea Area, Southern
Italy and Northern Africa). In the majority of cases it is
impossible even to assume on where they were found,
but studying the ways by which these lamps came to
the Hermitage broadens our concept of the principles
underlying the formation of private collections of antiques
in the 19th – early 20th centuries.
References
Ill. 15. Profi le of lamp Б. 4337 (Inv. No. ГР 10918).
Th e State Hermitage Museum
Bailey 1975
Bailey, Donald. A Catalogue of the Lamps in the British Museum.
Vol. 1: Greek, Hellenistic and Early Roman Pottery Lamps.
London: British Museum Press, 1975.
BdI 1833; 1837
Bullettino dell’Instituto di Corrispondenza Archeologica. Roma,
1833; 1837
Borisfen – Berezan’ 2005
Borisfen – Berezan’. Načalo antičnoj epoxi v Severnom
Pričernomorje [Borysthenes – Berezan. Th e Beginning of
the Ancient Era in the Northern Black Sea Area]. Exhibition
Catalogue. St. Petersburg, 2005.
Chrzanovski, Zhuravlev 1998
Chrzanovski, Vladimir and Dmitry Zhuravlev. Lamps from
Chernosesos in the State Historical Museum. Roma, 1998.
Farmakovsky 1916
Farmakovsky, Boris. “Ol’vija [Olbia]”. Novyj enciklopedičeskij
slovar’ Brokgauza i Efrona. Moscow, 1916. Vol. 29.
Gaydukevich 1987
Gaydukevich, Victor. Antičnyje goroda Bospora. Mirmekij [Ancient
Cities of the Bosporus. Myrmekion]. Leningrad, 1987.
Gertziger 1984
Gertziger, Dora. “Antičnyje kandeljabry v sobranii Ermitaža
[Ancient Candelabra in the Hermitage Collection]”. In: Trudy
Gosudarstvennogo Ermitaza. St. Petessburg, 1984: 83–99.
(Issue) 24.
Inghirami 1837
Inghirami, Francesco. Pitture di vasi fi ttili. Fiesole, 1837. Vol. 4.
Lyon-Caen, Hoff 1986
Lyon-Caen, Christiane and Viviane Hoff . Musée du Louvre.
Catalogue des lampes en terre cuite grecques et chrétiennes. Coordination:
Metzger, Catherine. Paris: Edition de la Reunion
des musées nationaux, 1986.
Menzel 1954
Menzel, Heinz. Antike Lampen im Römisch-Germanischen
Zentralmuseum zu Mainz. Mainz: Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen
Zentralmuseums, 1954.
Murzakevich 1860
Murzakevich, Nikolay. “Nekrolog A.D. Čertkova [Obituary
of Alexander Chertkov]”. Zapiski Odesskogo obščestva istorii i
drevnostej rossijskix. Odessa, 1860. Vol. 4: 420–422.
OAK 1909
Otcjot Imperatorskoj arxeologičeskoj komisii [Archaeological
Commission Report] for 1906. St. Petersburg, 1909.
Russkij arxiv 1863
Russkij arxiv [Russian Archive]. Moscow, 1863. Book 1.
Stefani 1877
Stefani, Ludolf. “Objasnenije neskol’kix xudožestvennyx
proizvedenij, najdennyx v 1873 godu v Južnoj Rossii [A Description
of Several Works of Art Found in Southern Russia in
1873]”. OAK for 1874. St. Petersburg, 1877: 1–118.
Stefani 1880
Stefani, Ludolf. “Objasnenije neskol’kix xudožestvennyx
proizvedenij, najdennyx v 1876 godu v Južnoj Rossii [A Description
of Several Works of Art Found in Southern Russia in
1873]”. OAK for 1877. St. Petersburg, 1880: 1–282.
Waldhauer 1914
Waldhauer, Oskar. Antičnyje glinjanyje svetil’niki [Ancient
Clay Lamps]. St. Petersburg, 1914.
Zhuravlev, Bykovskaya, Zheltikova 2007
Zhuravlev, Dmitry, Natalia Bykovskaya and Alla Zheltikova.
Kollekcija svetil’nikov [Collection of Lamps]. Vol. 1: Svetil’niki
VI – pervoj poloviny III v. do n.e. [Lamps of the 6th to First
Half of the 3rd Century B.C.]. Kiev: Kerch Historical-Cultural
Reserve, “Mistetztvo”, 2007.
Translated by David Hicks
Th e collection of ancient terracottas amassed by the
diplomat Count Pyotr A. Sabouroff , the Russian ambassador
to Greece from 1870 to 1879, is considered
to be one of the most important private collections of
its kind. It was acquired by the Imperial Hermitage in
1884 (Khodza 2004: 166–173), and the best examples
now form part of the permanent display in the Department
of Classical Antiquity. Unfortunately, this collection,
renowned above all for its splendid selection of
Tanagras, is no exception to the general rule: like all
terracotta collections dating from the 1870s, whether
in museums or in private hands, it contains a certain
number of forgeries.
It was not until the 1980s that the method of thermoluminescence
came into use, which made the unmasking
of such pieces considerably easier; it had previously
been a far from simple task, especially when it
came to statuettes made with the use of ancient moulds
or copies of them and of clay specially imported from
Greece (Kriseleit 1994: 64, 69; Wünsche 1996: 193).
Th ere is, however, another category of forgeries which
the counterfeiters, possibly sometimes unknowingly,
based on the tastes and aesthetic demands of their time,
on their contemporaries’ concept of the ancient world
and ancient art. Th ese pieces were taken for genuine
masterpieces and were very popular – not only among
the bourgeois nobility for decorative purposes or among
people directly related to art and literature who regularly
attended auctions, but also among collectors, archaeologists
and museum curators.
Th e falsifi cation of ancient terracotta pieces was
seriously addressed by the art world in an exhibition
ELENA KHODZA
THE STATUETTE OF EROS AND PSYCHE FROM PYOTR SABOUROFF’S COLLECTION
71
with the eloquent title “Bürgerwelten Hellenistische
Tonfi guren und Nachschöpfungen im 19. Jh” organised
by the Berlin State Museums in 1994. It featured both
genuine ancient terracottas from the Berlin museums
and nineteenth-century forgeries to which two special
articles in the catalogue were devoted (Kriseleit 1994:
59–69; Lindemann 1994: 71–76). Th e theme was developed
more fully by French researchers, leading to the
major Louvre exhibition “Tanagra. Myth and Archaeology”
in 2003, which also featured nineteenth-century
fakes. Th e comprehensive and detailed catalogue of the
Louvre exhibition includes two articles devoted to this
phenomenon (Rionnet 2003: 46–47; Mathieux 2003:
294–297). Th e author of the second article, Néguine
Mathieux, returned to the subject in a colloquium connected
with the exhibition (Mathieux 2007: 45–57).
Another article about nineteenth-century fakes of ancient
terracottas that deserves a mention is by Raimund
Wünsche in a publication concerning the terracotta
items in the State Ancient Collection in Munich (Wünsche
1996). All these studies demonstrate the necessity
of serious analysis, at least in cases where the forgery
provides grounds for it. One such piece is the terracotta
group statuette Eros and Psyche from Pyotr Sabouroff
’s collection (Inv. No. ГР 5247, list No. Г. 433;
height 18 cm; Furtwängler 1883–1887: Taf. CXXXV;
Winter 1903: 229, 3; ills. 1, 2). Th e statuette is hollow,
made from clay of a reddish hue with the use of several
moulds. Separate moulds were used for the heads, the
wings and the base, and the back was also made with
a mould. Th e gilding that entirely covers the terracotta
lies directly on the surface of the clay. Th ere is no vent

Ill. 1. Eros and Psyche statuette from Pyotr Sabouroff ’s
collection before restoration. Terracotta.
Th e State Hermitage Museum
in the rear of the statuette to protect it from damage
during fi ring. Th e base is hollow.
Information that the terracotta originated in Ephesus
was clearly obtained by Sabouroff at the time of
purchase and was subsequently used in Furtwängler’s
publication. In an inventory of Sabouroff ’s collection,
compiled when it was acquired by the Hermitage and
now kept in the museum’s archives, the statuette is included
at No. 80 in the “Asie Mineure” section: Groupe
d’Eros et Psyché. Doré. Brisé. Ephèse (Archives of the
State Hermitage Museum, Fund 1, Register 5, Folder 13
1884). Evidence in favour of its origin in Asia Minor was
apparently provided by its gilded surface, since it was in
Asia Minor, most frequently in Smyrna, that Hellenistic
statuettes were covered in gilding in imitation of bronze
pieces (Higgins 2001: 314). Another ground for naming
the city in Asia Minor as the possible place of origin
of the statuette is the following important circumstance.
By the late 1870s the necropolis at Tanagra had virtually
been emptied, making it diffi cult to pass off fakes as
fi nds from Tanagra. It was at this time that so-called Asia
Minor group and individual statuettes began appearing
on the art market. Th ese forgeries, supposedly made
mainly in Athens, but also in other places in Greece and
Italy (Reinach 1888: 119 ff ; Furtwängler 1889: 45–46;
Reinach 1891: 586 ff ; Kurz 1967: 145–146), which differed
from fakes of Tanagras in style and subjects, were
extremely popular not only with unsophisticated purchasers
but also with connoisseurs, archaeologists and
collectors. Th e creators of the “Asia Minor” terracotta
groups were pandering to the tastes of their contemporaries,
giving preference to sentimental, romantic and
Dionysian subjects (ills. 3, 4). Eros and Psyche belongs
to this category of fakes.
Furtwängler was in no doubt that the statuette was
authentic. He mentions that the terracotta was smashed,
but all the pieces, in his opinion, were of ancient origin.
Paul Wolters also had no suspicions (Wolters 1885:
13–14). In his article Wolters discusses in detail the
composition of the group and its iconography. Both
researchers could not but remark on the patent similarity
of the terracotta to the famous marble Eros and
Psyche in the Museo Capitolino in Rome, which is itself
a second-century A.D. Roman copy of a Greek original
from the 3rd – 2nd centuries B.C. (Inv. 408; Helbig
1966: 238–239; LIMC 1994 VII. 1: 580; VII. 2: 458).
However, they considered that the terracotta statuette
had been copied directly from the Greek original and
had been made considerably earlier than the marble
group. Meanwhile, Furtwängler notes that he had been
in Athens in 1878 and had seen “a large gilded terracotta
group” at the premises of Lambros, a dealer in antiquities
and one of the main suppliers of terracottas for
Paris auctions (Higgins 1986: 166; Mathieux 2003: 295),
and that Psyche was depicted completely naked: “Eine
grosse vergoldete Th ongruppe aus Kleinasien sach ich
1878 bei Herrn Lambros in Athen…doch dass Psyche
ganz nackt war” (Furtwängler 1883–1887). Hardly any
suspicion arose that the terracotta was a fake. And although
there are no documents to show from whom
a b
Ill. 2. Eros and Psyche statuette aft er restoration: a – front view; b – rear view
Sabouroff purchased Eros and Psyche, and it is therefore
diffi cult to confi rm that the group was made by a forger
who worked namely for Lambros, we nevertheless have
evidence that the subject itself was in circulation with
the authors of fakes, in particular with the above-mentioned
dealer.
It is very possible that there really was a workshop
in Asia Minor with a well-regulated production of
similar forgeries, for which characters such as Eros and
Psyche were chosen. Th e well-known French archaeologist
François Lenormant wrote about this in an article
about a terracotta in Camille Lecuyer’s collection (Lenormant
1878: 137), also listed as being from Ephesus
72 73
(Froehner 1881: Taf. 21, 2; Winter 1903: 229, 4). Lenormant
was convinced that it was an ancient piece, but adduced
no incontrovertible evidence of this, above all no
information concerning its provenance. Meanwhile, the
statuette, also entirely covered in gilding, arouses doubt
concerning its authenticity if only for the same characteristics
that put one on one’s guard with the terracotta
in Sabouroff ’s collection: the treatment of the wings,
Eros’s hairstyle (similar to that in Sabouroff ’s piece) and
the shape of the base, as well as its perfect state of preservation.
It is most likely that the group in Lecuyer’s collection
is a forgery originating from the same workshop
as Sabouroff ’s Eros and Psyche.

Another suspicious feature of the latter is that the
joins are mainly in places (on the neck, at the base of the
wings, on the hands) where they are most inoff ensive
from an aesthetic point of view. And there are not even
the slightest losses on these joins, even those on Eros’s
hand. In one place a quite small, exactly fi tting fragment
has been glued on. 1 All this leads to the supposition that
the statuette was smashed in “domestic” conditions. Th is
was the method usually employed by counterfeiters,
who were concerned that a terracotta, on the one hand,
should look attractive, and, on the other hand, should
look like an archaeological artefact (Paul 1982: 173). Th e
gilding lies directly on the surface of the clay, without an
intermediate preparatory layer or even a slip. As examinations
of genuine ancient items from Sabouroff ’s and
other collections have shown, the gilding on Hellenistic
terracottas was most frequently applied to a special preparatory
layer lying on the slip, usually coloured yellow,
more rarely pink (Meeks 2001: 316).
In ancient statues Eros and Psyche were depicted
barefoot, but here they are wearing soft boots, and what
Furtwängler took as a bracelet on Eros’s ankle is, in fact,
the upper edge of a boot picked out in relief. Eros’s other
foot is covered by Psyche’s outstretched right leg, which
is wrapped in the fl owing folds of the cloak tied around
her hips – another feature that is uncharacteristic of
ancient statues of Eros and Psyche. Th ere is a statuette
from the excavations of the Myrina necropolis that is an
example of the use of such a composition in Hellenistic
coroplastics, but it depicts not Eros and Psyche but other
characters (Besques 1963: 127, MYR. 273: pl. 154, b).
Moreover, it is unlikely that the counterfeiter was using
that piece as a prototype. Th e treatment of Psyche’s wing
also contradicts ancient iconography: it is the same
bird’s wing that Eros has and does not resemble a butterfl
y’s wing at all. Th is version is exceptionally rarely
encountered in ancient statues. Th ere are two that can
be mentioned, and one of those is a relief appliqué on a
bronze hydria in the Istanbul Archaeological Museum,
in which some researchers are inclined to see not Psyche
but Aphrodite (Inv. 5310; LIMC 1994. Psyche 150: 459;
see also the relief on a Roman sarcophagus: Koch, Sichtermann
1982: 145, Abb. 159).
1 In 2011 the terracotta was restored by Vera Klur in the State
Hermitage’s Laboratory for Scientifi c Restoration of Sculpture and
Coloured Stones. Th e cracked joiner’s clay used in the 19th century
was replaced by polyvynilbutyral, the surface cleaned and the gilding
secured.
Ill 3. Statuette of a girl by a herma of Silenus
from Mikhail Botkin’s collection. Terracotta. Г. 2398.
Th e State Hermitage Museum
It is most likely that the counterfeiter knew the marble
Eros and Psyche in the Museo Capitolino and was
able to use it as a prototype. In favour of this are the similar
proportions of the fi gures, their curves and sculptural
manner. In addition, the painstaking profi ling of
the statuette’s base almost exactly copies the profi ling
of the base of the marble sculpture, which, incidentally,
underwent a major restoration in the modern period.
Th ere are, however, important diff erences that suggest
the existence of another prototype for this forgery. Unlike
the marble statue, not only are the terracotta Eros
and Psyche not kissing, but Eros is not even looking in
Ill. 4. Dionysian procession. Statuette from Mikhail Botkin’s collection. Terracotta. Г. 2371.
Th e State Hermitage Museum
the direction of his beloved. For this reason the gesture
of his right hand can be interpreted in two ways: either
he is attempting to turn Psyche’s head towards him in
order to kiss her or, on the contrary, is pushing her
away. Moreover, Eros’s hairstyle, totally uncharacteristic
of its ancient iconography, and the capricious-aff ected
expression on his face with features uncharacteristic of
ancient Eroses led to doubts about the statuette’s authen-
74 75
ticity even before the thermoluminescent test was carried
out. 1 Th e answer to the question as to where these
divergences from the ancient prototype came from can
be found in the work of Laurent Delvaux, a Belgian
1 Th e thermoluminescent test, establishing that the exhibit is
not of ancient origin, was carried out by Sergey Khavrin, Senior
Researcher in the State Hermitage’s Department for Scientifi c Examination.

sculptor in the fi rst half of the 18th century, which was
obviously known to the counterfeiter. Th e source of inspiration
for the Belgian was the then famous marble
group Caunus and Byblis, which belonged originally to
the Roman collector Conte Anton Maria Fede and subsequently
to his son Giuseppe. Th is sculpture no longer
exists in its complete form. One can judge how popular
it was by the number of plaster copies made. Aft er
the original, commissioned by Johann Wilhelm von
Pfalz-Neuburg for his residence, arrived in Düsseldorf
in 1709, numerous plaster copies were made: for Duchess
Anna Amalia in Weimar (a copy was also made for
her in serpentine), for the courts at Baden and Kurland,
and so on. Drawings made from these copies were used,
in particular, by the Meissen and Wedgwood factories.
Ill.5. Caunus and Byblis. Terracotta. Aft er Laurent Delvaux.
Between 1728 and 1732. Antike Welt. 1994. 25. Jg. Heft 1: 49, Abb. 5.
76
Th e most important circumstance, however, was that
the ancient sculpture came to Fede badly damaged, with
signifi cant pieces missing. Its restoration was entrusted
to the French sculptor Pierre Le Gros, who, probably
infl uenced by the sad story in Ovid’s “Metamorphoses”
of Byblis, the daughter of the King of Miletos, who was
madly in love with her twin brother Caunus, who in
terror rejected her love (Ov. Met. IX: 450–581), turned
Eros and Psyche into Caunus and Byblis in the course of
the restoration, adding heads, arms and legs below the
knees to the ancient fi gures. Th e diff erent subject with a
completely opposite relationship between the characters
excluded the traditional composition with the kiss and
required an allusion to the antagonism between them.
Th is was achieved, in particular, by the youth not only
not looking at the girl, but even slightly turning away
from her. In a period of more than ten years from 1728
Delvaux made at least three free copies of Fede’s group
(Schiering 1994: 48–50). In one of them, a fi ft y-cm-high
terracotta (ill. 5), there is an obvious similarity in the
facial features and the treatment of the locks of hair to
Eros in the statuette from Sabouroff ’s collection. It is
hard to believe that the author of the statuette had not
seen this group or a copy of it and, modifying Delvaux’s
composition somewhat, had adapted it for his subject. It
is interesting that in the late 18th century Caunus and
Byblis were already beginning to be transformed into
Eros and Psyche in free copies. Wolfgang Schiering, who
traced in his article the whole history of Fede’s group
and the statues connected with it, lists a small (33 cm)
bronze group by the Italian sculptor Francesco Righetti,
who “fused” the theme of Conte Fede’s group and the
group in the Museo Capitolino. Schiering also mentions
in a footnote a variation on the free combination of two
subjects and groups to be found in St. Petersburg: “…
the youth is given one wing, which, despite the gesture
with which he is breaking away from the girl, proves that
this is Eros and Psyche” (Schiering 1994: 50, Anm. 19).
Unfortunately, the author does not produce any data,
there is no precise information about the location of the
statue, nor references to its reproduction or mentions in
literature.
Th e head of Psyche in Sabouroff ’s group is also untypical
for the ancient iconography of this character.
Th e prototype for it was, perhaps, the head of a statue
of a seated girl in the Palazzo dei Conservatori in Rome,
which various researchers attribute either to Roman
copies of Greek originals, to the Greek originals them-
selves, or to independent works by Roman sculptors
(Inv. 1107; Helbig 1966: Nr. 1480; Ridgway 1989: 236–
237, 245, pl. 120).
Th e social status of collectors changed abruptly in the
1870s and 1880s. Collecting became the province not
only of wealthy cultured aristocrats and archaeologists,
but also of well-to-do people, industrialists, rentiers,
doctors and artists, oft en far removed from authentic
ancient realities. Th eir artistic taste was also manifested,
in particular, in their concept of ancient art, which they
wanted to see in the way it was presented in the work of
the painters and sculptors of that time, representatives
of the neo-Greek style, with its intimate, oft en sentimental
portrayal of ancient subjects and images. In painting
it was primarily Jean-Léon Gérôme, who turned to the
subject of Tanagras on more than one occasion. It is impossible
not to mention his paintings L’atelier de Tanagra
(1983, private collection), Sculpturae Vitam Insuffl ate
Pictura (1893, Art Gallery of Ontario, Toronto) and Le
travail du marbre, ou L’artiste sculptant Tanagra (1890,
Dahesh Museum of Art, New York). In sculpture there
was a whole galaxy of masters whose creations, at one
time exhibited in Paris salons, are widely represented in
the display of the Musée d’Orsay. It would be suffi cient
to mention Paul Dubois’s Narcisse (Salon 1867), Hyppolite
Moulin’s Un secret d’en haut (Salons 1873 and 1875),
Carrier-Belleuse’s Bacchante (Salon 1863), Charles Degeorge’s
La Jeunesse d’Aristotle (Salon 1875), Jean Hugues’s
Oedipe a Colone (Salon 1890) and Antoine Idrac’s
Amour pique (Salon 1882). Th e terracotta statuette Eros
and Psyche is the work of a forger that clearly refl ects
a particular artistic trend of its time and is of undoubted
interest from that point of view.
References
Besques 1963
Besques, Simona. Catalogue raisonné des fi gurines et reliefs
en terre cuite grecs et romains. Paris, 1963. Vol. 2.
Froehner 1881
Froehner, Wilhelm. Terres cuites d’Asie Mineure. Paris, 1881.
Furtwängler 1883–1887
Furtwängler, Adolf. Die Sammlung Sabouroff . Berlin, 1883–
1887. Bd. 2.
Furtwängler 1889
Furtwängler, Adolf. “Sitzungsberichte der Archäolog. Gesellschaft
zu Berlin”. Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen
Instituts. 1889. Bd. 4. AA: 32–83.
77
Helbig 1966
Helbig, Wolfgang. Führer durch die öff entlichen Sammlungen
klassischer Altertümer in Rom. Tübingen, 1966. Bd. 2.
Higgins 1986
Higgins, Reynold. Tanagra and the Figurines. Princeton, New
Jersey, 1986.
Higgins 2001
Higgins, Reynold. “Th e Polychrome Decoration of Greek Terracottas”.
In: Burn, Lucilla and Reynold Higgins. Catalogue of
Greek Terracottas in the British Museum. London, 2001. Vol. 3:
313–315.
Khodza 2004
Khodza, Elena. “Istorija pokupki kollekcii P.A. Saburova. Po
materialam arxiva Ermitaža [Th e Story of the Purchase of
Pyotr A. Sabouroff ’s Collection. Based on Materials from the
Hermitage Archive]”. Soobščenija Gosudarstvennogo Ermitaža.
St. Petersburg, 2004. (Issue) 62: 166–173.
Koch, Sichtermann 1982
Koch, Guntram and Hellmut Sichtermann. Römische Sarkophage.
Handbuch der Archäologie. München, 1982.
Kriseleit 1994
Kriseleit, Irmgard. “Fälschungen in der Berliner Sammlung”.
Bürgerwelten Hellenistische Tonfi guren und Nachschöpfungen
im 19. Jh. Mainz am Rhein, 1994: 59–69.
Kurz 1967
Kurz, Otto. Fakes. Dover Publications. New York, 1967.
Lenormant 1878
Lenormant, François. “Éros et Psyché”. Revue archéologiques.
1878. T. 36: 137–138.
LIMC 1994
Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae. Zürich; München,
1994.
Lindemann 1994
Lindemann, Bernd Wolfgang. “Die Tanagrafi guren und
die Kunst des 19. Jahrhunderts”. Bürgerwelten Hellenistische
Tonfi guren und Nachschöpfungen im 19. Jh. Mainz am Rhein,
1994: 71–76.
Mathieux 2003
Mathieux, Néguine. “De Tanagra au salon: un réve bourgeois”.
In: Jeammet, Violaine (ed.). Tanagra. Mythe et archeology.
Paris, 2003: 294–297.
Mathieux 2007
Mathieux, Néguine. “Des Tanagras à l’encan: La salle des
ventes comme lieu de diff usion des objets archéologiques
et des connaissances à la fi n du XIX e siècle”. In : Jeammet,

Violaine (ed.). Tanagras. De l’objet de collection à l’objet archéologique.
Paris, 2007 : 45–57.
Meeks 2001
Meeks, N. “Report on the Scientifi c Examination of the Gilding
on Hellenistic Terracotta Figures”. In: Burn, Lucilla and
Reynold Higgins. Catalogue of Greek Terracottas in the British
Museum. London, 2001. Vol. 3: 316–317.
Paul 1982
Paul, Eberhardt. Poddel’naja boginja [An Imitation of Goddess].
Moscow, 1982.
Reinach 1888
Reinach, Solomon. “Th e So-Сalled Asiatic Terracotta Gro ups”.
Th e Classical Review. Cambridge, 1888. No. 2: 153–157.
Reinach 1891
Reinach, S. Chroniques d’Orient. Documents sur les fouilles
et découvertes dans l’Orient hellénique de 1883 à 1890. Paris,
1891.
Ridgway 1989
Ridgway, Brunilde Sismondo. Hellenistic Sculpture. Vol. 1: Th e
Styles of ca. 331–200 B.C. Wisconsin, 1989.
Rionnet 2003
Rionnet, Florence. “Des Tanagras de pacotille”. In: Jeammet,
Violaine (ed.). Tanagra. Mythe et archeology. Paris, 2003:
46–47.
Schiering 1994
Schiering, Wolfgang. “Kaunus und Byblis oder Amor und
Psyche. Wirkungen und Wanderung einer antiken Marmorgruppe
von Rom nach Emkendorf ”. Antike Welt. 1994. 25.
Jg. Heft 1: 47–53.
Winter 1903
Winter, Franz. Die typen der fi gürlichen Terrakotten. Berlin;
Stuttgart, 1903. Bd. 2.
Wolters 1885
Wolters, Paul. “Eros und Psyche”. Archäologische Zeitung.
Jg. Berlin, 1885. No. 42. 1–22.
Wünsche 1996
Wünsche, Raimund. “Erlesene Fälschungen”. Hauch des Prometheus.
Meisterwerke in: Ton: Hamdorf, Friedrich Wilhelm
(ed.) Staatliche antikensammlungen und Glypothek. München,
1996: 185–196.
Translated by David Hicks
Th e inventory of paintings in the Hermitage’s Department
of Western European Fine Arts lists under
No. ГЭ 6878 “Unidentifi ed Spanish artist of the 17th century.
Hermit and Angel” (oil on canvas; 308 × 217.5 cm).
Th is work arrived in 1931 from the Soviet trading organisation
Antikvariat and has remained in the stores,
making it largely inaccessible to scholars; the painting
has never previously been published or reproduced. Our
attention was drawn to it during work on the history of
Spanish paintings in private collections in St. Petersburg.
Th e Hermitage Archives include, amongst the papers of
the State Museum Fund, a list of works recorded by the
Department for the Preservation, Recording and Registration
of Works of Art and Antiquity in the mansion
of Prince Vladimir Orlov at number 90 River Moyka,
dated April 1921. Here we fi nd mention of a painting by
Murillo with the same title as and similar dimensions
to the Hermitage painting. In May 1922 the works in
the list were nationalised and delivered to the Hermitage
(Archives of the State Hermitage Museum, Fund 4,
Register 1, Folder 686, 17 February 1919 – 26 January
1924, f. 4, No. 16; ff . 41, 51). Th e name of Murillo was
questioned when the painting was registered with the
Museum Fund and the title was given as Th e Angel Appearing
to Abraham. In the 1920s the painting was allocated
to Antikvariat as part of the mass sale of works
of art by the Soviet state, but it remained unsold and
was thus returned to the museum in 1931. By this time,
however, its description was: “Spanish school, circle of
Murillo. An Angel Appearing to a Hermit” (Muzejnyje
rasprodaži 1928–1929 godov 2006: 402). Its provenance
was not mentioned.
LUDMILA KAGANÉ
ELIJAH AND THE ANGEL.
A FORGOTTEN PAINTING BY MENESES OSORIO, PUPIL OF MURILLO
79
Th e subject of the painting can more rightly be identifi
ed, as was fi rst suggested by Svyatoslav Savvateyev, as
the angel appearing to the prophet Elijah.
According to the Bible (I Kings 17–19; II Kings 1–2)
Elijah was a staunch defender of the faith and of the one
God Yahweh, and fought against the impious cult of Baal
that was widespread under the King of Israel Ahab and
fi ercely defended by the ruler’s wife, the Phoenician Jezebel.
In a dispute on Mount Carmel Elijah defeated the
prophets of Baal and killed them, and the angry Jezebel
threatened to destroy him. Elijah escaped into the
wilderness and was ready to die but God sent him an
angel.
“… he arose, and went for his life, and came to Beersheba,
which belongeth to Judah, and left his servant
there. But he himself went a day’s journey into the wilderness,
and came and sat down under a juniper tree:
and he requested for himself that he might die; and said,
It is enough; now, O Lord, take away my life; for I am
not better than my fathers. And as he lay and slept under
a juniper tree, behold, then an angel touched him,
and said unto him, Arise and eat. And he looked, and,
behold, there was a cake baken on the coals, and a cruse
of water at his head. And he did eat and drink, and laid
him down again” (I Kings 19: 3–6. King James Version
Bible).
Strengthened by the food brought him a second time
by the angel, the prophet walked for forty days and forty
nights through the wilderness to Mount Horeb, where
God appeared to him.
Th e Hermitage painting shows two fi gures, the angel
and an old man seated beneath a tree, at whose feet are

a jug and a round loaf of bread. Bottom left on the ground
are poppies, symbol of sleep. Th e background includes a
view of a mountain. In all aspects, therefore, the painting
refl ects the elements of the biblical tale (ill. 1).
Th e prophet Elijah was revered in the Christian world
as a model of strict ascetic life and fi ghting for the faith.
In the 12th century a monastery was founded on the site
where he had lived on Mount Carmel, from whence it
took its name, Carmelite. When the Turks took Palestine,
the Carmelites were forced to resettle in Europe.
At the end of the 16th century, during the reform of the
Catholic Church in Spain, Saints Teresa de Jesús and
Juan de la Cruz established branches of the Carmelite
Order that were to become known as Carmelitas Descalzos
or the barefoot Carmelites. Th ey helped establish
more than thirty monasteries, both male and female. In
many paintings the Prophet Elijah appears in the robes
of the Carmelite Order, a brown tunic and white cloak,
just as he is shown in the Hermitage work.
Episodes from the life of Elijah were to appear frequently
in European art. Th e angel bringing the prophet
bread and wine was oft en used as an allegory for the
Eucharist. Many artists produced works on the subject
in Spain.
In the Hermitage painting the angel (ill. 2) bears
a strong resemblance to angels in the works of Murillo.
Such slender youths with large powerful wings are
the central fi gures in Angels’ Kitchen (Louvre, Paris),
painted in 1646 for the small cloister of the Franciscan
Monastery in Seville. Th e same fi gure appears
in St. Francis Comforted by an Angel (Museum of the
Academia de San Fernando). In the Hermitage’s Annunciation
the Archangel Gabriel is similarly painted
(c. 1660; Inv. No. ГЭ 346; ill. 3), with parallels not only in
the wings but in the shawl that winds around the fi gure
and the naked right foot visible below the robes (ill. 4).
Th e angel is very close to the angels in the magical scene
of Murillo’s Jacob’s Dream (1660–1665; Inv. No. ГЭ 344;
ill. 5): ascending and descending the ladder, they have
the same harmonious proportions, their fi gures light
and sinuous in their fl uttering wide robes. Th e likeness
is particularly great between the angel and the image
in Th e Liberation of St. Peter (1667; 238 × 260 cm;
Inv. No. ГЭ 342; ill. 6), painted by Murillo for the Hospital
de la Caridad in Seville between 1667 and 1672.
Both angels have handsome faces with regular features
and curling hair while their fi gures are also treated similarly,
shown in movement with a hand stretched out and
garments fl uttering. Th ere is also a notable likeness in
the hands and in the smooth movements. Amongst the
signed drawings by Murillo is a series of angels bearing
the instruments of Christ’s Passion (most of them
now in the Louvre) (Brown 1976: 121–129, Nos. 40–49)
and these too show a clear relationship to the Hermitage
painting, in the proportions of the fi gures, the robes and
gait; the wings are similarly painted and the distribution
of light and shade in them is also close.
Th e second fi gure, Elijah, is shown, in accordance
with the traditional iconography, as an old man (ill. 7).
His eyes, wrinkles and hair are treated similarly to those
of St. Peter in the Hermitage painting Th e Liberation of
St. Peter. Th e gesture of the left hand recalls that of the
patriarch Jacob in Murillo’s Isaac Blessing Jacob (1660–
1665; Inv. No. ГЭ 332). Elijah’s sandals are the same as
those worn in Moses Striking Water from the Rock, another
work that Murillo painted for the Church of the
Hospital de la Caridad (in situ).
We also fi nd analogies in Murillo’s work for the
landscape background, such as Jacob with the Flocks of
Laban (1660–1665; Meadows Museum, Dallas, Texas),
in which the action takes place against a high rocky
mountain. A similar mountain features in a Landscape
attributed to Murillo in Museo de Bellas Artes, Bilbao
(Angulo Iñiguez 1981, Vol. 2: 598, No. 3012; Vol. 3;
ill. 648). Th is detail is also present in a Landscape in the
Prado (Inv. No. P 3008), where an attribution to Murillo
is accompanied by a question mark. Indeed, it was
a popular element in the works of Seville artists such as
Ignacio Iriarte (Landscape with Shepherds, 1665, Prado,
Madrid).
In the foreground of the Hermitage’s Elijah and
the Angel is a still life (ill. 8), in the manner typical of
Murillo. Suffi cient to cite only the works in the Hermitage
collection: Th e Annunciation has a sewing basket in
this position; Th e Rest on the Flight into Egypt (c. 1665;
Inv. No. ГЭ 340) has a clay vessel with water and objects
set aside for the journey. In Isaac Blessing Jacob we see
a bucket to the left by the well, a jug and a bowl in the
middle. In Th e Death of the Inquisitor Pedro de Arbues
(c. 1664; Inv. No. ГЭ 302) Murillo painted a book and a
candle. Th e Liberation of St. Peter has chains tossed upon
the ground. We might continue this list of examples that
provide parallels for the bread and jug in the foreground
of Elijah and the Angel, where the crockery is typically
Spanish and the hatched design is similar to that on the
jug in Angels’ Kitchen. Ill. 1. Meneses Osorio. Elijah and the Angel. Th e State Hermitage Museum. First publication
80 81

Th ere is plenty of evidence for a link between Elijah
and the Angel and the work of Murillo, yet there was suffi
cient basis for the doubts regarding his authorship. Differences
are particularly visible in a comparison of the
canvas with Th e Liberation of St. Peter (see ill. 6). Both
works are large-format but with just two fi gures, and
indeed both show an old man and an angel. Yet while
Ill. 2. Meneses Osorio. Elijah and the Angel. Detail of the angel
Elijah and the Angel is skilfully executed it lacks the virtuosity
of Murillo. Th e fi gures seem over large, whereas
those painted by Murillo are more organically set within
the space. Th e image of Elijah is coarser than the elderly
fi gures in Murillo’s paintings. Th e angel is superbly
painted but the treatment lacks lightness and fi nesse,
complexity in the working up of fabrics, so notable in
the works of the master. A careful study of Elijah and the
Angel leads us to conclude that it is the work of an artist
close to Murillo and well acquainted with his work,
rather than the master himself. In the 1670s Murillo had
many assistants, one of the most important being Francisco
Meneses Osorio, whom we should consider as the
most likely author of Elijah and the Angel.
Ill. 3. Murillo. Th e Annunciation. Th e State Hermitage Museum
82 83
Eighteenth-century authors noted a painting with
this title in the Church of San Martin in Seville.
Antonio Ponz, who in 1772 commenced publication
of “Viage de España” [Travels in Spain], noted in
the ninth volume, devoted to Seville: “… in the parish
Church of St. Martin… St. Elijah with the Angel,
who comforts him… said to be the work of Antolinez,

imitating Murillo [...en la Parroquía de S. Martín…
S. Elías con el Ángel, que le conforta… se repute por
Antolinez imitando a Murillo]” (Ponz 1786: 80).
Th e name of the artist given there is, however, incorrect.
In the surviving correspondence of Antonio Ponz
with the conde de Águila (1715–1784), one of the most
famous and erudite collectors in Seville, we fi nd a list
of errors in the ninth volume of Ponz’s book, where we
read: “St. Elijah and the Angel, who comforts him, in the
parish Church of St. Martin, is by Meneses Osorio, disciple
of Murillo [El S. Elías con el Ángel que le conforta
en la parroquía de S. Martín, es de Meneses Osorio, discípulo
de Murillo]” (Carriazo 1929: 169). Corrections
were therefore made in 1781 and Ponz thanked the
count for his assistance, but successive volumes of the
Ill. 4. Meneses Osorio. Elijah and the Angel. Detail of the angel’s feet
book nonetheless repeated the error with regard to the
authorship of Elijah and the Angel.
In his description of Seville Fermin Arana de Valfl
ora noted that the painting of Elijah in the Church of
St. Martin was “thought to be by Meneses [se juzga de
Meneses]” (Arana de Valfl ora 1789: 34–35). Juan Ceán
Bermudez’s dictionary of Spanish artists, published in
1800, was more defi nite in giving the work to Meneses
Osorio: “from the brush … [of Francisco Meneses Osorio]
St. Elijah, who is comforted by an angel in the wilderness,
[the work] is in the Church of St. Martin in this
city [Seville] [[Francisco Menses Osorio]… de su pincel
S. Elías, á quien conforta el ángel en el desierto, que está
en la iglesia de S. Martín de aquella ciudad [Sevilla]…]”
(Ceán Bermudez 1800, Vol. 3: 119).
Th e work of Meneses Osorio has been considered by
many scholars (Angulo Iňiguez 1975; Pemán 1977; Serra
Giráldez 1990; Pérez Sánchez 1992: 363; Valdivieso
2010: 206–207, 530). Today we know that he was born
in Seville around 1640 and died in the city in 1721 at
the age of about eighty. He started work as an independent
artist in the 1660s. From 1666 to 1672 (or 1673) he
was a member of the Academy in Seville, of which he
was chief manager in 1668–1669, presenting the Acad-
Ill. 5. Murillo. Jacob’s Dream. Detail. Th e State Hermitage Museum
84 85
emy with a painting of Th e Immaculate Conception. According
to documents, in 1670 he was enrolled in the
Church of St. Martin, since he and his family lived in
the parish for many years. He gained greatest fame for
his works in the Capuchin Monastery in Cádiz. It was
there in 1682 that Murillo fell from a scaff olding, which
led to his death. Meneses was considered the most worthy
candidate to complete the work because he had the
reputation of being the most talented of the great artist’s

pupils. Ceán Bermudez described Meneses as “painter
and Murillo’s pupil who best imitated the soft ness and
grace of his colouring, such that works [of the pupil]
were confused with the works of the master [pintor
y el discípulo de Murillo, que imitó mejor la blandura
y agraciado colorido, hasta el punto de equivocarse sus
obras con las de su maestro]” (Ceán Bermudez 1800,
Vol. 3: 119).
Th e retable in the church of the Capuchin Monastery
is now on display in the Museo de Cádiz (ill. 9).
Ill. 6. Murillo. Th e Liberation of St. Peter. Th e State Hermitage Museum Ill. 7. Meneses Osorio. Elijah and the Angel. Detail of Elijah
It consists of six separate canvases. In the centre is
Th e Mystic Marriage of St. Catherine; to the sides are
St. Joseph with the Christ Child, St. Francis, Th e Archangel
Michael and Th e Guardian Angel. Crowning the
retable is God the Father. Various opinions have been
expressed regarding which parts were painted by
Murillo and which by Meneses Osorio. Angulo Iñiguez
concluded that Meneses most probably painted them
all from sketches by the master (Angulo Iñiguez 1981,
Vol. 1: 406). Valdivieso, a leading scholar of Seville
painting, also feels that all of the preparatory drawings
were made by Murillo, but that before his death
he completed the central fi gures in Th e Mystic Marriage
of St. Catherine, i.e. the Virgin and Child and
St. Catherine. All of the angels were the work of Meneses
Osorio, who produced the surrounding paintings
(Valdivieso 2010: 206–207, 530, No. 379).
A decisive argument in favour of the proposed attribution
of Elijah and the Angel is found in Th e Mystic
Marriage of St. Catherine (ill. 10). Comparison of these
86 87
works highlights the likeness of the angel in the
Hermitage painting and the angel standing to the far
right in the Cádiz work (ill. 11). Th ey would seem to
be taken from one and the same model, although he
was clearly older in the second work. Th e large fi gure
is shown turned to the side, head towards the viewer,
and the forms and proportions are very similar, with the
bend of the waist emphasised in both. While the neck
and shoulders are naked, both fi gures wear a scarf or
shawl, although that in the Hermitage work is broader.

Th e feet are identically placed. Another angel in Th e
Mystic Marriage of St. Catherine, to the far left , has the
sleeves caught up in just the same way at the shoulder.
As for the other paintings in the retable, all were borrowed
from Murillo but all manifest features that can
be identifi ed in the Hermitage painting. Th e fi gures are
dominant and seem to be very large, unlike those in
Murillo’s works, particularly of his late period, where the
fi gures are graceful, set naturally into the picture space.
A signed drawing by Meneses in the Courtauld Institute
in London shows Th e Assumption of the Virgin.
A painting on the same subject is also in London, in the
Wallace Collection. Both drawing and painting convey
the same sense of movement, both have the same folds
of fabric twisting in disorder, creating an expressive dynamism
very like that of the angel in the Hermitage’s
Ill. 8. Meneses Osorio. Elijah and the Angel. Detail of the still life
Elijah and the Angel. Th e folds of the cloak enfolding
the fi gure are similarly painted in Meneses’ Immaculate
Conception (passed at auction in 1998).
Elijah and the Angel has a landscape background. We
can see that Meneses had a particular interest in landscape
from a signed work, St. Joseph and the Infant Jesus,
which is dated 1684 (Museo Casa de Murillo, Seville).
All these analogies confi rm that Meneses Osorio was
the author of Elijah and the Angel. Here the fi gure of
the angel is superbly executed. Th e handsome head has
rich dark chestnut curls falling down the back, the fi nely
worked up colour of the sleeve fl ickers with shades of
pale pink, yellow and green. Th e sleeve is fastened with
a brooch and similar interest in fi ne jewellery details is
manifested in the pin catching the shawl at the hip. Th e
wings are unfolded. Th e fl uttering shawl emphasises the
movement of the fi gure towards the prophet. We should
note the rich play of folds in the lower part of the angel’s
robes. Th e still life in the foreground is superbly painted.
In sum, this is an outstanding example of Seville painting
from the second half of the 17th century.
Analysis in the Hermitage’s Laboratory for Technical
and Technological Examination has demonstrated the
similarities between this painting and Murillo’s works,
in both the technique and manner of the painting
(see Appendix: Liliya Vyazmenskaya, Sergey Khavrin,
“Technical and Technological Study of Francisco Meneses
Osorio’s Painting Elijah and the Angel”). During
the restoration of the painting in the Hermitage in 2010
the restorer Sergey Bogdanov discovered the date 1672
at the bottom, just left of the centre (ill. 12). Viewing
under ultra-violet light reveals that this lies beneath a
Ill. 9. Murillo and Meneses Osorio. Retable. Museo de Cádiz
88 89
thick layer of varnish; since the craquelure runs through
the varnish it is clear that the date is contemporary with
the painting itself. Th is date has never previously been
noted.
Th is newly-discovered date is extremely important
for our understanding of the evolution of the artist’s
work. Prior to this, no work by Meneses earlier than the
Cádiz retable – executed shortly aft er Murillo’s death in
1682 – has been known. Elijah and the Angel was painted
a decade earlier and is evidence that the artist had
already achieved his mature style by this time.
Elijah and the Angel was in the Church of St. Martin
in Seville, in the parish in which Meneses was resident.
On 10 January 1672 he was accepted into the Brotherhood
of the Holy Sacrament in the Church of St. Martin
(Kinkead 1982; Quiles García 1987: 168). It seems likely

Ill. 10. Murillo and Meneses Osorio. Th e Mystic Marriage of St. Catherine
that the painting was created in connection with this,
particularly since the appearance of the angel to Elijah is
associated with the sacrament of the Eucharist.
Ceán Bermudez described Elijah and the Angel as
one of Meneses’ three best works, the others being Th e
Immaculate Conception and St. Philip Neri Adoring the
Virgin; all the three are said in the literature to have
been lost. Serra Giráldez traced Elijah and the Angel
in 1810 to the Alcázar of Seville, to which many works
from monasteries and churches were moved during the
Napoleonic invasion (Gómez Imaz 1917: No. 155; Serra
Giráldez 1990: 83–84). González de León, author of
a book on Seville, wrote in 1844 that the painting was
sold in Paris in 1837 to Alexander Aguado, although
he repeated Ponz’s error regarding the authorship of
Francisco Antolinez (González de León 1844: 106,
242). At this point the known trail of Meneses’ painting
petered out.
Yet in 1843 the posthumous sale of the Aguado
property included a painting given to Murillo on the
subject of Elijah and the angel: “No. 34. St Elijah in the
Wilderness. Aft er his arduous journey through the wilderness,
the prophet rests beneath trees, exhausted and
tormented by heat and thirst, when an angel who appears
to him encourages him with words and points to
a vessel at his feet, the contents of which can quench
his thirst and restore his strength… Th is painting comes
from Murillo’s most prized period; it is of his clear and
airy manner, and profoundly thought out in all its parts.
Two fi gures. C[anvas], height 2 m 91 cm, width 2 m
40 cm [34. Saint Élie dans le désert. Le prophète, après
une marche fatigante au desert, se repose sous des arbres,
exténué de lassitude et tourmenté de chaleur et de
soif, lorsqu’un ange, qui lui apparaît, l’encourage par ses
paroles et lui indique, du doigt, un vase placé à ses pieds,
avec le contenu duquel il pourra étancher sa soif et rétablir
ses forces... Ce tableau est de l’époque estimée de
Murillo; il est de son faire clair et vaporeux, et un pensée
profonde le distingue de toutes parts. Deux fi gures. T.,
haut. 2 m. 91 c., larg. 2 m. 40 c.]” (Catalogue … Aguado
1843: 8–9).
Th is description perfectly matches the work in the
Hermitage, which should thus confi dently be identifi ed
with the painting Elijah and the Angel by Francisco Meneses
Osorio from the Church of St. Martin in Seville.
Alexander Aguado, born in Seville, served in Napoleon’s
army during its occupation of Spain; he served
as colonel and adjutant under Marshal Soult. In 1815
90 91
Ill. 11. Murillo and Meneses Osorio. Th e Mystic Marriage
of St. Catherine. Detail of the angel
he was forced into exile and settled in Paris, where he
successfully dealt in imports and exports and in the
banking business. Fernando VII of Spain gave him the
title marques de las Marismas and Aguado made his
fortune and acquired estates in France. He assembled

a signifi cant collection of paintings, more than half of
which were by Spanish artists. Th ere is nothing surprising,
therefore, in the fact that he came into possession of
Elijah and the Angel, to which either the previous owner
or he himself attached the name of Murillo, whose
works were in the 19th century prized above those of all
other Spanish artists.
In the 1843 auction catalogue we fi nd a note that
the painting was sold in Paris for the sum of 1,000
francs (Catalogue … Aguado 1843: 93), but the name
of the purchaser is not known. Th e painting does not
feature in any other auction catalogues aft er this (see
Mireur 1911–1912). All references to it speak of a lost
work by Murillo (Curtis 1883: 124; Angulo Iñiguez
1981, Vol. 2: 350).
We do now know, however, that in 1921 Elijah
and the Angel was among the property in the St. Petersburg
mansion of Prince Vladimir Nikolayevich
Orlov (1868–1927). Th ere Orlov’s wife, Princess Olga
Konstantinovna, née Beloselskaya-Belozerskaya, was
a brilliant salon hostess; a famous portrait of her in
a broad hat was painted by Valentin Serov (Russian
Ill. 12. Meneses Osorio. Elijah and the Angel. Detail of the date
92
Museum, St. Petersburg). Th e Orlov mansion was as
veritable museum and it is no surprise that a work
given to Murillo should fi nd its way there. Vladimir
Nikolayevich had lived in Paris where he may have acquired
the painting. At present we can only guess at
how the painting came into his hands, but further research
may throw light on the subject.
Of the Hermitage’s large collection of works by Seville
painters, seventeen are authentic works by Murillo,
many of them outstanding masterpieces, and six further
works are attributed to the master, his workshop and
circle. To these we must now add one more painting
by a close assistant, Francisco Meneses Osorio, a work
which not only expands our knowledge of this artist’s
work but which throws light on his participation in the
execution of Th e Mystic Marriage of St. Catherine, the
last painting on which Murillo worked. 1
1 Th e author would like to thank Isadora Rose de Vieja, who helped
provide some of the literature, and Juan Alonso de la Sierra, Director of
the Museo de Cádiz, who provided a photograph of the retable.
Elijah and the Angel (Inv. No. ГЭ 6878; 308 × 217.5 cm)
is painted on canvas-weave support, with a density of
weft and warp threads of 9–10 × 9 threads/ cm².
Th e canvas has defects, i.e. thickened areas of thread
and knots; it is composed of two vertical sheets, the
stitching is original, running through the middle of
the painting. Dark-red, ochre ground. Th e pigments
identifi ed using a Bruker ARTAX spectrometer (X-ray
fl uorescence) are white lead, tin lead yellow paint, smalt
and ochre.
Chosen for the X-ray analysis were the fragments
that gave the best picture of the original brushstrokes
and the physical construction of the underpainting, i.e.
the hands and faces (ill. 1 Appendix – ill. 3 Appendix).
X-ray photographs were compared with similar
images of paintings by Bartolomé Esteban Murillo
(1617–1682), Isaac Blessing Jacob (Inv. No. ГЭ 332; ill. 4
Appendix, ill. 5 Appendix), Th e Death of the Inquisitor
Pedro de Arbues (Inv. No. ГЭ 302; ill. 6 Appendix),
Th e Liberation of St. Peter (Inv. No. ГЭ 342; ill. 7 Appendix
– ill. 9 Appendix), and Th e Immaculate Conception
(Inv. No. ГЭ 7146). In all of these works the building up
of light and shade is characterised by great contrast and
relative clarity in the details, and a similar approach is
visible in the underpainting of Elijah and the angel.
To judge by the dark contour around individual details,
it would seem that the author fi rst put a preparatory
outline onto the canvas. Since the ground is ochrered,
this design may have been applied with a paint that
does not contain lead whites and of low X-ray density.
Such contours can be seen around the heads of Jacob,
Isaac and Pedro de Arbues and are clearly visible around
APPENDIX
LILIYA VYAZMENSKAYA, SERGEY KHAVRIN
TECHNICAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL STUDY OF FRANCISCO MENESES OSORIO’S PAINTING
ELIJAH AND THE ANGEL
93
the heads of the angels in both Th e Liberation of St. Peter
and in Elijah and the Angel.
Th e physical construction of the underpainting and
the working up of light and shade of the angel’s face in
Th e Liberation of St. Peter, the faces of Jacob and Isaac
in Isaac Blessing Jacob, the Virgin in Th e Immaculate
Conception and the face of the angel in Elijah and the
Angel are similar in many ways. Th e faces are modelled
using short, almost dotted vertical strokes and a like
method is used to model some parts of the face, e.g. the
nose and cheeks.
Brushstrokes at the temple are longer, curving, creating
the impression of volume. In all instances lead
whites with a large proportion of medium were applied
with a bristle brush. Th is manner is also used in the underpainting
to emphasise the bridge of the nose, with an
accent on the end of the nose.
No contradictions for such a manner are to be found
in the underpainting of the forehead of St. Peter in Th e
Liberation of St. Peter and Elijah in Elijah and the Angel:
the artist’s brush moves along the illuminated part of the
forehead forming dark folds and wrinkles. We should
nonetheless note that the underpainting of the face of
St. Peter is worked up in more detail.
X-rays also reveal a similarity in the execution of the
illuminated parts of the hand, using diagonal and zigzagging
brushstrokes. Such strokes are clearly visible in
X-rays of the hands in Elijah and the Angel and Th e
Death of the Inquisitor Pedro de Arbues, and in the right
hand of Isaac in Isaac Blessing Jacob.
Underpainting in the clothing in Elijah and the Angel
reveals similarities with that in the fi gure of Pedro de

Ill. 1 Appendix. Meneses Osorio. Elijah and the Angel.
X-ray of the fragment with Elijah’s head
Ill. 2 Appendix. Meneses Osorio. Elijah and the Angel.
X-ray of the fragment with the angel’s head
Ill. 3 Appendix. Meneses Osorio. Elijah and the Angel.
X-ray of the fragment with the angel’s hand
Arbues (Th e Death of the Inquisitor Pedro de Arbues)
and the folds of drapery over the left arm of St. Peter
(Th e Liberation of St. Peter). In all these cases the artist
used a broad brush to apply lead whites with a large proportion
of medium. All these draperies have fi ne strokes
of white in the underpainting, revealing how the paint
squashed between the hairs when the brush was fi rmly
pressed.
Study of the materials used reveal full accordance
between the painting Elijah and the Angel and works
by artists of the school of Seville: characteristic of the
works of these artists is the use of ochre ground, from
dark-red to brown (Vyazmenskaya 1987: 52; Sánchez
Lassa de los Santos 2000). Canvas-weave supports with
a density of 9–10 × 9 threads /cm² were used for Murillo’s
Peter’s Repentance in the Hermitage and the Museo
de Bellas Artes, Bilbao, and for the Hermitage works
Isaac Blessing Jacob, Jacob’s Dream, Christ and St. John as
Children and Th e Liberation of St. Peter. Th e same canvas
type was used for paintings in the Hermitage collec-
Ill. 4 Appendix. Murillo. Isaac Blessing Jacob.
X-ray of the fragment with the fi gure of Isaac
tion attributed to the workshop and circle of Murillo –
Th e Adoration of the Shepherds (Inv. No. ГЭ 341) and
Th e Presentation in the Temple (Inv. No. ГЭ 380). Also
characteristic of the work of Murillo and artists of his
circle is the use of tin lead yellow paint, smalt and ochre
(conclusion of the Hermitage’s Scientifi c and Technical
Examination Department No. 806 of 18.06.2001;
Sánchez Lassa de los Santos 2000).
Th us it is clear that in both technique and materials
Elijah and the Angel accords with the relevant features
of painting of the Seville school in the 17th century. Th is
94 95
Ill. 5 Appendix. Murillo. Isaac Blessing Jacob.
X-ray of the fragment with the female fi gure
Ill. 6 Appendix. Murillo. Th e Death of the Inquisitor Pedro de Arbues.
X-ray of the fragment with the hand

Ill. 7 Appendix. Murillo. Th e Liberation of St. Peter.
X-ray of the fragment with St. Peter’s head
Ill. 8 Appendix. Murillo. Th e Liberation of St. Peter.
X-ray of the fragment with the angel’s head
Ill. 9 Appendix. Murillo. Th e Liberation of St. Peter. X-ray of the
fragment with St. Peter’s hand
96
technique was established through a detailed study of
works in the Hermitage by Murillo and artists of his circle
(Vyazmenskaya 1987). Descriptions of the technique
are also found in treatises on painting by seventeenthcentury
Spanish authors, Francesco Pacheco and Antonio
Palomino.
X-ray photographs of the painting Elijah and the
Angel reveal common features with those of the cited
works by Murillo, but it is not possible to assert that the
hand and artistic devices are the same. Th e composition
in the underpainting of Elijah and the Angel has less
sense of volume and is less expressive than comparable
examples in the works of Murillo. Th e face of Elijah is
less vividly painted, less worked up in the underpainting
than in the art of Murillo. We would thus assert that
Elijah and the Angel was painted by a pupil of Murillo
who borrowed many of his teacher’s devices but who
had his own individual manner.
References
Angulo Iňiguez 1975
Angulo Iňiguez , Diego. Murillo y su escuela. Seville, 1975.
Angulo Iñiguez 1981
Angulo Iñiguez , Diego. Murillo. 3 vols. Madrid, 1981.
Arana de Valfl ora 1789
Arana de Valfl ora, Fermin. Compendio histórico descriptivo
de Sevilla. Seville, 1789, Parte 1.
Brown 1976
Brown, Jonathan. Murillo and His Drawings. Princeton, 1976.
Carriazo 1929
Сarriazo, Juan de Mata. “Correspondencia de Рonz con
el conde de Águila”. Archivo Español de Arte y Arqueología.
Madrid, 1929. Vol. 5: 157–183.
Catalogue … Aguado 1843
Catalogue de Tableaux anciens… composant la Galerie
de M. Aguado Marquis de Las Marismas.... Paris, 1843.
Ceán Bermudez 1800
Ceán Bermudez, Juan. Diccionario histórico de los más ilustres
profesores de las Bellas Artes en España. 5 vols. Madrid,
1800.
Curtis 1883
Curtis, Charles. Velаzquez and Murillo. London, 1883.
Fernández López 2002
Fernández López, J. Programmas iconográfi cos de la pintura
barroca sevilianna del siglo XVII. Sevilla, 2002.
Gómez Imaz 1917
Gómez Imaz, Manuel. Inventario de las pinturas del Palacio
y Salones del Alcázar de Sevilla. 2nd ed. Seville, 1917.
González de León 1844
González de León, Felix. Notícia artística, Histórica y Curiosa
de todos los edifi cios de la ciudad de Sevilla. Seville, 1844.
Kinkead 1982
Kinkead, Duncan. “Pintores fl amencos en la Sevilla de Murillo”.
Archivo Hispalense. Seville, 1982. No. 195.
Mireur 1911–1912
Mireur, H. Dictionnaire des ventes d’Art. 7 vols. Paris, 1911–
1912.
Muzejnyje rasprodaži 1928–1929 godov 2006
Muzejnyje rasprodaži 1928–1929 godov. Arxivnyje dokumenty.
Gosudarstvennyj Ermitaž [Museum Sales of 1928–1929. Archive
Documents. Th e State Hermitage Museum]. Compiled
by Solomakha, Elena. St. Petersburg, 2006.
Pemán 1977
Pemán, César. “Murillo y Meneses Osorio en los Capuchinos
de Cádiz”. Archivo Hispalense. 1977: 145–165.
Pérez Sánchez 1992
Pérez Sánchez, Alfonso Emilio. Pintura barroca en España.
1600–1750. Madrid, 1992.
Ponz 1786
Ponz, Antonio. Viage de España. 17 vols. Madrid, 1786.
Vol. 9.
Quiles García 1987
Quiles García, Fernando. “Nuevos datos para la biografía
de Meneses Osorio”. Archivo Hispalense. 1987. Vol. 70, No. 215:
167–173.
Sánchez Lassa de los Santos 2000
Sánchez Lassa de los Santos, Ana. “Aproximación a la técnica
de Murillo”. Las Lágrimas de San Pedro en la pintura española
del Siglo de Oro. Bilbao: Museo de Bellas Artes de Bilbao,
2000: 71–81.
Serra Giráldez 1990
Serra Girálde, Sofía. Francisco Meneses Osorio, discípulo
de Murillo. Seville, 1990.
Valdivieso 2010
Valdivieso, Enrique. Murillo. Catálogo razonado de pinturas.
Madrid, 2010.
Vyazmenskaya 1987
Vyazmenskaya, Liliya. “Texniko-texnologičeskoje issledovanije
kartin Muriljo iz sobranija Gosudarstvennogo Ermitaža
[Technical and Technological Study of the Paintings by
Murillo in the Collection of the State Hermitage Museum]”.
Soobščenija Gosudarstvennogo Ermitaža. St. Petersburg, 1987.
(Issue) 52: 51–57.
Translated by Catherine Philipps

In 1920 the Hermitage acquired objects formerly belonging
to the emigrée Countess Elizaveta Andreyevna
Vorontsova-Dashkova, whose property was nationalised
aft er the Revolution. Th ey entered the museum
from the Countess’ St. Petersburg mansion at 10 English
[Angliy skaya] Embankment via the State Museum Fund
(Archives of the State Hermitage Museum, Fund 4, Register
2 (86), Folder 9). A decade before the Revolution
the Countess had moved to St. Petersburg a number of
family portraits from the Vorontsov house in Odessa, in
order for them to be shown at the celebrated exhibition
of Russian portraits organised by Serge Diaghilev and
held in the Tauride Palace in 1905. Most of these are still
in the Hermitage but in 1928 one female portrait was
transferred to Moscow, where it is today in the Pushkin
State Museum of Fine Arts (Inv. No. 1312; oil on canvas;
75 × 62 cm; ill. 1). According to long-standing tradition
this painting was always described as a “Portrait of Catherine
Pembroke by Henry Raeburn (?)” (Pushkin Museum
1995: 548) (ill. 2). Questions have long been posed
regarding not only the author of the painting, whose
manner diff ers signifi cantly from that of Raeburn, but
the identity of the sitter. 1 To judge by the hairstyle and
attire the woman must have been painted at some time
between 1802 and 1809, but a comparison with known
portraits of Catherine, Countess Pembroke, from this pe-
1 Doubts were expressed, however, by the keeper of British painting at
the Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts, Irina Kuznetsova, and these were
refl ected in the exhibition catalogue “Nezabyvajemaja Rossija. Russkije i
Rossija glazami britancev XVII–XIX veka [Unforgettable Russia. Russians
and Russia Th rough British Eyes. 17th – 19th Centuries]”. Moscow:
Tretyakov Gallery, 1997–1998; Moscow, 1997: 159.
ELIZAVETA RENNE
A PORTRAIT OF LADY LAVINIA SPENCER BY SIR MARTIN ARCHER SHEE
FROM THE VORONTSOV COLLECTION
riod makes it clear that she could not possible have been
the sitter. In 1802, at the age of eighteen, she was painted
by Th omas Heaphy (ill. 3), and around 1808, at no more
than twenty-fi ve, by Th omas Lawrence (ill. 4). Th e lady
in the Moscow portrait is clearly older and more heavily
built than the sitter in either of these images.
It was nonetheless not possible to identify either sitter
or artist until the chance discovery of two prints in
2002 in the Archive of the National Portrait Gallery in
London. Th ese leave us in no doubt that the portrait in
Moscow shows Lavinia, Countess Spencer, whose name
appears on both prints. On the earlier of these, a mezzotint
published in 1804, we read the legend: Lavinia
Countess Spencer / Painted by M. A. Shee Esqr. R. A. /
Engraved by C. Turner (ill. 5). Th e other is an etching of
1813 with the text: Countess Spencer / M. A. Shee R. A.
pinxt. Th os. Williamson sculpsit. Published for John Bell
Wickly Messenger Offi ce. Corner of Clare Court Drury
Lane. 1. Octr. 1813. Today the basis for both these prints,
the original portrait by Martin Archer Shee, is still at
Althorp, family home of Earl Spencer. It has never been
reproduced in colour, save for its appearance in an interior
view – where it appears on the far wall – in an anniversary
publication (Celebrating 500 Years of Althorp
2008: 40). It was only in May 2009 that this author could
view the actual painting and confi rm its likeness to the
portrait in Moscow.
Martin Archer Shee (1769–1850), author of this
painting of the forty-year-old Countess Lavinia Spencer,
is little known in Russia. He was born in Dublin, the
son of the merchant Martin Shee and his wife Mary, but
he lost both parents at an early age and he was forced
Ill. 1. Martin Archer Shee. Portrait of Lady Lavinia Spencer. 1802. Th e Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts, Moscow
98 99

Ill. 2. Print aft er the portrait with a mistaken identifi cation of the sitter. In the edition by Grand Duke Nikolay Mikhailovich:
Russian Portraits 1906, Vol. 2, part 2: No. 43
Ill. 3. Th omas Heaphy. Portrait of Ekaterina Vorontsova. 1802. Watercolour. Location unknown.
Photograph from the collection of Grand Duke Nikolay Mikhailovich. Th e Literary Museum of the Institute
of Russian Literature (Pushkin House), Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg
100 101

to make his own way in life. He studied at the drawing
school of the Royal Dublin Society and at the age
of fi ft een started earning his living producing pastel
portraits. By 1786 Shee’s life-size portraits in oils had already
gained him a local reputation and in 1788, under
the patronage of the American painter Gilbert Stuart,
he set off for London where, in 1790, he entered the
School of the Royal Academy of Arts. On graduating
he took up residence in the fl at on Jermyn Street formerly
inhabited by Th omas Lawrence, which proved to
be symbolic: years later, on Lawrence’s death in 1830,
Shee was to succeed him as President of the Academy.
His election was determined not so much by his artistic
skills as by his polished manners, his ability to hold his
own with people from very diff erent circles, his business
sense, his talent as an orator and his literary fame. For
in the very fi rst years of the 19th century he had earned
himself a reputation as a poet, publishing an anthology
under the title “Rhymes on Art, or Th e Remonstrance
of a Painter” (1805). Th e polemical tone of his writings
contributed to the creation in 1807 of the British Institution,
which organised exhibitions of genre and history
painting. Shee exhibited his subject works at the British
Institution, in contrast to his participation in the Academy
shows, where he exhibited only portraits. In additon
to poetry he also published novels and plays. Shee’s high
morals, generous spirit and sense of justice did much to
ensure his popularity as President of the Academy, until
he was forced by ill health to retire in June 1845, aft er
which he settled in Brighton. Shee was a member of the
Royal Society and the Society of Dilettanti, and was an
honorary member of several institutions, including the
Royal Irish Academy.
Many works by Martin Archer Shee are today in
private collections and there are a number in the British
Royal Collection. More than forty of his portraits are
today in the National Portrait Gallery in London. Th ese
works demonstrate his sound professional skills, his ability
to construct a composition and to capture the sitter’s
individual character, but they lack the brilliance, freedom
and imagination of Th omas Lawrence. In 1800 the Duke
of Clarence (later King William IV) commissioned his
portrait for the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce, which
did much to increase the artist’s popularity. In 1834 he
painted a full-length portrait of William IV and Queen
Adelaide, a work which demonstrates his ability to produce
large-format formal portraits and the strong infl uence
of Lawrence. His portrait of Queen Victoria, how-
ever, painted in 1842, was not a success and she never
commissioned any works from him again.
Shee’s best works are considered to be those of his
early career, of which the portrait of Lavinia, Countess
Spencer, is a good example. His faults, such as the excessive
use of red in the face, the slightly constrained
poses and the lack of temperament in his painting, were
to grow more noticeable with the passing of time. All
of these are seen in his portrait of Countess Spencer at
Althorp and in the painting which entered the collection
of Prince Mikhail Vorontsov. We particularly note
the rather coarse red brushstrokes on the cheeks. Th ere
are small diff erences between the two paintings in the
depiction of the sky and details of the costume, but the
most signifi cant diff erence lies in their varying states of
conservation. Th e painting at Althorp is much darkened
in the areas of black paint, where the surface is covered
with pronounced craquelure; in the cloak it seems almost
to have curdled in the heat. It is possible that the
Vorontsov painting was lightly cleaned at some point
and given a coat of varnish that now lies in uneven pools,
which would explain the slight dimming of the background,
contrasting with the vivid and confi dent brushstrokes
visible in the face. In Kenneth Garlick’s catalogue
of pictures at Althorp of 1976, Shee’s portrait of Lavinia,
Countess Spencer (No. 601), is dated April 1802, with the
note – presumably based on documentary information
in the family archive – “Painted in April, 1802: a replica
painted in August, 1802, was given to Count Woronzow”
(Garlick 1976: 78, No. 601). We can therefore be confi -
dent that the portrait formerly in the Hermitage and now
in the Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts in Moscow is the
work of Martin Archer Shee himself.
Lavinia, Countess Spencer (1762–1831), was the
eldest daughter of Sir Charles Bingham, later 1st Earl of
Lucan. Her mother, Margaret Bingham, née Smith, took
up miniature painting aft er her marriage. Lavinia inherited
her mother’s taste for art and would seem to have
had a good understanding of the subject, if we are to
believe the evidence of Martin Archer Shee. He wrote to
his brother, recording his impressions aft er Lady Spencer
had visited his studio in March 1790, long before the
painting of this portrait. Th e young and as yet unknown
artist described her as “a great profi cient in the art, and
a most formidable critic… a female connoisseur” (cited
in: Mannings 2000: 428). In March 1781 Lavinia Bingham
married George John Spencer, since 1765 Viscount
Althorp (he became 2nd Earl Spencer on the death of
Ill. 4. Th omas Lawrence. Portrait of the Countess of Pembroke, née Ekaterina Semyonovna Vorontsova. C. 1808.
Lost during the Second World War, formerly at the Vorontsov Palace, Alupka, Ukraine
102 103

Ill. 5. Charles Turner, aft er the original by Martin Archer Shee. Portrait of Lavinia, Countess Spencer. 1804.
Mezzotint. Th e National Portrait Gallery, London
his father in 1783). Th at spring Joshua Reynolds started
work on a portrait of the nineteen-year-old Countess,
which he completed the following year and exhibited
at the Royal Academy in 1782 (coll. Earl Spencer, Althorp).
Reynolds painted Countess Spencer twice more:
in 1783–1784 with her son John Charles, Viscount Althorp
(Huntington Gallery, San Marino, California),
and in 1785–1786 as charmingly romantic young woman
in a straw hat (coll. Earl Spencer, Althorp). In none of
these three works by Reynolds would one recognise the
somewhat stout lady of middle years who looks out at us
from Shee’s portrait. By 1802, when she posed to Martin
Archer Shee, Countess Spencer was the mother of eight
children, an energetic matron known as a superb host-
Ill. 6. John Hoppner. Portrait of Earl Spencer. 1802. Th e State Hermitage Museum
ess, famed for her erudition, strong character and sharp
tongue. Earl Spencer’s sister Henrietta Ponsonby, Countess
of Bessborough, wrote from Althorp on 9 January
1810 describing Lavinia as an intelligent but most critical
woman. “Nothing escapes: character, understanding,
opinions, dress, person, age infi rmity – all fall equally
under [her] scalping knife” (cited in: Mannings 2000:
104 105
428). Her tendency towards stoutness was noted in 1816
by Joseph Farington, who wrote that she was by now so
fat that she needed a walking stick (cited in: Mannings
2000: 428). Her husband, Earl Spencer, from one of England’s
old aristocratic families, was much infl uenced in
his youth by his tutor, the orientalist Sir William Jones,
who inculcated in him a love for the Classics and rare

ooks. Later, George John Spencer was to be renowned
as one of Europe’s most famous bibliophiles, his library
celebrated across the continent. In 1834 it consisted of
some 40,000 volumes, amongst them 3,000 incunabula. 1
Aft er attending Harrow and Trinity College, Cambridge,
he set off on a two-year Grand Tour of Europe. From
1778 he was an active member of Samuel Johnson’s Literary
Club, from 1780 a member of the Royal Society.
In 1793 Oxford University awarded him an honorary
doctorate. Spencer took his parliamentary duties seriously.
A Whig, in 1794 he and the Duke of Portland
and other party leaders broke off with Charles James
Fox and Charles Grey to join the government of William
Pitt, who soon appointed Spencer First Lord of the
Admiralty. Th rough his infl uence commands were given
to the most talented candidates, which did much to ensure
British victories in the Mediterranean and North
Seas in 1795, 1798 and 1800. Spencer introduced many
progressive reforms at the Admiralty, putting its aff airs
in order and improving the working of the docks. Aft er
his retirement in 1801 he continued to take an interest
in the fl eet and to sit in the House of Lords. From 1807
until his death Earl Spencer devoted his time mostly to
local government in Northamptonshire, to literature,
philanthropy and his learned interests.
Earl Spencer and his wife were known for their hospitality,
gathering leading intellectuals, politicians and
diplomats in their villa in Wimbledon Park and at their
Althorp estate. Amongst those who enjoyed a friendship
with the couple was the Russian ambassador to
the Court of St. James, Semyon Romanovich Vorontsov,
who mentioned them frequently in his extensive correspondence.
In addition to the couple’s erudition and
charm, Vorontsov was drawn by the political interests of
the First Lord of the Admiralty, who enjoyed considerable
authority in government circles, making this friendship
one of considerable importance to Russo-British
diplomatic ties. It is clear, however, that their relationship
was more than simply a matter of offi cial business.
In a letter to his son Mikhail, then setting off back to
Russia, Semyon Vorontsov wrote on 3 May (21 April
Old Russian Style) 1801, that in the event of his death
he would entrust to his daughter Catherine the care of
his “four best friends in this country, Lady Pembroke,
Madame Robinson, Lady Spencer and Lady J. Dundas”
(Vorontsov Archive 1880: 10). Semyon Vorontsov vis-
1 Sold in 1892 for £250,000, the Althorp Library went on to form the
basis of the John Rylands Library in Manchester.
106
ited the Spencers both in their London home and at Althorp.
On 14 October 1803 he wrote to his brother Alexander
in St. Petersburg: “I received your letter whilst in
the country at Lord Spencer’s, the day aft er Michel’s (i.e.
his son Mikhail – E.R.) departure. Lord Spencer, whose
estate I quit yesterday, has the richest and most wonderful
library ever owned by any private individual in the
world. At Althorp he has 30,000 volumes, amongst them
all kinds of Classics, scientifi c works, books on history
and antiquity, belles-lettres, memoirs, books on the fi ne
arts and political economy. All in the fullest and best
editions in existence. Th e arrangement of the books is
such that you fi nd what you want immediately. One can
remain amidst these books all the time, except dinner
time, taking one’s breakfast there and remaining until
nightfall. Th e host and hostess are very knowledgeable
and most welcoming” (Vorontsov Archive 1876: 217).
It was probably the friendly relations between Count
Vorontsov, the Spencers and Elizabeth the Dowager
Lady Pembroke that led to the marriage of the latter’s
son – widowed in 1793 – and Vorontsov’s daughter.
Th ere can be no surprise that the collection of Mikhail
Semyonovich Vorontsov included not only portraits by
Th omas Lawrence of his sister Catherine, Lady Pembroke
(formerly at Alupka, Ukraine, lost in the Second
World War; ill. 4), and her husband George, 11th Earl
of Pembroke, but also portraits of Pembroke’s third
cousin, George John Spencer, the work of John Hoppner
(State Hermitage Museum, Inv. No. ГЭ 5837; oil on
canvas; 77 × 64 cm; ill. 6) and his wife Lavinia by Shee
(Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts, Moscow). As so
oft en happened, Hoppner’s portrait of Earl Spencer, like
Shee’s portrait of his wife, had lost its correct attribution
by the time it reached the collection of Mikhail Vorontsov’s
granddaughter Elizaveta Vorontsova-Dashkova. It
was correctly identifi ed by Larissa Dukelskaya in 1990
(Dukelskaya, Renne 1990: No. 48; Renne 2011: No. 56).
We can assume that both of these portraits, dated 1802,
were produced for Semyon Vorontsov and inherited in
1832 by his son Mikhail.
Th e question arises as to how the identity of both
sitter and artist came to be forgotten. We fi nd the fi rst
mention of the painting in Russia in an unpublished
document, “Описи 39ти картин маслеными красками
отправленных по приказанию их Светлостей
К. Воронцовых в Мошны в феврале 1855 года” [Inventory
of 39 pictures in oil paints selected by order of
Th eir Graces the Princes Vorontsov at Moshny in Feb-
ruary 1855], compiled by Mikhail Vorontsov’s secretary
Alexander Greaves. Under No. 210 we read: “Portrait of
Lady Pembroke. Head with small curls, in a white dress
with a high waist and in a dark burnous with a red lining,
edged with black net. On canvas. H. 1 arsh. 1 versh.
W. 14 versh.” (Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts,
Fund 1261, Register 1, Folder 3040). 1 Th e description
and dimensions (a conversion from Russian arshin and
vershok to centimetres gives dimensions of 75 × 63) indicate
that this must be the painting in Moscow. But we
should bear in mind that Greaves almost certainly never
saw Catherine, Lady Pembroke, who lived in England
with her father from an early age and visited Russia only
in the summer of 1802, when she served as lady-in-waiting
to the recently widowed Dowager Empress Maria
Fyodorovna at Pavlovsk. Th e suggestion that Raeburn
was the author of the canvas does not feature in Greaves’
“Inventory” and must have appeared later. Th us it was
as a portrait of Ekaterina Vorontsova, Lady Pembroke,
by Henry Raeburn, that the painting was published in
the catalogue of the 1905 exhibition and the following
year (Tauride Palace Portraits 1905: No. 1038; Russian
Portraits 1906: No. 43) (see ill. 2).
Th e association with Raeburn, an artist known in
Russia above all as the author of a portrait of Walter
Scott, would seem to have been what impressed the
painting’s former owners. Four more paintings from the
Vorontsov collection in addition to the so-called “Lady
Pembroke” were shown at the 1905 exhibition as the
work of the Scottish portrait painter. Th e authorship of
three of these has changed: the portrait of Semyon Vorontsov
in the Hermitage is now given to Th omas Lawrence,
that of George Spencer in the Hermitage to John
Hoppner, and that of George Pembroke, still in the Vorontsov
Palace at Alupka, is seen as a copy of an original
by William Owen.
Such errors were not only the result of limited
knowledge of British painting, but also of the surprisingly
common attitude to family portraits, in which –
just as with photographs today – we frequently fi nd
ourselves unable to recognise relatives, ancestors and
acquaintances. Th e discovery of the print has in this
case helped establish the true identity of both sitter and
artist, and to resolve a confusion that has long been repeated
in the literature.
1 Th is information kindly provided by Anna Galichenko and Galina
Filatova.
References
Celebrating 500 Years of Althorp 2008
Celebrating 500 Years of Althorp. Living History. 1508–2008.
Northampton, 2008.
Dukelskaya, Renne 1990
Dukelskaya, Larissa and Elizaveta Renne. Th e Hermitage Catalogue
of Western European Painting: British Painting, Sixteenth
to Nineteenth Centuries. Florence–Moscow, 1990.
Garlick 1976
Garlick, Kenneth. “A Catalogue of Pictures at Althorp”. Walpole
Society 1974–1976. Glasgow, 1976. Vol. 45: 78, No. 601.
Mannings 2000
Mannings, David. Sir Joshua Reynolds: a Complete Catalogue
of His Paintings. 2 vols. Subject pictures catalogued by Martin
Postle. New Haven–London, 2000.
Pushkin Museum 1995
Gosudarstvennyj muzej izobrazitel’nyx iskusstv im. A.S. Puškina:
katalog živopisi [Th e Pushkin State Museum of Fine
Arts: Catalogue of the Paintings]. Moscow, 1995.
Renne 2011
Renne, Elizaveta. State Hermitage Museum Catalogue. Sixteenth-
to Nineteenth-Century British Painting. New Haven–
London, 2011.
Russian Portraits 1906
Russkije portrety XVIII–XIX stoletij [Russian Portraits of the
18th to 19th Centuries]. St Petersburg, 1906. Vol. 2, part 2.
Tauride Palace Portraits 1905
Katalog … istoriko-xudožestvennoj vystavki russkix portretov
… v Tavričeskom dvorce v pol’zu vdov i sirot pavšix v boju
voinov [Catalogue… of the Historical and Artistic Exhibition
of Russian Portraits… in the Tauride Palace for the Benefi t of
Widows and Orphans of Soldiers Fallen in War]. Compiled by
Diaghilev, Serge. St. Petersburg, 1905.
Vorontsov Archive 1876
“Pis’ma iz Anglii ot grafa S.R. Voroncova k bratu ego grafu
A.R. Voroncovu 1796–1804 [Letters from England from
Count S.R. Vorontsov to His Brother Count A.R. Vorontsov
1796–1804]”. Arxiv knjazja Voroncova [Th e Archive of Prince
Vorontsov]. Moscow, 1876. Vol. 10, part 3.
Vorontsov Archive 1880
“Pis’ma grafa S.R. Voroncova k synu ego grafu (pozdneje
knjazju) M.S. Voroncovu 1798–1830 [Letters from Count
S.R. Vorontsov to His Son Count (Later Prince) M.S. Vorontsov
1798–1830]”. Arxiv knjazja Voroncova [Th e Archive
of Prince Vorontsov]. Moscow, 1880. Vol. 17.
Translated by Catherine Philipps

Th e State Hermitage possesses four ivory hunting
horns (oliphants): two with the portrait of Peter I
(Inv. No. ЗО 4900; see ill. 3; Inv. No. ЭРК 870, see ill. 7),
one with the portrait of Francis II (Inv. No. Э 172323,
see ill. 5), and one bearing the portraits of Francis II and
his wife Mary Stuart (Inv. No. Э 17327, see ills. 1, 4, 8).
Oliphants similar in style, design, and decorative elements
and bearing portraits of various rulers are found
in museum collections in Poland, Russia, Italy, the UK,
the Czech Republic, and the USA, as well as in private
collections. Th ere is no single received opinion as to their
attribution. Researchers have diff erent views concerning
their dating and localisation. Th us, Vladimir Koshelev,
author of the catalogue “Imperator muzicirujuščij”
[Th e Emperor Musician], believes that four horns in the
collection of the St. Petersburg State Museum of Th eatrical
and Musical Art were made in Russia or Western
Europe in the 18th or 19th century (Koshelev 2006: 50).
Th e horn with the portrait of John III Sobieski at the
Czech National Museum has been dated to the 17th century
– it is believed that it was made during the Polish
King’s lifetime (Golos 1983: 64). One of the oliphants in
the Hermitage collection (the one with the portrait of
Peter I, Inv. No. ЗО 4900) is thought to have been made
in Poland in the 19th century (Proizvedenija zapadnojevropejskogo
iskusstva 2009: 58).
It is noteworthy that there are no images of historical
fi gures on horns precisely dateable to before the
19th century, which must mean that this tradition did
not emerge until that time. In the Middle Ages, the oliphants
were richly decorated with ornamental designs.
Many monarchs of sixteenth-century Europe commis-
OLGA LOKALOVA
OLIPHANTS WITH PORTRAITS OF MONARCHS
sioned horns from the African colonies. African carvers
also used ornamental designs as well as hunting
scenes in the primitive style, sometimes with heraldic
elements. Th us, a horn from a private collection bears
the coat-of-arms of the King of Portugal. Th ere are no
known seventeenth- and eighteenth-century oliphants
with portraits of monarchs.
Th e fi rst mention of oliphants bearing images of royalty
dates back to 1851, when an exhibition of “rarities
in possession of private persons” was held at the Academy
of Fine Arts in St. Petersburg. One of the exhibits,
a horn belonging to Auguste de Montferrand, was decorated
with portraits of Mary Stuart and Francis II. Th e
exhibition catalogue stated that “according to Mr. Montferrand,
the oliphant was presented by the City of Paris
to Mary Stuart and the Dauphin, later King Francis II,
to mark the occasion of their nuptials in 1558” (Kormanovskaya
2007: 344). Th is means that the collector
believed he had in his possession a unique object produced
by French craft smen in the middle of the 16th
century. He must have come to that conclusion on the
basis of the date and the portraits of the Dauphin and
his spouse on the oliphant itself.
But it is unlikely that the ivory horn owned by Montferrand
was a French Renaissance piece. At that time,
cattle horns were mainly used for making hunting horns,
while more expensive objects were made of deer antlers
(Malgouyres, Pagnotta 2007: 53).
Th e Hermitage possesses an oliphant which matches
the description of the one from Montferrand’s collection.
It also bears a date (1558) and the images of the
royal couple. Aft er the collector’s death, the horn was
probably bought by Alexander Polovtsov and in 1881
transferred to the collection of the Baron Stieglitz
School, from where it came to the Hermitage in 1924
(Inv. No. Э 12327; ill. 1).
Similar hunting horns were also owned by the Imperial
Family. According to Florian Gille’s album, oliphants
commissioned by Nicholas I were acquired by the Imperial
Arsenal in 1845, 1848, and 1851. Th ey remained
there until the 1910s, when they were handed over to
the Museum of Th eatrical and Musical Art.
In Polish literary sources, the fi rst mention of the
type of hunting horn with portraits of kings occurs in
the catalogue to the 1856 exhibition of “antiquities and
works of art” at the palace of the Potocki family in Warsaw
(Katalog Wystawy Starożytności i Przedmiotów Sztuki
1856). Th e album of prints appended to the catalogue
contains the picture of an oliphant with the portrait of
John III Sobieski, currently at the Warsaw National Museum
(Inv. No. 2045/3/84; ill. 2).
Th e fact that similar objects were exhibited in Russia
and Poland in the 1850s, as well as the fact that they
were commissioned by the Russian Imperial Court in
the 1840s, suggest that one or more workshops had been
producing oliphants with portraits of state offi cials since
the second third of the 19th century.
Th ree groups of oliphants can be distinguished on
the basis of their design and decoration techniques.
In our opinion, all the horns at the State Hermitage belong
to the fi rst group, which we are going to discuss in
more detail (on the others, see below).
Th is group is characterised by a special design
scheme. Th is “programme” is repeated in every object,
with some variations mostly to do with the historical
character pictured in the horn’s medallion.
Th e oliphant is divided into three or four sections.
Among them is the thin end with the mouthpiece, and
the images of war trophies or hunting scenes in the second
and third sections, followed by the medallion with
the portrait of a royal person (or persons). Th e bell is
fi nished with a patterned band.
Th e mouthpiece is an essential part of a traditional
hunting horn. Th is is the part used to produce sound.
Th e mouthpiece can be detachable or carved into the
thin end of the horn. But it seems that the Hermitage
horns had a purely decorative function. Th ere is no
mouthpiece or hole at the end of the horn with the portrait
of Peter I (ЗО 4900). Th e other horns in the collection
have the mouthpieces in place, but cannot make
108 109
Ill. 1. Oliphant with the portraits of Francis II and Mary Stuart.
Detail. Poland, 19th century. Th e State Hermitage Museum
any sounds. Th is leads to the conclusion that the nineteenth-century
oliphants were not intended to be used
as musical instruments.
Th e narrow part of the oliphant aft er the mouthpiece
is usually shaped as a head of an animal with a gaping
mouth or a fantastic sea creature with sharp teeth, fi ns,
and an acanthus leaf over its muzzle. Th e next section represents
an expressive battle between wild beasts (e.g. the
oliphant with the portrait of Peter I, Inv. No. ЗО 4900;
ill. 3; the oliphant with the portraits of Mary Stuart and
Francis II, Inv. No. Э 12327; ill. 4).
Th e oliphants date back to the Neo-Baroque period,
the dawn of the style of Historicism. Hunting accessories
from earlier times oft en inspired the decoration of
objects produced at this time. Th e design of the narrow
part of the horn may go back to sixteenth-century African
horns. Similar objects were made in Poland in the
17th century. In the 18th century, Russian (Ukhanova
2005: 68) and German powder horns were also decorated
in a similar fashion. Th e neck of the powder horns
(close in shape to the oliphants) was shaped like a head

Ill. 2. Drawing of the medallion
from the oliphant with the portrait of John III Sobieski.
Poland, 19th century. Th e National Museum, Warsaw
of a dog or a sea-monster. Th e motif of animals (bears,
boars, dogs, unicorns, or dragons) locked in a fi ght was
typical for German hunting knives of the 17th century.
Th ese scenes could be adopted by seventeenth- and
eighteenth-century carvers from contemporary European
engravings.
But the infl uence of Historicism is also felt outside
the specifi c decorative elements or repetition of forms.
It also manifests itself in the historical subjects themselves:
the depiction of historical personalities or memorable
events. Th is interest also found its refl ection in
the art of bone carving. Th e carvers of all the known
oliphants in collections other than the Hermitage were
inspired by the people and events of Polish history.
Th e ivory carvers resurrected a whole galaxy of Polish
kings, starting with Henry III de Valois and ending with
Augustus II the Strong, as well as other historical personalities
closely connected to the history of the Polish
state. In the 1830s – 1850s, Poland was experiencing an
upsurge of patriotic feeling. Th ree insurrections were
staged in the second third of the 19th century: the November
Revolt of 1830 and two nationalist uprisings of
1846. Besides, the year 1853 marked the 150th anniversary
of the victory in the Battle of Vienna (where the
head of the army was King John Sobieski, whose por-
trait is the most frequent one to appear on oliphants).
Th is can all point to the Polish provenance of the objects
in question, including the Hermitage exhibits, which
will be discussed in more detail below.
Th ere was no generally accepted scheme for creating
a royal portrait. A bust or half-length portrait could be
in full-face, profi le, or three-quarter view. Th e diff erences
in the attention to detail and the desire to achieve the
likeness of the person depicted point to diff erent iconographic
sources. Th e portrait could be based on engravings,
coins, medals, or the carver’s own imagination.
Th e greatest number of oliphants in the fi rst group,
as mentioned above, bears the portrait of John III Sobieski
who headed the army of the Holy League in the
Battle of Vienna. Th e oliphants with his portrait can be
found in collections of Polish, Russian, Czech, British
museums, as well as in Canadian private collections. Th e
artists could have been inspired by the engravings from
the reign of John Sobieski which represent the King in
a half-length portrait in a medallion. His head is usually
turned a little to one side. Elements of clothing, such as
the mantle, the brooch, the king’s crown, as well as the
medallion and the frame with the King’s name under it
Ill. 3. Oliphant with the portrait of Peter I. Poland, 19th century. Th e State Hermitage Museum
are pretty much the same on each of the hunting horns
bearing the portrait of this Polish King (see ill. 2).
Th e same decorative programme is used in the
case of oliphants with the portrait of Stephen Bathory
(Inv. No. ZKW 866, Royal Castle, Warsaw) and Augustus
the II, Elector of Saxony (as Frederick Augustus I)
and the King of Poland (Inv. No. ГИК 16516/159 А-99,
St. Petersburg State Museum of Th eatrical and Musical
Art). According to archival materials, the horn with the
portrait of Augustus II was bought by Count A. Shuvalov
for Empress Alexandra in Dresden (Archives of the State
Hermitage Museum, Fund 2, Register 14, Folder 4 1848).
Th e craft smen were trying to cater for the tastes of
both Polish and European collectors. It is not surprising
that the oliphants bear the portraits of the Russian Emperor
and the French Kings. Th e French theme in the art
of Polish carvers is explained by the close links between
the two countries. Henry III de Valois, who ruled Poland
between 1573 and 1574, was a brother of Francis II.
Th e Hermitage possesses two hunting horns with
portraits of French Kings. One of them bears an image
of Francis II (Inv. No. 17232; ill. 5) and the other depicts
Francis II with his spouse, Mary Queen of Scots
(see ill. 1). A similar horn featuring another royal couple
is currently at the St. Petersburg State Museum of Ill. 4. Oliphant with the portraits of Francis II and Mary Stuart. Poland, 19th century. Th e State Hermitage Museum
110 111

Th eatrical and Musical Art. It bears a double portrait of
Peter I and Catherine I (ill. 6). Th e design of the two portraits
is identical. Th e spouses are shown in profi le. Th e
position of the fi gures, the gestures of the women who
seem to be pressing their hands against their breasts,
and their appearance are entirely the same. Besides, both
Mary Stuart and Catherine are wearing identical dresses
with ruffl ed collars. However, it is well known that ruff s
were not worn in late seventeenth-century Russia. It is
clear that the artist was not following a particular iconographic
source but created a generalised portrait of both
women on the basis of his own ideas.
Th e Hermitage oliphant with Mary Stuart and Francis
II depicts their wedding. Th is is confi rmed by the
handshake carved on the medallion frame and the date
under it. It is not by chance that the theme of the marriage
of the French Dauphin to the Queen of Scots occurred
to the Polish artist. In the 1840s and 1850s, this
event was remembered as its 300th anniversary was
marked. In France, a medal was struck to commemorate
Ill. 5. Oliphant with the portrait of Francis II. Detail.
Poland, 19th century. Th e State Hermitage Museum
Ill. 6. Drawing of the medallion
from the oliphant with the portraits of Peter I and Catherine I.
Th e St. Petersburg State Museum of Th eatrical and Musical Art
the union, while a sceptre dedicated to Mary Stuart was
displayed at an exhibition in Warsaw in 1856. It bears
the date 1558 and the Queen’s monogram.
Th e portraits of Francis II on the Hermitage oliphants
follow one and the same scheme (cf. ill. 1 and ill. 5). Once
again, the carver was not striving to preserve the likeness
of the King. Th e few existing crayon portraits, engravings,
and coins with the portrait of Francis II create
an impression of his appearance which is very diff erent
from the image presented by the Polish artist.
It is clear that the carver who created the portraits of
French and Russian royalty was quite happy to forgo likeness
and let his imagination run free. Th e similar features
shared by the portraits of Catherine and Mary, on the one
hand, and those of Francis, on the other, make it possible
to attribute the oliphants to the same workshop.
Th e artist was freely using his imagination again with
the portrait of Emperor Peter I. Th e Hermitage horn
shows the Emperor looking very much like a Polish
King. His large facial features, fat lips, and long, slightly
turned up moustache make him look like John Sobieski
(Inv. No. ЭРК 870; ill. 7).
Th e attribution of the oliphants with the portraits of
Polish and French Kings and Russian Emperors to the
same workshop is further corroborated by individual
decorative elements. Th us, apart from the fi ght between
wild animals, which serves as a shared decorative de-
vice common to all the oliphants described above, another
such device is the design of martial symbols. Th e
hunting horn is shown amidst spears, shields, guns,
standards, and quivers. Th is device of depicting military
trophies is repeated in nearly all the products of
this workshop.
Another decorative element shared by hunting
horns with Russian and French themes is the image
of a three-masted ship. It can be seen on the oliphants
featuring royal couples from the St. Petersburg State
Museum of Th eatrical and Musical Art and the Hermitage
(ill. 8), as well as on the one with Peter the Great
(Inv. No. ЭРК 870).
Th e royal crown is part of the heraldic pattern of each
of the oliphants. Th e image of an open crown with eight
half-arches meeting above the orb, and a hoop with eight
leaves and eight pearls (the same crown is included in
the coat-of-arms of the Rzeczpospolita), is present on all
the hunting horns with portraits of Polish Kings and the
Russian Emperor. In the latter case (Inv. No. ЭРК 870),
Ill. 7. Oliphant with the portrait of Peter I. Detail. Poland, 19th
century. Th e State Hermitage Museum
112 113
the hoop has crosses as well as pearls. Th e royal crown is
also depicted on the horn with the portrait of the French
Dauphin, but it has four half-arches, as well as four petals
and four crosses on the hoop.
Th is is further proof that the Polish artist was not
aiming to recreate the historical truth, since the Dauphin’s
crown should bear dolphins rather than halfarches,
and lilies rather than pearls or crosses, while the
Russian Imperial crown looks like two hemispheres divided
by the arch crowned with a cross.
Th e study of Polish oliphants leaves open the question
of their authorship. At the moment, it is only possible
to identify the centre where they were produced,
which cannot have been Warsaw. An article of Th e Warsaw
Courier of 1859 mentions an extraordinary public
event: the sale of a horn with the portrait of John Sobieski
at one of the Warsaw shops (Golos 1983: 64). Th is
creates the impression that such events were unusual for
Warsaw and, consequently, that the workshop was unlikely
to have been located in this city.
Ill. 8. Oliphant with the portraits of Francis II and Mary Stuart.
Detail. Poland, 19th century. Th e State Hermitage Museum

As for the bone carvers of Krakow, they were mostly
known for very diff erent types of objects. In the second
third of the 19th century, they were producing engraved
bone plaques with military or historical and nationalist
subjects.
Th ere is an opinion that the workshop was in fact
located in Lviv. Th is city was famous throughout the
19th century for its jewellers and bone-carvers who created
their masterpieces with respect for the traditions
of the past. 1 Th ey were especially fond of the Baroque
style, which is most evident in their silver objects. When
making the oliphants, the carvers of Lviv must have been
catering to the tastes of the European collectors. Th e objects
they created could have been taken for sixteenth-
or seventeenth-century artefacts. Th ey were working
within the framework of the pan-European style of Historicism
and recreated the images of the great historical
fi gures such as John III Sobieski or Peter the Great.
Apart from the products of this workshop, there exist
other similar objects, each bearing a portrait of a monarch.
But these oliphants have a diff erent style of carving
and decoration. Th ey can be split into two groups.
Th e horns in the fi rst group lack the images of military
trophies and hunting scenes. Th e fl oral patterns covering
the surface of the horns are treated in a very diff erent
way. Wide acanthus leaves take up much of the space.
Th e carver introduces mascarons and fi gures of dragons
and mythical creatures among the patterns. Th e ruffl ed
background highlights the elegant modelling of the fl ower
and fruit garlands. Th e bell is fi nished with festoons in
one case and palmettes in the other, with the texture of
the leaves painstakingly reproduced by the artist.
Th e oliphants in the second group off er a diff erent
treatment of the motifs of the fi ght between animals and
the beast’s head at the neck. Th e carver places the decoration
against a completely fl at background, emphasising
the contrast between the high relief of the battle
scene and the subtle fl uid modelling of the portrait of
the King and his coat-of-arms.
1 Th ere is no existing research into the carving workshops of Lviv. But
both Polish and Russian art historians are of the opinion that Lviv was
a centre of Historicist art in the 19th century: Richard Bobrov (Warsaw
National Museum, private communication, 2010), Anna Saratovich (Royal
Castle, Warsaw, private communication, 2010), Marta Kryzhanovskaya
(State Hermitage, private communication); Yuri Efi mov (State Hermitage)
in the catalogue of “Western European Artefacts of the 12th – 19th Centuries
from the Collections of Pyotr Semyonov-Tyan-Shansky, His Highness
Prince Alexander Gorchakov, Baron Alexander Stieglitz” mentions
Lviv as a possible location for the oliphant with the portrait of Peter the
Great (State Hermitage, Inv. No. ЗО 4900).
It remains to be established whether the works of
these two groups belong to the workshop described
above or whether they were made by diff erent carvers.
At the moment, all that can be said is that there was
a workshop in Poland, probably in Lviv, where oliphants
with portraits of sixteenth- to eighteenth-century rulers
were carved starting from the second third of the 19th
century. Th is is where the four oliphants from the State
Hermitage collection come from. 2
References
Golos 1983
Golos, Jezi. “Autentyki czy falsyfi katy”. Ruch Muzyczny. 1983.
4 września: 64–65.
Katalog Wystawy Starożytności i Przedmiotów Sztuki 1856
Katalog Wystawy Starożytności i Przedmiotów Sztuki. Warszawa,
1856.
Kormanovskaya 2007
Kormanovskaya, K. Antikvarnyj rynok Peterburga (XVIII –
pervaja polovina XIX v.) [Th e St. Petersburg Antiquarian Market
(18th – First Half of the 19th Century)]. St. Petersburg:
Bliz, 2007.
Koshelev 2006
Koshelev, Vladimir. Imperator muzicirujuščij [Th e Emperor
Musician]. St Petersburg, Art-Deco, 2006.
Malgouyres, Pagnotta 2007
Malgouyres, Philippe and Philippe Pagnotta. Histoires d’ivoire.
Collections du musée du Louvre et des musées de Châlons-en-
Champagne. [Cat. exp.] 7 juillet 2007 – 13 janvier 2008. Paris:
Musée des beaux-arts et d’archéologie de Châlons-en-Champagne
, 2007.
Proizvedenija zapadnojevropejskogo iskusstva 2009
Proizvedenija zapadnojevropejskogo iskusstva XII–XIX vekov
iz sobranij P.P. Semjonova-Tjan-Šanskogo, svetlejšego knjazja
A.P. Gorčakova, barona A.L. Štiglica [Western European Artefacts
of the 12th – 19th Centuries from the Collections
of Pyotr Semyonov-Tyan-Shansky, His Highness Prince
Alexander Gorchakov, Baron Alexander Stieglitz]. Exhibition
Catalogue. St. Petersburg: Slavia. 2009.
Ukhanova 2005
Ukhanova, Irina. Severorusskaja reznaja kost’ XVII–XIX vekov
[Bone Carvings of the Russian North from the 17th – 19th
Centuries]. Collection Catalogue. St. Petersburg: State Hermitage
Publishers, 2005.
Translated by Maria Artamonova
2 I am grateful to Marina Lopato, Tamara Rappe, Marta Kryzhanovskaya
and Elena Shlikevich for their consultations, help and support
during the preparation of this article.
Th e Small Th rone Room, also known as the Memorial
Th rone Room of Peter the Great, forms part of the
suite of State Apartments in the Winter Palace (ill. 1).
Designed by Auguste de Montferrand in 1833, it was
amongst the fi rst rooms to be restored aft er the fi re that
had ripped through the Winter Palace in 1837. Th e architect
Vasily Stasov, in charge of restoring the rooms
of the Winter Palace, preserved Montferrand’s overall
design, altering only the form of the columns and pilasters.
Again using Montferrand’s original design, the rich
textile decor was also restored, with un-patterned dark
red silk velvet to which gilded bronze two-headed eagles
were attached (ill. 2).
In the mid-1850s, soon aft er Alexander II had come
to the throne, it was decided to alter the textile decoration
in the Th rone Room. It seems hardly likely that the
wall coverings were already damaged or worn and the
main reason would seem to have been the reform of the
Russian arms conceived by Alexander II at the very start
of his reign.
Discussion of the designs for the new arms began in
January 1856 and over the course of the next eighteen
months various versions were approved, the process
running into the middle of 1857 (Russian State Historical
Archives, Fund 472, Register 35/981, Folder 10
1856: “On the Approval of a New Design for the State
Arms”, 351 ff .). Th e author of this drawing for the Russian
arms was Alexander Fadeyev, artist of the Imperial
Academy of Arts.
Th e new version of the arms, in which St. George
was turned to face in the opposite direction, i.e. to the
left , gave rise to a wave of criticism from the Russian ar-
TATYANA LEKHOVICH
VELVET WALL COVERINGS IN THE PETER THE GREAT (SMALL THRONE) ROOM
IN THE WINTER PALACE. A FORGOTTEN HISTORY
115
istocracy and even members of the Imperial Family. To
give some understanding of just how heated discussion
became, we have only to read a note from Alexander II’s
brother Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolayevich, “Comments
on the Design for the Imperial Naval Standard”,
of 1856.
“…the original rider with a sword was transformed
into a sacred image of St. George the Victorious on
a white horse killing the dragon with his spear. Th e direction
of St. George did not change even during the
scholarly heraldic research of Giesen, 1 and only the False
Dimitry 2 dared lay hands on things sacred to us and, in
accordance with the fi ner points of German Heraldry,
gave the Holy Warrior the same direction that now we
see in the design by Mr. Koehne. 3 But is it really possible
that at the insistence of a German scholar, clearly totally
unacquainted with the spirit of Russia and Orthodox
history, the SOVEREIGN, on ascending the throne, has
altered the Russian state arms that have come down to
us over the centuries, and accepted that which was established
by the imposter False Dimitry, on whom the
Orthodox Church pronounces anathema every year?”
(Borisov (Ilyin) 2002: 74–78).
Alexander II remained fi rm in his decision and the
new version of the arms was accepted. In May 1856 alterations
to the Great Arms and other forms of the offi
cial insignia were fi nally approved.
1 Baron Frederick Giesen, active in the early 18th century during
the reign of Peter the Great.
2 Th e False Dimitry: an imposter who claimed to be the true heir
to the Russian throne in 1605–1606.
3 Bernhard Karl Koehne (1817–1886). From 1845 employed at
the Hermitage, where he specialised in numismatics and heraldry.

In 1856 the rooms of the State Council in the Hermitage
building were redecorated. It was vital that the
designs for the newly approved State Arms and the arms
of the Russian provinces be complete (Russian State
Historical Archives, Fund 472. Register 35/981, Folder
10 1856: “On the Approval of a New Design for the State
Arms”, f. 110). Th e works in the State Council rooms
were conducted by the architect Andrey Stakenschneider
and redecoration of the Peter the Great Room also
began at this time.
Th e commission to produce new velvet panels for the
Peter the Great Room was received by the Lyon manufactory
Le Mire Père & Fils on 5 January 1856 (ill. 3) and
the work was completed in 1858.
As it becomes clear from archive notes in Lyon, the
commission for the velvet for the Small Th rone Room
was made before the fi nal design for the Russian arms
Ill. 1. Th e Peter the Great (Small Th rone) Room in the Winter Palace
had been confi rmed. By the middle of the 19th century
Le Mire Père & Fils, founded in the middle of the 18th
century, had gained universal renown, providing textiles
to European courts and to the Church. It was logical
therefore that the choice of the Ministry of the Imperial
Court fell on one of France’s best textile manufactories.
In the manufactory’s archive we fi nd a book of samples
with fragments of the textiles made for the Peter
the Great Room (Archive of the House of Prelle, Lyon:
Prelle Livre du patron LG, No. 4546).
Sample No. 1. “Small Eagle” P4546 – “Aigle Russe pour
le Semé de la tenture de la Salle Pierre le Grand au Palais
d’Hiver, broché 2 Ors Taille Douce” [Russian eagle for the
repeat design of the wall hangings in the Hall of Peter
the Great in the Winter Palace, brocaded with silver-gilt
threads of two kinds, taille douce]. Th e eagle is woven
in two kinds of silver-gilt threads on red silk (ill. 4).
Ill. 2. Sergey Zaryanko. Views of the Winter Palace. Th e Peter the Great (Small Th rone) Room. 1837.
Oil on canvas. 86 × 109.5 cm. Th e State Hermitage Museum
Ill. 3. Embroidered signature of the Le Mire manufactory in Lyon on a wall panel
in the Peter the Great Room in the Winter Palace. 1856–1857.
Silk velvet, silver-gilt threads; woven, embroidered, with appliqué
116 117

Ill. 4. Page from the sample book of the Le Mire manufactory
in Lyon, with a fragment of the fabric: “Hall of Peter the Great
in the Winter Palace. Sample No. 1. Small Eagle”. © Prelle, Lyon
Sample No. 2. “Great Eagle” P4556 – “Aigle Russe
pour le millieu du panneau de tenture en 3 dorures”
[Russian eagle intended for the middle of the panel, of
three kinds of gold].
Sample No. 3. Th rone upholstery II35982. An embroidered
eagle on pain brulé velvet. Th e colour of this
sample is very close to the velvet we see on the wall in
the Peter the Great Room in the watercolour of 1863 by
Eduard Hau (ills. 5 and 9).
Th e documentary material in Lyon allows us to recreate
the complex process by which the velvet panels
were made for the Winter Palace:
Th e Great and Small arms (“eagles”, as they were
described in the manufactory documents) were woven
with silver-gilt threads over a smooth silk ground. Th en
the details of the eagles were embroidered with silvergilt
threads in a brocade (raised embroidery) technique.
Ill. 5. Page from the sample book of the Le Mire manufactory
in Lyon with a fragment of the fabric: “Hall of Peter the Great in the
Winter Palace. Sample No. 3. Th rone Upholstery”. © Prelle, Lyon
Th e eagles were cut out and then stitched to red velvet
panels, edged with chenille thread (ill. 6). Decorative
borders and monograms were embroidered around the
perimeter of the panels. Th e panels were edged with
round braided gilded cord and attached to the walls
with nails.
Beneath the throne the podium was upholstered
with the same velvet, edged with gilded braiding. Th e
back of the throne is adorned with a large eagle woven
and embroidered in gold, but using silver-gilt sequins
(Inv. No. ЭРМБ-110/1, 2; ill. 7).
Up to now the history of the commission and the
making of the woven panels for the Peter the Great
Room – which radically altered its appearance – has
been unknown. Montferrand’s severe, somewhat dry
but elegant Empire Style velvets were replaced with
monumental, majestic imperial compositions. Unlike
the textiles in Montferrand’s design, the new velvet
panels not only were given a leading role in the interior
but they altered its style in accordance with the tastes
of a new age.
Which leads us to ask who might have been the author
of the new design. Th e name of the architect responsible
for the designs for these velvet panels has not
previously been known, but we can fi nd an interesting
document in the Russian State Historical Archives:
on 26 December 1856 Ober-Hofmarshal of the Court
Count Shuvalov received a letter from the merchant of
Lyon L. Massauneau, who was acting as agent between
the Le Mire manufactory and the Ministry of the Imperial
Court in St. Petersburg. He wrote:
“I have the honour of informing you that I intend to
make a large embroidered panel with the heraldic Eagles
of Russia so that His Majesty can judge the most
completely the eff ect that will be produced by this new
wall hanging, since we wish to produce a perfect piece of
work. It will take more time than I said, but that is what
His Majesty has approved (ill. 8). Th e whole hanging
will not be ready by August, when you desired to have it.
Mr. Stakschneider [sic], the architect, has informed me
that he has fi nished the designs. I would very much like
to have them during my stay in Lyon in order to sort out
the necessary samples for each apartment in order to be
able to submit them to you in April, when I intend to
be in St. Petersburg. We are so sure of producing something
worthy and suitable for the Room of His Majesty
Peter the Great that I have no hesitation in making a
panel that will measure more than 2 metres wide and
run the whole height of the Room. For this I have written
to Colonel Kube to ask him to send me in Lyon an
exact plan of the Room….
P. S. I write to you from Prague on my way to Lyon.
Th e address of our House in Lyon is Mr. Le Mire Père et
fi ls Rue des Femillants No. 1 Lyon.
Prague, 31 October 1856” (Russian State Historical
Archives, Fund 469, Register 11, Folder 52 1856: “On
the Provision according to Vassuno’s 1 Letter of the Dimensions
of the Hall to be Sent to Paris”, f. 1, original
in French).
In the margin is a pencil note from Count Shuvalov:
“Order Mr. Kube to immediately provide me with…
the dimensions, so that I might send them with the
1 Massauneau’s signature – like the rest of his letter – was so illegible
that the Russian clerks transcribed it incorrectly.
118 119
Ill. 6. Th e “Small Eagle” on a wall panel in the Peter the Great Room
in the Winter Palace. 1856–1857. Silk velvet, silver-gilt threads;
woven, embroidered, with appliqué
Feldjäger who is leaving for Paris on Saturday. Also
pass on to Mr. Stakenschneider that which is relevant
to him”.
From this document we learn that the author of the
designs for the new velvet panels was the architect Andrey
Stakenschneider, responsible in the middle of the
19th century for the design of a number of interiors in
the private apartments of the Winter Palace and in the
Hermitage. It refutes the commonly held view that Stakenschneider
was never involved in the design of state
interiors in the Winter Palace.
Th e location of Stakenschneider’s designs for the Peter
the Great Room is not known today. Although we
know from Massauneau’s letter and the subsequent correspondence
between the Ministry of the Imperial Court
and the Cabinet of the Minister of the Imperial Court
that the designs and dimensions of the room were immediately
despatched to Paris:
“25 December 1856.
To the Keeper of the Keys of the Imperial Winter
Palace, Engineer-Colonel Kube.
Th e Court Offi ce, by order of the Ober-Hofmarshal,
attaching hereby the letter of Vassuno, humbly requests

the immediate provision to His Excellency of the dimensions
of the halls set out in that letter, in order that
they can be sent to Paris with the Feldjäger travelling
there next Saturday, and at the same time supply the
designs requested when they should be received by you
from the Architect Mr. Stakenschneider, returning the
letter of Mr. Vassuno here attached.
[Signed:] Counsellor Pert Ekno” (Russian State Historical
Archives, Fund 469, Register 11, Folder 52 1856:
“On the Provision according to Vassuno’s Letter of the
Dimensions of the Hall to be Sent to Paris”, f. 2).
Th e original plans for the decoration of the hall
would seem to have undergone signifi cant changes over
the course of subsequent discussions, as we learn from
Ill. 7. Th rone with a footstool, from the Peter the Great Room
in the Winter Palace. Craft sman Christian Mayer,
St. Petersburg. 1797. Wood, velvet, silver threads; carved, gilded,
embroidered. Th rone: 183 × 87 × 104 cm; footstool: 22 × 84 × 58 cm.
Th e State Hermitage Museum
a letter from Shuvalov to the Minister of the Imperial
Court Count Adlerberg:
“Court Offi ce of the Ministry
of the Imperial Court at
Peterhof, 31 July 1857
No. 907
On the Redecoration
of the Peter the Great Room
in the Winter Palace
Report
To the Minister
of the Imperial Court
Count Adlerberg
In the wake of the Highest Order of which Your Excellency
is aware, the Lyon merchant Massauneau, who
has delivered the example of velvet fabric for the Peter
the Great Room in the Winter Palace, already seen by
the Sovereign Emperor, despatched to me at the same
time the estimate hereby attached with the original letter
under the letter A, according to which all the proposed
delivery of textiles and such like shall reach the sum of
44,750 silver roubles; according to the calculation made
by Keeper of the Keys of the Imperial Winter Palace, Engineer-Colonel
Kube, hereby attached as a copy under
letter B, the interior of the said room shall cost as before
15,848 roubles 65 kopecks, therefore this is less than the
fi rst sum by 28,901 roubles 35 kopecks.
Presenting this for Your Excellency’s consideration,
I have the honour to report that if it is seen fi t to allocate
for payment the said 15,848 roubles 65 kopecks
or permit the sum to be transferred to the emergency
accounts, then I, on my part, would fi nd it possible, for
the performance of the Emperor’s Will, without requiring
new allocations of funds, to fi nd the missing 28,901
roubles 35 kopecks from the remains of funds allocated:
for reworking, correction and furnishing of the building
of the Winter Palace and Hermitage Pavilion and for the
installation of lift equipment for His Highness.
Ober-Hofmarshal Count Shuvalov”.
[Noted in the margin:] “Royal order to do as the
Hofmarshal stated, i.e. take 15,848 roubles 65 kopecks
from the funds of the Court Offi ce, and 28,901 roubles
35 kopecks from the sums allocated for the reworking,
correction and furnishing of the Winter Palace and
Pavilion. 1
1 i.e. Th e New Hermitage.
1 August 1857” (Russian State Historical Archives,
Fund 472, Register 14, Folder 1771 1857: “On Various
Works in the Winter Palace”, f. 10).
Th is document provides much new information
about the history of the creation of the Peter the Great
Room interiors. It is clear, for instance, that it was originally
intended simply to recreate Montferrand’s design,
replacing the velvet with fresher fabric and making
bronze eagles according to the new design for the
state arms. In the process of work, however, new designs
were created and the Le Mire manufactory made trial
pieces which were then presented for approval to the
Emperor. Th ese pleased Alexander II and the order was
thus placed, despite the great expense: the new estimate
was nearly three times higher than that originally proposed.
“Th e Sovereign Emperor has ordered: that the
Lyon merchant Massauneau be commissioned to supply
materials for the reworking of the Peter the Great Room
in the Winter Palace, listed in the estimate provided by
him and returned to him at the requested price of forty
four thousand seven hundred and fi ft y silver roubles”
(Note from the Minister of the Imperial Court Count
Adlerberg to Ober-Hofmarshal of the Court Count Shuvalov,
4 August 1857. Russian State Historical Archives,
Fund 472, Register 14, Folder 1771 1857: “On Various
Works in the Winter Palace”, f. 14).
Orders of such complexity, signifi cance and expense
usually involved the making of preliminary samples
demonstrating the diff erent options for producing one
and the same design. Th is was no exception. In the archive
of the Prelle fi rm we fi nd examples of silk with the
eagle that we see in the Winter Palace today woven in
yellow silk against a brick red ground (Musée des Tissus
de Lyon, Inv. No. 10234546).
In February 1858 the Le Mire manufactory and
Massauneau provided “velvet materials with embroidered
gilded Arms and the relevant ornament for the
Hall of Emperor Peter the First in the Winter Palace”
(Note from Count Adlerberg, 6 February 1858. Russian
State Historical Archives, Fund 472, Register 14,
Folder 1771 1857: “On Various Works in the Winter
Palace”, f. 27). By order of Alexander II the textiles
were free of import duty (Ibid, f. 28). Th at same year
a team of workers put the fabrics in place on the walls
in the Peter the Great Room.
A watercolour of 1863 by Eduard Hau shows the
room soon aft er the reconstruction (Hermitage Inv.
No. ОР 14400; ill. 9). Th e bright scarlet silk velvet with
120 121
Ill. 8. Velvet panel,
sample with Russian eagles woven in silver-gilt threads.
Le Mire manufactory. 1856. © Prelle, Lyon
its gold decoration combines with the gilded mouldings
of the cornices and ceiling to create an impressive, ceremonial
ensemble. Th e Peter the Great Room was used
for major ceremonies, including the Christmas audience
granted to ambassadors of foreign lands.
Soon aft er work had been completed on the Peter the
Great Room, reconstruction commenced in the Armorial
Hall, St. George’s Hall and Gallery of 1812. In each
case the architect was Vasily Stasov.
In 1859 an inventory was made of state property in
the Winter Palace, Hermitage Pavilion and Th eatre. An
audit commission compiled the fi rst inventories of the
rooms in the Main Suites, including the Peter the Great
Room and these give us today some impression of the
contents of the room, although many of the items have
been lost.
“In the Peter the Great Room:
No. 24. Icon in a silver-gilt frame, one.
No. 25. Walls covered entirely with crimson velvet
with applied embroidered gold garlands and in the

Ill. 9. Eduard Hau. View of the Halls of the Winter Palace. Th e Peter the Great Room. 1863.
Watercolour on paper. 33.2 × 41.1 cm. Th e State Hermitage Museum
corners monograms with the cypher of EMPEROR
PETER I, in the middle of each panel, between the pilasters,
applied woven gold large two-headed eagles,
and on the rest of the velvet similarly applied eagles of
lesser size.
Above the two doors embroidered gold laurel wreaths
with cyphers and crowns.
In the niche around the portrait.
Walls also covered with crimson velvet, to which are
applied similar two-headed eagles and garlands.
Around the frame of the portrait is crimson velvet
with applied gold garlands and cyphers in the corners.
Dais with three steps covered with crimson velvet
and the bottoms of the steps covered with gold braid.
Th rone of wood, carved and gilded, upholstered with
crimson velvet and embroidered on the back in gold with
a two-headed eagle, on the seat a laurel wreath, one.
Footstool of wood, carved and gilded, upholstered
with the same velvet with a gold embroidered laurel
wreath, one…
Indoor thermometer in a bronze frame, one.
Waste baskets of mahogany with metal fi ttings, two.
Chairs of ash wood, four.
No. 33. Metal silver-plated chandelier with eagles
above, in the form of a crown with 210 stems on an iron
bar, one.”
Th e Peter the Great Room also had curtains of
course:
“Curtains made of panels of crimson velvet, lined
with [crossed out: crimson gros de naples] white calico
with four pieces per panel, edged around with gold
ornament, and on the front and along the bottom with
gold braid in festoons and [crossed out: with fringe], six.
[In pencil: fringe returned to the stores in 1867, the gros
de naples lining replaced with calico].
Valances straight, of crimson velvet, edged along the
bottom with gold ornament and broad gold fringe on a
lining of crimson gros de naples, on the same cornices a
semi-oval garland embroidered in gold and in the middle
the embroidered cypher with a crown of EMPEROR
PETER I, three.
Cords, thick, gold, twisted, four to each window,
with large gold tassels, twelve on the three windows altogether.
Curtain embraces of thick gold cord, twisted, with
twelve large gold twisted tassels, three pairs.
Cornices on the windows, wooden, carved and gilded,
with military trophies, three.
Rosettes for the curtains, wooden, carved and gilded,
depicting two-headed eagles, six.
Festoon curtains of crimson gros de naples, lined
with white calico, edged along the bottom with silk ornament
and fringe with thick crimson silk cords, three.
Festoon curtains for the top windows of crimson
gros de naples, lined with white lancort edged along the
bottom with silk ornament and fringe, with crimson silk
cords, three.
Cords for the hinged window panes of crimson silk,
two” (Russian State Historical Archives, Fund 469, Register
15, Folder 449 1859: “Inventory of the Property in
the Kammer-Zalmeister’s Rooms of the Winter Palace,
in the Main Apartments”, Vol. I. From No. 1 to No. 1017,
ff . 4–12v).
Today the curtains and most of the window furniture
have been lost but the original carved cornices
survive. Without the curtains Stakenschneider’s composition
looks unfi nished. Th ey disappeared during the
occupation of the Winter Palace in the Revolution of
October 1917, as we know from a report by the caretaker
of the apartment property in the Winter Palace,
Nikolay Dementyev: “In all of the palace rooms, with
only rare exceptions, the curtains, half-curtains and
draperies were stolen from the windows and doors, all
of these things made of cotton, silk, hemp, net, wool
or felt fabrics; some of the said items were even taken
together with their pelmets, cords, weights and bronze
122 123
pendants” (Russian State Historical Archives, Fund 475,
Register 2, Folder 67: “Report of the Caretaker of the
Apartment Property in the Winter Palace to the Head
of the Petrograd Palace Administration of 25 December
1917”, ff . 45–48). No curtains are visible in Hau’s watercolour
of the Small Th rone Room but we do see them
in another of his works, View of the Armorial Hall in the
Winter Palace (Inv. No. ОР 14396), through the doorway
leading into the Peter the Great Room.
Th e magnifi cent interior of the Peter the Great Room,
reworked according to a design by Andrey Stakenschneider,
was the fi rst in a whole suite of majestic state rooms.
Its creators left us another mystery, however: why the
second panel to the right bears, prominently displayed,
the embroidered signature of the maker: “LE MIRE P. F
de Lyon 1857”. Le Mire may have been a good manufactory,
but nonetheless it was just that, a manufactory, and
it seems unthinkable that they should have been permitted
to include this signature on panels intended for
a throne room in the main palace of a vast empire. Th is
mystery cannot be solved and we can only guess why
such a thing was allowed…
Th e origins of the Le Mire manufactory lay in the
18th century, growing out of the Lyon factory set up in
1752 by Pierre Toussaint Dechazelle and owned in the
1780s by Marie-Olivier Defarge, which produced commissions
for the French King, among them the whole
range of textiles for the state bedroom of Marie-Antoinette
at Versailles. During the Empire it was jointly
owned, one of the owners being Marie-Jacques-Alexandre
Le Mire. In around 1833–1834 he became sole owner
and the manufactory bore his name until 21 October
1865, when Le Mire left the fi rm and the business was
acquired by Lamy et Giraud. Since 1927 the manufactory
has borne the name Prelle.
Th e Le Mire manufactory supplied textiles to European
courts and churches and was considered one
of the continent’s leading textile houses. Nonetheless
a court case that began soon aft er Le Mire’s commission
for the Russian court led to the sale of the manufactory
in 1865.
Some light is thrown on the company’s bankruptcy
by a letter in the Russian archives in which a relative of
Le Mire, a deputy in the French legislative assembly,
requests that Baron Budberg, Russian ambassador to
France, clarify “how much was paid in 1857 to the Lyon
merchant Massauneau for the velvet purchased from
him for the Peter the Great Hall in the Winter Palace”

(Russian State Historical Archives, Fund 472, Register
15/929, Folder 4). Budberg sent the request on to Adlerberg,
Minister of the Court.
“Ministry of Foreign Aff airs
Imperial Russian Embassy in Paris
28 February 1864
No. 85.
Dear Count Vladimir Fyodorovich,
Deputy of the French Legislative Assembly M. Marey
Monge, acting on pressure from his relatives, the
Lyon manufacturers Le Mire et Cie, has addressed to
me a request for precise information regarding the sum
paid to the correspondent of the said manufacturers in
St. Petersburg, M. Massoneau, for the velvet purchased
from them for the Peter the Great Room in the Winter
Palace.
I feel it my duty to attach here for the consideration
of Your Excellency M. Marey Monge’s request, and have
the honour to most humbly request You, Dear Sir, to do
me the honour of keeping me informed.
Please accept my assurances of my deepest respect
and loyalty.
[Signed:] Budberg.”
[Note to one side in another hand:] “Require [illegible].
Velvet commissioned and used to renew the Peter
the Great Room in the Winter Palace. 5 March 1864. (Re
the letter of Baron Budberg regarding provision of information
as to how much was paid in 1857 to the Lyon
merchant Massauneau for the velvet bought from him
for the Peter the Great Room of the Winter Palace)”
(Russian State Historical Archives, Fund 472, Register
15/929, Folder 4, f. 1).
Th e reply followed several days later:
“14 March 1864
Ministry of the Imperial Court for the Court Offi ce
To the Chancellory of the Ministry of the Imperial
Court
With regard to the note from the Chancellory of
10th March No. 530 the Court Offi ce of His Majesty has
the honour to inform you that for the velvet supplied
in 1857 by the Lyon merchant Massauneau for the interior
of the Peter the Great Room in the Winter Palace
the sum was paid to Massauneau on 13 May 1858
of 9,392 gold imperials and 1 silver rouble 20 kopecks.
In total in silver forty eight thousand three hundred and
seventy roubles; of which 92 roubles 10 kopecks were
retained by the postman sent to deliver the velvet from
the town of Verzhbolov.
Note sent to Baron Budberg 16 March” (Ibid, f. 3).
Th e cost to the Russian treasury of the joint work of
Andrey Stakenschneider and the Le Mire manufactory
of Lyon was huge, but the quality was superb. Over the
one hundred and fi ft y years that the silk has hung on the
walls it has suff ered the eff ects of gas lighting, numerous
attempts to clean it, revolutionary upheaval and theft s,
the lack of heating during the Siege of Leningrad in the
Second World War and the fall of a bomb in the next
hall in 1942. Th e pile is worn, the silk darkened from
dirt and damage caused by unsubtle conservation measures,
while the gold eagles and ornament today seem to
be made of tarnished silver.
Th e Peter the Great Room in the Winter Palace is
a unique ensemble, the harmonious result of the work
of three great architects, Montferrand, Stasov and Stakenschneider,
the role of each of whom is visible not only
in the marks of their genius, but in their respect for the
concepts of their predecessors.
Reference
Borisov (Ilyin) 2002
Borisov (Ilyin), Igor. V.K. Lukomskij. Neizvestnyje raboty
[Vladislav Lukomsky. Unknown Works]. Moscow, 2002.
Translated by Catherine Philipps

Th e Hermitage collection of religious art from the
period of the Moscow tsardom is quite imposing in
quantity but extremely heterogeneous in composition.
Th e overwhelming majority of exhibits that form the
collection are “res sacrae” that were in common use by
urban residents and country people living primarily in
the northern regions of Muscovy and date from the 15th
to the fi rst quarter of the 18th centuries. Th ere is a small
group of items that were, or may have been, the property
of the Moscow nobility and high-ranking churchmen
(including endowments to churches and monasteries).
Only one of them has been established as having
belonged to a member of the ruling dynasty, though not
by documentary evidence, but by oral tradition: a gold
pectoral cross with fi ligree, which, according to the Bezobrazov
family legend, was once owned by Patriarch
Philaret Nikitich Romanov.
Meanwhile, since 1957 there has been an object in the
reserves of the Department of the History of Russian Culture
that until recently has not attracted the attention of
researchers, but probably has every reason to be attributed
to the last representatives of the dynasty of Ivan Kalita.
It is a gilded silver reliquary with the relics of saints that
was transferred to the Hermitage from the Pavlovsk Palace-Museum
(Inv. No. ЭРП-1306; 17.7 × 10.2 × 2.8 cm;
silver, pearls, gilding, wood; engraving, fi ligree, carving;
ills. 1, 2). In the Department’s inventory of ancient Russian
applied art this object, which has never been published, is
dated to the 16th century. Judging by the inventory numbers
of the Gatchina Palace on the reliquary, it used to be
in Alexander III’s private apartments; in the photographs
of the residential interiors at Gatchina the reliquary can
SERGEY TOMSINSKY
A SIXTEENTH-CENTURY SILVER RELIQUARY IN THE COLLECTION OF THE DEPARTMENT
OF THE HISTORY OF RUSSIAN CULTURE OF THE STATE HERMITAGE
125
be seen on a small table in the fi rst bedroom (Gatčinskij
dvorec 2007: 131). Th e fact that the reliquary belonged to
Alexander III is a fairly reliable indication of the high status
it enjoyed among the other sacred items belonging to
the Imperial Family – determined, it must be supposed,
not only by the relics contained in it, but also by precise
information concerning its fi rst owner. Unfortunately, it
is not possible to obtain more defi nite information about
the “Gatchina history” of the reliquary, as the prerevolutionary
inventories of the Gatchina Palace have not survived.
All that can be ascertained is that it came to the
State Hermitage in a badly damaged state: the grille covering
the container for the relics was broken in two places
and the top of the container had come off , while the cylindrical
receptacles for the relics and the relics themselves
had been partly lost. One gets the impression that the
reliquary had been opened roughly by someone who had
no idea of its purpose but merely wanted to fi nd out what
was inside. Th is kind of damage obviously could not have
occurred either in the Imperial residence or in the museums.
1 However, all the reliquary’s reversals of fortune
in the fi rst half of the 20th century are of no importance
for a proper understanding of this piece of late medieval
religious art; that is rather a subject for researchers of the
complex processes of the formation of the USSR’s museum
reserves. Th e only source whose analysis may lead
to more or less defi nite conclusions as to the reliquary’s
provenance and date is the object itself. All that remains
to establish is how informative that source is.
1 Th e restoration of the reliquary was carried out at the State Hermitage
Laboratory for Scientifi c Restoration of Applied Art Objects.

Ill. 1. Silver reliquary. Obverse side. Before restoration. Th e State Hermitage Museum
Th e variety of shapes of medieval reliquaries – in
both Catholic and Orthodox Europe – that has been remarked
upon several times by researchers is explained,
in the last analysis, by the allocation of each of these
items to one of two large groups: stationary and portable
reliquaries, and the purpose of the object within
that group. Our reliquary is very signifi cant in this context:
it is a portable receptacle for relics, whose purpose
was to accompany its owner on long journeys. When
folded, the Hermitage reliquary has the shape of a trefoil,
imitating the silhouette of a single-cupola church
with a gently sloping surface of the central zakomara
(arch-like semicircular top of the church wall) that rises
slightly above the side zakomaras. A close analogy with
a similar shape to the Hermitage reliquary is the wellknown
triptych by the master Lucian, inscribed with the
date 1412 and acknowledged by Tatyana Nikolayeva to
have originated in Vladimir-Suzdal (Nikolayeva 1968:
89–102; Nikolayeva 1971: 33). Th e portal of this miniature
church is formed by two plaits of prominent fi ligree
with round medallions, each of which has a lilyshaped
extremity and includes a miniature four-pointed
cross. Th e two outer folds, equipped with a reliable
bolt in the shape of a baluster, represent the doors to
Ill. 2. Silver reliquary. Obverse side. Aft er restoration. Th e State Hermitage Museum
the church, on which an experienced master has engraved
depictions of St. Sergius of Radonezh interceding
with the Holy Trinity and St. Cyril of Belozersk
interceding with the Mother of God of the Sign. Th e images
are accompanied by the inscriptions: ПРПБНЫЙ
СЕРГИЙ РАДОНЕЖСКИЙ НОВЫЙ ЧЮДОТВОРЕЦЬ;
ПРЕСВЯТАЯ ТРОИЦА ПОМИЛУЙ НАСЪ; ПРПБНЫЙ
КИРИЛ БЕЛОЗЕРЬСКИЙ НОВЫЙ ЧЮДОТВОРЕЦЬ;
ПРЕСВЯТАЯ БЦА СПАСИ НАСЪ [St. Sergius of Radonezh,
the New Miracle-Worker; Most Holy Trinity,
Have Mercy on Us; St. Cyril, the New Miracle-Worker;
Most Holy Mother of God, Save Us]. On the fold is an
126 127
engraved Icon of the Saviour-Not-Made-by-Hands in
a round medallion, with inscriptions on either side: СВ
ТРОИЦА; ВОПЛОЩЕНИЕ ГОСПОДНЕ [Th e Holy
Trinity; Th e Incarnation of the Lord]. Th e reliquary is
crowned with a globe-shaped cupola without a drum
but with a large cross, which has the characteristic triangle-like
ends of the crosspieces, designed in fi ligree.
When opened, the reliquary shows similarly precise
associations with a church interior (ill. 2). Th e inside
of the outer doors features compositions of the Entry
of the Virgin into the Temple and the Dormition of
the Virgin (ill. 3). Th e actual receptacle for the relics

Ill. 3. Silver reliquary. Compositions on the folds. Aft er restoration. Th e State Hermitage Museum
is shielded by the two folds of a tracery grille of six
rows of equal rectangular cells covered with liturgical
inscriptions. Th e grille corresponds exactly with the
structure of the iconostasis in an Orthodox church. To
judge by the traces of a quite painstaking repair, with
the reproduction of a lost fragment on one of the grille’s
folds, the damage to the reliquary that the Hermitage’s
restorers had to make good was not the fi rst to have
befallen it. Having no reliable information for the date
of this repair, it can only be stated that, fi rstly, one of
the grille’s folds was broken deliberately; secondly, that
the former or new owners of the reliquary were able to
restore it; and thirdly, that this happened long before the
reliquary came into the Imperial Family’s possession, as
it would be hard to imagine it being treated so roughly
in the chambers of the Gatchina Palace.
In the central section of the receptacle for the relics
is a two-sided cross carved from bone in a delicate
fi ligree setting. Th is cross fully corresponds in size to
the pectoral crosses that were widespread during the
Moscow tsardom, worn both by the clergy and by pious
lay people, but the absence of traces of characteristic
signs of wear or means of hanging show that the cross
was specially made for the reliquary. Th e haut relief
depictions on the cross are clearly the work of a talented
and experienced carver, no less qualifi ed than the
master jeweller who made the reliquary itself. On the
obverse side of the cross are: Th e Th ree Holy Hierarchs
(top); Th e Holy Trinity with four worshippers (middle);
Th e Appearance of the Mother of God to St. Sergius,
and Sts. Catherine, Maсarius of Egypt and Coprius (at
the foot) (ill. 4). On the reverse side are: Th e Nativity
(top); Th e Raising of Lazarus, Th e Entry into Jerusalem
and Th e Crucifi xion (middle); Th e Ascension and
Th e Dormition of the Virgin (at the foot).
Finally, the reverse side of the reliquary bears engraved
inscriptions: the Prayer to the Cross in large letters
around the perimeter, and in the centre – a list of
the saints’ relics contained in the receptacle (ill. 5). Th e
latter inscription is of great interest in establishing the
exact date and ownership of the reliquary: В раце сей
Древо Животворящия Креста Христова мощи
Иоанна Предтечи Матвея и Марка евангелистов
Георгиевы да Дмитриевы Селуньскаго Феодора
Стратилата Евстратиевы Еустафия Плакиды
Иакова Прьскаго Прокофиевы Пантелеймоновы
Ермолаевы Флора Лавра Козмы Дамиана Николы
Мирликийскаго Спиридона Тримифунскаго Иоанна
Златоустаго Петра Александрийскаго Кириака
Иерусалимского Андрея Критскаго Симеона
Богоприимца Иоакима и Анны Магдалыни святыя
Аксении древо престола апостлова Петрова [In
this shrine there is a part of the Life-Giving Cross of
Christ and relics of John the Baptist, the Evangelists
Matthew and Mark, Sts. George and Demetrius of
Th essalonica, Th eodore Stratelates, Eustratius, Eustace
Placidas, James of Persia, Procopius, Panteleimon,
Hermolaus, Florus, Laurus, Cosmas, Damien,
Nicholas of Myra in Lycia, Spyridon of Tremithon,
John Chrysostom, Peter of Alexandria, Cyriacus of
Jerusalem, Andrew of Crete, Simeon the God-Receiver,
Joachim and Anna, Magdalena, Xenia, wood
from the throne of the Apostle Peter]. So the reliquary,
called a “shrine” by its compiler, contained one of the
most important relics for Christians – part of Th e Lord’s
Cross (obviously in the central receptacle covered by
the carved bone cross), relics of the most revered saints
and, most interestingly, part of the throne of the Apostle
128 129
Peter in Rome – a relic which is unique for Ancient Rus
and the Moscow tsardom: it could hardly have been
brought back by an ordinary pilgrim, as wood from the
throne of the Apostle Peter was in the charge of the occupier
of that throne, i.e. the Pope. Moreover, we would
make so bold as to suggest that in the general context
of the religious consciousness of Muscovites in the late
Renaissance period, this relic was most appropriate for
the Grand Princes and the Tsar’s family during the reigns
of Ivan III, Vasily III and Ivan IV, who were related to the
Paleologi through Rome and had declared Moscow to be
the Th ird Rome. It is suffi cient to recall all the reversals
in Ivan III’s matchmaking in Rome and the embassies
sent to Rome by Ivan III and Vasily III in 1473, 1474,
1488, 1490, 1494, 1499–1504, 1525 and 1526. In theory,
any of these embassies could have brought this relic back
to Moscow (Golubinsky 1900, Vol. 2: 861–872). However,
considering the high status of a fragment of Peter’s
throne in the Catholic tradition, we suggest that the reliquary
most probably originally belonged to Sophia Palaeologus,
for whom this fragment was supposed to serve
as a reminder of the arrangement of her marriage by the
Pope and to strengthen the Byzantine princess in her adherence
to the Catholic faith in Orthodox Muscovy.
Th ere is, therefore, an important diff erence between
the construction of the Hermitage reliquary and that of
the above-mentioned triptych by the master Lucian: the
latter had a massive top piece and was intended to be
worn on the chest (Nikolayeva 1968: 100), whereas the
former would have been installed on a horizontal surface
and possibly had spherical feet. Besides this, on Lucian’s
triptych the master’s quest for perspective is clearly
expressed: the central panel and the folds are greatly tapered
in the upper part and the fi gure of the Saviour on
the Th rone is enclosed in a perspective portal. Th ere is
none of this in the Hermitage reliquary. Th e decorative
designs of the two triptychs, both by highly qualifi ed
masters, are entirely diff erent; there are no reminiscences
of Lucian’s decor in the Hermitage reliquary – they
are products of diff erent times. However, what is important
for us is Tatyana Nikolayeva’s conclusion concerning
Lucian’s triptych, based on a fourteenth-century
triptych in the Vladimir-Suzdal Museum-Reserve that
is very similar to Lucian’s in design: “…folding icons
(which could also serve as reliquaries) were not isolated
items and could well have been known to Lucian”
(Nikolayeva 1968: 102). If there had been earlier comparable
triptychs, there is no reason to doubt the existence

Ill. 4. Silver reliquary. Inlaid cross. Obverse side. Aft er restoration.
Th e State Hermitage Museum
of later ones, and not only those originating from Suzdal.
Consequently, Lucian’s triptych and the Hermitage
reliquary can, nevertheless, be placed in a kind of evolutionary
line, in which case the dating of Lucian’s triptych
assumes great importance for the proper understanding
of the Hermitage piece.
Th e high artistic merits of the reliquary fully confi
rm the suggestion that it belonged to a member of the
Kalita dynasty. For more defi nite conclusions it is necessary
to date the piece precisely and to provide evidence
for ideas about the reliquary’s status among the ruling
family’s revered objects.
We should fi rst focus our attention on the naming of
Sts. Sergius and Cyril in the inscriptions on the obverse
folds as “New Miracle-Workers”. Th is is a very important
indication of the piece’s date, since the chronology
of the canonisation of saints is wholly reliable.
St. Sergius of Radonezh died in 1391, his relics were
discovered in 1422 (in the rule of Prince Yury Dmitrievich
of Zvenigorod and Galicia), and his canonisation
was confi rmed in a circular by Metropolitan Jonah
in 1448. Th e fi rst church to be named aft er St. Sergius
was built in 1463. Th e same circular by Metropolitan
Jonah also established the Russia-wide reverence of
St. Cyril of Belozersk. However, as Nikolay Borisov has
shown, aft er Vasily II’s victory in the war with Dimitry
Shemyaka, the relationship between the Grand
Prince and the Belozersk elders changed and the new
saint was forgotten for a long time; only in 1480 was
St. Cyril of Belozersk mentioned among Russian saints
in a communication from Metropolitan Gerontius to
Ivan III in Ugra (Borisov 1986: 148–149). It follows
that St. Sergius was a “New Miracle-Worker” in the
Moscow tradition from 1448 and St. Cyril from 1480,
and before the councils of Metropolitan Macarius that
inaugurated the reverence of thirty new saints (Golubinsky
1900, Vol. 2: 772–773). It is appropriate to mention
that in the fourth chapter of the Stoglav [Council
of One Hundred Chapters] of 1551 Sts. Sergius and
Cyril, along with Sts. Anthony and Th eodosius of the
Kiev Caves Monastery, Barlaam of Khutyn, Nicetas
of Pereslavl, Paphnutius of Borovsk and Demetrius
of Priluki, appear not as “New Miracle-Workers”, but
already as “Our Holy God-Bearing Fathers” (Stoglav
1997: 8). Consequently, the date of the reliquary falls
within the chronological interval when Sts. Sergius
of Radonezh and Cyril of Belozersk were called “New
Miracle-Workers”.
Th is conclusion is not in contradiction with the paleography
of the inscriptions on the reliquary. Th e outlines
of the letter B with two small loops on the vertical
and the letter A with a small loop on the vertical are
typical of church embroidery and silver items from the
second half of the 15th century to the early 16th century
(Nikolayeva 1971: 190, 192). Th e letter Я appears in two
variants, a characteristic of the middle to the third quarter
of the 15th century; the letters Ж and З are typical of
the middle to second half of the 15th century – the outlines
of these letters were already changing in the early
16th century. Th e letter B on the cross may be regarded
as an archaism, characteristic of the fi rst half of the 15th
century (Nikolayeva 1971: 171). Th e inscription of the
letter Ч corresponds to the second half of the 15th and
early 16th centuries (Nikolayeva 1971: 191, 193). Th e
most likely date of the inscriptions on the reliquary is,
therefore, between the third quarter of the 15th century
and the fi rst quarter of the 16th century.
Th e compositions on the reliquary’s folds enable it to
be dated in the same fairly broad chronological interval.
Th e style of the engraved depictions evokes strong associations
with those on the doors of the Annunciation
and Dormition Cathedrals in the Moscow Kremlin and
the miniatures in the mid-sixteenth-century illuminated
manuscript codex. Th e depictions on the fi ft eenthcentury
Novgorod chalice in the State Armoury and on
Vassian Rylo’s relics container of 1463 are also similar
in style (Nikolayeva 1971: 86–87, pl. 56; Gosudarstvennaja
Oružejnaja palata 1989: 97). Th e iconography of
the depiction of the Dormition is typical of fi ft eenth –
seventeenth-century monuments.
Th e triangle-like formation of the ends of the cross in
the Hermitage reliquary also relate to the same chronological
interval. A similar feature can be seen on the wellknown
monument of sacred art from the Moscow tsardom
– the cross of the clerk Stefan Borodaty (1458) and
the worship cross of 1512 (Nikolayeva 1971: 166, 169).
Th e design on the obverse side of the reliquary’s
folds helps to date it more accurately. Th e aforementioned
circular cartouches with lily-shaped extremities
are very similar to the design of window-frames in Renaissance
architecture, particularly that of the Bologna
school. In Eastern Europe similar cartouches can be
found on three surviving examples of sixteenth-century
monumental architecture: on the iron gates of the khan’s
palace in Bakhchisaray (ill. 6), on the window-jambs of
the Archangel Cathedral in the Moscow Kremlin and
on the south portal of the Holy Trinity Cathedral in
Alexandrov Sloboda (ill. 7). In the latter case acanthus
leaves are enclosed in little medallions (Rusakomsky
2004: 469). All these three buildings are associated with
the same architect – Aleviz (Italian architect known in
Russia as Aleviz the New), who worked on commissions
from Ivan III, Vasily III and the Crimean khan Mengli-
Giray. It cannot be discounted, though it also cannot be
proved, that a similar design of portals and windowjambs
also featured on several other Moscow churches
attributed to Aleviz by the Faster’s Chronicle (Postnikovskij
letopisec 1978: 11). In this regard it should be
noted that “Aleviz” motifs could hardly have appeared
on reliquaries in the last years of Ivan III’s reign, as
130 131
Ill. 5. Silver reliquary. Reverse side. Aft er restoration.
Th e State Hermitage Museum
the Grand Palace had still not been fi nished before his
death; Aleviz’s other buildings, the most signifi cant of
which were the Archangel Cathedral and the palace in
Alexandrov Sloboda, were built in the reign of Vasily
III. Th e circular medallions in which we are interested
do not occur on later sixteenth-century monuments, so
providing the basis for acknowledging them as typical
of the Italian architect’s work in cities of the Moscow
tsardom. It has to be supposed that Aleviz’s decoration
of windows and portals impressed the Muscovites
who observed it at close quarters, including the Grand
Prince’s inner circle. It would be logical to suppose that
the master who made the Hermitage reliquary may have
based his work on one of the buildings by Aleviz, whose
career ended in the fi rst third of the 16th century, the
time when the master himself was working.

Ill. 6. Aleviz the New. “Iron gates” in the khan’s palace. 1509.
Bakhchisaray
So, taking into account the iconography and the style
of the depictions, the outlines of the letters in the inscriptions
and the characteristic decorative elements, it
may be proposed that the Hermitage reliquary was made
during the reigns of Ivan III, Vasily III or Ivan IV. We
are basing this proposition on the assumption that the
making of the reliquary was prompted by an emergency
situation where the owner of this object of personal piety
was obliged to appeal especially passionately for the
protection of celestial powers.
It is clear that the appanage princes of that time, including
the extremely ambitious Andrey Vasilyevich the
Great of Uglich, who ended his political career in 1492,
can be excluded from the list of probable owners of the
reliquary, since none of them would have had the opportunity
of receiving such an imposing collection of relics
and could hardly, moreover, have demonstrated “Roman
ambitions”. It follows that the owner must have been one
of the aforementioned Russian tsars. But which one? We
suggest that the answer is to be found in the depictions
on the obverse side of the cross in the reliquary, which
are nothing other than the prayer of the owner about
his most important and innermost concerns expressed
in an exquisite relief, and in the very composition of the
relics contained in it.
Th e top part of the cross contains a depiction of the
Fathers of the Church, Sts. Basil the Great, John Chrysostom
and Gregory the Th eologian – the creators of the
liturgy texts who are prayed to for health and all kinds
of well-being. Th e middle of the cross features the Holy
Trinity attended by St. George the Conqueror, St. Demetrius
of Th essalonica and St. Nicholas the Miracle-Worker,
who are all recognisable by their iconography, and
another saint in monastic robes whose identifi cation is
made more diffi cult by the absence of inscriptions in the
composition. However, the loft y status of this monk is
shown by the fact that he is standing before St. Demetrius
of Th essalonica, a martyr who was one of the most
revered holy warriors in Ancient Rus and the Moscow
tsardom, and who, along with St. George, protected the
Orthodox Russians from invasions by foreigners. It follows
that this monk must have been one of the Orthodox
Church’s most revered saints. We suggest that it is
a depiction of St. Anthony, whom people prayed to for
protection from devils. Th erefore, along with health and
personal well-being, the as yet unknown owner of the
reliquary was praying to the celestial powers for protection
from attacks by foreigners (through the mediation
of Sts. George and Demetrius) and from devils (via
St. Anthony). Such a prayer could, of course, have come
from Ivan III, Vasily III or Ivan IV.
Th e most interesting depictions are those at the foot
of the cross: St. Catherine, St. Macarius of Egypt and St.
Coprius. No other depictions of St. Coprius are known
in the religious art of Ancient Rus and the Moscow tsardom,
so the composition on this cross may be regarded
as unique. Th is saint, like St. Macarius, was revered by
the founders of monasticism in Egypt and is known
from the Lives of the Fathers. It is suffi cient to say there
is no mention of St. Coprius of Egypt in Orthodox calendars,
in the menology of the Holy Metropolitan Macarius
or in the Lives of the Saints compiled by Metropolitan
Philaret; Philaret mentions only St. Coprius of
Pechenga, a Russian saint who was evidently given this
rare monastic name in honour of the Egyptian ascetic
(Loseva 2001: 261; Žitija svjatyx 1900: 503). It is most
likely that the depiction of St. Coprius simply reproduces
the icon-painting prototype, in which it had a wholly
specifi c signifi cance: this saint was depicted on the icon
along with Sts. Catherine and Macarius as one of the
founders of Eastern monasticism.
If that is true, however, the icon must have been
unique in the Moscow tsardom. Nevertheless, the very
acknowledgement of the existence of an icon-painting
prototype for the composition at the foot of the cross
does not solve the problem of the ideological content of
the depiction. For what might the owner of the reliquary
have been praying to the saints depicted at the foot of
the cross?
St. Catherine is one of the most revered saints in
the Orthodox Church; the cult of St. Catherine became
fi rmly established in Ancient Rus, but became more
prominent in the Moscow tsardom aft er the establishment
of direct links with St. Catherine’s Monastery in
Sinai in the reign of Vasily III. Th e head of the mission
from Sinai that visited Moscow and presented the Grand
Prince with a fragment of the saint’s relics and, it must
be supposed, an icon with her image, turned out to be
a relative of Vasily III on his mother’s side, i.e. a member
of the Palaeologus family. Th ere is evidence in the written
records announcing the Grand Prince’s death that he
had particular respect for St. Catherine. In some sources,
for example in Nikon’s Chronicle, a shortened version of
the announcement is included (Polnoje sobranije russkix
letopisej 1965: 25–27). However, more detail about this
event is provided by the Faster’s Chronicle, compiled by
the Moscow clerk Gubin the Faster (Postnik) no later
than 1565, in which he writes that just before his death
on 24 November 1534 Vasily III ordered an icon of St.
Catherine to be brought to his chamber and her canon
to be read (Postnikovskij letopisec 1978: 22–23). Later
Ivan IV gave a rich donation to the Sinai Monastery to
pray for the soul of his brother Yury, who had died on
St. Catherine’s Day. Believers pray for St. Catherine’s
protection in various circumstances, including diffi cult
births.
St. Macarius of Egypt, who is depicted to the right of
St. Catherine, is revered primarily as one of the founders
of Eastern monasticism. However, there are some very
remarkable episodes in the life of this saint. St. Macarius
is known to have blessed two married women, who
wished with all their hearts to enter the convent, for
a virtuous life in the world. Th e life story of St. Macarius
also includes an episode where he was accused of having
fathered the child of a woman in the neighbouring
settlement. She was not able to give birth until she had
admitted the slander against the ascetic (Enciklopedija
1997: 346). So St. Macarius, like St. Catherine, has a direct
relationship to the subject of the righteous delivery
of babies, and there is every reason to suppose that this
subject was, for some reason, particularly relevant to the
reliquary’s owner.
So the owner, aft er praying for protection from foreigners
and devils, prays to Sts. Catherine and Macarius
132 133
for female righteousness, well-being and family life,
righteous conception and birth. Th is conclusion is also
fully confi rmed by the composition of the relics contained
in the reliquary.
Of the saints named in the inscription on the reverse
of the reliquary, a large group intercedes with God specifi
cally for family well-being. Th e Evangelists Matthew
and Mark are intercessors for love and good relationships
between spouses (Svjatyje 2007: 5, 41, 166, 167).
Sts. Cosmas and Damien of Cilicia are patron saints of
weddings; St. Nicholas the Miracle-Worker is, among
other things, the patron saint of family relations; John
the Baptist, St. Simeon the God-Receiver, Sts. Joachim
and Anna are protectors of children and provide aid
for infertility; St. Eustace Placidas was also prayed to
for the well-being of children (Svjatyje 2007: 25, 35, 38,
42, 45, 58, 78, 82). Another group of saints whose relics
were kept in the reliquary were long-standing protectors
of the Russian army and defenders of the state from
foreign invasions: St. George the Conqueror, St. Demetrius
of Th essalonica and St. Th eodore Stratelates
( Svjatyje 2007: 6, 11, 12, 34, 46, 52, 80). And, fi nally,
Sts. Florus and Laurus are not only protectors of cattle
but also bringers of aid to those who have fallen into
drunkenness; Sts. Panteleimon, Hermolaus and Spyridon
of Tremithon are healers, St. Andrew of Crete is
a mediator in repentance and St. John Chrysostom – in
despair (Svjatyje 2007: 7, 11, 23, 65, 17, 18, 69, 82, 92).
In this way, the selection of relics contained in the reliquary
quite expressively characterises the owner of this
object of personal piety as a person who was connected
with military matters, prayed for the cure of various
types of illness, possibly sometimes excessively indulged
in strong drink, sometimes fell into despair and,
most importantly, was very concerned about his family
aff airs: the sanctity of marriage bonds, good relations
with his spouse, the birth and good health of children
(either already living or yet to be born). We suggest that
this description, in correlation with the compositions
on the obverse folds of the reliquary and on the inlaid
cross, argue for naming the reliquary’s owner as Vasily
III, who is known to have been highly unsuccessful in
wars, had diffi culty in fi nding a common language with
his brothers, the rulers of districts, and found himself
in a diffi cult dynastic situation for most of his life on account
of the lack of heirs from his marriage to Solominia
Saburova and from the early years of his second marriage
to Elena Glinskaya. Ivan IV, as it is well known,

Ill. 7. Aleviz the New. South portal of the Holy Trinity Cathedral
in Alexandrov Sloboda. 1513
was much freer in marriage matters than his father, at
least aft er the death of Tsarina Anastasia, as he already
had two prospective heirs from his fi rst marriage and,
in any case, would hardly have prayed to God for good
relations with his Tsarinas. Th e decisive factor for confi
rming the suggestion that the Hermitage reliquary
belonged to Vasily III is, in our opinion, the inclusion
in the names of the saints whose relics are contained
therein of St. Xenia of Rome: the wedding of Vasily III
and Elena Glinskaya took place on that saint’s day, so
the Grand Prince had every reason to count on her intercession
in his family aff airs (Postnikovskij letopisec
1978: 15). Incidentally, it is appropriate to mention that
Vasily III prayed diligently on the subject of childbirth
to Sts. Sergius and Cyril, who are depicted on the obverse
folds of the reliquary: in 1529 the Grand Prince
made a journey, long remembered by his subjects, to
the St. Cyril and St. Th erapontus Monasteries in Belozersk
and Vologda; his newborn son Ivan was placed
134
by his father on the shrine of St. Sergius (Postnikovskij
letopisec 1978: 16–17). So there are good grounds for
stating that the Hermitage reliquary was commissioned
by Vasily III on the occasion of his second marriage as
a kind of portable chapel to accompany its owner on all
his journeys.
If we acknowledge Vasily III to be the owner of the
Hermitage reliquary, it would be reasonable to pose
a question to which, alas, we will not fi nd the answer: is
the depiction of St. Catherine at the foot of the carved
cross a reproduction of the icon requested by the dying
Grand Prince? Th ere is no evidence to support this
proposition, but there is also no evidence to refute it. At
any rate, the absence in the chronicle of any mention of
the depictions of Sts. Macarius and Coprius on that icon
is of no signifi cance, because for the chronicler, as for
the dying Vasily III, the important thing in this context
was the main character in the composition.
We suggest that the reliquary may have been made
for the Grand Prince by masters at the Holy Trinity
Monastery. It is appropriate to mention that the monastery’s
Father Superior at that time was Joasaph (Skrypitsyn)
– a very remarkable personality, a connoisseur
of richly illuminated books (by the early 20th century
23 manuscripts from Joasaph’s personal library had survived)
and an absolute authority on theology and ecclesiastical
law who baptised Vasily III’s second son Yury.
Aft er the Grand Prince’s death, at which the Father Superior
was present, Joasaph was the trusted confi dant
of the widow-regent Elena Glinskaya, and subsequently
became Metropolitan of Russia for a short time. Aft er
being removed from the metropolitan chair in 1542
and exiled by the Shuyskys to the St. Cyril Monastery,
Joasaph nevertheless retained his authority and the respect
of the young Ivan IV; in 1551 he was sent the text
of the resolutions of the Stoglavy Council for correcting.
Joasaph died in 1555 at the Holy Trinity Monastery
(Golubinsky 1900: 739–743; Borisov 1988: 138–139). By
the way, Ivan the Terrible recalled Joasaph’s penchant
for comfort and luxury in his well-known communication
to Father Superior Cosmas and the brothers at
the St. Cyril Monastery; “how Joasaph feasted with the
choristers” (Poslanija Ivana Groznogo 1957: 205). Th is
Father Superior, undoubtedly an educated theologian
with a highly developed aesthetic sense, could easily not
only have provided masters to make the reliquary, but
also have confi rmed Vasily III in appealing to the saints
whose relics were contained in the shrine. It should be
remembered that, according to the authoritative conclusion
of Wolfgang Kafelmacher, Vasily III’s residence in
Alexandrov Sloboda, designed by Aleviz, in which, as
we recall, one of the architect’s portals has survived and
others, like the cathedral’s, undoubtedly existed, was
originally founded as “the Trinity settlements” (Kafelmacher
2008: 36). In 1530 the foundations were laid
for a church in Alexandrov Sloboda on the occasion of
Elena Glinskaya’s long-awaited pregnancy (Rusakomsky
2004: 468). We suggest that there is every basis for
considering the Hermitage reliquary as having emerged
in a “Trinity-Alexandrov” incidental and religious context,
which does not, of course, rule out the possibility of
its having been made in Moscow, the seat of power. We
do not have suffi cient basis for suggesting the participation
of foreign master jewellers working in Moscow in
the making of the reliquary, despite the clearly Renaissance
motifs on the obverse side, as in the fi rst third of
the 16th century these motifs, thanks to the active work
of Italian architects and jewellers in Muscovy, were
blending seamlessly in the nascent Russian culture.
References
Borisov 1986
Borisov, Nikolay. Russkaja cerkov’ v političeskoj bor’be XIV–
XV vekov [Th e Russian Church in Political Struggle in the
14th – 15th Centuries]. Moscow, 1986.
Borisov 1988
Borisov, Nikolay. Cerkovnyje dejateli srednevekovoj Rusi XIII–
XVII vekov [Church Figures in Medieval Rus, 13th–17th Centuries].
Moscow, 1988.
Enciklopedija 1997
Enciklopedija pravoslavnoj svjatosti [Encyclopedia of Orthodox
Sainthood]. 2 vols. Author-compilers: Rogov, Alexander
and Alexey Parmenov. Moscow, 1997. Vol. 2.
Gatčinskij dvorec 2007
Gatčinskij dvorec. Interjery imperatorskoj rezidencii [Gatchina
Palace. Interiors of the Imperial Residence]. St. Petersburg,
2007.
Golubinsky 1900
Golubinsky, Evgeny. Istorija russkoj cerkvi [History of the
Russian Church]. Moscow, 1900.
Gosudarstvennaja Oružejnaja palata 1989
Gosudarstvennaja Oružejnaja palata [State Armoury]. Moscow,
1989. Vol. 2 (fi rst half).
Kafelmacher 2008
Kafelmacher, Wolfgang. “Gosudarev dvor v Aleksandrovskoj
slobode [Th e Sovereign’s Court in Alexandrov Sloboda]”. In:
Drevnosti Aleksandrovskoj slobody. Moscow, 2008.
Loseva 2001
Loseva, Olga. Russkije mesiaceslovy X–XIV vekov [Russian
Menologies, 10th – 14th Centuries]. Moscow, 2001.
Nikolayeva 1968
Nikolayeva, Tatyana. “Ikona-skladen’ 1412 g. mastera Lukiana
[Folding Icon of 1412 by the Master Lucian]”. Sovetskaja
arxeo logija. Moscow, 1968. No.1.
Nikolayeva 1971
Nikolayeva, Tatyana. “Proizvedenija russkogo prikladnogo
iskusstva s nadpisjami XV – pervoj četverti XVI v. [Works of
Russian Applied Art with Inscriptions, 15th – First Quarter of
the 16th Centuries]”. Svod arxeologičeskix istočnikov. Moscow,
1971. Issue E1-49.
Polnoje sobranije russkix letopisej 1965
Polnoje sobranije russkix letopisej [Full Collection of Russian
Chronicles]. Vol. 13: Patriaršaja ili Nikonovskaja letopis’. Moscow,
1965.
Poslanija Ivana Groznogo 1957
Poslanija Ivana Groznogo [Communications of Ivan the Terrible].
Moscow, 1957.
Postnikovskij letopisec 1978
“Postnikovskij letopisec [Faster’s Chronicle]”. Polnoje sobranije
russkix letopisej. Moscow, 1978. Vol. 34: 8–30.
Rusakomsky 2004
Rusakomsky, Ivan. “Aleksandrov [Alexandrov]”. In: Svod pamjatnikov
arxitektury i monumental’nogo iskusstva Rossii. Vladimirskaja
oblast’. Moscow, 2004. Pt. 1.
Stoglav 1997
Stoglav [Council of 100 Chapters]. Moscow, 1997.
Svjatyje 2007
Svjatyje, koim Gospod’ daroval osobuju blagodat’ isceljat’
bol’nyx i podavat’ pomošč v drugix nuždax [Saints to Whom
God has Given Special Grace to Heal the Sick and Provide
Help in Other Needs]. Moscow, 2007.
Žitija svjatyx 1900
Žitija svjatyx, čtimyx Pravoslvnoju Cerkoviju, so svedenijami
o prazdnikax Gospodskix i Bogorodičnyx, i o javlenijax čudotvornyx
ikon [Lives of Saints Revered by the Orthodox Church,
with Information about Feast Days of the Lord and the Mother
of God, and about the Appearance of Miraculous Icons]. Compiled
by Metropolitan Philaret. St. Petersburg, 1900.
Translated by David Hicks

Making data relating to lesser known works of art
available to art scholars is of primary importance for the
study of art history. So far, the painting section of the
State Hermitage Department of the History of Russian
Culture has remained unexplored in its entirety. Th e
core of it was the collection of the Department of Everyday
Life of the State Russian Museum, formed in the
1920s – early 1930s. Th e majority of paintings, received
mainly from the State Museum Fund, had no indication
of either the authors or the sitters. Frequent changes of
location of the exhibitions and collection materials were
harmful for the state of preservation of the paintings.
According to Vladislav Glinka (2006: 33), in 1934–1941
the collection changed its location four times. Th roughout
the second half of the 20th century, the paintings
from the Department of Everyday Life (from 1941,
within the collection of the State Hermitage) were being
“cured” at the workshop of easel painting restoration.
Th e canvas-stretchers were changed, paintings lined
on new canvases, paint layers reinforced, traces of mechanical
damage removed, etc. Large scale restoration is
still under way. Besides, exhibitions are being organised,
works, formerly unknown to wide circles, published and
the authors of paintings and persons depicted become
identifi ed as a result of art scholars’ research.
Th e present paper is devoted to the identifi cation
of paintings as a result of discovery of the authors’ signatures.
All the paintings in question are by Western
European artists active in Russia in the fi rst half of the
19th century.
Th e earliest painting published here, the Portrait of
an Unknown Man (Inv. No. ЭРЖ-842; oil on canvas;
YURI GUDYMENKO
THE ROSSICA OF THE FIRST HALF OF THE 19TH CENTURY FROM THE PAINTING
SECTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE HISTORY OF RUSSIAN CULTURE
76 × 62.2 cm; ill. 1) was created in 1808. In 1954, during
restoration, a signature and a date were discovered in
the left lower corner. As a result of incorrect reading of
the name (as Kulmel), however, the attribution of the
painting to a particular artist was impossible. A different
reading (Kuehnel) suggested Friedrich Kühnel’s
authorship. Kühnel was born in 1766. He was educated
as artist in Dresden in the 1780s. It was probably in the
late 1780s that he came to St. Petersburg; from 1801 to
the end of his life (1841) he worked in Moscow. Kühnel’s
works are in the State Hermitage, State Tretyakov
Gallery, State Russian Museum, Museum of Tropinin
and Contemporary Moscow Artists, Museum of the
Province of Ivanovo and Muranovo Manor-Museum.
Th e Hermitage portrait comes from the Museum of
History and Everyday Life, located in the Yelagin Palace
in 1918–1929. At the time, the collection of the
palace was receiving works of art from nationalised
dachas at Kamenny and Krestovsky Islands. Aft er the
palace had been closed (1930), the collection became
scattered; some of the works were acquired by the
Hermitage, Russian Museum or Gatchina Palace Museum,
others were sold through internal- or foreigntrade
organisations. In the same year, the Portrait of
a Young Civilian, as a “work by an unknown artist”,
became transferred to the Department of Everyday
Life of the Russian Museum and from it, in 1941, to
the State Hermitage.
Another portrait published here (Inv. No. ЭРЖ-
1747; oil on canvas; 69.5 × 59.5 cm; ill. 2) for a long
time was also listed as “by an unknown artist”. Th e
fact that the portrait had a signature was refl ected in
Ill. 1. Friedrich Kühnel. Portrait of an Unknown Man. 1808.
Th e State Hermitage Museum. First publication
the collection Inventory, but it was illegible. In 1969,
the Hermitage acquired two portraits of Alexander
and Alexandra Mailevsky by Nicolas de Courteille
(Inv. Nos. ЭРЖ-2664 and ЭРЖ-2665), and in 1976
two portraits of “unidentifi ed persons of the Schmidt
family” (both signed) by the same artist (Inv. Nos.
ЭРЖ-2721 and ЭРЖ-2722). Comparison of Courteille’s
signature and the signature in the work published here
leaves no doubt that the latter is also by him. Among the
few known portraits by Courteille, this is undoubtedly
the earliest one; on the basis of the costume and hair
style it is datable to between 1805 and 1810. Th e portrait
is characterised by fi rm drawing lines, delicate colour
gamut and mellow tones. Th e Hermitage work had been
transferred to the Department of Everyday Life of the
State Russian Museum from the State Museum Fund
in Moscow, as “Portrait of an Unknown Man in a Blue
Frockcoat”, in 1925.
Historians of Russian art tend to neglect Western
European masters who worked in Russia, in favour of
the Russian school of painting. It should be noted, however,
that the work of these artists (largely unexplored)
136 137
occupies an important place in the Russian art of the
fi rst half of the 19th century. Nonetheless, many of the
names pertaining to Rossica can seldom be come across
either in works on the history of art or reference books;
they are hardly known even to experts.
Th is applies fi rst and foremost to the French artist
Sophie Cheradame, née Bertaud (1793–1829). Little
is known about her life; few of her works have come
down to our day (see Allgemeines Künstlerlexikon 1995:
41). Sophie Cheradame is known to have studied under
Jean-Louis David from 1812 to 1822, exhibited at the
Salon, and worked in Russia in the mid-1820s. To this
period belong two Hermitage paintings by her. One of
these is listed in the Inventory as “Portrait of a Young
Woman” signed and dated in the left lower corner,
Ill. 2. Nicolas de Courteille. Portrait of an Unknown Man.
Between 1805 and 1810. Th e State Hermitage Museum.
First publication
S. Cheradame / 1824 (Inv. No. ЭРЖ-1168; oil on canvas;
62.5 × 54 cm; ill. 3).
Th e sitter has been identifi ed as Grand Duchess Elena
(Helena) Pavlovna by Zoya Perskevich of the State
Russian Museum. Th e Hermitage picture, created in the

Ill. 3. Sophie Cheradame. Portrait of Grand Duchess
Elena (Helen) Pavlovna. 1824. Th e State Hermitage Museum
year of her marriage to Grand Duke Mikhail Pavlovich,
became the main iconographic source for numerous
engraved and miniature versions. According to the label
on the canvas-stretcher of the Hermitage work, in
the 1920s it was in the City Museum (Inv. No. 1805).
Prior to 1917, it had been in the possession of the Grand
Duchess’s heirs, in Countess Natalia Karlova’s mansion
at 46 Fontanka Embankment, which was the address
of the City Museum during the fi rst decades of the Soviet
regime (the museum was closed in 1935). In 1929,
as the “Portrait of a Young Woman”, the painting was
transferred to the Department of Everyday Life and,
from it, to the Hermitage.
Another signature of Sophia Cheradame, not listed
in the Inventory, was discovered on the portrait of Anna
Golitsina (Inv. No. ЭРЖ-1188; oil on canvas; 66.5 × 58
cm; ill. 4). Aft er a serious restoration (1952) the presence
of a signature was not refl ected in the restoration
protocol. Since the painting was not exhibited,
Cheradame’s authorship remained unestablished. Th e
obverse has an inscription, not transferred onto the new
canvas with the painting: Княгиня Анна Николаевна /
Голицына / рожд. / княжна Вяземская [Princess Anna
Ill. 4. Sophie Cheradame. Portrait of Duchess Anna Golitsina.
C. 1824–1827. Th e State Hermitage Museum. First publication
Nikolayevna / Golitsina / née / Princess Vyazemskaya].
Anna Vyazemskaya (1796–1873) married Prince Mikhail
Golitsin (1796–1863), the son of Nikolay Golitsin (1751–
1809) and Maria Golitsina, née Countess Olsufyeva
(1757–1820), on 30 January 1820. On 8 November
1820, the son of Anna and Mikhail Golitsin, Nikolay
(1820–1885) was born; two years later, Lev (1822–1848);
in 1826, Ekaterina (died in infancy); in 1827, Dmitry
(1827–1895); in 1829, Maria (1829–1883); and in 1830,
Mikhail (1830–1890). Th e dating of the picture of Anna
Golitsina, c. 1824–1827, is based on the cut of her dress
and her hairstyle; besides, as has been established,
Sophie Cheradame left St. Petersburg in April or May
1827 (cf. Pervoje pribavlenije k Sankpeterburgskim
vedomostjam 1827: 419).
Practically unexplored is the work of another
Rossica representative, Italian painter Cosroe Dusi
(1808–1859), the author of three paintings from the
collection of the Department of the History of Russian
Culture. Two of them are the portrait of the architect
Albert Katerinovich Kavos (Inv. No. ЭРЖ-912; oil on
canvas; 104 × 83.8 cm; ill. 5) and its companion, the
painting of Kavos’ wife Ksenia (Inv. No. ЭРЖ-1254;
oil on canvas; 104 × 83.5 cm; ill. 6). Th e paintings
came to the Department of Everyday Life from the
Pushkin House in 1929, as “by an unknown artist”. On
the picture of Albert Kavos, in the left lower corner,
I have discovered the artist’s signature, Cosroe Dusi /
SPietroburgo nel 1849.
Dusi’s signature was discovered on another painting,
well known to experts aft er the 1958 exhibition at the Research
Museum of the USSR Academy of Arts (see Vystavka
russkogo portreta XVIII – načala XX vv. 1959: 29).
In the Inventory of the collection, the painting is listed as
“Portrait of a Page of the Chamber” (Inv. No. ЭРЖ-177;
oil on canvas; 64 × 54.3 cm; ill. 7). Th e authorship was
established in the process of restoration carried out in
the same year, which revealed the signature, C. Duse,
Ill. 5. Cosroe Dusi. Portrait of the Architect Albert Kavos. 1849.
Th e State Hermitage Museum. First publication
bottom right (probably followed by a date, now illegible).
Th e fi rst curator of the Department of the History
of Russian Culture, Andrey Pomarnatsky refl ected this
in the inventory fi le card, although the catalogue of the
exhibition does not mention it.
138 139
A study of the inscriptions on the reverse of the
painting helped in establishing the name of the sitter.
Th e canvas stretcher has Орл 9 [Orl 9] in pink wax
crayon in the right upper corner. Th is means that the
painting comes from the collection of Prince Vladimir
Nikolayevich Orlov (1868–1927). Some of the paintings
from his mansion went to the State Museum
Fund, immediately aft er 1917. Somewhat later, many
of those paintings were given to the Art Department
of the State Russian Museum. In 1926, this painting
was transferred to the Department of Everyday Life
(listed in the Inventory as “Portrait of a Young Man”
and “Portrait of a Lyceum Student”) and, from it, in
1941, to the Department of the History of Russian
Culture, the State Hermitage Museum. Th at the sitter
Ill. 6. Cosroe Dusi. Portrait of Ksenia Kavos. 1849.
Th e State Hermitage Museum. First publication
is Vladimir Orlov’s father, Nikolay Alexeyevich Orlov
(1827–1885), is confi rmed by his biography. On 1 February
1843, at the age of sixteen, Nikolay Orlov, was
appointed Page of the Court. In August 1845, he took
an offi cer examination at the “Corps des Pages” and

Ill. 7. Cosroe Dusi. Portrait of the Page of the Court Nikolay Orlov. 1845(?). Th e State Hermitage Museum
Ill. 8. Vital Jan (Jean) De Gronckel. Portrait of the Children of Duke Peter (Pyotr Georgievich) of Oldenburg. 1853.
Th e State Hermitage Museum. First publication
was made Cornet, with appointment to the Life-Guard
Horse Regiment.
It was important for the attribution that Orlov is
depicted wearing the uniform of a Page of the Court
(without red epaulettes with gold galloon), rather than
that of Page of the Chamber. As suggested by Alexander
Kibovsky, who pointed to this fact, the painting
was produced shortly aft er Orlov had taken his offi cer
examination, therefore the most probable date is 1845.
Circumstantially, a corroboration of this suggestion is
the plot of the painting: the young man is depicted in
front of the map of the Battle of Leipzig, with a sheet
of paper inscribed, [нрзб]берг / Записки / 1812–1813 /
годов... [[illegible] berg /Notes of / 1812–1813].
All the above facts, viz. the inscription on the canvas-stretcher
testifying to the eff ect that the painting
comes from the collection of the sitter’s son, the date of
the painting and the age of the Page, as well as the sitter’s
biography, leave no doubt that the person depicted
140 141
in the Hermitage painting near the map of the Battle of
Leipzig is Nikolay Alexeyevich Orlov.
Th e last of the paintings published here
(Inv. No. ЭРЖ-1501; oil on canvas; 71.5 × 91 cm; ill. 8) is
by Vital Jan (Jean) De Gronckel of Belgium. In addition
to the signature (De Gronckel) and date (1853), previously
unnoticed, the persons depicted have been identifi ed;
they are children of Duke Peter (Pyotr Georgievich) of
Oldenburg: Alexandra Fredericke Welhelmina (1838–
1900), Nikolaus Friedrich August (1840–1886), Alexander
Friedrich Konstantin (1844–1932), Katharine Fredericke
Paulina (1846–1866), Georg Friedrich Alexander
(1848–1871), Konstantin Friedrich Pieter (1850–1906)
and Th eresia Fredericke Olga (1852–1883). A proof of
the correctness of this attribution is a view of a room
in the Duke’s dacha in the photo at the Department of
the History of Russian Culture (Inv. No. ЭРФт-4488;
ill. 9), with this picture (now in the Hermitage collection)
above the piano.

Ill. 9. Abram Yasvoin. Study of Duke Peter (Pyotr Georgievich) of Oldenburg. Th e Duke of Oldenburg’s Dacha in Kamenny Island.
Photo. Early 20th century. Th e State Hermitage Museum. First publication
To sum up, of the eight works by Western European
artists active in Russia in the fi rst half of the 19th century,
published here, seven have gained attribution on
the basis of signatures discovered. It is to be hoped that
these paintings, now accessible, will become subject to
study by art scholars.
References
Allgemeines Künstlerlexikon 1995
Allgemeines Künstlerlexikon. Die Bildenden Künstler aller
Zeiten und Völker. Bd. 10 (Berrettini to Bikkers). München;
Leipzig, 1995.
Glinka 2006
Glinka, Vladislav. Vospominanija. Arxivy. Pis’ma [Memoirs.
Archives. Letters]. St. Petersburg: State Hermitage Publishers,
2006. Book 2.
Pervoje pribavlenije k Sankpeterburgskim vedomostjam 1827
Pervoje pribavlenije k Sankpeterburgskim vedomostjam [Th e
First Supplement to the St. Petersburg Chronicle]. 1827. No 31.
Vyst avka russkogo portreta XVIII – načala XX vv. 1959
Vystavka russkogo portreta XVIII – načala XX vv [Exhibition
of the Russian Portrait of the 18th to the Early 20th Centuries].
Catalogue. Leningrad: Research Museum of the USSR
Academy of Arts, “Khudozhnik RSFSR”, 1959.
Translated by Yuri Kleiner
Th e graphics collection at the Department of the
History of Russian Culture possesses two lithographs
which depict the daughters of Elizaveta Khitrovo,
granddaughters of Field Marshal Mikhail Kutuzov. Both
prints are coloured in watercolour and depict Daria
Ficquelmont (1804–1863) and Ekaterina Tiesenhausen
(1803–1888) wearing eighteenth-century fancy dresses
(Inv. No. ЭРГ-30007, ЭРГ-30008; ills. 1, 2). Th e portraits
have been on display at the Hermitage temporary
exhibitions, including one in Lipetsk in 2001, and they
have been published in the exhibition catalogue where
they were attributed to Grigory Gagarin, but without
any explanation of this new attribution (Ermitaž 2001:
Nos. 4.114, 4.115).
It is worthwhile to revisit these portraits in view of
the available data which makes Gagarin’s authorship incontestable,
and to describe the date and circumstances
of their creation.
It is well known that the literature on the Kutuzov
and Kutuzov family iconography is vast and has close
ties to the study of the life of Alexander Pushkin. A special
interest in the family was sparked aft er letters written
by Pushkin and addressed to Elizaveta Khitrovo had
been discovered in 1927 in the library of the Yusupov
Palace on the Moyka in Saint Petersburg.
Th e Field Marshal’s daughter fi rst met Pushkin in
1827 and remained his trusted friend for his entire life.
Pushkin was a frequent visitor of the salon hosted by
Khitrovo and her daughter Daria Ficquelmont, where
all the news of Russian and European life was discussed.
Elizaveta Khitrovo and her daughters were a famous
“trio” of bright stars in the Saint Petersburg high society
GALINA PRINTSEVA
PORTRAITS OF FIELD MARSHAL KUTUZOV’S GRANDDAUGHTERS
AT THE DEPARTMENT OF THE HISTORY OF RUSSIAN CULTURE
143
of the late 1820s – early 1830s. Th ey were known for
their prominent position in the aristocratic world, the
independence of their thinking, their profound knowledge
of literature and the familiarity with the key issues
of European politics. Th ey owed all of it to their remarkable
family (Mikhail Kutuzov took great care to provide
his children with an outstanding education) and their
unusual fate, which connected Elizaveta Khitrovo and
her daughters with major political fi gures and representatives
of many European courts. Th eir popularity
in Europe was due to their easy-going manner and
the charm of their mother, as well as the extraordinary
beauty of both her daughters.
Th e sisters spent their childhood and youth in Florence,
where both received an excellent education. After
Daria (Dolly) married Count Charles-Louis de Ficquelmont,
the Austrian Ambassador to the Kingdom of
the Two Sicilies, in 1821, they moved to Naples.
Elizaveta Khitrovo returned to Saint Petersburg
with her elder daughter Ekaterina (Catherine) in 1826,
and the Ficquelmonts moved there in 1829, aft er the
Count had been made Austrian Ambassador to Russia.
In the early 1830s, the Khitrovo-Ficquelmont salon had
the reputation of “the most lively, fashionable” and, according
to Vasily Sollogub, “the most eclectic” parlour
in Saint Petersburg. Its owners represented the crème
of the Saint Petersburg high society and were among
the leading fi gures at the Imperial Court. Th eir court
duties included taking part in various ceremonies, such
as receptions, dinner parties, and balls. Th e balls started
aft er the New Year and followed each other in quick
succession; during the Carnival Season before Lent they

Ill. 1. Grigory Gagarin. Portrait of the Countess Daria Ficquelmont. 1833. Lithograph, watercolour. Th e State Hermitage Museum
Ill. 2. Grigory Gagarin. Portrait of the Countess Ekaterina Tiesenhausen. 1833. Lithograph, watercolour. Th e State Hermitage Museum
144 145

were held every day, with hardly a break in between.
Th e lithographs show both the ladies, Ficquelmont and
Tiesenhausen, dressed in ball gowns, or rather carnival
frocks. Th ey bear the inscriptions Comtesse D. Ficquelmont
and Comtesse С. Tiesenhausen.
Th e portraits are fi nely executed: apart from the exquisite
drawing and subtle colours, both models display
an outstanding elegance and beauty. Th ese portraits
have ties to a specifi c episode in the life of the Russian
Court during the reign of Nicholas I. Both of them come
from the collection of Alexander Dolivo-Dobrovolsky.
Th e envelope which accompanies the lithographs
(transferred to the Department of the History of Russian
Culture in 1965 from the Department of Western
European Fine Arts) bears an inscription in the owner’s
hand: “Unique sheets of the Pushkiniana. Th e Pushkin
House (at the Academy of Sciences) reports in its edition
of Pushkin’s letters to Elizaveta Khitrovo that the
portraits of Khitrovo’s daughters could not be discovered”.
Th e contents of the envelope are listed further:
“4 unique sheets:
A (full-length) portrait of Countess de Ficquelmont,
lithographed and coloured by Prince Gagarin.
A (full-length) portrait of Countess Tiesenhausen,
lithographed and coloured by the same.
A page with Gagarin’s sketches for these portraits
from his album.
An anonymous lithograph, a portrait of Count de
Ficquelmont.” 1
Two sheets from those listed by Dolivo-Dobrovolsky
were transferred to the collection of engravings and
lithographs at the Department of the History of Russian
Culture; the third one, with the sketches, was moved to
the collection of watercolours and drawings together
with other drawings from Gagarin’s album.
One of these sketches, doubtlessly made from life,
was a preparatory drawing for the lithograph portrait
of Ekaterina Tiesenhausen. It is signed and inscribed:
Carnaval de 1833 (Inv. No. ЭРР-7282; ill. 3). Th e other
drawing, depicting another participant of the fancydress
ball, is slightly diff erent from the lithograph portrait
of Daria Ficquelmont and looks more like a portrait
of Elena Zakharzhevskaya (née Tiesenhausen), the
cousin of Kutuzov’s granddaughters (Inv. No. ЭРР-7285;
ill. 4). Her watercolour portrait made from this sketch is
1 Th e envelope was appended to a sheet of Gagarin’s sketches (Inv.
Nos. ЭРР-7281 – ЭРР-7285).
at the State Russian Museum (Department of Drawings,
Inv. No. p-23159).
Memoirs and epistolary sources have helped to link
our portraits to a specifi c episode in the life of the St. Petersburg
Court in the winter of 1833. Th e drawings and
lithographs are also interesting as examples of Grigory
Gagarin’s early work. Th e young artist came to St. Petersburg
at the age of twenty-three in late October 1832,
for the fi rst time aft er a sixteen-year-long absence, with
his father, the Russian Ambassador to Rome, and his
younger brother Evgeny. He was not known as an artist,
but he was a passionate draughtsman (he had taken
lessons from Karl Bryullov in Rome). Aft er coming to
St. Petersburg, Gagarin entered the Asian Department
at the Ministry of Foreign Aff airs, and on 1 April 1833
both brothers received the title of Kamer-Junker. Th ey
soon became members of the circle of St. Petersburg
high offi cials and established themselves in the literary
and artistic society of the capital.
Already a few months aft er his arrival, Gagarin met
Pushkin and became an illustrator of his works. By November
1832 he was writing to his mother that he was
drawing vignettes for Pushkin’s “Ruslan and Lyudmila”,
and in summer 1832 he created a famous lithograph
illustrating the Prologue to the poem. Gagarin also
made two illustrations to Pushkin’s story “Th e Queen of
Spades” (Naidich 1952: 269).
In St. Petersburg, Gagarin was continuously producing
new drawings. His albums of the time are full of portrait
sketches and caricatures which represent his contemporaries
at social functions, balls, and in theatres.
It is not surprising that Gagarin was drawing portraits
of the celebrities attending one of the 1833 fancy-dress
balls.
Th e contemporary memoirs dedicate much attention
to these balls as an integral part of the life of the
high society during the reign of Nicholas I. Daria Ficquelmont’s
diary mentions a great number of entertainments,
as do the letters of Pyotr Vyazemsky, Konstantin
Bulgakov, Sofi a and Nikolay Karamzin, and fi nally, of
Pushkin himself, who wrote about them in his diary.
Th e poet composed a quatrain called “Th e Cyclops” for
Ekaterina Tiesenhausen to recite at one such ball held in
the Anichkov Palace on 4 January 1830 and dedicated
to the gods of the Olympus. She wore a corresponding
outfi t for the occasion.
Descriptions of popular balls were published in
the fashionable newspaper “Severnaya Pchela” and
Ill. 3. Grigory Gagarin. Sketch for the lithograph portrait of the Countess Ekaterina Tiesenhausen. 1833.
Pencil; the drawing cut along the outline. Th e State Hermitage Museum
146 147

Ill. 4. Grigory Gagarin. Sketch for the lithograph portrait
of the Countess Ekaterina Tiesenhausen. 1833. Pencil, pen, ink;
the drawing cut along the outline. Th e State Hermitage Museum
sometimes came out as separate leafl ets. Th e fancy-dress
ball where Gagarin made sketches of the participants,
including Dolly and Catherine, was at the centre of
attention of many of their contemporaries. It was one
of the key occasions of the Carnival Week which fell
148
on 5–12 February in 1833. Th e ball was held in the
building of the Estates Ministry (built in 1823–1827
by the architect Domenico Adamini between the
Moyka Embankment and the Apothecary Passage.
It incorporated the apartment of the Court Minister
Prince Pyotr Volkonsky, who organised the ball). Dolly
Ficquelmont, a guest at the ball, wrote in her diary of
30 January 1833: “We are preparing for the masquerade
at Prince Volkonsky’s. We are rehearsing at home the
quadrille in costumes of the time of Louis XV – hoops,
powder et cetera” (Ficquelmont 2009: 253).
Vyazemsky wrote to Alexander Turgenev in Moscow
on 6 February 1833: “And here we are in Pancake
Week, and we are rolling from ball to ball as if oiled.
Tonight is the Austrian Ball for the Royal Family; the
day aft er tomorrow is the masquerade at the [Ministry
of] Estates. Quadrilles are being prepared – the Empress
and a court of beauties, Zavadovskaya, Radzivillovo-Urusova
and many others. Another quadrille is
being assembled by the Countess Dolly” (Ostafj evskij
arxiv 1899: 219). Dolly herself gave an ecstatic description
of the ball a few days later: “Th e masquerade at
Volkonsky’s was a most exquisite occasion one could
imagine. Th e Empress’ quadrille from the opera ‘Th e
Magic Lamp’ was superb and exceedingly rich… Th en
our quadrille started and had a great eff ect. We danced
the minuet and the gavotte extremely well, and everything
turned out charming by all accounts. Th e Emperor
was particularly enraptured. I was delighted with the
chance to wear such an ensemble. I can hardly imagine
this life of powder and hoop-skirts… Th e ball continued
until 6 in the morning and was incredibly lively”
(Ficquelmont 2009: 257).
Th e day aft er the masquerade at the Estates Ministry,
on 9 February 1833, Konstantin Bulgakov was writing
to his brother in Moscow: “How shall I describe yesterday’s
festivity to you? I am honestly lost for words;
but take ‘One Th ousand and One Nights’, read ‘La
lampe merveilleuse’, and what it describes, as it were,
in a dream, we saw… with our own eyes” (Russkij arxiv
1904: 246–247). In his account of the costumes, the
ceremonial processions, the dances, and the decoration
of the rooms, Bulgakov said that he believed that the
masquerade had been worthy of a special edition, while
the costumes and the rooms should be lithographed. In
the continuation of his description of the fancy-dress
ball, he wrote further to his brother: aft er one of the
carnival processions, “the Empress with the Grand
Duchess (Elena, wife of Grand Duke Mikhail – G.P.)
sat down on a dais, surrounded by Vorontsov, Tolstoy,
and many other ladies and gentlemen, while others
started to dance a skilfully assembled quadrille… After
those, there came another quadrille of about eight
ladies (I believe) and eight gentlemen in dresses of the
time of Louis XIV or XV. Th e ladies had hoops, beauty
spots, and powdered collars, while the gentlemen were
wearing suits with wigs; they started to dance the minuet
and then a kind of gavotte. It was a most comic sight”
(Russkij arxiv 1904: 247).
On the same day (9 February), Vyazemsky wrote
to the same addressee (Bulgakov), giving a simpler
and more colourful account: “Yesterday’s masquerade
was splendid, brilliant, diverse, hot, stifl ing, delightful,
rapturous, prolonged… Th e Tsarina’s quadrilles were
superb, starting with herself and the Grand Duchess…
Th e Countess de Ficquelmont’s old French quadrille was
very good indeed, very much in the spirit of the time,
and gave a fi ne notion of how our grandfathers could
fall in love with our grandmothers with all their powder,
beauty spots, hoop-skirts etc. Th e Countess Dolly herself
and Tolstaya, the Grand Duchess’ lady-in-waiting,
were superb in this quadrille. Th e ball continued until
past fi ve o’clock…” (Russkij arxiv 1884: 422).
In our lithographs, Dolly and Catherine are shown
wearing the outfi ts made for this particular quadrille:
in powdered wigs, with beauty spots, wearing stylised
gowns with hoops and ribbons. Th us, the portrait
sketches, which only bear the date 1833 in Gagarin’s
hand, can be more precisely dated to the 8th of February.
Gagarin may have made sketches of all the participants
of the quadrille for making lithographs later, but
we only know of these two.
It has to be noted that the lithographs and portrait
sketches of Daria Ficquelmont and Ekaterina Tiesenhausen
are a great rarity in the iconography of Field
Marshal Kutuzov’s granddaughters.
Soon aft er the famous fancy-dress ball, the Gagarins
left for Moscow. It is known that Grigory Gagarin
was fond of lithographs and made the fi rst two prints
for illustrations to Pushkin’s works. In Moscow, he
lithographed his own drawing for the Prologue to “Ruslan
and Lyudmila” and one called “Th e Gypsies” (Ilya
Sokolov’s Choir), which was printed at Yastrebilov’s establishment.
It is possible that he tried to make lithographs
from his masquerade sketches at the same time.
In that case, they can also be dated to 1833.
Th us, the fancy-dress portraits are of interest both
as an iconographic rarity and as a historical and literary
witness which brings together the names of Pushkin,
Vyazemsky, Bulgakov, Alexander Turgenev, Khitrovo
and her remarkable daughters.
References
Ermitaž 2001
Ermitaž. Muzej i kollekcii [Th e Hermitage: Museum and Collections].
St. Petersburg, 2001.
Ficquelmont 2009
Ficquelmont, Daria. Dnevnik. 1829–1837. Ves’ puškinskij Peterburg
[Diary. 1829–1837. All of Pushkin’s St. Petersburg].
Moscow, 2009
Naidich 1952
Naidich, Erik. “Puškin i xudožnik G.G. Gagarin [Pushkin and
the Artist Grigory Gagarin]”. Literaturnoje nasledstvo. Moscow,
1952. Vol. 58.
Ostafj evskij arxiv 1899
Ostafj evskij arxiv knjazej Vyazemskix [Th e Ostafi evo Archive
of the Princes Vyazemsky]. St. Petersburg 1899. Vol. 3.
Russkij arxiv 1884
Russkij arxiv [Russian Archive]. 1884, St. Petersburg. Book 1.
Russkij arxiv 1904
Russkij arxiv [Russian Archive]. 1904, St. Petersburg. Book 1.
Translated by Maria Artamonova

During the past two decades, historians of photography
have identifi ed about two dozens of daguerreotypes
created at Sergey Levitsky’s studio. Important
for the study of his early period is the catalogue of daguerreotypes
from the collection of the State Historical
Museum, Moscow, where eleven daguerreotypes connected
with Levitsky have been published (see Saburova,
Semakova 1999). It should be noted that only one
of these has a label of Levitsky’s studio. Th e other ten
have been ascribed to Levitsky by Irina Semakova and
Tatyana Saburova. Th e attribution to him of the picture
of Pauline Viardot is confi rmed by the signature under
the lithograph (Semakova 1997). Th e other attributions
are based on the study of the furniture and objects seen
in the pictures.
Th e study of daguerreotypes has revealed several objects
most frequently depicted by Levitsky. Almost all of
these are present in the pictures dating from the second
half of the 1850s, when the artist began to make paper
prints. Th at the objects belonged to him follows from
the “model” pictures which have the “Levitsky’s Photogeny”
impression on them. Th e number of paper prints
with photographic equipment and objects of furniture
in Russian collections is suffi cient for the identifi cation
of many anonymous works.
Galina Mirolyubova of the State Hermitage Department
of the History of Russian Culture has rightly ascribed
to Levitsky several daguerreotypes, including
portraits of the lady-in-waiting of the Russian Imperial
Court, Maria Trofi movna Pashkova (1807–1887)
(Inv. No. ЭРФт-35844; see ill. 1) and her three daughters
(Inv. No. ЭРФт-32052; ill. 2). In this case, used for
NATALIA AVETYAN
DAGUERREOTYPES OF THE STATE HERMITAGE COLLECTION:
ATTRIBUTION TO SERGEY LEVITSKY
identifi cation was a picture from the collection of the State
Historical Museum (Inv. No. ГИМ 68211 ИVII 1209).
As the text on the reverse suggests, it shows Ekaterina
Mikhailovna Pashkova (1832 – not earlier than 1908; afterwards,
wife of Actual Councillor of State Pyotr Ozerov),
Yulia Mikhailovna Pashkova (1834–1895; aft erwards,
wife of Equerry and Governor of Vladimir Iosif
Sudienko) and Princess Maria Mikhailovna Pashkova
(1836–1910; from 1857, wife of Prince Vasily Golitsin).
Th e Hermitage version of the picture, too, has a legend,
but a closer comparison of the two daguerreotypes reveals
inconsistencies. It should be correct, therefore, to
designate both as the Portrait of the Pashkov Sisters and
use additional iconographic data for more precise identifi
cation.
As regards the dating of the three daguerreotypes,
undoubtedly taken during one session, diff erent editions
give (a) the late 1840s, (b) the fi rst half of the
1850s and (c) the mid-1850s. Th e author suggests
the year of 1857 (naturally, with a query), for the Pashkovs
are wearing mourning, possibly in connection
with the death of Maria Pashkova’s only son, Nikolay
(1830–1857).
Iconographic analysis of the Pashkovs’ photographs
has revealed, among the pictures of “unidentifi ed persons”,
another daguerreotype depicting members of this
family. Unfortunately, its original framing has been lost,
together with legends and the old museum inventory
numbers. A study of the complex of daguerreotype portraits,
acquired at diff erent periods by the Department
of Everyday Life of the State Russian Museum, allows
us to conclude that this is the daguerreotype registered
Ill. 1. Sergey Levitsky. Portrait of Maria Pashkova.
Daguerreotype. 1857(?). Th e State Hermitage Museum
as Portraits of Alex[andra] Mikh[ailovna] Apraksina and
Ek[aterina] Mikh[ailovna] Ozerova, [both] née Pashkova.
Th e dating of this picture is problematic, although
in our opinion, it had been created earlier than the ones
discussed above (Inv. No. ЭРФт-36247; ill. 3). Th e picture
belonged to a series of fi ve daguerreotypes, which
was in the Museum Fund (Leningrad) in the 1920s. In
1928 one of these daguerreotypes was sent to the State
Historical Museum, and the other four, to the Department
of Everyday Life of the State Russian Museum,
and from it, to the Hermitage (in 1941). Th ree of the daguerreotypes
are productions of Levitsky’s studio; they
are published here; the fourth one, showing V. Apraksin
(1820/22–1898) and his wife, Alexandra Apraksina, née
Pashkova (1829–1916), was made in Josef Weninger’s
studio in the late (?) 1840s.
A study of the furniture in Levitsky’s studio has
helped in the identifi cation of several of his other daguerreotypes.
Used for comparison are two portraits
from the collection of the Russian National Library,
showing the composer Mikhail Glinka alone and
Mikhail Glinka with his sister, Lyudmila Shestakova.
Both daguerreotypes show the composer wearing the
150 151
Ill. 2. Sergey Levitsky. Portrait of the Pashkov Sisters.
Daguerreotype. 1857(?).Th e State Hermitage Museum
Ill. 3. Sergey Levitsky. Portrait of the Sisters Alexandra Pashkova
and Ekaterina Pashkova. Daguerreotype. 1850s.
Th e State Hermitage Museum. First publication

same costume and hat, which implies that they were
taken simultaneously. Th e second one has a pencil
inscription on the reverse, Левицкiй 1852 года
18 го мая [Levitsky year 1852 May 18]. Th e catalogue
of private belongings of the Mikhail Glinka Museum
confi rms Levitsky’s authorship (see Katalog predmetov
1902: 34).
Th e chair with dark velvet upholstery and a deep
back-rest with specifi c carving shown in these daguerreotypes
can also be seen in other fi ve daguerreotypes
regarded before as works by unknown photographers,
viz. the Portrait of a Girl in a Blue Dress
(Inv. No. ЭРФт-27792; ill. 6) and Portrait of an Unknown
Woman (Inv. No. ЭРФт-36245; ill. 4) in the Hermitage
Ill. 4. Sergey Levitsky. Portrait of an Unknown Woman.
Daguerreotype. 1850s. Th e State Hermitage Museum.
First publication
collection, Portrait of Unknown Persons in the collection
of the Institute of Russian Literature (Pushkin House),
Russian Academy of Sciences (Inv. No. ПД И-2189), received
from the Abamelek-Lazarevs’ collection, Portrait
Ill. 5. Sergey Levitsky. Portrait of Grand Dukes Nikolay Nikolayevich,
Konstantin Nikolayevich and Mikhail Nikolayevich.
Daguerreotype. 1855–1856. Th e State Hermitage Museum.
First publication
of Nikolay Lvov (Inv. No. ГИМ 55731 ИVII 1246) and
Portrait of a Girl from the Ilovaisky Family
(Inv. No. ГИМ 108604 ИVI 36180) in the State Historical
Museum. Th e last of these has a painted backdrop,
the same as the one that can be seen in the group portrait
of Grand Dukes Nikolay Nikolayevich, Konstantin
Nikolayevich and Mikhail Nikolayevich in the Hermitage
collection (Inv. No. ЭРФт-32045; ill. 5), which can
be regarded as a work by Levitsky.
Th e group portrait must have belonged to the collection
of Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolayevich in the
Marble Palace. Th is follows from the fact that it came to
the Department of Everyday Life in the State Russian
Museum (in 1928) with other portraits of members of
his family.
Th e provenance of the Hermitage Portrait of
an Unknown Woman remains unestablished, unlike
the Portrait of a Girl in a Blue Dress (ill. 6). Th e
latter comes from the collection of Countess Vera
Borisovna Perovskaya (1856–?), lady-in-waiting,
daughter of General Boris Alexeyevich Perovsky
(1815–1881). Since the daguerreotype was made in the
fi rst half of the 1850s, the woman depicted can only
be the elder sister of the owner of the portrait, Maria
Borisovna, in marriage Petrovo-Solovo (1845–1890).
Th is seems to be confi rmed by one pastel in the section
of drawings and watercolours, Department of
the History of Russian Culture of the State Hermitage
(Inv. No. ЭРР-1230; 44 × 36 cm; ill. 7). It shows Alexey
Borisovich Perovsky and his sister Maria, aged six and
three respectively, as follows from the date, 1848. Th e
girl’s body proportions do not seem to be concordant
with her age; in the picture she looks somewhat older.
Ill. 6. Sergey Levitsky. Portrait of Maria Perovskaya.
Daguerreotype. Mid-1850s. The State Hermitage Museum
But her facial features are very much like those of the
“girl in a blue dress” (ill. 8). Th is implies that the girl in
the daguerreotype is Maria Perovskaya; on the basis of
her age (c. 8–10 years old), the picture is datable to the
mid-1850s. Th us, both the author of the daguerreotype
and the sitter have been established.
152 153
Ill. 7. Dessam. Portrait of Alexey Borisovich
and Maria Borisovna Perovsky. 1848. Pastel on paper.
The State Hermitage Museum. First publication
All the Hermitage daguerreotypes ascribed to Levitsky
demonstrate high artistic and technical quality,
showing him to be an accomplished master by the time
he had returned to St. Petersburg from Paris and opened
his studio (1849). His works are comparable only to
those of Josef Weninger active in St. Petersburg at the
same time. Levitsky normally used French, preferably
Christofl e, plates and dark-brown or tortoise-coloured
glass and paper passe-partouts. Levitsky was a perfect
master of plate processing. Even those daguerreotypes
which are in a poor state of preservation show a highest
level of technical skill. Generally, from the point of
view of style and technique, Levitsky’s daguerreotypes
are closest to the French school. Th ey, too, have another
feature typical of it, viz. hand-depicted clouds against
a blue background.
In Levitsky’s studio, retouching was of primary importance.
Also typical of his daguerreotypes was illumination
using white, pink (for faces and hands) and
bluish (clothes, background) colours. But the most

а b
Ill. 8. а – Dessam. Portrait of Alexey Borisovich and Maria Borisovna Perovsky. Detail;
b – Sergey Levitsky. Portrait of Maria Perovskaya. Detail
recognisable feature in Levitsky’s daguerreotypes is
gold delineation regularly used in rings, brooches,
bracelets, etc. Th ese elements, too, can be instrumental
in the identifi cation of Levitsky’s productions. On
the basis of this feature, several other daguerreotypes
of the Hermitage collection have been ascribed to Levitsky,
such as the above-mentioned portrait of the Pashkov
sisters, Alexandra (Apraksina in marriage) and
Ekaterina (Ozerova in marriage) (see ill. 3) and the
Portrait of an Unknown Man (Inv. No. ЭРФт-32048;
ill. 9). In connection with the latter, worthy of a notice,
among other things, is the treatment of the cloudy sky.
Unfortunately, the objects seen in this picture are not
to be come across in Levitsky’s other works, therefore
his authorship is not undoubtful. Ascribed to him can
be another portrait (Inv. No. ГИМ 70488 ИVII 1154)
from the collection of the State Historical Museum,
which, in addition to “golden lines”, has a small fragment
of a chair discernible in the right lower corner;
a similar chair is to be seen in Levitsky’s other daguerreotypes.
Contrary to the established view, Levitsky had not
abandoned photography by the mid-1850s. At the time,
due to the progress of paper-print photography, his studio
began to use this method. In 1855–1857, however,
154
Ill. 9. Sergey Levitsky (?). Portrait of an Unknown Man. 1850s.
The State Hermitage Museum. First publication
the quality of paper prints was low, therefore the studio
did not cease to produce daguerreotypes. As mentioned
above, the Portrait of Maria Pashkova and Portrait of the
Pashkov Sisters, could have been made in 1857. Th ese
pictures are the latest of the daguerreotypes of “Levitsky’s
Photogeny” known today.
In May 1857, Sergey Levitsky and the engineer
Alexander Shpakovsky went to Paris. Probably from
Paris Levitsky brought the fashion for cartes de visite.
In November 1854, the French photographer André-
Adolphe-Eugène Disdéri patented his visiting cards
(10 x 6 cm), which were to be in greatest demand for
over a decade. Disdéri’s invention made it possible to
make four, six or eight prints, using a special frame or
a camera with several lenses. Due to reduction of the
size, prints became less expensive and more accessible.
It was in 1857 that “Levitsky’s Photogeny” started making
photographs of carte de visite size, which probably
must be regarded as the end of Levitsky’s daguerreotype
period.
References
Katalog predmetov 1902
Katalog predmetov, not, knig, avtografov i portretov,
naxod’aščixsja v muzeje Glinki v zdanii Sankt-Petersburgskoj
Konservatorii [Catalogue of Objects, Sheet Music, Autographs
and Portraits Kept in the Glinka Museum Located in St. Petersburg
Conservatoire]. St. Petersburg, 1902.
Saburova, Semakova 1999
Saburova, Tatyana and Irina Semakova (eds.). U istokov
fotoiskusstva. Sobranije dagerrotipov Gosudarstvennogo
Istoričeskogo muzeja. [At the Source of the Art of Photography.
Collection of Daguerreotypes in the State Historical Museum].
Catalogue. Moscow: “Art rodnik”, 1999.
Semakova 1997
Semakova, Irina. “Novaja atribucija dagerrotipnogo portreta
Poliny Viardo [New Attribution of the Daguerreotype Portrait
of Pauline Viardot]”. Trudy Gosudarstvennogo Istoričeskogo
muzeja. No. 89: Stranicy xudožestvennogo nasledija Rossii
XVI–XX vekov. Moscow, 1997: 150–157.
Translated by Yuri Kleiner

Artistic bone carvings by Northern Russian masters
of previous centuries are quite fully represented at the
State Hermitage. Existing publications trace the evolution
of this type of art and the peculiarities of its forms,
styles, as well as the work of some unique masters. In
2000, the collection of the Department of the History
of Russian Culture was augmented by the addition of
three works by one of the prominent twentieth-century
carvers, Parfyon Chernikovich (Rekhachev 1949:
87; Xolmogorskaja rez’ba 1984: 95–96; Taranovskaya
1991). Th ey are a paper knife, a desktop screen and
a spectacle case.
Th e more traditional methods of fl at-relief and
pierced carving typical for the Kholmogory school of
bone carving were used in the creation of a small paper
knife sharpened on one side (Inv. No. ЭРК-1204;
21.8 × 3.0 cm; ill. 1). Its shape follows the lines of the walrus
tusk, formerly known as the “fi sh tooth”. Th e obverse
side displays an image of a reindeer train with a driver
in the sleigh pursued by a dog. Th e artist achieves the
impression of fast movement by creating fl uid outlines
of animals which are cunningly surrounded by what
seems to be whirls of snow fl ying in all directions. Th eir
patterns follow the rounded ornamental rocaille shapes
known since the 18th century, but modifi ed by the artist’s
vision. Th e wavy line on top traces the delicate fl ashes of
the Aurora Borealis. Th e result is an elegant work typical
of the hand of this master, who has been brought up in
the best traditions of the Northern Russian Kholmogory
artistic school of bone carving. Th e author’s monogram
ПЧ (for Parfyon Chernikovich) and a date 1994 can be
found on the reverse.
IRINA UKHANOVA
A GROUP OF TWENTIETH-CENTURY BONE CARVINGS
Another work is a desktop screen made of a large
board, slightly curved to follow the shape of the mammoth
tusk, on a low base (Inv. No. ЭРК-1211; 22.5 × 3.5 cm;
ill. 2). Th e outline has soft , fl uid shapes, which combines
very well with the meaningful relief. In the centre, the
artist has placed an oval medallion with the profi le of
Peter the Great in military uniform with a ribbon and
the star of the Order of St. Andrew the First-Called.
Above him is the double-headed eagle, surrounded by
two fl oating female allegorical fi gures. Th eir streaming
garments blend with the patterns of tight fl oral curves.
To the left of the portrait is the image of the Admiralty
tower with its famous spire bearing the ship, which is
the emblem of St. Petersburg, and on the right is another
important building, the Sts. Peter and Paul Cathedral
towering above impregnable fortress walls. Below is the
image centred around Falconet’s famous statue of Peter
the Great known as “Th e Bronze Horseman”. Th e rock
that is its foundation bears a simple inscription “To
Peter I” carved by Parfyon Chernikovich. On both sides
of this monument, two sailing ships are shown among
the carved curves of the pattern. Th us, the overall design
is quite saturated and combines the key symbols of
St. Petersburg. It is interesting that deep but not pierced
carving has been chosen by the artist. Th e play of light
and shade on the many curved lines on the ivory surface
highlights the key carved images. Th e reverse side of
the screen bears the artist’s signature: 1995–1996 гг.
П. Черникович [1995–1996. P. Chernikovich]. It is clear
that the artist decided to revisit his own success of 1988–
1989 when making a new object on the St. Petersburg
theme. Th is had been another screen dedicated to
Ill. 1. Knife. Walrus ivory, low relief and pierced carving. Th e State Hermitage Museum
Mikhail Lomonosov, with an exquisite portrait of the
great scholar.
It is interesting that aft er a period of search in the
1990s, Chernikovich decided to revisit a previous period
of his work: he uses his own technique for tackling
a three-dimensional object – a spectacle case with
the lid moving on hidden hinges (Inv. No. ЭРК-1210;
18.0 × 6.0 × 3.0 cm; ill. 3). Its surface is decorated with
fl at-relief carving showing a portrait of Peter I in profi
le in the central oval medallion, holding an Imperial
baton in his hand. In two round medallions on both
sides, one can see a double-headed eagle and the star
of the Order of St. Andrew. Th e furled military banners
and ribbons serve as the unifying element of the
design. On the reverse side of the case, there are carved
images of the Admiralty and the Sts. Peter and Paul Fortress
in fi gured medallions, surrounded by ornamental
curves. Th is utilitarian object is covered with a carpet
of relief carving, which transforms it into a remarkable
work of art linked with the history of Russia’s Northern
Capital. It is noteworthy that Chernikovich has been
preoccupied with this theme for a long time. In 1947,
he made an ivory spectacle case with a lid operated by
hidden hinges and decorated with symbols of Leningrad.
Th e artist placed images of the “Bronze Horseman”
in the medallions, while on both sides against the
background of pierced carvings he showed the Admiralty
and the Sts. Peter and Paul Fortress surrounded
by modifi ed rocaille curves. It is natural for every artist
to pursue a creative theme they fi nd inspiring, giving
it new shades of meaning and new interpretations each
time it is revisited.
156 157
Ill. 2. Screen. Mammoth ivory, relief carving.
Th e State Hermitage Museum

It is evident that the three works by the prominent
twentieth-century bone carver demonstrate the survival
of the deeply rooted traditions of this ethnic art in all
its shapes: three-dimensional, relief, and pierced carving,
with all the typical stylistic originality and tell-tale
features. Th ey do not simply augment the collection,
but represent the logic of the historical evolution and
preservation of a historic type of art.
It is interesting that Parfyon Chernikovich (born
1920) is not a native of Kholmogory or Archangelsk.
a
b
158
He is originally from Belarus, where he was trained in
drawing, and he entered the Kholmogory School of Bone
Carving in 1936. Th is was the time when such revered
masters of this traditional art as Ivan Uzikov, Vasily Guryev,
Mikhail Khristoforov were still active there, as well
as the younger carvers such as Anatoly Shtang (who was
Chernikovich’s tutor), Yakov Vagmer, Arseny Leontyev.
Aft er he graduated with fl ying colours in 1939, Chernikovich
went on to work in the Lomonosov Artistic Bone
Carving Workshop as a seventh-grade craft sman.
Ill. 3. Spectacle case. Mammoth ivory, relief carving. Th e State Hermitage Museum
Between 1941 and 1943 he took part in the Second
World War, and in 1944 he returned to the workshop,
which was transformed into the Lomonosov Artistic
Bone Carving Factory. He was awarded the First Prize
at the Soviet Union Arts and Craft s Competition for his
vase entitled Th e North (which was later presented to the
American President Franklin Roosevelt on behalf of the
Soviet government). Chernikovich went on to take part
in many Russian and international exhibitions. His 1946
Victory cup was a great success. In the 1950s, he made
a casket called Th e North, and he has continued to be
inspired by Northern themes (in 2008, he made a goblet
called Remembering the North). In 1971, he created an
exquisite pierced vase called Nizhny Novgorod – Gorky
bearing the symbols and attributes of the city. In many
of his works, the master addresses literary and historical
themes.
In 1968, Parfyon Chernikovich moved to the city of
Gorky (Nizhny Novgorod), where he was Head of the
Arts Section of the design offi ce of the Gorky Arts and
Craft s Directorate. He founded his workshop in the village
of Varnavino on the river Vetluga, where he laid the
foundations of the local bone carving school based on
local applied art traditions combined with the style of
Kholmogory carvings.
Chernikovich retired in 1980, but he is still very active.
His works have received many major awards and
can be seen in the museums of Moscow, St. Petersburg,
Archangelsk, Kiev, and many other cities.
Th e works now acquired for the State Hermitage
through the Purchasing Commission (one of them presented
by the artist) testify to the continuing fl ourishing
of the traditional Russian art of bone carving which goes
back many centuries.
References
Rekhachev 1949
Rekhachev, Mikhail. Xolmogorskaja rez’ba po kosti [Kholmogory
Bone Carving]. Archangelsk, 1949.
Taranovskaya 1991
Taranovskaya, Natalia. “Parf ’on Černikovič [Parfyon Chernikovich]”.
P. Černikovič: Vystavka rabot. Catalogue. Leningrad:
State Russian Museum, 1991.
Xolmogorskaja rez’ba 1984
Xolmogorskaja rez’ba po kosti konca XVII – XX vekov. Vystavka
iz sobranij muzejev strany [Kholmogory Bone Carving
from the Late 17th to 20th Centuries. Exhibition from the
Collections of the Country’s Museums]. Catalogue. Leningrad,
1984.
Translated by Maria Artamonova

Th e State Hermitage’s Italian numismatic collection
is one of the most important in the world in terms of
its composition and the number of rare coins (about
700). Th e best evidence of this is the collection of sixteenth-
and seventeenth-century gold coins from Savoy.
In minting their gold coins, the Dukes of the Savoy dynasty
1 – one of the oldest in Europe – refl ected many
aspects of economic, political and ideological life both
in Italy and in Europe as a whole.
Th e last king of Italy, Victor Emmanuel III, 2 was an
outstanding numismatist. At the end of his life he bequeathed
his collection to the Roman people (“Populus
Romanus”). Invited to St. Petersburg by Nicholas II on
several occasions, he studied the Imperial numismatic
collection and gave it his own evaluation. In 1899 he
wrote to a correspondent that there were actually no
Italian coins in the Hague, that the huge collection in
St. Petersburg was in disarray, and that the British Museum’s
collection was extremely rich but badly organised
(see Slepova 2005: 109).
Th e aim of this article is to bring eight rare coins
of the six rulers of the Savoy dynasty in the 16th and
17th centuries into the scholarly domain. 3 Th ey are both
1 From the 11th century and until 1416 the rulers had the title of
Counts of Savoy, from 1720 – Kings of Sardinia, and aft er the unifi cation
of the country in 1861 – Kings of Italy.
2 Aft er the abdication of Victor Emmanuel III on 9 May 1946, his son
Umberto came to the throne. However, it proved impossible to save the
monarchy. Th e “May King” ruled for little more than a month.
3 Several Savoy coins that came from the collection of Jacob Reichel
were published in the catalogue of the exhibition: (Jacob Reichel 2003:
Inv. Nos. 315–324; “Coins and Medals of Cities and States of Italy”, annotation
and catalogue descriptions by Tatyana Slepova).
TATYANA SLEPOVA
GOLD COINS OF THE DUCHY OF SAVOY FROM THE 16TH AND 17TH CENTURIES
IN THE STATE HERMITAGE COLLECTION
numismatic and historical monuments of the period
when, in the fi gurative expression of Dupre (not lacking
in specifi c historical content), “Europe came to Italy…
the equilibrium of Europe became interlaced with the
equilibrium of Italy”. Th e most important result of this
“interlacing”, according to the French historian, was the
formation of the states and international relations of the
new age (Dupre 1956: 30, 51).
Roberto Quazza acknowledged the leading role of
the Spanish as pretenders to the Italian domains (Quazza
1950: 18). He noted the great vitality of individual
Italian states: at a time when Venice was “conserving”
its customs but retaining its independence and Genoa
was “steadfastly defending its political supremacy”, the
Duchy of Savoy was becoming stronger and was being
“reconstructed”.
Th e anonymous author of “A Brief Account of States
and Th eir Dimensions and Boundaries”, compiled in
1624 on the basis of coin stamps, included Savoy in
the eleven most powerful “fi rst class” states (“Relazioni
compendiose dello stato, grandezze, confi ni, forze, rendite,
spese, governe, abondanza, traffi chi et altri particolari
di tutti di ragioni. Principi e republiche, che battano
moneta nell’Italia nell’anno 1624. Relazione compendisione”.
Manuscript Department of the Russian National
Library. It. Q. IV. 4: 1–4).
Th e history of the Italian states in the 16th century
cannot be considered without taking into account their
links with France. Relations with Savoy were one of the
main features of French foreign policy. Th ere were parts
of the Duchy of Savoy on both sides of the Alps. Up in
the mountains it included (in the late 15th century)
Savoy itself, Bresse and Beaujeu. Below was the Principality
of Piedmont, and between the Alps and the sea –
the county of Nice. Th e trade routes linking European
countries with the Mediterranean Sea passed through
the duchy’s territory. Th is brought its rulers a huge income,
which enabled them to mint a fairly wide range of
gold, silver and copper coins and to make the gold coins
very heavy (up to 65 g). Th e ruler of the country had
the title of Dux Sabaudie (Duke of Savoy). His coat-ofarms
was a silver cross in a shield (Appendix 2.1, reverse
side). Th e most preferred emblem was a “love knot” (Fr.
“lacs d’amour”, Ger. “Liebesseile”), a horizontal fi gure
of eight. Th e origin of the knot is sometimes explained
by the love aff airs of Amadeus VI (born 1334, ruled
1343–1383). Legend has it that he received a present
from the lady of his heart – an embroidered silk scarf
with a fi gure of eight. Some researchers think, obviously
on the basis of the traditions of French heraldry, that the
fi gure of eight is a symbol of widowerhood (Promis 1841,
Vol. 1; Oswald 1984: 40–41).
In the fi rst half of the 16th century Savoy was ruled
by Duke Charles II (1504–1553; more details about him
can be found in Appendix 1.1). His rule saw a diffi cult
war with King Francis I of France. On the obverse side of
a gold ducat (see Appendix 2.1) is a portrait of Charles II
in the traditional Renaissance style. It is a fi ne profi le of
the ruler in a beret, with the hairstyle that was fashionable
at that time. We see a man who was inclined both
to a contemplative life (“vita contemplativa”) and to an
active, social life (“vita activa”, “civile”). He is a citizen,
a soldier and a philosopher. Th is corresponds to the code
of honour of a “universal man” (“homo universale”) in
the Renaissance age (Bragina 1993: 50; Slepova 1994:
108–109). On the reverse side of the coin is the Savoy
coat-of-arms and the motto FERT (Appendix 2.1, reverse
side). Th is combination has been interpreted by scholars
in diff erent ways. Th e letters are sometimes deciphered
as “Fortitudo eius Rhodum tenuit” [His courage saves
Rhodes], referring to the victory of Count Amadeus V
(born 1253, ruled 1285–1323) in 1310 over the Turks
near the island of Rhodes. Th e letters FERT feature on
Savoyard gold scudi, ducats and other coins in the period
from 1450 to 1575 (Potin 1993: 38–39; Kroha 1997; Potin
2000: 53, No.407). Th e legend on the reverse side of the
coin includes the letters T BB, which can be deciphered
as the city of Turin (T), where the mint was situated,
and the name of the carver of the coin stamp Bartolomeo
Brunasso (BB), who worked at the Turin Mint from
160 161
2 April 1519 (Archivio di Corte. Monetazione. M. 6.
Num. 25, quoted in: Promis 1841, Vol. 1: 174).
Charles II is portrayed on the gold ducat as a peaceful
ruler, but in the diffi cult times of the numerous wars he
minted quite diff erent, “siege” coins. Charles was defending
his interests both within the duchy and outside of it.
In 1534 Admiral Chabot, the commander-in-chief
of the French forces, conquered Bresse, Savoy and nearly
the whole of Piedmont. Turin fell into the hands of
Francis I, who opened his own French mint there. In
the same year France came out against the bankers of
Genoa, who were seeking the opportunity to organise
a new exchange in the Duchy of Savoy aft er the breakdown
in relations with the exchange in Lyons. In 1535,
now through the mediation of Charles V, another attempt
was made to establish a banking centre in Savoy
(Giofre 1960: 112–147).
In 1543 Nice, which was coming under attack by the
French army and the Turkish navy, minted “emergency
coins” of gold and silver. Th ese coins were made in
a careless, rough and ready way and were intended to
pay the soldiers who were defending the town. In such
situations coins were usually minted from non-precious
metals and were sometimes made of cardboard or paper.
Crockery fragments were also used. Th e Hermitage
collection includes a gold coin minted by Duke Charles
II in 1543 during the siege of Nice (see Appendix 2.2).
Despite the diffi cult times, Charles II issued a whole
series of various types of coins, minted with great mastery.
In June 1553 an ordinance was issued directing the
manufacture of thalers equal to 42 grossos. Th is ordinance
marked the beginning of the issue of a sterling
silver coin (28 g), exceeding the weight of a silver teston
(9 g). Th e emblem of Cyprus (a lion standing on its hind
legs) frequently features on these coins alongside the Savoy
coat-of-arms (a cross in a shield). Th is was because
in 1485 Queen Charlotte of Cyprus, the widow of Louis
of Savoy, who had died in 1482, had ordered the title of
King of Cyprus to be added to the titles of the Dukes of
Savoy and the emblem of the Cypriot kings to be used
on Savoy coins (Promis 1841, Vol. 1: 20).
Emmanuel Philibert (ruled 1553–1580; see
Appendix 1.2) was serving in the Netherlands in Charles
V’s army when he learned of his father’s death. In 1557 he
won the Battle of St. Quentin, which led to the conclusion
of the Treaty of Cateau-Cambresis between France and
Spain. Bastiano Arditi, a Florentine craft sman and author
of a “Diary”, who closely followed events connected with

France, noted the propitious turn in the fortunes of Savoy,
to which the French king had returned all the fortresses,
but also warned of the danger that could threaten the
Italian states as a result of the alliance of France and
Turkey (Arditi 1970: 1, 3, 5, 6, 9–11).
Cosimo Medici, the Duke of Tuscany, wrote in a letter
to Emmanuel Philibert: “It was with great readiness
that I provided 100,000 scudi for the needs of the Christian
king (Henri III) through agents at exchanges in
Antwerp and Italy, and I shall do everything in my power
to serve the Christian king” (Manuscript Department
of the Russian National Library. Dubrovsky Collection,
aut. No.14, 29. XI. 1562, f. 23). Monetary circulation in
Savoy was in chaos at this time owing to the existence of
diff erent coins in diff erent parts of the duchy: in Aosta,
in Nice and in Piedmont. In an ordinance of 13 March
1562 Emmanuel Philibert made an attempt to unify the
exchange rate of coins in his state and issued a series of
new coins. He fi xed the ratio of gold to silver as 1:11.
He took as the basis of the new system the old grosso,
which he renamed the “soldo”. Nine varieties of coins
appeared, three of them gold: the scudo d’oro, the philiberto
d’oro and the doppia philiberto d’oro. Th e Hermitage
coin is a doppio philibert d’oro minted in 1571 (see
Appendix 2.3). At that time the Turin Mint was leased
to Giovanni Battiste Cattaneo from Genoa (Archivio di
Corte. Monetazione. M. 7, f. 96, quoted in Promis 1841,
Vol. 1: 204). On the obverse side we see a portrait of the
duke, and on the reverse side – the shield of the coat-ofarms
with many fi elds.
In 1572 Emmanuel Philibert founded the chivalrous
Order of Sts. Maurice and Lazarus. Th e symbol of the
order is the white clover (i.e. ending with three semicircles
or a trefoil) cross of St. Lazarus, laid over the
octagonal cross of St. Maurice (see also: Spassky 1963:
57). From this year onwards the title of Grand Master of
this order was included in the legend on gold scudi. Th e
symbol of the order is found on the reverse of a number
of Emmanuel Philibert’s coins (CNI, Vol. 1: 220, 230,
num. 274, 276, 393). In 1588 Charles Emmanuel I (ruled
1580–1630, see. Appendix 1.3) extended his domain by
annexing the Marquisate of Saluzzo. In 1589, aft er the
death of King Henri III, he was one of the pretenders to
the French throne, since he was the son of Marguerite,
Henri II’s sister. 1
1 At one time Margaret, who was called “la Mere des peuples”
(“Th e Mother of Peoples”), patronised poets and musicians, and invited
the best-known scholars to Turin University.
In 1601, having suff ered a defeat at the hands of the
French, Charles Emmanuel I concluded a peace treaty
with Henri IV by which he conceded Gesso and Beaujeu,
but irrevocably obtained the Marquisate of Saluzzo.
On a golden ducat of 1601 2 in the Hermitage collection
(see Appendix 2.4) the obverse side features the shield of
the coat-of-arms with many fi elds, with the ducal crown
and the chain of the Order of Sts. Maurice and Lazarus
above. On the reverse side is a portrayal of the Virgin
with the Infant. Th e legend reads: PAX IN VIR TVA
[Peace in Th y Virtue], which is probably a reference to
the peace treaty concluded with the French king under
the aegis of the Heavenly Protectress.
Charles Emmanuel I minted a vast amount of coins.
Th ey included a huge number of types of coin, from gold
coins worth 10 scudi to small billon fractions.
Th e Hermitage collection features a very rare 10 scudi
coin minted in 1630 (see Appendix 2.5). It can be
included in the category of presentational or memorial
coins. Th e stamp was carved by Stefano Mongino (Archivio
di Corte. Monetazione. M. 9, f. 496, quoted in:
Promis 1841, Vol. 1: 254). On the obverse side of the
coin is a portrait of Charles Emmanuel I. Th e reverse side
features, in our opinion, a pair of architect’s dividers, 3
though some numismatists interpret it, without explaining
why, as a compass (e.g. CNI. I: 303. 471 and Promis
1841, Vol. 1: 254). It may be surmised that it is a Masonic
symbol. 4 It should be noted that by the time of Charles
Emmanuel I’s rule all the conditions had been created for
the formation of a powerful state of Piedmont, with Turin
as its capital. Substantial work on the reconstruction
of the city was carried out on the initiative of Charles
Emmanuel I. Th e fi rst reconstruction was supervised by
the architect Ascanio Vitozzi, a native of Orvieto who
was invited to work in Turin in 1584. It is interesting that
this coincided with the reconstruction of Rome under
Domenico Fontana. Aft er Vitozzi, who died in 1615,
Carlo and Amedeo di Castelmonte continued to develop
the regular structure of the city plan (Argan 2000: 480).
Th is 10 scudi coin was minted not long before Charles
2 At that time the Director of the Mint was Giovanni Antonio Pollino
(there was a practice of leasing the mint for a period of three years)
(Archivio di Corte. Monetazione. M. 10, f. 118, quoted in: Promis 1841,
Vol. 1: p. 224).
3 Brotherhoods of Dividers existed in Lubeck, Danzig and Konigsberg.
Dividers are a symbol of an exclusive area and a fi rm union.
4 Th ere are quite a lot of Masonic symbols in Turin – for example,
La Fontana Angelica, whose group sculpture contains Masonic symbols.
Th ey can also be seen on houses in Via Milano and Via Garibaldi.
Emmanuel I’s death in 1630. On the reverse side, around
the “dividers” (“compass”) is the legend: DVM PRÆMOR
AMPLIOR [Glorify before Dying].
Victor Amadeus I (ruled 1630–1637; see Appendix
1.4) fi nally introduced the silver lira, equal to 20 soldi,
as the sole monetary unit of the state of Piedmont.
Th e portrait of Victor Amadeus I engraved on the obverse
side of the lira was of a presentational character,
and on the reverse side were three banners: of Savoy, St.
Maurice and the Order of the Annunciation. Scudi and
their fractions were made of gold, but with the duke’s
coat-of-arms on the obverse side and his crown on the
reverse side. In 1630, during the plague epidemic that
ravaged the towns of Piedmont, the mint in Turin was
temporarily transferred to Moncalieri, and the one in
Vercelli to Santia. It should be noted that the motto FERT
(see above), so oft en encountered on coins in the Middle
Ages, disappeared from large gold and silver coins
and started appearing on small billon coins. A 10 scudi
gold coin minted during Victor Amadeus’s rule bears
the motto: FOEDERE ET RELIGIONE TENEMUR [Devoted
to the Law and Religion]. In 1634 a 4 scudi coin
was minted (see Appendix 2.6). Th e stamp was carved
by Stefano Mongino (Archivio di Corte. Monetazione.
M. 11, f. 137, quoted in: Promis 1841, Vol. 1: 257). On
the obverse side of the coin is a portrait of the duke with
a wedge-shaped beard, in our opinion executed in the
“League style”, showing a similarity to the coin portraits
of King Louis XIII of France. Th e iconography of the
obverse side of the coin shows that the Italian master
was infl uenced by the well-known French stamp carver
Nicolas Briot.
Duke Victor Amadeus died on 7 October 1637 at the
age of 50 aft er a short illness. 1 His widow Maria Christina,
who was the daughter of Maria Medici and Henri
IV (“Madame Royale” or “Madam Queen”, as she was
called), acted as regent and guardian of her six children.
She was betrothed in 1609 to Victor Amadeus, Crown
Prince of the Duchy of Savoy, whom she married on the
day she reached her majority (11 February 1619). Christina
was 19 years younger than her husband and was
widowed at the age of 31. Aft er learning about a plot
against her and her children led by Cardinal Richelieu
1 On 26 September 1637 Victor Amadeus was invited to dinner by
Marshal Crecchi. Other guests were his First Minister Count Verri and his
best general Guido Villa. Aft er the meal, the guests were suddenly taken
ill. Count Verri and Guido Villa died very quickly, but the duke survived
for a few more days (Guichenon 1778).
162 163
and Emery, the French ambassador, Christina doubled
the guard at Vercelli and refused to receive the French,
who were knocking at the gate of the city. On 3 June
1638, however, under pressure from Richelieu, she was
obliged to sign her agreement to an alliance with France,
under the conditions of which she took on the obligations
of openly taking the side of the French against
Spain. At the same time she was conducting negotiations
with her relatives Maurizio of Savoy and Tommaso
Carignano, who were siding with the Austrians.
Francis Hyacinth (see Appendix 1.5), born in 1632,
succeeded to his father’s throne when he was barely fi ve
years old, under the guardianship and regency of his
mother, Maria Christina de Bourbon, but a few months
later he died of a fever not far from Turin. During this
short reign the Turin Mint was managed by Bougia,
Rotta and Virante. Th e fi rst instruction given by Maria
Christina on 30 December 1637 was for the minting
of 10,000 coins for foreign guests with portraits of the
young duke and his mother on the obverse side. On the
reverse side was a depiction of the Madonna and Child
surrounded by roses, the prototype for which was an icon
from the church of Bra (Archivio di Corte. Monetazione.
M. 12, f. 58, quoted in: Promis 1841, Vol. 1: 265).
Th e Hermitage collection includes a 4 scudi gold
coin with no year marked (see Appendix 2.7). Unfortunately
the name of the carver of this stamp is not recorded
in documents. On the obverse side of the coin is
a bust profi le portrait of the duchess facing to the right.
Her hair is arranged in the customary way for widows at
that time and she is wearing a large veil. Th e portrait of
Francis Hyacinth is half-concealed by his mother’s profi
le. Th e legend on the obverse side can be deciphered
as: “Christina of France and Francis Hyacinth, Dukes of
Savoy, Rulers of Piedmont, Kings of Cyprus”.
Th is composition, executed with great perfection,
may symbolise the maternal duty of Christina towards
her infant son. Th e depiction of the Madonna and
Child on the reverse side is a reminder of the Virgin
Mary’s protection of the Duchy of Savoy. In our opinion,
the iconography of both sides of this coin was borrowed
from the celebrated master Gaspare Morone,
who minted coins in Mantua in the reign of Charles
II during the regency of his mother Maria Gonzaga
(1637–1647) (Kollekcija mantuanskix monet v Ermitaže
1995: Nos. 243–245).
Aft er Francis Hyacinth’s death, power passed to
his brother Charles Emmanuel II (ruled 1638–1675)

(see Appendix 1.6), who was under the protection of his
mother Maria Christina until 1645. On 12 October 1640
the Turin Mint, which was still under the management
of Bougia, Rotta and Virante, received an order in the
name of the young duke to mint gold coins to the value of
10 scudi, “which are to have our portrait (that of Charles
Emmanuel II) and the portrait of our Signora, our mother,
protectress and regent Madam Queen, and we charge and
entrust the making of the stamps to our present carver
of stamps Mongino” (Archivio di Corte. Monetazione.
M. 12, f. 44, quoted in: Promis 1841, Vol. 1: 272).
On the Hermitage 10 scudi coin of 1641 (see Appendix
2.8) we see profi le portraits of Christina of
France and her son Charles Emmanuel II. Th e iconography
on the obverse side is virtually identical to the
previous coin. Th e legend reads: “Christina of France,
Charles Emmanuel II, Dukes of Savoy”. Th e reverse
side features the emblematic shield with several fi elds:
in the fi rst fi eld are the coats-of-arms of Jerusalem,
Cyprus, Armenia and Luxembourg; in the second –
those of Westphalia and Ungria; in the third – those of
Chiablesse and Aosta; in the fourth – those of Geneva
and Monferrato. Th ere is a small Savoy coat-of-arms
at the top.
Christina’s right to the regency was still being disputed
by Victor Amadeus I’s brothers Maurizio and
Tommaso, who received the active support of Spain.
Tommaso unexpectedly captured Turin and issued
a low-grade coin with the name of Charles Emmanuel
II. When the Piedmont capital again came under
Christina’s power, Tommaso transferred the mint to
Biella and Ivrea. Peace was established by a treaty on
14 June 1662. Th e series of coins minted by the adult
Charles Emmanuel II (1648–1675) did not diff er from
those of his predecessors. Th e gold coins still had a large
diameter and weight: the 20 scudi coin, for example,
weighed about 65 g. Th e coins depict the duke at various
ages and the coat-of-arms is either simple or consisting
of separate fi elds.
We have traced through the intensive political and
economic life of the Duchy of Savoy, referring to written
documents of the 16th and 17th centuries. Th e gold
coins of the Dukes of Savoy refl ect, like a mirror, the
portraits of the rulers and the ideology that prevailed in
Europe at that time. We have attempted to interpret the
emblems (the “love knot”, the letters FERT, the compass
or dividers on the coin of Charles Emmanuel I) that the
rulers of Savoy left for their descendants. Th e gold coin
of Charles II, minted during the siege of Nice, is evidence
of the special conditions for minting coins in wartime.
On the basis of archive material published by Domenico
Promis we have established the name of the carver – Stefano
Mongino. Bringing the Hermitage’s eight gold coins
from the Duchy of Savoy into the scholarly domain will
be of interest to historians, numismatists and all those
wishing to know more about the history of the Duchy of
Savoy and of Europe as a whole.
APPENDIX 1
BIOGRAPHICAL DETAILS OF DUKES OF SAVOY
Charles II, 9th Duke of Savoy (1486–1553).
Son of Philip II and Claudine of Brittany. Inherited the dukedom
from his brother in 1504. Married Beatrice, daughter of
King Emmanuel of Portugal, in 1521. Left the state to his son
Emmanuel Philibert.
Mints: Aosta, Borgo, Chambery, Cornavin, Montello, Nice,
Turin, Vercelli.
Emmanuel Philibert, 10th Duke of Savoy (1528–1580).
Son of Charles II and Beatrice of Portugal. Count of Asti from
1538, a title he inherited from his mother, who died in that
year. Succeeded his father as Duke of Savoy in 1553. Married
Margaret, daughter of King Francis I of France, in 1559. Left
the crown to his son Charles Emmanuel. Mints: Aosta, Asti,
Borgo, Chambery, Nice, Turin, Vercelli.
Charles Emmanuel I, 11th Duke of Savoy (1562–1630).
Son of Emmanuel Philibert and Margaret of France. Succeeded
his father in 1580. Married Catherine, daughter of
King Philip II of Spain, in 1585. Left the state to his son Victor
Amadeus I.
Mints: Aosta, Asti, Borgo, Chambery, Gex, Moncalieri, Nice,
Santhia, Turin, Vercelli.
Victor Amadeus I, 12th Duke of Savoy (1587–1637).
Son of Charles Emmanuel I and Catherine of Spain. Married
Maria Christina, daughter of King Henry IV of France,
in 1618. Inherited the dukedom in 1630. Left the state to
his son Francis Hyacinth under the guardianship of his
mother.
Mints: Nice, Santhia, Turin, Vercelli.
Francis Hyacinth, 13th Duke of Savoy (1632–1638).
Son of Victor Amadeus I and Maria Christina of France. Succeeded
his father in 1637 under the regency of his mother. He
was succeeded by his brother Charles Emmanuel, also with
Maria Christina as regent.
Mint: Turin.
Charles Emmanuel II, 14th Duke of Savoy (1634–1675)
Son of Victor Amadeus I and Maria Christina of France.
Succeeded his brother Francis Hyacinth in 1638 under the
regency of his mother, which ended in 1648. In 1663 married
Francesca, daughter of Gaston of Orleans, who died in 1664.
In 1665 married Maria Giovanni Battista, daughter of Charles
Amadeus of Savoy-Nemours. Succeeded by his son Victor
Amadeus II.
Mints: Biella, Chambery, Ivrea, Nice, Turin.
APPENDIX 2
DESCRIPTION OF COINS OF THE DUCHY OF SAVOY
1. Savoy, Duchy. Charles II (1504–1553).
Ducat. No date.
Gold. Weight 3.48 g. Diam. 24.0 mm. Purity 958.
Inv. No. ОН-З-Аз 4648.
Acquired: in 1857 from the collection of Jacob Reichel. Die Reichelsche
Münzsammlung in St. Petersburg. 1843. Neunter
Th eil. Aft er p. 291 is a handwritten note: No. 1961b.
Literature: CNI. I. IX. 11.
Obverse: Bust portrait of the ruler in a beret, facing to the
right, enclosed in a dotted circle.
Legend: CAROLVS D V X SABAVDIE II [Carolus Dux Sabaudiae
II] [Charles II, Duke of Savoy].
Reverse: Shield with a cross between the letters FE and RT
[Fortitudo eius Rhodum tenuit] [His Courage Saves Rhodes].
Legend: NILDEEST TIMENTIBVS DEVM T BB [Th e Godfearing
will Never Want for Anything. Turin. Stamp carver
Bartolomeo Brunasso].
2. Savoy, Duchy. Charles II (1504–1553).
Gold scudo. 1543. Emergency coin.
164 165
Gold. Weight 3.40 g. Diam. 25.0 mm. Purity 900.
Inv. No. ОН-З-Аз 4649.
Acquired: before 1918.
Literature: сf: Engel, Serrure: 412.
Obverse: Legend around the edge of the coin: KROLVS
SECVNDVS DUX SABAVDI [Carolus II Dux Sabaudiae]
[Char les II, Duke of Savoy]. Two rosettes at the top and bottom.
Reverse: Legend: NIC A TVRC ET GA L OBS 1543 [Nice
during the Siege by the Turks (ET GA L – still to be deciphered)
1543].
3. Savoy, Duchy. Emmanuel Philibert (1553–1580).
Doppia. 1571.
Gold. Weight 6.62 g. Diam. 26.0 mm. Purity 900.
Inv. No. ОН-З-Аз 4651.
Acquired: in 1857 from the collection of Jacob Reichel. Die
Reichelsche Münzsammlung in St. Petersburg. 1843. Neunter
Th eil. Aft er p. 292 is a handwritten note: No. 1984a.
Literature: CNI. I. XVI. 8.
Obverse: Bust portrait of Emmanuel Philibert, facing to the
right, enclosed in a linear circle.
Legend: EM FILIB D G DVX SAB P PED [Emanuel Filibertus
Dei Gratia Dux Sabaudiae, Princeps Pedemontii] [Emmanuel
Philibert, by the Grace of God Duke of Savoy, Ruler of Piedmont].
Reverse: Multi-panel emblematic shield in a cartouche, decorated
and crowned, surrounded by two linear circles.
Legend: IN TE DOMINE CONFIDO 1571 T [In Th ee, O Lord
Do I Trust. 1571. Turin].
4. Savoy, Duchy. Charles Emmanuel I (1580–1630).
Ducat. 1601.
Gold. Weight 3.41 g. Diam. 21.5 mm. Purity 958.
Inv. No. ОН-З-Аз 4655.
Acquired: before 1918.
Literature: CNI. I. XVIII. 4.
Obverse: Multi-panel emblematic shield, with a crown and the
chain of an order above. Legend: C EMANVEL D G DVX SAB

16 01 [Carolus Emanuel Dei Gratia Dux Sabaudiae] [Charles
Emmanuel, by the Grace of God Duke of Savoy 1601].
Reverse: Madonna and Child. Legend: PAX IN VIRT TVA [Pax
in virtus Tua] [Peace in Th y Virtue].
5. Savoy, Duchy. Charles Emmanuel I (1580–1630).
Carlino. 10 gold scudi, with dividers (compass) 1630.
Gold. Weight 33.31 g. Diam. 43.5 mm. Purity 900.
Inv. No. ОН-З-Аз 4664.
Acquired: before 1918.
Literature: CNI. I. P. 303. 471 (no picture).
Obverse: Bust portrait of the ruler facing to the right within
two linear circles. On the bottom edge is the date – 1630.
Legend: CAROLVS EM D G DVX SAB P P E C [Carolus
Emanuel Dei Gratia Dux Sabaudiae, Princeps Pedemontii et
Cypri] [Charles Emmanuel, By the Grace of God Duke of Savoy,
Ruler of Piedmont and Cyprus].
Reverse: In the centre of the coin is a pair of dividers (compass),
enclosed in a linear circle. Legend: depiction of a star
with seven rays. DVM PRÆMOR AMPLIOR [Glorify before
Dying].
Stamp carver: Stefano Mongino.
6. Savoy, Duchy. Victor Amadeus I (1630–1637).
4 scudi. 1634.
Gold. Weight 13.25 g. Diam. 36.5 mm. Purity 900.
Inv. No. ОН-З-Аз 4665.
Acquired: before 1918.
Literature: CNI. I. XXI. 9.
Obverse: Bust portrait of the duke, facing to the right. Legend:
V AMEDEVS D G DVX SABAVDIÆ [Victor Amedeus
Dei Gratia Dux Sabaudiae] [Victor Amadeus, By God’s Grace
166
Duke of Savoy]. Below left : 1634.
Reverse: Multi-panel emblematic shield.
Legend: PRIN PEDEM REX CYPRI ET C [Princeps Pedemontii
Rex Cypri et (?)] [Ruler of Piedmont, King of Cyprus
and (?)].
Stamp carver: Stefano Mongino.
7. Savoy, Duchy. Francis Hyacinth (1637–1638).
4 gold scudi. No date.
Gold. Weight 13.29 g. Diam. 34.5 mm. Purity 958.
Inv. No. ОН-З-Аз 4666.
Acquired: before 1918.
Literature: CNI. I. XXII. 5.
Obverse: Two bust depictions of Christine of France and her
son Francis Hyacinth, facing to the right.
Legend: CHR FR FR HYAC DVCES SABAV PP PEDEM RR
CYPRI [Christina Francia, Franciscus Hyacintus, Duces Sabaudiae,
Principes Pedemontii, Reges Cypri] [Christine of
France and Francis Hyacinth, Dukes of Savoy, Rulers of Piedmont,
Kings of Cyprus].
Reverse: Half-length depiction of the Virgin Mary with the
Infant; Mary is holding three branches and the Infant one; all
enclosed in a laurel wreath.
Legend: depiction of a rose with fi ve petals. DEDVCET NOS
MIRABILITER DEXTERA TVA [Th y Right Hand Shall Endow
Us in a Miraculous Way].
8. Savoy, Duchy. Charles Emmanuel II (1638–1675).
10 scudi. 1641.
Gold. Weight 33.23 g. Diam. 44.0 mm. Purity 958.
Inv. No. ОН-З-Аз 4668.
Acquired: in 1857 from the collection of Jacob Reichel. Die
Reichelsche Münzsammlung in St. Petersburg. 1843. Neunter
Th eil. Aft er p. 298 is the handwritten note: No. 2032а.
Literature: CNI. I. XXIII. 3.
Obverse: Two bust portraits of Christine of France and her son,
Charles Emmanuel II.
Legend: CHR FRAN CAR EMAN DVCES SAB / 1641 [Christina
Francia, Carolus Emanuel, Duces Sabaudiae] [Christine of
France, Charles Emmanuel II, Dukes of Savoy].
Reverse: Multi-panel coat-of-arms, linear circle.
Legend: PRINCIPES PEDEMON REGES CYPRI (?) [Rulers of
Piedmont, Kings of Cyprus (?)].
Stamp carver: Stefano Mongino.
References
Arditi 1970
Arditi, Bastiano. Diario di Firenze e di alter parti della christianita
(1574–1579). A cura di Cantagalli. Firenze, 1970.
Argan 2000
Argan, Giulio Carlo. Istorija italjanskogo iskusstva [History of
Italian Art]. Мoscow, 2000.
Bragina 1993
Bragina, Lydia. “Italjanskije gumanisty XV v. o kul’turnoistoričeskix
tradicijax Srednevekovja [Italian Humanists of
the 15th Century on the Cultural-Historical Traditions of
the Middle Ages]”. In: Kul’tura Vozroždenija i Srednije veka.
Мoscow, 1993.
CNI
Corpus Nummorum Italicorum. 1910. Vol. 1: Casa Savoia.
Dupre 1956
Dupre, Eugenio. Italia ed Europa. Messina; Firenze, 1956.
Vol. 2 : Eta moderna.
Engel, Serrure 1897
Engel, Artur and Raymond Serrure. Traité de numismatique
moderne et contemporaine. Paris, 1897. Partie 1.
Giofre 1960
Giofre, Domenico. Gênes et les foires de change. De Lyon à Besançon.
Paris, 1960.
Guichenon 1778
Guichenon, Samuel. Histoire généalogique de la Royale Maison
de Savoie. Turin, 1778. Vol. 1.
Jacob Reichel 2003
Jakob Reixel’. Medal’jer, kollekcioner, učjonyj (1780–1856)
[Jacob Reichel. Medallist, Collector, Scholar (1780–1856)].
Exhibition Catalogue. St. Petersburg: State Hermitage Publishers,
2003.
Kollekcija mantuanskix monet v Ermitaže 1995
Kollekcija mantuanskix monet v Ermitaže [Th e Collection of
Mantua Coins in the Hermitage]. [Catalogue]. Edited by Slepova,
Tatyana. Milan, 1995.
Kroha 1997
Kroha, Tyll. Grosses Lexikon der Numismatik. Gütersloh,
1997.
Oswald 1984
Oswald, Gert. Lexicon der Heraldig. Leipzig, 1984.
Potin 1993
Potin, Vsevolod. Monety. Klady. Kollekcii [Coins. Hoards.
Collections]. St. Petersburg, 1993.
Potin 2000
Potin, Vsevolod. Legendy na zapadnojevropejskix motenetax
[Legends on Western European Coins]. Kiev, 2000.
Promis 1841
Promis, Domenico. Monete dei reali di Savoia. Torino, 1841.
Vols. 1, 2.
Quazza 1950
Quazza, Romole. Preponderenza spagnuola (1559–1700). Storia
d’Italia. Milano, 1950. Vol. 2.
Shuster 2005
Shuster, G. Istorija tajnyx obščestv, sojuzov i ordenov [Th e History
of Secret Societies, Leagues and Orders]. 2 vols. Мoscow,
2005. Vol. 1.
Slepova 1994
Slepova, Тatyana. “Monety v koncepcii iskusstva italjanskogo
Vozroždenija [Coins in the Conception of Italian
Renaissance Art]”. Vserossijskaja numizmatičeskaja konferencija
6–8 Aprelja 1994 g. Theses of reports. St. Petersburg,
1994.
Slepova 2005
Slepova, Тatyana. “Viktor Emmanuil III – poslednij korol’
Italii i numizmat [Victor Emmanuel III – Last King of Italy
and Numismatist]. In: Xranitel’. Issledovatel’. Učitel’: k 85-leiju
V.M. Potina. Collection of scholarly articles. St. Petersburg:
State Hermitage Publishers, 2005: 103–110.
Spassky 1963
Spassky, Ivan. Inostrannyje i russkije ordena do 1917 g. [Russian
and Foreign Orders before 1917]. Leningrad, 1963.
Translated by David Hicks

FROM THE HISTORY OF THE HERMITAGE
While working with prints in the State Hermitage
collection, one has to attract the attention of both curators
and restorers to the fact that nearly all the sheets
bear stamps with the abbreviation and date: ЭРМ
[ERM] 1928 (ill. 1a). Th ese marks are usually seen on
the reverse, and sometimes on the obverse of the print
under the image, less oft en on the image itself. Scattered
in diff erent areas, they look like a hasty job most probably
done by diff erent people.
Th e Hermitage publications do not refl ect the history
and purpose of these 1928 marks in any way, which
prompted us to try to address this slightly enigmatic issue.
Th e practice of private and (later) state collecting has
long been familiar with the tradition of providing the
works of art with collectors’ marks which vary depending
on the specifi c genre (applied art, painting, graphics).
Prints from Western Europe and Russia bear handwritten
and printed owners’ inscriptions or monograms,
stamps or pasted paper labels of printing workshops,
publishing houses and trading companies. Such marks
are known by diff erent names in the literature and in
the museum collecting practice: stamps, brands or estampilles
(from French estampille). Th ese marks are of
great importance for art historians since they convey
valuable information about the complex migration of
individual works of art, their provenance, movements
from owner to owner, which is oft en of great help for
the attribution and dating of anonymous works. Th e recording,
analysis and deciphering of these marks are an
integral part of the collecting process; they have been
gathered in collector reference books and manuals. In
GALINA MIROLIUBOVA
ON THE HISTORY OF THE 1928 STAMPING
OF THE HERMITAGE COLLECTION OF PRINTS
1876 in Leipzig, Johannes Wessely published his guide
“On Recognising and Collecting Prints” in German,
which included 52 collectors’ marks for the fi rst time. It
was translated into Russian in 1882 (Wessely 1882). Th e
book contains a historical excursus as well as drawings
of owners’ initials or monograms in linear frames of different
confi gurations (less oft en without any frame at
all). Some of these marks can be seen in Russian collections,
but for some reason the Hermitage collection of
prints, one of the largest in Europe and representing all
the stages of the evolution of this genre in all countries,
was not even mentioned in this guide.
Russian scholars turned to the problem of collectors’
marks later than their European colleagues. Th e fi rst of
them was Nikolay Chechulin, a member of staff of the
Imperial Public Library, who published his “Inquiry
into the Stamping of Prints” in 1908 (Chechulin 1908),
based on the major collections of graphics in the museums
of Paris, Berlin, Dresden, and Munich. In 1926, the
Moscow collector Alexander Chayanov pointed out in
his book “Old Western Prints: A Short Guide for Museum
Work” (Chayanov 1926) that any marks that are
found on prints infl uence both the understanding of the
provenance of the work in question and its price.
Th e Dutch scholar Frits Lugt worked on a consolidated
European guide to collectors’ marks from the beginning
of the 20th century onwards. Th e information
for his Russian section was prepared by Pavel Ettinger,
an expert on graphic arts from St. Petersburg. In March
1918, he was writing to Vladimir Voinov, a member
of staff at the Hermitage Print Room: “In Amsterdam,
a dictionary… of special stamps used by collectors to
mark prints is being prepared for publication, and I have
accepted the task of supplying the author with the material
on Russia” (Manuscript Department of the State
Russian Museum, Fund 70, Folder 343, f. 3). Eventually
published in 1921, Lugt’s book included over 3,000 images
of collectors’ marks and their descriptions. Th e
Hermitage is represented in this work by an estampille
from the time of Paul I (Lugt 1921: No. 2061). Th is
printed sign is traditionally simple, represented as the
Russian letter П [P] under a crown. Th e exact time of
the making of the drawing and the name of its author
cannot be found in the Hermitage documents or other
sources.
In 1956, a new edition of Lugt’s guide was published,
which reproduced the information about the fi rst of the
Hermitage stamps and, for the fi rst time, included the
1928 stamp that is the focus of this article (Lugt 1956:
No. 2681).
More detailed information concerning the estampilles
on the Hermitage prints can be found in the
work by Olga Vlasova and Ekaterina Balashova (Vlasova,
Balashova 2003), which published the material on
all the stamping used in the Hermitage collection. After
the fi rst estampille from the reign of Paul I, it was
under Nikolay Utkin [Nicolas Outkine], the curator
of the Print Room between 1833 and 1860, that prints
were marked with a diff erent sign: a small oval with
a heraldic eagle inside it and an encircling inscription:
ИМПЕРАТОРСКАГО ЭРМИТАЖА [of the Imperial
Hermitage] (ill. 1b). Since prints bearing these fi rst
stamps are quite rare, it means that the marking was not
consistently applied to the whole collection by the end
of the 19th century.
In 1909, the Hermitage curators turned to a new
method of marking the graphics collection. Paper labels
with the topographic location of the case, shelf, and
folder were pasted on a separate sheet. But the work was
so labour-intensive and time-consuming that these labels
were used to mark albums and folders which contained
up to several hundred prints (ill. 2). And once
again, the work was left uncompleted.
Th e break in the attempts to provide the whole of
the Hermitage collection of prints with identical marks
continued until the second half of the 1920s. Th e plans
and reports on the running of the State Hermitage during
those years contain records of what were believed
to be the museum’s key tasks “from the moment the
Revolution has prevailed”. A summary of those is given
168 169
ll. 1. 1928 (a) and nineteenth-century (b) stamps on prints
from the Hermitage collection
in the fi nal document prepared by the specially created
Inspection Commission for the Governing Offi ce
of Scientifi c and Art Establishments under the People’s
Commissariate of Education, Russian Soviet Federative
Socialist Republic: “Th e Information on the Number of
Museum Items up to October 1917 and for the Period
between 1917 and 1929 and Th eir Inventory” (Archives
of the State Hermitage Museum, Fund 1, Register 5,
Folder 869). Th e document refl ects the state of the inventories
and stock-taking in all the museum’s departments.
It follows that the Print Room was part of the
Picture Gallery. By the start of the Revolution, it counted
around 360,000 items. Th e majority of those were recorded
in 37 inventory volumes in 1817–1832 by Antoine
Noth, deputy curator under Ignaz Sebastian Klauber
(Levinson-Lessing 1985: 132). Subsequent acquisitions
were entered into additional volumes already under
Nikolay Utkin (Printseva 1983: 133).
а
b

Between the start of the Revolution of 1917 and
1 October, the Hermitage received 11,904 prints and
147 ouvrages, while during the whole accounting period
(up till 1929), new acquisitions continued to pour
in from the private collections of Makovsky, Iversen,
Karlova, Grizar, from the palaces of Strelna, Znamenka,
Oranienbaum, and from the libraries of the Stieglitz
School, the Winter Palace, and the State Museum Fund.
Th e members of the department staff : Georgy Vereisky
(curator), Evgeny Lisenkov (deputy curator), as
well as Vladimir Voinov, Olga Brant, Sergey Zarudny,
Sergey Til, Elena Lippold, continued to record the new
acquisitions without entering them in the old inventories
which were obsolete by the standards of scientifi c
museum stock-taking. Topographic guides to new materials
were also compiled at the same time. New acquisitions
made it necessary to arrange the collection
according to the new internationally accepted museum
system: according to schools; the prints were sorted into
folders in alphabetical order of the engravers’ names, in
three main sizes. At the same time, works were routinely
selected to be sold by the State Trading Offi ce (Gostorg)
(Archives of the State Hermitage Museum, Fund 1, Register
5, Folder 844, ff . 28–29).
In 1926, the collections of drawings and prints became
separate departments, which were housed in
IIll. 2. Paper label of 1909
new rooms. Th is presented an opportunity for making
a new inventory of the whole print collection, which by
that time numbered 422,069 items. Th e Hermitage was
still bombarded with orders requiring it to organise an
urgent stock-taking of all museum items and to complete
the scientifi c inventory. All the other work had to
be wound down, to the extent that some departments
where the work was not complete would be temporarily
closed. It looks like the museum was facing very tough
conditions. Th e plan signed by the head of the Print
Room Georgy Vereisky on 5 May 1928 stipulated the
recording of the following items:
in 1927/28 – 10,000 individual prints;
in 1928/29 – 50 000 // ;
in 1929/30 – 50 000 // ;
in 1930/31 – 50 000 // ;
in 1931–1933 – suites and books entered in a separate
inventory.
Th e duties of the staff were distributed as follows:
“One person to be engaged in the stock-taking.
Th ree persons to prepare the catalogue cards.
One person to be employed as a copyist.
One person to put numbers and stamps on the
sheets.
One person to be on duty at the department and
maintain the running of the current aff airs” (Archives
of the State Hermitage Museum, Fund 1, Register 5, Folder
732, f. 17).
Th is rota shows that there was clearly not enough
capacity for the department to fi nish the work required
by the orders sent from higher offi ces by the deadline
(1 October 1933). One of the documents mentions that
this plan was a preliminary one and far too optimistic,
since it became clear from the start that the department
was only capable of processing about 12,000 items a year
(Archives of the State Hermitage Museum, Fund 1, Register
5, Folder 898, ff . 12–13). But it seems that the higher
offi cials were coming up with even tougher deadlines,
with the result that a memo appeared in the Hermitage
accounts which recorded the progress of the stock-taking
in all the museum’s departments. According to it,
the work at the Print Room was shown to be 97% complete
(Archives of the State Hermitage Museum, Fund 1,
Register 5, Folder 869, f. 7).
Th e same memo reveals that alongside a total stocktaking
of the Hermitage collection of prints, 1928 also
saw the start of the “stamping of these prints. Th is work,
which was declared urgent, was done by the staff of the
department until it was allocated to a special person”.
It was also noted that “the stamping of the whole stock
of prints is done for the fi rst time and aims to create an
additional guarantee of the preservation of the materials
by clearly stating their Hermitage ownership” (Archives
of the State Hermitage Museum, Fund 1, Register 5,
Folder 869, ff . 24–25).
Unfortunately, neither the curator reports and documents
nor publications on the history of the Hermitage
can shed any light on the question of who was the initiator
of the new (third) stage in marking the Hermitage
collection of prints with owner stamps. It is unknown
whose idea it was to design such an unconventional
stamp, which included the fi rst three letters of the Russian
name of the museum, ЭРМ [ERM], along with
the year 1928. None of the corresponding guides has
stamps with a fi xed date (it looks like the Hermitage has
set a unique precedent). As a result, the stamp which
went beyond its direct purpose of showing ownership
and also indicated the year when the item was in the
collection was not understood by the authors of the best
existing book on Russian owners’ marks, Olga Vlasova
and Ekaterina Balashova, who described it as a “writingoff
stamp which can be seen on prints removed from
170 171
the Hermitage collection and transferred to other museums”
(Vlasova, Balashova 2003: 90, No. 85).
In fact, the Hermitage collection of prints within the
Department of Western European Fine Arts and the Department
of the History of Russian Culture is proof that
the 1928 stamp was not used to mark the works of art to
be transferred from the Hermitage. Much, if not all of it,
was subjected to stamping which was due to end in the
fi rst quarter of 1929 (Archives of the State Hermitage
Museum, Fund 1, Register 5, Folder 869, f. 38). Considering
the vast amount of material to be thus processed,
the staff of the Print Room was boosted by further
personnel, such as Evdokia Efi mova, a Leningrad State
University graduate, and Olga Vraskaya, who was on
a student placement. As a result, both dedicated their
careers to museums: Efi mova stayed at the Hermitage,
while Vraskaya went on to work at the Prints Department
at the State Public Library (now the Russian National
Library).
Th e documents show that the diffi culty of the
stamping task was not only in the great amount of
time required for its completion; the members of staff
diff ered in their opinion on the project. Th is is amply
demonstrated by the “Special Opinion on the Stamping
of Prints” (Archives of the State Hermitage Museum,
Fund 1, Register 5, Folder 899, ff . 1–4) written by Evgeny
Lisenkov, 1 deputy curator of the State Hermitage
(ill. 3). He expresses his opinion starting from the preamble:
“To avoid unnecessary confusion, I need to say
at the beginning that the following applies to stamping
the front side of the sheet with the date 1928 rather
than the idea of stamping in general”. Let us note at
this junction that the stamp itself has luckily survived
1 From the personal fi le of Evgeny Lisenkov (1885–1954) (Archives
of the State Hermitage Museum, Fund 1, Register 13, Folder 486). He
was born to the aristocratic family of a legal adviser. Educated at the Law
School. Between 1905 and 1908 visited Great Britain, Germany, Belgium,
Austria, France, and Spain, where he studied works of art. Aft er his return
to St. Petersburg, he became a member of the Circle of Lovers of Elegant
Editions and helped with the organisation of their exhibitions. Prepared
exhibition catalogues. On 23 June 1917, he was invited to work at the
Hermitage and soon appointed Junior Clerk at the museum. He took part
in the work of the Artistic and Historical Commission created around
that time to record the property of the Winter Palace. In 1917–1919 he
also worked in the Pavlovsk Palace and took part in the re-evacuation of
Hermitage collections from Moscow. In the early 1920s, he got the job of
deputy curator of the Print Room of the State Hermitage. From 1932, he
was a Professor, and he defended his Candidate’s thesis in History in 1947.
He is the author of many articles and exhibition catalogues on the history
of English, French, and Russian engravings and lithographs, as well as of
the monograph “English Art of the 18th Century” (Leningrad, 1964).

Ill. 3. Georgy Vereisky. Portrait of Evgeny Lisenkov. 1947.
Pen drawing
and is currently in the State Hermitage Archives (ill. 4).
Carefully made of copper, with a convenient handle,
1.0 × 0.7 cm in size, it was clearly produced by a skilled
craft sman, whose name, like that of the designer of the
image, unfortunately remains unknown. Th e working
surface of the stamp looks like a slightly elongated oval
encircled with an uninterrupted line, with the inscription
clearly printed inside. Th is was the tool used to
mark the Hermitage prints. Expressing his opinion further,
Lisenkov notes that the guarding purpose of the
stamping “is made more diffi cult at the Print Room by
the fact that the majority of the prints are pasted on paper
(whether album paper or portfolio sheets). Th e author
asks whether it is then possible to put a stamp on
the artifi cial margins of the print formed by this paper,
or whether one should stamp the reverse side instead.
According to his own reasoning, a thief can cut the
print out of the album or tear it away from the paper.
Nevertheless, the stamping can still be of some value: it
is diffi cult for an amateur to cut a print out or to unglue
it, as a certain degree of skill is required for both. However,
as we shall see below, the whole idea of stamping is
a palliative measure. A thief cannot be expected to be
careful with the thing he steals – he can cut out or remove
the stamp and conceal the damaged spot”. With
a reference to the practice of the Bibliothèque Nationale
in Paris, which “infl icted unnecessary damage on
many editions by means of stamps placed on images”,
Lisenkov goes on to say that such practice “goes against
the key museum principle of preserving the items the
way they left the hands of their makers. Th is principle
is respected during necessary restoration, and it has
to apply in other cases as well. A private collector can
aff ord the barbaric luxury of burning his prints, colouring
them, putting stamps all over them and what
not. A museum has a duty to treat the look of its exhibits
with the utmost respect and to preserve them
unchanged. A visitor to a public museum (a part of the
collective owner), an artist, a scholar have the right to
enjoy the museum exhibits in their unaltered state”.
When writing on the challenge of preserving the exhibits,
Lisenkov stressed that “a museum has to take
care to protect its exhibits from theft . Th e items have
to be given every possible guarantee of this, except
for those which contradict the previous principle: one
cannot damage a thing in order to prevent it from being
stolen. Th ese principles have to be borne in mind
by the state controllers represented by the worker-andpeasant
inspection. A small thing such as a print is indeed
at greater risk of being stolen in the absence of
necessary vigilance, but a small work of art must not
be irreparably harmed because of its size; its look has
to be left unaltered”. As a connoisseur of historical and
artistic value of prints, Lisenkov could not suppress his
attitude to the drawings and to the procedure to which
the Hermitage collection was being subjected: “Each
time I enter the department, where a stamp is being
struck on the obverse of fi ft eenth- or sixteenth-century
prints, I have a sensation similar to that I would have
had if I was hearing the hissing of a living body to
which a red-hot brand was being applied. Th is must
have been the thought of Antoine Noth, the exemplary
curator of prints who systematised and catalogued our
collection at the beginning of the 19th century… It is
sometimes said that prints are not unique and so do
not deserve the most delicate treatment. But I don’t see
why, if the thing exists in 10 copies rather than one,
we have the right to deface it. Th is is simple ignorance.
Th e margins are mostly typical for prints starting from
the second half of the 17th century. Before that, prints
typically had no margins. Further support is given to
the stamping by saying that it will prevent the museum
prints from being replaced with worse-quality impressions.
Th is is only true to a certain extent… and this
argument pales into insignifi cance in comparison with
the imperative to preserve the look of the items unmolested…
Apart from these main considerations, there
are further arguments against applying the estampille.
For diff erent reasons, museums sometimes get rid of
double items: they are transferred to other museums,
exchanged, or sold. For instance, the Hermitage has in
its time given large quantities of its doubles to the Rumiantsev
Museum and the Academy of Fine Arts. Th ey
can move further from there. If stamping the front side
of prints was a widespread practice, the prints would
be covered with a sort of caviar of stamps. Th is is precisely
what the prints which are 400 and more years old
and which had gone through the hands of many owners
before coming to the Hermitage would look like.
Happily or unhappily, the fi rst stamping they receive is
applied by our hands.
Considering all the above-mentioned arguments,
another circumstance does not seem so crucial: the application
of a copper estampille that we use on decrepit
paper, on the front or reverse, ruins its fabric and can
cause the part occupied by the stamp to fall out later.
Th is is a danger of the future, while the observations
listed above deal with a fait accompli.
Turning to the shape of our stamp, we see a strange
peculiarity which I have mentioned – the date of 1928.
Th e proponents of this date have off ered the following
arguments during the meetings scheduled by the Board
of the Special Commission for the Inventorying of
Prints: fi rst, that it was very interesting to know that in
the year when the new inventory was started, the print
in question was at the Hermitage, and second, that it was
not desirable to cancel a Commission’s decision once it
had been taken.
Th e idea of putting a date on a stamp placed on the
front side of a print is unprecedented. Th is is something
even the Bibliothèque Nationale didn’t think of!
An old work of art breathes the air of its age. To put
a modern date on it means to deprive it of this air. Th e
visitor has to develop a special affi nity with old things
in order to close his eyes to the year 1928 and to travel
instead to the aesthetic atmosphere of the year 1528. It
may be of interest to know that the sheet was at the Hermitage
in 1928, but in 1948, it will also be of interest to
172 173
know that the print was here in 1938. Who knows, they
may order a new inventory to be made in 1950 and so the
date 1950 will be planted on the prints, etc. Th e principle
of respect to the image is in all likelihood completely
overlooked”. In the conclusion of this emotional plea for
the plight of the Hermitage items, Lisenkov lists weighty
arguments in favour of his point of view: “Before embarking
on a project which, in my opinion, defaces our
collection, it would have been necessary to seek the advice
expressed in the existing literature on the subject,
and, should this prove insuffi cient, to consult the heads
of Western European collections of prints. Th ey say that
the Hermitage, as a large museum, has to have the audacity
to stage its own large-scale museum experiments.
I believe this to be extremely risky.” Lisenkov goes on to
cite two authorities: Johannes Wessely’s book and the
work by the Director of the Munich Kupferstichkabinett,
Hans Singer (Singer 1916), which state that “sheets are
Ill. 4. Copper stamp of 1928

stamped exclusively on the reverse side and, according
to the general rule, in the middle of the print”. Lisenkov
also quotes Singer’s opinion that “just like the best case
is unsafe from a devious burglar, the estampille cannot
protect the item from any thief, but only from a chance
one. Th e main attention ought to be focused on preventing
the stamp from harming the sheet”.
On the basis of the rules accepted in international
practice, Lisenkov concludes his “Opinion” on the problem
which must have caused concern to other Hermitage
employees as well as himself: “Th us, all possible
measures ought to be taken by the museum to protect
the prints, apart from those which lead to them being
defaced, or cause, or threaten to cause, damage to their
aesthetics. Th e blow of an estampille on Dürer’s prints
looks like a matter for a caricature, especially if one
remembers that our stamp bears a twentieth-century
date – 1928.
E. Lisenkov. 2 June 1928”
It looks like this emotional and persuasive plea was
discussed by the governing body of the Hermitage, and it
may be that the opinion of Evgeny Lisenkov, deputy curator
of the Print Room and an authority on graphic art,
had its impact. Although there are no direct references
to this in the Hermitage documents, for some reason the
department’s reports contain no records of the planned
stamping of prints continuing in the last quarters of
1928 and early 1929. One of Lisenkov’s arguments – that
there was going to be a new stock-taking in the museum
in the future – proved prophetic. In the 1950s and
1960s, a large number of prints were transferred from
the main Hermitage collection to the Department of
the History of Russian Culture. According to the conditions
of museum record-keeping, they were entered in
the inventory of Russian prints and became the basis of
a new collection, which numbered over 20,000 prints.
In their majority, they bear the mark which preserves
the memory of the controversial stamping undertaken
by the Hermitage in 1928.
References
Chayanov 1926
Chayanov, Alexander. Staraja zapadnaja gravjura: kratkoje rukovodstvo
dlja muzejnoj raboty [Old Western Prints: a Short
Guide for Museum Work]. With preface by Romanov, Nikolay.
Moscow, 1926.
Chechulin 1908
Chechulin, Nikolay. Zapiski sobiratelja gravjur [Notes of
a Prints Collector]. St. Petersburg, 1908.
Levinson-Lessing 1985
Levinson-Lessing, Vladimir. Istorija kartinnoj galerei Ermitaža
(1764–1917) [Th e History of the Hermitage Picture Gallery
(1764–1917)]. Leningrad, 1985.
Lugt 1921
Lugt, Frits. Les marques de collections de dessins et d’estampes.
Amsterdam, 1921.
Lugt 1956
Lugt, Frits. Les marques de collections de dessins et d’estampes.
Supplement. La Haye, 1956.
Printseva 1983
Printseva, Galina. Nikolaj Ivanovič Utkin. 1780–1863 [Nikolay
Ivanovich Utkin. 1780–1863]. Leningrad, 1983.
Singer 1916
Singer, Hans. Handbuch für Kupferstichsammlunger. Leipzig,
1916.
Vlasova, Balashova 2001
Vlasova, Olga and Ekaterina Balashova. Vladel’českije znaki
na gravjurax i litografi jax. Na materiale otdela gravjury Gosudarstvennogo
Russkogo muzeja [Collectors’ Marks on Prints:
Based on the Materials of the Print Room of the State Russian
Museum]. Supervised by Alexeyeva, Maria. St. Petersburg,
2003.
Wessely 1882
Wessely, Johannes. O raspoznavanii i sobiranii gravjur: poso bije
dlja ljubitelej [On Recognising and Collecting Prints: A Guide
for Amateurs]. Trans. by Shaikevich, S. Moscow, 1882.
Translated by Maria Artamonova
Th e State Hermitage has acquired a Chinese illustrated
manuscript entitled “Baojuan of how the revered
Mujianlian (Mulian) saved his mother, helping her to
escape from hell to be reborn in Heaven”. 1
Th e title of the manuscript is shown in the fi rst volume
and is repeated on the penultimate page of the
fourth volume. On the last page of the fourth volume
the following text is contained in a fi gured cartouche:
“In the fi ft h year of the rule of Zhengtong of the Great
Ming Dynasty the Emperor’s concubine from the Jiang
family presents with respect” (ill. 1). Th e fi ft h year of the
reign of Zhengtong (1436–1449) of the Ming dynasty
(1368–1644) corresponds to the year 1440 in our system
of chronology, and that is the date of this work.
Th e manuscript is a version of a popular work of
the “bianwen” literary genre (stories based on sutras,
elucidating their content and having a moralistic character).
Th e text of this narrative was written down in
the 10th century and was part of a collection of bianwens
from Dunhuang published in Beijing (Dunhuang
1 Paper, ink and watercolour on paper (the blue is roughly ground
mineral paint pigment). Th e binding, a blue fabric glued on to cardboard,
is a later work. “Accordion” format. Cover: 40 × 18.5 cm; illustrations:
30 × 16.3 cm and 30 × 32.6 cm. Th ree volumes out of four survive – one
volume (the second) is missing. Traces of old restoration.
First volume – 57 pages of text in characters and illustrations, of
which 18 are double-page illustrations and 16 are on a single page.
Th ird volume – 41 pages of text in characters and illustrations, of
which 14 are double-page illustrations and 10 are on a single page.
Fourth volume – 51 pages of text in characters and illustrations, of
which 12 are double-page illustrations and 3 are on a single page.
Each page is framed at the top and bottom with a dual red strip painted
with a brush. Th e end of each section is additionally decorated with
fl owers drawn in a naive style.
NEW ACQUISITIONS
KIRA SAMOSYUK
A CHINESE ILLUSTRATED MANUSCRIPT ABOUT THE DESCENT OF MULIAN INTO HELL
175
bianwen 1984: 701–756). It is also mentioned in an article
by Nina Borevskaya about the description of hell
in Chapters 87–92 of a late sixteenth-century novel by
Lo Maodeng entitled “Th e Voyage of Zhenghe across
the Indian Ocean” (Borevskaya 1973: 121–141). In addition,
the contents of the work are set out in a diff erent
wording in baojuan 2 collections (Stulova 1984: 295–297;
Lev Menshikov referred to this publication).
As early as the 2nd century An Shigao translated the
“Sutra about Hell” from Sanskrit into Chinese as “Diyu
Jing” (Tripitaka 1907). In the same collection of bianwens
from Dunhuang was a narrative “About the descent
of the Tan Emperor Taizong into the world beyond
the grave”, written down in the 10th century. Th e story
of Emperor Taizong’s descent into the underworld was
retold in the eleventh chapter of the novel “Journey to
the West” (Wu 1994).
Th e absorbing theme of a descent into the underworld
and of liberation from hell with the help of the
bodhisattva Kshitigarbha (Chinese: Dizang) is recorded
in literature and in scrolls based on the apocryphal sutra
“Th e Ten Princes” (“Shiwang jing”), which is traditionally
dated to the 10th century. Th e “Ten Princes” sutra
and various works of art based on it became very popular
in the 14th century during the Yuan dynasty (1278–
1368) (Pak 1995: 159).
A similar theme of the rescue of a mother from hell
(based on the sutra “Dizang benyuan jing” – “Th e Sutra
of the Original Vow of Dizang”) is set out in a Jataka
2 Baojuan is one of the genres of Chinese narrative literature and
translates literally as “precious scroll”. Th is translation is by Lev Menshikov
who wrote the preliminary conclusion about the manuscript.

Ill. 1. Th e cartouche, framed by rising dragons, contains the inscription
“In the fi ft h year of the rule of Zhengtong of the Great Dynasty of Ming the Emperor’s concubine
from the Jiang family presents with respect”. On the right-hand page is a guard-custodian in armour and a helmet,
with his hands clasped in prayer
telling the story of the daughter of a Brahman who visited
her mother in the underworld. Without going into
the details of the legend, it is important to note that the
mother was vindicated thanks to the religious merits of
her daughter and was reborn in Heaven.
Many legends were based on this subject and gave
rise to a new type of non-canonical iconography. Th is
is evident in the manuscript about Mulian’s descent into
the underworld. It is interesting that there is no depiction
of the bodhisattva Dizang in the illustrations, and
Ill. 2. Buddha seated on a throne surrounded by pupils and bodhisattvas. In front of the throne Mulian,
dressed in a monk’s habit, gives thanks to Buddha for the salvation of his mother
all the supplications and ritual gift s and gratitude are directed
towards Buddha Shakyamuni (ill. 2).
Th e iconography of the illustrations is of a secular,
narrative character, with a great number of details
“for scrutiny” (ill. 3). Some details in works written at
various times, and even in diff erent cultures, coincide:
the iron walls with sharp pinnacles, the eight circles of
176 177
hell, the gate with snakes, the little devils, etc. are all
identically depicted (ill. 4). An interesting point is that
the prototype of the white dog in an illustration in the
fourth volume comes from a Korean text about a holy
hermit by the name of Kim Kyodan, who travelled from
Korea to China to visit Mount Jinhua, the place of abode
of Kshitigarbha (Dizang), accompanied by a dog. In

Ill. 3. Courtyard and interior of a house. On the left – animals and birds that are forbidden
to kill according to Buddha’s commandments. On the right – Mulian’s mother, who permitted a murder in her house,
for which she has been punished with torment in the underworld
another fourteenth-century Korean scroll Kshitigarbha
is also portrayed with a white dog by the name of Shanting
(Good Listener), and the author claims that this is
purely Korean iconography (Pak 1995: 157–163). Th e illustration
in this manuscript also features a white dog,
so it may be surmised that it is of Chinese, not Korean,
origin (ill. 5). However, as Lev Menshikov noted, the
text of the baojuan states that Mulian’s mother was initially
reincarnated as a dog, and only later, thanks to the
supplications of her son, as a human. It may be that the
depiction of the dog had two sources or that the image
had simply become contaminated.
Ill. 4. Scene of torment in the underworld. Demons and sinners. On the right – Mulian
Th ere are, of course, no close analogies of the manuscript
in painting, because the manuscript is unique;
however, analogical themes may be adduced in other
works depicting hell, “Th e Ten Princes”, the bodhisattva
Dizang, the six forms of reincarnation, punishment for
sins and salvation:
178 179
A series of ten fourteenth- to fi ft eenth-century scrolls
in a Japanese collection, published in the catalogue of an
exhibition (Buddha… 1998: Cat. Nos. 133, 134, 154).
A woodblock print from the Ming dynasty
(1368–1644) on the theme of a “Foreword of Emperor
Wu-di of the Liang Dynasty” to the “Rules of Repentance

Ill. 5. Mulian with the dog Shanting in the courtyard of a house. On the right – demons at the gate of hell
in the Temple of Mercy”, which has one iconographic
and two stylistic variations: the Ming print reproduces
an early Sung dynasty version. In the Khara-Khoto collection
Chinese characteristics – dresses, headdresses,
hairstyles – are replaced by Tangut ones. Th e theme of
these prints is the story of the Empress, the wife of Wu-di,
who was punished for her jealousy by being reincarnated
as a snake. Th e supplications of Wu-di himself liberated
the Empress from being a snake and gave her a new reincarnation
in human form in Heaven.
Th e Tangut collection from Khara-Khoto includes
an illustrated xylographic text about the six forms of
reincarnation (Inv. No. X 2538). Th e upper part of the
page portrays Buddha and the bodhisattvas Dizang and
Ill. 6. On the left – a cartouche framed by rising dragons. Gold characters on a blue background: “Ten Th ousand Years to the Emperor!”
(written three times). On the right – Th e Preaching of the Buddha
Guanyin, while the lower part depicts the torture of sinners
in the eight circles of hell and the six forms of reincarnation.
Since there are few analogies of the manuscript or
none at all, the cartouche from the fourth volume with
the inscription above is very important for dating the
manuscript and confi rming its authenticity. Th ere is
180 181
a cartouche of the same shape in the fi rst volume, but
with a diff erent text repeated three times: “Ten Th ousand
Years to the Emperor!” (ill. 6). Similar-shaped
cartouches with the title of the sutra written in Tangut
characters can be seen in works from Khara-Khoto and
in Korean publications of sutras that reproduced Chinese
texts and were printed from Chinese plates.

Ill. 7. Scene in Buddha’s abode. Mulian and his mother, who has been rescued from hell, give thanks to Buddha
Th e authenticity of the manuscript is also confi rmed
by the absence of aniline dyes and the use of natural pigments.
Th e red-green and gold colour is typical of painted
scrolls of that time, as it is of our manuscript (ill. 7).
References
Borevskaya 1973
Borevskaya, Nina. “Moreplavateli v mire duxov. Kitajskij zagrobnyj
mir i jego osmyslenije v romane XVI veka [Seafarers
in the Spirit World. Th e Chinese World Beyond the Grave and
Its Interpretation in a Sixteenth-Century Novel]”. In: Izučenije
kitajskoj literatury v SSSR. Moscow, 1973.
Buddha … 1998
Buddha, the Spread of Buddhist Art in Asia. NHK, 1998.
Dunhuang bianwen 1984
Dunhuang bianwen. 4 vols. Beijing, 1984. Vol. 2 (in Chinese).
Pak 1995
Pak, Younsook. “Th e Role of Legend in Koryo Iconography.
Th e Kshitigarbha Triad in Engakuji”. In: Function and Meaning
in Buddhist Art. Groningen, 1995: 157–163.
Stulova 1984
Stulova, Elvira. “Annotirovannoje opisanije sočinenij žanra
baoczjuman’ v sobranii LO IV AN SSSR [An Annotated Description
of Works in the Baojuan Genre in the Collection
of the Leningrad Branch of the Institute of Oriental Studies
of the USSR Academy of Sciences]”. Pis’mennyje pamjatniki
Vostoka: istoriko-fi lologičeskije issledovanija. Yearbook 1976–
1977. Moscow, 1984: 95–297.
Tripitaka 1907
Tripitaka. Kyoto, 1907. Vol. 14, Jiuan 8 (Tripitaka of the Years
of Taisho) (in Chinese).
Wu 1994
Wu, Chengen. Journey to the West. Riga, 1994.
Translated by Catherine Philipps
Sergey Petrovich Varshavsky’s collection was one of
the largest private collections of Oriental art in the Soviet
Union. It was started in the mid-20th century and was
added to systematically, to incorporate pieces from various
regions – China, Japan, India and Southeast Asia.
In 1980, in accordance with the terms of Varshavsky’s
will, members of his family presented the Hermitage
with a large collection of Japanese fi ne and applied art:
prints (around 200 sheets) and miniature netsuke sculpture
(around 300 items). Th is was an invaluable gift that
substantially enriched the Hermitage collection. Varshavsky’s
bequest made it possible to display diff erent
schools of netsuke never previously shown in the museum,
and to increase the list of names of artists and
master carvers in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century
Japan.
Th e fact that many of the items from Sergey Varshavsky’s
collection consistently feature in both temporary
and permanent exhibitions is confi rmation of its
signifi cance. Th e Hermitage has already staged temporary
exhibitions from the collection: “Japanese Prints”
and “Netsuke”. Th ese pieces were subsequently shown in
a number of exhibitions of Japanese art. Th e “Netsuke”
exhibition was on display from 1997 to 2009 and was
very popular with visitors to the museum.
In July 2009 many items from Sergey Varshavsky’s
collection took pride of place in the updated permanent
display “Th e Culture and Art of Japan”.
Another important fact is that the Varshavsky family’s
Oriental collection has been offi cially registered. In
addition, individual pieces have been shown in a number
of exhibitions of works from private collections, e.g.
MARIA MENSHIKOVA, ALEXEY BOGOLYUBOV
THE ORIENTAL COLLECTION OF SERGEY VARSHAVSKY
183
in the “Exhibition of Applied Art from Collections in
Moscow and Leningrad”, held in 1984 at the Museum
of Ethnography of Peoples of the USSR (now the Russian
Ethnographic Museum). Th is recognised the importance
of the collection, thoroughly studied during
preparation for the exhibition.
Individual items, of course, had previously left Varshavsky’s
collection during his ownership but some of
them subsequently found their way into museum collections
(a bronze Laotian (?) Buddhist sculpture, for
instance, was purchased by the Hermitage in 1984).
In 2008 the State Hermitage acquired around 200
more items from Sergey Varshavsky’s heirs, these originating
from various Oriental countries – mainly from Japan
and China, but also from Tibet, Southeast Asia and
Iran. Th e pieces in this collection are made of bronze,
cloisonné enamel and porcelain; there are also lacquers
and objects carved from stone, wood, bamboo, etc. Although
not all the pieces in the collection are of equal
value, some are outstanding for their artistic qualities.
A number can be regarded as unique or extremely rare,
having been made in Imperial workshops. Some techniques
and items had previously not been represented
in the collections of the Hermitage or other Russian museums.
One of the rare pieces in the collection is a Chinese
rectangular carved lacquer tiered box, consisting of
three small boxes on a stand (ill. 1). Th e boxes and the
visible part of the stand are covered with a carved repeat
ornament in the form of clouds or scrolls; the regularity
of the pattern and the nature of its positioning create
the impression that the object is covered with brocade.

It was made in China in the carved lacquer technique,
using the sap of the lacquer tree (Rhus Vernicifera). Red
or black pigments were added to lacquer and then applied
in layers to the thin wooden base. Each layer had
to dry and harden, aft er which it was ground and polished;
only then was the next layer applied. Aft er the
required thickness was reached (sometimes up to 100
or even 150 layers were applied) the design was carved
deep into the lacquer. Th is casket is made of alternating
layers of red and black lacquer and is decorated with a
carved repeat geometric pattern. Where it has been cut
the stripes of the coloured layers show the marble effect.
Th is lacquering technique probably originated in
China before the 10th century and reached the peak of
its popularity in the 12th to 17th centuries. In China it
was called hsi-p’i and in Japan, to where such lacquered
objects were exported, they called it guri. Th e name guri
is now applied to items made using this technique; they
are encountered much more rarely than pieces made
using other lacquer techniques. Th e ornamentation of
Ill. 1. Rectangular tiered box in a stand. Marble guri lacquer with
veins of red and black, wood; carving. Box: 8 × 7 × 5 cm; height of
stand 12 cm. China, Ming dynasty (1368–1644),
15th – early 16th century
these objects is always identical: it consists of rounded
cloudy (jui heads) scrolls. Th ey diff er in their bases, their
dimensions and details of decoration, and the top layer
of lacquer may be red or black; they can be diff erent in
size, but, as a rule, they are comparatively small.
Th e small dimensions of this casket, the shape of the
boxes and the stand, the delicacy and care of the workmanship
suggest an early date for its manufacture: during
the Ming dynasty (1368–1644), in the 15th or early
16th century.
Another unique lacquer object, this time made in
Japan in the late 18th to early 19th century, is a portable
chest (kodansu) with two doors and drawers with
a depiction of waves, pines and umbelliferous plants
(ill. 2). Th is was made in a diff erent technique: gold
and coloured lacquer painted onto a wooden base. Th e
special characteristic of this chest is the use of lacquer
with the addition of powdered gold. Th e outside and
inside of the chest are decorated with golden lacquer
of various shades, applied using diff erent methods. Th e
background is in lacquer with gold speckles – nashiji;
the outside of the doors is painted with relief gold
lacquer, with a coastal landscape with waves and cliff s
with pines growing on them; the inside is painted with
depictions of umbelliferous plants, bending as though
in the wind. Th e painting used the gold lacquer techniques
hiramaki-e, takamaki-e and togadashi. Th e casket
is decorated and fastened with metal fi ttings. In
Japan these portable caskets may have been used for
cosmetics or jewellery. Very light and fragile, with delicate
and elegant painting, the casket is in a good state
of preservation.
Although the technique of lacquering was borrowed
from China by Japanese masters, some variations of
the technique were developed and perfected in Japan.
Th ese included diff ering uses of gold: the mixing of gold
powder in raw lacquer, gold relief painting, the use of
various shades of gold and various backgrounds, the application
of delicate gold leaf, dusting, and so on. In all
cases the lacquer served both as an artistic material and
as an adhesive base. Th e base of an object was usually
made of thin solid wood, which was then covered with
layers of coloured lacquer and fi nally with gold or a gold
pattern. Th is technique was very labour-intensive, expensive
and, as is the case with all lacquered items, required
great skill and mastery to create; a great deal of
time was spent in manufacturing the lacquers, processing
them correctly and drying them. Japanese golden
Ill. 2. Portable chest with two doors and drawers with depictions of waves, pines and umbelliferous plants. Coloured and gold lacquer, wood;
painting, metal fi ttings. 16 × 17 × 21.5 cm. Japan, late 18th – early 19th century
lacquers were renowned and highly valued in China,
where they were exported as Imperial gift s in the 14th
and 15th centuries. Masters working on the south coast
of China even started to imitate them.
Objects made of rhinoceros horn were rare and
extremely expensive items in Chinese culture. Th ey
started to appear in China no later than the Tang period
(618–907) and were very highly prized. Th e horn itself
was considered to have medicinal properties. Th e belief
that rhinoceros horn is an aphrodisiac led to rhinoceroses
being killed for the excrescences (“horns”) that
form on their snouts. Th ese horns were used mainly to
make cups, as it was thought that water and wine drunk
from them also acquired medicinal properties. Th is belief
remains widespread today and many wealthy Chinese
continue to buy up rhinoceros horns and objects
made from them, to grind them into powder for use as a
drug. Th is has led to very high prices for items made of
rhinoceros horn which are, for the same reason, becoming
increasingly rare. Th e carving of rhinoceros horn
184 185
was an art in itself, and there was a special workshop for
it at the Imperial Court in the 17th and 18th centuries.
Th e exterior of the cups was decorated with carving, the
subjects usually connected with longevity, immortality
and other good wishes.
Th e use of ancient subjects and the observance of
traditions are characteristic of Chinese culture. Many
items repeat or reinterpret early examples.
Chinese rulers ordered the compilation of catalogues
of drawings of ancient monuments from the Imperial
collections. During the reign of Emperor Qianlong
(1736–1795), who loved and collected antiquities, masters
working at the Court oft en referred to older pieces,
copying the shapes and ornaments of ancient ritual
bronze or jade vessels. Carvers in the Imperial workshops
used drawings in these catalogues as examples,
borrowing their shapes and patterns. One piece made
by Imperial order is a small rhinoceros horn cup (ill. 3).
Th e round cup with a small spout is decorated with archaic
relief ornament with the mask of a tao-te monster

Ill. 3. Cup with handle and archaic ornamentation. Rhinoceros
horn; carving, polishing. 7 × 6.7 × 4.5 cm. China, Qing dynasty
(1644–1911), Qianlong period (1736–1795),
fi rst half of the 18th century
on a band around the centre of the vessel and a strip of
meander around the edge. Th e handle takes the form of
a large coiled dragon and a little chilong dragon. Th is is
a rare example of carving in the archaic style that was
characteristic of Imperial pieces during the fi rst half of
the 18th century.
Another piece made in the Imperial workshops is
a bowl carved from light-green jade (ill. 4). In shape
it resembles half a peach, but it has two handles with
movable rings. Each handle is decorated with a “horn
of abundance”, a chrysanthemum fl ower, fungus and
clouds, and a bat is carved on a background of fl owers
in the top centre. On top of the mouth is a musical
stone, decorated with a pattern with grains and a meander,
with carved ornaments imitating thick interwoven
rope-braids tied together with tassels and a knot in the
shape of the character shou (longevity). Th e tassels go
over onto the outside of the bowl. Between them is the
spout. Th e braids form a crosspiece-handle.
Such objects were distinguished not only by the good
wishes but by the material (jade was an expensive stone
for the Chinese), large dimensions and skilful carving.
Bowls could be carved of stone of various colours, but
this light-green jade – the colour of “mutton fat” – was
particularly highly valued.
Ill. 4. Bowl on four legs with two handles with rings. Light-green jade; carving, polishing. Height 7 cm, length with handles 22 cm.
China, Qing dynasty (1644–1911), Qianlong period (1736–1795), middle to late 18th century
Th is bowl is most skilfully made, carved in several
levels (for example, the ropes begin inside the bowl
and then appear to run to the opposite outside edge),
with the rings on the handles carved from the same
piece of stone, hanging freely and movable. It has been
most carefully processed and polished. Such bowls were
among the most popular objects during the reign of Emperor
Qianlong, used in the furnishing of palace interiors.
Th ey might adorn a scholar’s desk, since they were
traditionally intended for the washing of brushes. In addition,
similar bowls with symbols of good wishes (the
symbols on this bowl signify happiness, longevity and
abundance) were frequently given as gift s for weddings
or birthdays.
One of the most interesting metal objects is a large
pear-shaped vase (ill. 5). Th e exterior surface of the vase
is decorated with variations of the character shou that
form horizontal bands of ornament. Th e shou characters
are not only written diff erently, but vary in colours, an
eff ect achieved through the use of very thin sheets of
various metals: silver, gold, copper, and possibly other
metals and alloys. Th ey were applied to the surface using
a variety of techniques: incrustation, parcel-gilding,
dusting, and the application of mercury to a thin sheet
of metal. On the bottom of the vase are two characters
encrusted with thin silver wire – they can be read as “Shi
sou”.
Metal items with the “Shi sou” mark something of an
enigma in Chinese metalwork. Always cast from bronze,
they are patinated and decorated with delicate ornament,
usually of silver and copper. Th e most frequently
encountered ornament consists of patterns of meanders
and polka dots. Such pieces were usually small (5–15 cm)
inkpots, water-droppers, little bowls and small vases, intended
for the desk in a scholar’s study. Th ey were all
made in a single style, austere and refi ned, and the bottoms
featured a similar two-character mark, which can
be translated as “Old /Man/ Shi (Stone)”. Th ese objects
usually date from the 17th century, i.e. from the period
covering the end of the Ming dynasty (1368–1644) and
the very beginning of the Qing dynasty (1644–1911).
Th e enigma lies in the absence of any mention of a master
with this name or of such a workshop in Chinese
historical sources. It may be a pseudonym or, it has been
suggested, a name assumed by a monk to conceal his
real identity. It may be that the name of the master has
disappeared because he was working in a transitional
age, at the time of the change of dynasties. Whatever
186 187
Ill. 5. Vase with shou characters. Mark “Shi sou”. Bronze, patina, gold,
silver and copper alloys. Height 56 cm,
diameter of mouth 11.5 cm. China, 17th century
may be the case, it is not at present possible either to
confi rm or deny the existence of a master or a workshop
with the name Shi sou, despite the existence of a group
of objects linked by the name.
No less interesting are the enamelled objects. It
was thought for a long time that all the enamels in the
Varshavsky family collection were Chinese. Various

Ill. 6. Moon-fl ask vase with peonies. Bronze, cloisonné enamel, gilding. Height 65 cm.
China, Qing dynasty (1644–1911), 18th century
enamelling techniques and colours were used on bronze
items. A large round fl attened fl ask, for instance, was
made in China in the 18th century (ill. 6). Such vessels
were used for water in ancient times, when they were
usually made from a gourd and attached to a belt. Large
fl asks could contain water or wine and were made of
porcelain or bronze with a variety of decoration.
Th is fl ask has been called a “moon” fl ask, as its round
fl attened body resembles a full moon. It is decorated on
both sides with peonies with large fl owers, leaves and
shoots. Th e peony bushes grow by a crag, while the
Ill. 7. Sitting elephant. Bronze, champlevé enamel, patina. Height 28 cm.
Japan, late 18th – early 19th century
188 189
bottom of the vase depicts a small strip of earth with
lingzhi mushrooms and other fl owers. Each side is dominated
by a large open peony fl ower in the centre, with
smaller fl owers or buds on either side of it. Th e decoration
is in the cloisonné enamel technique, using a bright
range of colours. Th e background is bright turquoise;
against the background are dark-green leaves of various
shades; pink and white, yellow and greenish fl owers
with added blue, red and light-blue enamel; the earth is
yellow-brown and black. Each fl ower petal features various
shades of enamel: from dark to pale to white. Th is

varied range of mixed and pure colours was very labourintensive,
demanding skill and technical knowledge to
achieve light, clear enamels of even colour. Such pieces
had to be fi red a number of times at varying temperatures.
In this case the ornamentation includes symbols of
good wishes: the luxuriant open peony blooms symbolised
wealth and celebrity, so the fl ask not only graced
an interior but was also intended to ensure the owners’
well-being.
Cloisonné enamel is thought to have originated in
China in the late 14th to early 15th century and the
champlevé technique started to be used at the same
time. In Japan enamelling techniques were borrowed
Ill. 8. Badger Tanuki. Bronze, patina, paint. Height 31.5 cm. Japan,
late 19th century
190
Ill. 9. Pigeon. “Hasuike” workshop. Bronze, silver-plate, glass, patina.
Height 12.3 cm, length 23 cm. Japan, late 19th century
Ill. 10. Crab. Bronze, patina. Width 20 cm. Japan, late 19th century
from China in the 18th century. Some pieces acquired
by the Hermitage were made in the champlevé enamel
technique in Japan at the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries.
An interesting item is a somewhat naive bronze
elephant with a raised trunk sitting on its back legs like
a cat (ill. 7). It is decorated with a cloth in champlevé
enamel with ornaments and a kalavinka – a bird with
a woman’s head. At that time champlevé enamels were
usually applied only in small quantities in Japan, as elements
in a decorative scheme, to bronze fi gures of mythological
characters, warriors, animals and birds, leaving
the greater part of the surface covered with a black or
dark-green patina.
Many pieces in the collection are worthy of close
examination, particularly the Japanese metalwork.
In the Edo period in the mid-19th century – at the
turn of the Tokugawa (1615–1868) and Meiji periods
(1868–1912) – bronze sculptures and small fi gures began
to come into fashion in urban culture. Th ey adorned
dwellings and were used as incense-burners on domestic
altars. Th e bronze animals, birds, fi sh and insects made
by Japanese masters are extremely realistic and full of
life, such was the perfection with which they were made.
Small bronze sculptures conformed to the conception of
a Japanese home, where there was no place for large and
massive objects. Th e appearance of a large number of
bronze miniatures was also related to an important state
decree. In 1868 an Imperial edict prohibited Samurais
from carrying weapons. As a result, many master craft smen
turned to a new activity, the manufacture of artistic
items for religious needs and as adornments for the
home. Th e exquisite, refi ned work of these masters refl
ects the age-old traditions of Japanese art and characteristic
artistic methods with the use of metals, various
alloys and patina to make pieces more decorative. Objects
of this type also featured from the 1860s onwards
in international exhibitions where there were Japanese
pavilions, and were invariably successful in Europe and
in America.
Th e fi gure of a standing badger with a staff in its hand
and a drum on its chest (ill. 8) was made with a touch
of humour. It is the werewolf Tanuki, who became one
of the most popular characters in Japanese urban culture.
He is even capable of turning into diff erent objects.
Th e sculpture is of bronze covered with patina, while
the drum is painted with red lacquer. Th e sculpture is
unusually large and may have served as a protective
talisman for a dwelling. Such objects were made by Japanese
metalworkers in the late 19th century, when forms
became more elegant, the working of lines was more
painstaking and decorative eff ects were achieved by the
use of diff erent coloured patinas and other methods of
treating the surface.
Th e sculpture of a ruffl ed pigeon (ill. 9) is very realistic,
its feathers and other details scrupulously worked.
Th e bird is given its lifelike quality by its incrusted
bronze and glass eyes, which diff er in colour from the
rest of the surface and shine forth against the dark patina
of the background. Th ere is a mark with characters
on the pigeon’s abdomen, “Hasuike”, which is the name
of the artistic workshop. Alexey Bogolyubov’s research
has shown that the “Hasuike” workshop was located in
the south of Sakhalin in the late 19th – early 20th century
and was known for its manufacture of metal sculptures
of birds, domestic animals and wild beasts.
Articulated sculptures are represented by the bronze
fi gure of a crab with moving pincers (ill. 10). It is likely
to have been a child’s toy. Mechanical fi gures of animals
with moving parts became popular in wealthy Japanese
homes in the 19th century and there were masters who
specialised in their manufacture.
We have examined only a small number of the exhibits
acquired by the museum from the Varshavsky
family’s collection. Further study of the collection will
enable the attributions and dating to be more precisely
defi ned and will lead to publication of the valuable
works of applied art made in China, Japan and the countries
of Southeast Asia.
Translated by Catherine Philipps

In 2006, the Hermitage Purchasing Commission
acquired for the museum an octagonal toilet box with
a lid made of walrus ivory (Inv. No. ЭРК-1249 a, b;
6.5 × 4.0 × 7.0 cm; ill. 1). It has a slightly extravagant
shape, with ornate bevelled elements on the top and
near the base. Th e lid follows the octagonal shape and is
also three-dimensional.
Of special interest is the inclusion of engraved
mother-of-pearl plates in the decoration of the box.
Th e images on the plates are borrowed from the 1705
book “Symbols and Emblemata”, which was popular
among applied artists. Th e Hermitage box thus features
both carved ivory and carved mother-of-pearl inserts.
On one of the walls of the box, there is a clear-cut relief
image with a sunfl ower on the left and a fortress on
the right. Between them, there is a small bush. Th e sun
is shown shining over the whole scene. On both sides
of it, there is a single inscription in two cartouches:
азъ неищу плохихъ вещей [I seek not the bad things]
(ill. 2). Th is image is contained as No. 21 in the book
“Symbols and Emblemata”. On the opposite wall of the
box, the design is of two hands striking hammers on an
anvil on which there is a large diamond. Th e inscription
on the top reads: всегда несокрушаемъ [always indestructible]
(ill. 3). Th is is picture No. 7 from the 1705
book. Th e concave sidewalls of the box contain carved
images in heart-shaped medallions: a rooster with the
inscription попечение не дастъ уснуть [care shall not
let you sleep] (original drawing No. 778; ill. 4), while
on the opposite wall, also in a heart-shaped medallion,
there is an image of a sceptre fallen on a cubic stone,
with the inscription above reading нечаянно процвете
IRINA UKHANOVA
A TOILET BOX OF THE FIRST HALF OF THE 18TH CENTURY
Ill. 1. Toilet box. General view. Th e State Hermitage Museum
[bloomed beyond hope] (original drawing No. 358;
ill. 5). Apart from these images, there are carved images
of fi eld fl owers (cornfl owers and daisies) on the surface
of the box. Th e carvings are delicately modelled, betraying
a professional design. Th e art of the carver is also
revealed in the designs of the mother-of-pearl inserts.
Unfortunately, only three of these are extant. One of
them is an oval-shaped frame which contains a hand
appearing from the clouds and holding a sword-handle
entwined with a branch with leaves, with the inscription
above reading к обоимъ готовъ [ready for both]
Ill. 2. Toilet box. Wall 1 Ill. 3. Toilet box. Wall 2
Ill. 4. Toilet box. Sidewall 1 Ill. 5. Toilet box. Sidewall 2
(original drawing No. 15; ill. 6). Another oval plate has
the image of a sailing ship accompanied by the inscription
желанiя его исполнятся [his wishes shall be fulfi
lled] (original drawing No. 3; ill. 7). Th e third narrow
oval plate contains an engraved image of a ring held on
both sides by two hands appearing from clouds, with
the inscription верность нарушать бе[с]честiе есть
192 193
[it is a dishonour to break trust] (original drawing No.
277; ill. 8). In addition to these symbolic designs and
heads of fi eld fl owers, there are also reworked classical
motifs such as palmettes and lilies of acanthus leaves.
Th e overall decoration is extremely rich. Th e design
harks back to the art of the age of Peter the Great, with
its pronounced predilection for allegorical images. At

Ill. 6. Toilet box. Detail Ill. 7. Toilet box. Detail
the same time, the ornate shape is the result of the creative
impulse of the carvers in search of new stylistic
traditions. Toilet boxes of similar shape can be seen at
the State Historical Museum (Sviontkovskaya-Voronova
1923: pls. 19, 33). Th ey are not very numerous, but
their artistic techniques seem to complement one another.
Th us, one of such boxes (Inv. No. Щ 495/23328 a, b)
contains allegorical images of birds with inscriptions
“Loyalty binds us together”, “My love endureth aft er
death”, and “Death alone shall untie me” above the image
of a sailor’s knot. Boxes and lids decorated with
other variations also bear the symbols borrowed from
Ill. 8. Toilet box. Detail
194
the popular 1705 volume “Symbols and Emblemata”. It
is evident that the illustrations in this edition enjoyed
a wide circulation. In the fi rst decades of the 18th century,
experienced bone carvers were making small toilet
boxes and notebooks using mother-of-pearl inserts
as well as many popular symbolic images, engraved or
carved. Th ese objects were fashionable, prestigious accessories
enjoyed by noblewomen. Th ey were not widespread
among the lower classes. Typically, the selection
of images shows the domination of the theme of lyrical
love, which betrays the artistic tastes of the commissioners
of the age of courtesy.
Th is group of objects has “predecessors” produced
in the same technique and with the use of the same materials,
including the mother-of-pearl inserts. Among
them is the bowl of a smoking pipe on a silver mount
made in 1723, from the State Historical Museum (Sviontkovskaya-Voronova
1923: pl. 19). It comes from the
collection of the famous Moscow art connoisseur Pavel
Shchukin. It is shaped as a bent knee and completely
covered in relief carvings and engraved symbolic images
on mother-of-pearl inserts. All the drawings used by the
carver have been analysed in detail by Natalia Vyshar,
who comes to the conclusion that this pipe was made
to commemorate the military triumphs of the Russian
army during the reign of Peter the Great (Vyshar: manuscript).
Th is suggestion seems entirely plausible. One
can only add that the style of carvings on the pipe and
the toilet boxes is comparable and can also be regarded
as the logical extension of the Baroque understanding
of form and decoration gradually evolving into Rococo,
a new stage in the development of the style of bone carvings
in the fi rst decades of the 18th century. Vyshar leaves
unanswered the question of authorship of the unique
smoking pipe. It would be relevant to mention the fact
that prominent bone carvers from Kholmogory in the
Archangelsk Province were oft en called to Moscow in
the 17th century. Th ey were entrusted with various
skilled tasks: making combs, caskets, restoring valuable
old works of art such as, for instance, the ivory throne
of Ivan III made by Greek craft smen in the 15th century.
Many of the names of these masters were published by
Mikhail Rekhachev, Victor Vasilenko, Oleg Ovsyannikov
and others (Rekhachev 1949; Vasilenko 1974; Ovsyannikov
1987). Th e Sheshenin family was especially
talented. It needs to be mentioned in this regard that
the name of Vasily Sheshenin appears on a 1723 document
(Ukhanova 2005: 13–14). Could he have made the
carved bone pipe dedicated to the triumph of the Russian
army? Th e date on the pipe and in the document
is the same. One can also note the stylistic similarities
between the carvings on the ivory pipe and the combs
from the State Hermitage and the Walters Art Gallery,
Baltimore (Sviontkovskaya-Voronova 1923: Nos. 46,
64, 74; Masterpieces of Ivory 1985: 320, 321, Nos. 489,
490; Ukhanova 2005: Cat. No. 13). Th e similarities can
be seen in the fl oral patterns as well as in the image of
a “savage beast” with a fi erce gaping mouth which forms
an organic part of the decorative whole.
Th us, if we consider that a bone carving school existed
in Moscow by the end of the 17th century, which maintained
close ties with the Russian North, and if we take
into consideration the gradual evolution of eighteenthcentury
art, the toilet box newly acquired by the Hermitage
can be introduced into the range of works of art of
special interest to us. Together with bone objects similar
in the material and techniques used, it demonstrates the
modifi cation of shapes and styles from Baroque to Rococo
in the art of Russian bone carving in the fi rst decades
of the 18th century, vibrant and sensitive to innovations.
References
Masterpieces of Ivory 1985
Masterpieces of Ivory from the Walters Art Gallery. Ed. by Randall,
Richard H. et al. Baltimore, 1985.
Ovsyannikov 1987
Ovsyannikov, Oleg. “Materialy k slovarju severnyx kostorezov
XVII–XVIII vekov [Towards a Dictionary of Northern Bone
Carvers of the 17th – 18th Centuries]”. In: Xolmogory – centr
xudožestvennoj kul’tury Russkogo Severa. Collection of articles.
Ackhangelsk, 1987.
Rekhachev 1949
Rekhachev, Mikhail. Xolmogorskaja rez’ba po kosti [Kholmogory
Bone Carvings]. Archangelsk, 1949.
Sviontkovskaya-Voronova 1923
Sviontkovskaya-Voronova, Lydia. Reznaja kost’ v sobranii Gosudarstvennogo
Istoričeskogo muzeja (iz sobranija P.I. ŠČukina)
[Bone Carvings in the Collection of the State Historical Museum
(from the P.I. Shchukin Collection)]. Moscow, 1923.
Ukhanova 2005
Ukhanova, Irina. Severnorusskaja reznaja kost’ XVII–XIX vekov
[Bone Carvings from the North of Russia, 17th – 19th Centuries].
Collection Catalogue. St. Petersburg: Th e State Hermitage
Publishers, 2005.
Vasilenko 1974
Vasilenko, Victor. Severnaja reznaja kost’: izbrannyje trudy
o narodnom tvorčestve X–XX vekov [Northern Bone Carvings:
Selected Writings on the Traditional Art of the 10th –
20th Centuries]. Moscow, 1974.
Vyshar: manuscript
Vyshar, Natalia. Kostjanaja trubka 1723 goda iz sobranija GIM
v chest’ okončanija Severnoj vojny [A 1723 Ivory Pipe from the
Collection of the S[tate] H[istorical] M[useum] Commemorating
the End of the Northern War]. Manuscript. In: Fabrics
Collection, State Historical Museum.
Translated by Maria Artamonova

In December 2009 a new permanent display “Th e Art
of Dagestan. 14th to Early 20th Centuries” was opened
in three rooms in the Winter Palace (Rooms 58–60). To
be more precise, it features the art of the Kubachi settlement
in Central Dagestan, since the museum has no
medieval artifacts from other parts of this region.
Our collection of monuments from Kubachi consists
of fragments of stone decorations from fourteenth- and
fi ft eenth-century buildings whose layout we do not
know, bronze (or brass) cauldrons from the 14th to 20th
centuries, weapons and jewellery.
Th is exhibition attempts at comparing, for the fi rst
time, elements of decor made of clay slate (from which
the settlement’s fourteenth- and fi ft eenth-century houses
and tombstones were built) with the fragments of
decoration from buildings made of sandstone, of which
there are no deposits in the area around Kubachi. Th e
ornamentation of the sandstone fragments features a
fi ve-part palmetto that is also to be seen on spherical
cauldrons of the so-called closed type.
Th e ornaments on the fragments of clay slate are
similar to the fl oral ornaments that were widespread
in the Middle East in the 12th and 13th centuries. Th ey
are close to the ornaments on the “open type” cauldrons
that had been manufactured in Kubachi from the second
half of the 14th century until the 1970s. Th e ornaments
altered, however, but the shape of the cauldrons
remained unchanged.
Some elements of the decor on the reliefs of clay slate
(the double-headed eagle, the winged dragon with the
body of a snake) suggest that the sources of the art of
Kubachi can be traced to somewhere in North-Western
NEW PERMANENT EXHIBITIONS
ANATOLY IVANOV
THE ART OF DAGESTAN. 14TH TO EARLY 20TH CENTURIES
Display in Room 58
Part of a clay slate relief. Late 14th – early 15th century. Room 58 Five-part palmettos on a sandstone fragment.
Late 14th – early 15th century. Room 58
Double-headed eagle on a clay slate fragment.
Late 14th – early 15th century. Room 58
196 197
Iraq, Northern Syria or the east of Asia Minor, where
these themes were popular in the 12th – 13th centuries.
Th is possible origin of Kubachi art accords with the
legend that the ancestors of the settlement’s population
were invited by the Khan of Derbent to work as armourers.
Th ey were later forced to leave for the mountains,
where they founded the settlement of Kubachi (it is conjectured
that this happened in the 14th century).
Fragment of a clay slate arch depicting a dragon.
Late 14th – early 15th century. Room 58

Virtually nothing is known of the political history of
Kubachi. In Turkic languages “Kubachi” means “makers
of chain mail”. Arab (and later also Persian) written
sources from the 9th century onwards mention a domain
called “Zirihgeran”, which also means “makers of
chain mail”, but in Persian. For a long time Kubachi was
identifi ed with Zirihgeran in scholarly literature. However,
it turned out that there are no reliefs or tombstones
in modern Kubachi that can be dated earlier than the
14th century. So the identifi cation of Zirihgeran with
Kubachi is left suspended: we have no monuments that
could be correlated to the historic Zirihgeran in the 9th
to 13th centuries.
Th e fragments of sandstone reliefs very probably
come from another settlement not very far from
Kubachi, since the horizontal wings of the “closed type”
cauldrons and some of their ornaments show a signifi -
cant similarity to elements of decor on the “open type”
cauldrons that were made in Kubachi. Very little is
known of the art of this settlement in the period between
the 16th and 18th centuries, and it is only the
“open type” cauldrons that give us some idea of the art
objects from that time.
“Closed type” cauldron. Late 14th – early 15th century.
Room 58
Some important events evidently took place in this
area in the 15th – 16th centuries, as a result of which
reliefs with fi ve-part palmettos found their way to
Kubachi. In that period they stopped making artistic
reliefs in Kubachi, though a lot of small stone articles
(mortars, bases for spinning-wheels) were still produced
in the 19th century.
Many manuscripts were copied in Kubachi between
the 15th and 19th centuries, one of them dating from
the middle of the 16th century is displayed in Room 59.
Kubachi was renowned in the 19th century for the
decoration of weapons, fi rearms and jewellery, which
can be seen in Room 60.
Hilt of a dagger. Second half of the 19th century. Ivory.
Room 60
Bracelet. Silver, niello. Late 19th – early 20th century. Room 60
Manuscript copied in Kubachi in the mid-16th century. Room 59
198 199

In the early 20th century collections of the objects of
Middle Eastern applied art kept in the settlement were
discovered by European antiquarians. In response to the
increased demand, the inhabitants of Kubachi began
making fake “antiques”, which are on display in one of
the showcases in Room 60.
Belt buckle. Silver. Late 19th century. Room 60
Belt buckle. Silver. Late 19th century. Room 60
Th e new permanent exhibition sheds light on several
aspects of the development of art in Kubachi between
the 14th and early 20th centuries, though there
are still many lacunae in the history of the settlement
and its art.
Translated by David Hicks
Nina Livshits would have been one hundred years
old on 12 April 2008.
Her life came to an abrupt end in Venice on 30 January
1975. Her impressions of Italy, which she had long
dreamed passionately of visiting, fi lled her whole being,
and shortly before her death she wrote to her son that
she felt very happy.
Nina Alexandrovna was, indeed, a passionate person,
and this part of her many-sided personality manifested
itself in a great variety of ways. A passionate traveller,
she sailed on scheduled steamers along the Yenisey from
Krasnoyarsk to Igarka, along the rivers of Central Russia
IN MEMORIAM
NINA ALEXANDROVNA LIVSHITS
1908–1975
Nina Livshits. 1950s
201
from Perm to Moscow, on the Northern sea route from
Archangelsk to Dickson; she visited the Solovki Islands
and toured Central Russia, Western Ukraine and Transcaucasia.
A passionate patriot, she derived endless joy
from the fact that the fi rst man in space was Russian
and that the great event had occurred on her birthday
(when inviting guests to celebrate with her on 12 April,
she would say “Come to me on Cosmonauts’ Day”).
However, Nina Alexandrovna’s main passion was
educational work: it brought out in her a special talent
that was highly valued, not only by the staff of her “native”
Education Department, but, with no exaggeration,

y the whole Hermitage. “She could take a guided tour
on absolutely any subject with absolutely anybody – and
that is a very great gift ”, said Albert Kostenevich in an
interview. She had the rare talent of being able to “reveal”
a work of art to her listeners and to draw them into
the world of the artist; she could always fi nd the precise
words and defi nitions, the right intonation. She was prepared
to discuss professional subjects endlessly with colleagues,
and never refused to teach many of them, particularly
the young ones. She would sometimes debate
with others, and her quick temper occasionally even led
to arguments. It is a known fact that not all lecturers or
guides are willing to allow colleagues to listen to them
“in public”. Everyone was always welcome at Nina Alexandrovna’s
lectures and guided tours.
Nina Alexandrovna would invariably show all the
groups with which she was working every important
temporary exhibition in the Hermitage.
She had devoted listeners who varied in age, education
and social position, but she was always more ready
to chat to young people. Over the course of time some of
them became her friends – for example, the geologists
In Armenia. Late 1950s
In Yerevan. Late 1950s
With a delegation in the Hermitage. Late 1950s – early 1960s
With a delegation in the Hermitage. Early 1960s.
On the left – Nina Livshits, on the right – Hermitage Director Mikhail Artamonov
202 203

from the All-Union Geological Institute. Members
of that group recall how, during the ten years they attended
Nina Alexandrovna’s classes, she gave them the
opportunity to get an impression not only of Western
European art, which was her speciality, but also – by
inviting specialists in other areas of world culture – of
the Ancient East, the antique period and the art of the
steppe nomads. Moreover, she devised especially for
them a series of lectures in the Russian Museum on the
history of Russian art and its interrelationship with European
art, as well as a series of lectures on the history of
Western European architecture, preceded with guided
tours on the architecture of Leningrad and its suburbs.
In this way, Nina Alexandrovna organised for this group
what she considered to be an ideal type of educational
work, introducing them to the history of world art from
the very earliest artefacts.
Th ose whom Nina Alexandrovna considered deserving
of seeing works that could not be seen in the museum’s
rooms at that time were taken to the studios of
nonconformist artists – thanks to her they saw pictures
by Pavel Filonov, which were then at the home of his
sister Evdokia Glebova. According to her listeners, Nina
Alexandrovna’s friends, she played an enormous role in
the forming of their world outlook and broadening of
their horizons: thanks to her, they felt “the connection
between times”.
Nina Alexandrovna received her specialised education
(in museum management, Western cycle) in the
Higher State Courses of Art at the State Institute of Art
History, where she became friendly with Antonina Izergina,
a future outstanding art historian at the Hermitage.
Th e most signifi cant part of Nina Alexandrovna’s
life was connected with the Hermitage. She started work
as a consultant in the museum’s rooms in 1929, while
still a student, then from 1931 in the Hermitage library.
In that same year Nina Alexandrovna married the art
historian Valentin Miller, at that time a well-known expert
on Western European art. In 1933 she gave birth to
twins – Yura and Olya Miller, but in 1937 Valentin Fridrikhovich
was arrested as an “enemy of the people”. Nina
Alexandrovna carried the weight of this tragedy all her
life. Many years later she learned that her husband, for
whose return she had hoped for so long, had been shot
in 1938, shortly aft er his arrest (in 1957 Nina Alexandrovna
received a notifi cation from the USSR Supreme
With young members of the Education Department staff . Early 1970s. In the centre – Tatyana Peterson, on the right – Eduard Goldman
Court that her husband had been posthumously rehabilitated).
In 1934 Nina Alexandrovna left the Hermitage on
account of a serious throat disease. From 1934 to 1938,
having a fl uent knowledge of French and German, she
wrote academic translations for the publishing houses
“Iskusstvo”, “Lenizogiz” and “Akademia Arkhitektury”
(she later also learned Italian and sometimes even conducted
guided tours in that language – for example, for
the famous actress Anna Magnani).
In the course of the following few years Nina Alexandrovna
had to change her place and type of work several
times: she was a medical statistician in a health centre,
a librarian in the House of Writers, a schoolteacher…
In 1940 she became a researcher in the Museum of
the History and Development of Leningrad, where she
prepared exhibits from her department for evacuation
when the war started. Th e museum was subsequently
dismantled.
During the war Nina Alexandrovna taught in boarding
schools for evacuated children (initially in the
Yaroslavl Region, subsequently in the Chelyabinsk Region).
From 1942 to 1944, aft er she had moved with her
Nina Livshits. Late 1940s
204 205
Nina Livshits. 1930s
children to the Sverdlovsk Region, she worked as a statistician
in a peat company and a teacher of German in a
secondary school. In 1944 and 1945 she worked in her
speciality, heading the curator’s department of the Urals
Local History Museum in Sverdlovsk.
Aft er the war Nina Alexandrovna was re-evacuated
with the Hermitage, where she had been accepted in
June 1945 for employment in the French section of the
Department of Western European Art. From 1948 and
for the rest of her days she worked as a senior researcher
in the Education Department, to which she was transferred
“by order” of the Hermitage’s Director Iosif Orbeli
“to give greater attention to educational work with the
aim of the future expansion of the department’s staff ”.
Nina Alexandrovna spent a total of thirty-fi ve years in
the Hermitage.
Nina Alexandrovna’s outstanding talent made her
known far beyond the Hermitage and Leningrad: her
brilliant lectures attracted audiences of grateful listeners
not only in the museum’s lecture hall, but also in many
cities in the huge country that was the USSR (Rybinsk,
Odessa, Minsk, Archangelsk, Lvov, Baku, Vilnius, Petrozavodsk,
Riga, Kharkov, Moscow, Cherkassy, Vinnitsa),

Maria Stepanova, Valentina Berezina and her son Alexander, Nina Livshits. Late 1940s – early 1950s
With colleagues in the Pavilion Hall. Late 1950s.
Left to right: Yuri Shapiro, Kira Asayevich, Evgenia Simanovskaya, Nina Livshits, Maria Tresvyatskaya,
Maria Edovina, Zinaida Petrova, Kira Mytareva, Lyudmila Voronikhina, Taisia Strelkova
206
where she gave lectures as a member of the All-Union
“Knowledge” Society. Her radio and television broadcasts
were equally popular.
However, Nina Alexandrovna’s professional activity
was not confi ned to guided tours, lectures and TV and
radio programmes. She also wrote a number of popular
books and articles on the history of Western European
art. Th ey included chapters in a guide to the displays of
Western European art in the Hermitage, a section of a
guide to the Hermitage’s display of Italian art devoted to
works by seventeenth- and eighteenth-century masters,
the monographs “Bernini” and “Fragonard”, and essays
on French art from the 15th to 18th centuries. And, fi -
nally, a chapter about eighteenth-century Italian art in
the volume “A Short History of Art”, which she was not,
unfortunately, destined to see: it was published aft er her
death. Th ese works were successful not only among art
lovers – they were actively used, as were Nina Alexandrovna’s
guided tours and lectures, by young members
of the Hermitage staff who were learning their trade. 1
Mention must also be made of Nina Alexandrovna’s
personal qualities, her self-respect, her uncompromising
position when somebody did something that she
deemed to be dishonourable, her constant readiness to
help those close to her with both advice and money…
Some – now, unfortunately, few – of the staff of the
Education Department still remember Nina Alexandrovna,
who used to say that she failed to understand
how smokers did not fi nd it disgusting to put paper in
their mouths and set fi re to it, once bringing her colleagues
a whole box of cigarettes that were considered
the best at that time, and that in a period when tobacco
was in short supply. When the grateful smokers, aft er
1 Livshits, Nina. Bernini. Moscow, 1957; Berezina, Valentina and
Nina Livshits. Iskusstvo Zapadnoj Jevropy XII–XX vekov [Th e Art of
Western Europe in the 12th – 20th Centuries]. A Guide to the Hermitage
Rooms. 2nd edition. Leningrad, 1963 (fi rst edition – 1960); Livshits, Nina.
Francuzskoje iskusstvo XV–XVIII vekov [French Art in the 15th – 18th
Centuries]. Essays. Leningrad, 1967; Livshits, Nina. Žan-Onore Fragonar
[Jean-Honoré Fragonard]. Moscow, 1970; Kustodieva, Tatyana and
Nina Livshits. Italjanskaja živopis’ XV–XVIII vekov [Italian Painting in
the 15th – 18th Centuries]. Essay-Guide. Leningrad, 1974; Livshits, Nina.
Italija [Italy]. In the series Malaja istorija iskusstv. Iskusstvo XVIII veka
[A Short History of Art. Eighteenth-Century Art]. Moscow, 1977.
Nina Livshits. 1970s
recovering from their amazement, asked “How did you
know which cigarettes we prefer?”, she replied “Well,
I keep my eye on you!”
At the civil funeral at the Hermitage, to which the
urn with Nina Alexandrovna’s ashes was brought from
Italy, Tatyana Kustodieva began her farewell speech as
follows: “Somebody once said that nobody is indispensable.
Th at is not true. Nina Alexandrovna is one of those
who are impossible to replace”. Time has shown that
she was right, and it is a view shared by everyone who
remembers this person of varied interests, with a sharp
lively mind and independent judgments, erudite and
intellectual, with a broad outlook and demanding tastes.
Nina Alexandrovna is one of those of whom the Hermitage
is justifi ably proud.
By Regina Kogan
Translated by David Hicks

Anna Nikolayevna Voronikhina was a descendant
of the family of the celebrated Russian architect Andrey
Voronikhin through his brother Ilya. Her consciousness
of this fact largely determined her life and aff ected
all her predilections, from her choice of profession to
her work in the Society for the Preservation of Monuments
and her tireless eff orts to preserve the architectural
heritage of St. Petersburg and its environs. Amazingly,
during the purges, at the time when anyone with
aristocratic roots was being persecuted, she would unhesitatingly
write “noblewoman” in the “descent” section
on forms.
CURATOR OF RUSSIAN ARCHITECTS’ DESIGNS,
ANNA NIKOLAYEVNA VORONIKHINA
1910–1987
Anna Voronikhina. 1940s – 1950s
Anna Nikolayevna was born in St. Petersburg on
22 May 1910. Her father was a Professor at the Academy
of Sciences’ Botanical Institute, while on her mother’s
side she was the granddaughter of the architect Vladimir
Nicolas, who designed the Conservatoire building,
constructed on the foundations of Th omas de Th omon’s
Bolshoy Th eatre that had been destroyed by fi re. From
1915 to 1922 she went to school in Tifl is, where the
family had moved temporarily in connection with her
father’s job. On her return to her native city she graduated
from secondary school in 1928 and entered the
State Institute of the History of Arts, which she had to
Anna Voronikhina. C.1925
leave aft er the second year on account of her father’s
illness. From 1930 to 1932 she took courses in foreign
languages run by the Pedagogical Institute, and at the
same time completed a course in draughtsmanship run
by the Leningrad Architects’ Society: from 1932 to 1935
she worked as a draughtswoman-designer in the State
Town Planning Institute, but left that job to give birth
to her son Nikolay. Anna Nikolayevna came to the Hermitage
in 1939 as a mature person with fully-formed
interests and a settled range of pursuits, a fair amount
of experience in working with blueprints and the ability
to see the creative idea of the architect behind dry plans
and facades. She would now and again let slip specifi c
terms characteristic of architects’ professional slang.
Anna Voronikhina started work at the Hermitage as
one of the scientifi c-technical staff in the Graphic Art
Department, becoming a researcher in 1941 and a senior
researcher in 1955. Th e war and her family circumstances
obliged her to take a break from work and to
leave Leningrad. Decades later, in the 1980s, she would
suddenly remember episodes in her life in the small Siberian
town of Yalutorovsk, to which she was evacuated
in 1941 as the teacher of a preschool group run by the
boarding school of the Leningrad City Executive Committee.
Her younger sister Tatyana and six-year-old son
Nikolay – Tata and Koka, as she called them – went with
her. Th ese recollections led to a kaleidoscope of word
pictures about outstanding characters as she recalled
amusing incidents and the colourful language of the natives.
208 209
When Anna Nikolayevna returned to the Hermitage
in the summer of 1944, she took an active part in
the return of works of art aft er evacuation, organising
new ways of keeping them, compiling inventories, and
so on. Archive documents show that she “was deeply involved
in school work, putting a great deal of eff ort and
energy into organising museum practicals for senior
pupils”, that her photograph was seen several times on
the Board of Honour, and that her work was recognised
by citations, monetary prizes and anniversary medals.
In 1946 Anna Nikolayevna entered the Repin Institute
of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture (Academy of
Arts), but, as a result of her altered family circumstances,
she graduated as a correspondence student only in
1955, being awarded a diploma with distinction (her diploma
work “Malachite Pieces from the Late 18th and
Anna Voronikhina and her sister Lyudmila.
Yukki. July 1926

Anna Voronikhina with her husband Nikolay Baranov and son
Kolya. 30 June 1936
19th Centuries in the Hermitage Collection”, revised
and supplemented, was published in 1963).
At that time the curator of the collection of blueprints
and drawings by Western European and Russian
architects was one of the greatest historians of architecture,
Doctor of Arts German Grimm (1905–1959), who
had come to the Hermitage in 1946. He was responsible
for the systemisation and the fi rst attempt at a scientifi c
description of the collection of architectural and ornamental
graphic art, which accounts for a substantial
part of the material in the Cabinet of Drawings in the
Department of Western European Fine Arts. It was his
work that formed the basis for the study of the collection.
Aft er Grimm’s death Anna Nikolayevna took over
responsibility for the collection. She regarded Grimm as
her teacher, and his name was always on her lips. Not
a day passed when she did not recall her mentor with
a kind word in one connection or another. She jealously
guarded every scrap of his handwriting, even if it was
a quite frayed temporary folder for drawings selected for
an exhibition.
Anna Nikolayevna remained as curator of the collection,
the largest in the Cabinet of Drawings in terms
of the number of items, for over ten years, until a substantial
number of works by Russian and foreign architects
working in Russia, as well as those by theatrical designers,
were handed over to Militsa Korshunova, who
joined the Cabinet in 1965. Another section of the huge
collection of architectural graphic art – designs by Western
European masters – was taken over by the author
of this article in 1983. I remember with gratitude Anna
Nikolayevna’s assistance in writing my student dissertation
and her support during our joint work, when I was
accepted by the Cabinet of Drawings on her recommendation.
Anna Voronikhina with her son Kolya. Siverskaya Station.
July 1937
Victoria Pokrovskaya, Anna Voronikhina, Tatyana Kamenskaya, Ksenia Agafonova. Hermitage. 1940s – 1950s
It was not only Anna Nikolayevna whose whole
life was connected with architecture, but also her close
relatives. Her husband Nikolay Baranov, who was Chief
Architect of Leningrad, was in charge of work on the
general plan of the city from 1938 to 1950, designed the
Lenin Square ensemble and the Finland Railway Station
building, and, during the siege, organised unprecedented
masking work on a city-wide scale. Th ere was
never any doubt on the choice of profession for their
only son Nikolay: his parents continued to maintain relations
even aft er their divorce, devoting a great deal of
attention to the boy’s education. Th e decisive infl uence
on his choice of the Faculty of Architecture at the Repin
Institute was his father, but it was his mother who
brought him to the Hermitage. Since early childhood
he drew and attended classes at the Hermitage. Nikolay
Baranov the Junior was the chief architect of the Pribaltiyskaya
Hotel and supervised its construction, and his
monograph “Silhouette of the City” (1980) was based on
his dissertation. Anna’s grandson Alexander Fyodorov,
also an architect by education, is now Father Alexander,
the senior priest of the Imperial Sts. Peter and Paul
Cathedral and St. Catherine Church in the Academy
of Arts, as well as Professor at the Repin State Institute
210 211
German Grimm and Anna Voronikhina. Hermitage. 1948

of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture and Head of
the Icon-Painting Section of the St. Petersburg Orthodox
Th eological Academy. Her sister Lyudmila was for
many years Head of the Methodic Section of the Hermitage’s
Education Department and has written books
about the great museum. Her other sister Tatyana is a
graduate of the Repin Institute’s Architecture Faculty
and, as an artist-designer, has created displays at many
museums. For all her life Anna Nikolayevna maintained
a warm friendship with the Vsevolozhsky family, particularly
with her cousin Nikolay, an architect and son
of an architect, and the father of the well-known Hermitage
employee Svetlana Vsevolozhskaya. It is not surprising
that Anna Nikolayevna was closely acquainted
with Leningrad architects. Not a week went by without a
visit to the Cabinet of Drawings by historians of Russian
architecture, mainly in connection with the restoration
of monuments that had been damaged during the war.
Th ey were all cordially welcomed by Anna Nikolayevna,
who did not begrudge the time spent in protracted conversations,
spending hours studying priceless blueprints
with the visitors.
As the curator of original eighteenth- and nineteenthcentury
architectural graphic art and as a member of the
old school of curators, Anna Nikolayevna never failed to
provide assistance and consultations in the selection of
the necessary material for students, museum researchers
or – most signifi cantly – for those occupied with the
restoration of architectural monuments in Leningrad
and the suburban palaces. She was always ready to share
her knowledge with anyone who applied to her for help:
some she sympathised with, others she took under her
wing, but she did it all with generosity, initiative and decisive
support, showing all the materials to which she
had access. For many years Anna Nikolayevna was the
Chairperson of the Dzerzhinsky District Section of the
Lift ing the locker into the Cabinet of Drawings. 29/30 January 1948. Yuri Kuznetsov,
Victoria Pokrovskaya, Anna Voronikhina, Pyotr Firsov
Anna Voronikhina, Alexandra Vsevolozhskaya and Svetlana Vsevolozhskaya.
Siverskaya Station. 30 May 1936
All-Russian Society for the Preservation of Historical
and Cultural Monuments, and also chaired the primary
organisation of that society in the Hermitage: from time
to time she would persuade colleagues to join the society
and, in response to the modest membership fees,
supplied them with eye-catching postage stamps and articles
published by the society.
Everything connected with the restoration of Leningrad
monuments was close to Anna Nikolayevna’s heart.
She rejoiced in successful restorations and was angered
by crude unprofessional work, was exasperated by the
212 213
indiff erent permissiveness that led to the destruction
of unique buildings on the Islands and in the suburban
area. She was especially pained by the condition of Andrey
Voronikhin’s dacha in Kamennoostrovsky (then
Kirovsky) Prospekt and the confl icts arising from the
attempts to preserve the remains of the building and
its hurried dismantling in March and April 1980 before
the Olympic Games. Anna Nikolayevna’s consultations
were also required in the process of the restoration of
the “Voronikhin fence” alongside the Kazan Cathedral.
A small fragment of the cast-iron railings that had been

preserved by the family was subsequently installed – to
a design by her son – on her gravestone.
Anna Voronikhina put a great deal of eff ort into
the preparation and organisation of temporary exhibitions
of architectural graphic art by Russian and foreign
masters from the Hermitage collection that brought
little-known works to the attention of a wider circle of
researchers. One of the most important of these was the
exhibition “Blueprints and Plans of St. Petersburg by
Early Eighteenth-Century Architects from the National
Museum in Stockholm” (1963). On the initiative of Professor
Yuri Denisov of Leningrad State University all the
folios in the exhibition were photographed, and these
photographs, thanks to the eff orts of Anna Nikolayevna,
were systematised in large albums which are still studied
today by historians of architecture who come to the
Cabinet of Drawings. Great eff orts were required in the
preparation of the exhibition in 1967 to mark the 150th
anniversary of the death of Giacomo Quarenghi. Anna
Nikolayevna had bitter recollections of her work on the
exhibition “Th e Hermitage during the Blockade” in 1969:
she had been personally acquainted with many of those
who died during the siege. Another display organised by
her, “Designs and Drawings by French Architects and
Ornamentalists of the 18th and Early 19th Centuries
from the Hermitage Collection” (1971), featured, for the
fi rst time for Soviet viewers, six decades aft er the prerevolutionary
exhibitions, drawings from the collections
of Frenchmen Alfred Beurdeley, Charles-Eugène Berard
and Jean Carré, acquired for the Baron Stieglitz Central
School of Technical Drawing in 1889 (the album of selected
folios from this collection that she was working
Academic conference in the Cabinet of Drawings. Hermitage. 1981.
Speaker Irina Novoselskaya, with Yuri Kuznetsov standing behind her; seated, left to right: Tatyana Ilatovskaya, Anna Voronikhina,
Yuri Rusakov, Irina Linnik, Maryana Dvorina, Nijolė Massulionyitė, Asya Kantor, Tatyana Kustodieva, Maria Varshavskaya
on in the fi nal years of her life was unfortunately never
published). In collaboration with colleagues she organised
the exhibition “St. Petersburg and Its Environs
in the Blueprints and Drawings of Architects in the First
Th ird of the 18th Century” (1972) and compiled the scientifi
c catalogue “Russian Architectural Graphic Art of
the First Half of the 18th Century in the Hermitage Collection”
(1981), which was dedicated to the memory of
German Grimm. Besides catalogues, Anna Voronikhina
wrote a number of articles on architectural graphic art
by Russian and foreign masters. She also wrote popular
works on the history of the interiors of the Winter Palace
and the Hermitage. In collaboration with Tatyana
Sokolova she wrote “Th e Hermitage. Th e Buildings and
Rooms of the Museum” (1967). I well remember her delight
at the publication of her book “Views of Rooms in
the Hermitage and the Winter Palace in Watercolours
by Artists of the Mid-19th Century” (1983), and how
she took great pleasure in giving its signed copies to colleagues.
Like many of her contemporaries, Anna Nikolayevna
wrote less than she might have. At that time there were
no computers or other digital technology that make any
work so much simpler, relieving authors of the necessity
of amassing a huge number of voluminous fi les in which
it is very diffi cult to fi nd the page or photograph that is
needed. Th e curator’s duties included the compilation
of endless lists of items and their state of preservation,
leaving too little time for research. Along with the routine
parts of a curator’s work, its educational aspect also
demanded a fair amount of eff ort: receiving visitors on
a more or less daily basis – colleagues from other museums
studying drawings and designs, including working
with photographs of eighteenth-century Russian blueprints
from the Stockholm collection.
In the 1970s and 1980s Anna Nikolayevna was
a noted personality in the Cabinet of Drawings. Her
somewhat stooping fi gure with her wartime padded
jacket thrown over her shoulders was an integral part
of our interior. More oft en than not she worked with
drawings and blueprints by a large locker, carefully
checking the numbers, the author’s notes, etc. She continued
the established traditions of the true curator,
a museum worker in the most direct sense of the word:
all kinds of documents of acceptance, lists of items, descriptions
of their state of preservation and other documentation
were always to hand. With her painstaking
and methodical way of working she disliked disorder,
214 215
Anna Voronikhina. Cabinet of Drawings. 1981
becoming irritated when she found drawings that had
been left out or books that had been carelessly piled
up. She never permitted herself to leave on the surface
even a single drawing ready for a visitor the following
morning: at the end of the day she invariably put all
the sheets in folders and returned them to their cases,
which she then always locked and sealed with her personal
seal – the punctiliousness of a curator that has
been largely lost, alas, today! Her strict observation
of the curator’s rules lives on in the invariable phrase
still uttered by members of the Cabinet of Drawings at
the sight of drawings or books left lying about: “Just
imagine what Anna Nikolayevna would have said!” She
was particularly concerned about the antique furniture,
and if – God forbid! – some small detail fell off ,
she would pick it up and hide it away in the bowels of
her desk, so as to call out a master at some point and
return it to its place. In those days there was constant
close contact with the staff of the architecture department,
who regularly came to the Cabinet of Drawings

either for specifi c consultations or to study blueprints.
Anna Nikolayevna also knew all the attendants in the
nearby rooms and invariably greeted each of them by
name, stopping to chat with them on their particular
subject. A chat with her was so lively and interesting for
the aged attendants, so great was her calm confi dence
and sense of importance, that some of the “babushkas”
(“grandmas”), as they were then known, were convinced
that Anna Nikolayevna was Head of the Cabinet
of Drawings.
From time to time she would start a conversation
about books she had read recently. For example, her
protracted reading of the voluminous tome “Benois Refl
ects” gave her particular pleasure, which she hastened
to share with people who were authorities in her eyes.
216
While maintaining good relations with many of her colleagues,
Anna Nikolayeva retained an independence
and sharpness of judgment. She was frequently biased,
and could be caustic and impatient if the conversation
turned to her sympathies and antipathies. Her relations
with certain colleagues were not always serene, though
more oft en than not she had a benevolent attitude towards
people.
An important feature of life in the Cabinet of Drawings
for a long time has been the celebration of birthdays
and other memorable dates. In the postwar years these
were attended by Mikhail Dobroklonsky and Vladimir
Levinson-Lessing, German Grimm and Tatyana Kamenskaya,
Ksenia Agafonova and Larisa Salmina. Later,
from the 1960s to 1980s, those that gathered daily in
Staff of the Cabinet of Drawings celebrating the forty-year career of Mikhail Dobroklonsky in the Hermitage. 18 March 1959.
Seated, left to right: Larisa Salmina, Anna Voronikhina, Tatyana Romanovskaya, Irina Novoselskaya, Tatyana Kamenskaya,
Mikhail Dobroklonsky; standing: Yuri Kuznetsov, Ksenia Agafonova, Vladimir Levinson-Lessing
the Cabinet of Drawings were Yuri Kuznetsov and Irina
Linnik, Irina Novoselskaya and Nadezhda Petrusevich,
Nikolay Nikulin and Irina Grigorieva, Asya Kantor and
Tatyana Ilatovskaya, Anna Voronikhina and Militsa
Korshunova. And visitors to the Cabinet of Drawings –
colleagues from other museums in Russia and abroad,
staff of other sections, friends of Yuri Kuznetsov – were
always welcome at such gatherings. Anna Nikolayevna’s
grandson Sasha (short form for Alexander) appeared
there several times – a tall, round-faced seventeen-yearold
with a shock of black curly hair and intelligent eyes
that belied his years. Th ese gatherings took place around
the same table, and Anna Nikolayevna always sat in the
same place next to the teapot. All kinds of diffi culties
and curious situations were connected with the enamel
kettle on a massive marble base with a large, carefully
concealed infuser… Once, at the very beginning of the
gathering, a fi re inspector arrived unexpectedly: Anna
Nikolayevna had to accompany him around the Cabinet
for quite a long time, earnestly replying to his questions
while holding the still hot infuser wrapped in a serviette
behind her back.
Anna Nikolayevna passed away on 18 March 1987
following a serious illness. She had spent forty-fi ve of
the fi ft y-six years of her working life at the Hermitage.
In her last years Anna Nikolayevna was preparing
for publication an album of selected drawings by
Western European architects and ornamentalists, as
well as an academic catalogue of the works of the three
leading masters of Alexandrine Classicism – Andrey
Voronikhin, Jean-Francois Th omas de Th omon and
Andreyan Zakharov. Both these works had already
been sent to the publishers, but, owing to the growing
confusion on the eve of “perestroika”, they were never
published. However, an exhibition of architectural
graphic art from the Hermitage’s reserves, which took
place in 1986, was in preparation at the same time. It
was timed to coincide with the 225th anniversary of
Anna Voronikhina. Drawing by her grandson Alexander Fyodorov.
1980
the births of the three architects, who were less than
eighteen months apart in age.
Anna Nikolayevna Voronikhina would have been
100 years old in 2010. She would undoubtedly have been
glad that the work she had started has not been abandoned
– indeed, it has been continued in the publication
of a scholarly catalogue of all Th omas de Th omon’s
works in the Hermitage collection and in the preparation
for republication of her book “Views of Rooms in
the Hermitage and the Winter Palace in Watercolours
and Drawings by Artists of the Mid-19th Century”.
By Valery Shevchenko
Translated by David Hicks

It was 1956. Vladimir Levinson-Lessing told us, as
fourth-year students in the Art History Faculty at the
Repin Institute (Academy of Arts), that he had invited
a great expert on the Italian Renaissance to give a lecture.
Th e door of the auditorium opened and in came, or rather
in rolled like a ball, an unprepossessing person of short
stature, with short legs and a disproportionately large
head. He gave a brilliant lecture in a shrill voice and we,
naturally, exchanged opinions aft erwards. “Yes”, said Nadezhda
Petrusevich, “the poor man’s a bachelor, of course.
Who would marry anyone who looked like that?” “Th at’s
why he’s so clever; he has nothing in his life to distract him
from his work”, I ventured with profound understanding.
ASYA SOLOMONOVNA KANTOR
1926–2008
Asya Kantor. 2000s
“Telling the truth is easy and pleasant”.
Mikhail Bulgakov. “Th e Master and Margarita”
We were not to know that Matvey Gukovsky had only
just returned from exile aft er being rehabilitated, that
he had been married three times to beautiful women,
and that his last wife, Asya Kantor, would be my closest
friend right up to her death, a friendship that lasted
nearly forty years.
I oft en forget how I fi rst saw someone or other, but I
always remember how I met Asya. It was in the Hermitage,
near the central library. She was coming towards me
along the passage – slim, wearing a grey jersey suit (all
the fashion at that time), her hair gathered in a bun and
turquoise earrings in her ears (a present from Matvey
Alexandrovich, which she wore all her life). “Th at’s Asya
Kantor, Gukovsky’s wife”, someone said. Th at is how she
fi rst entered my life.
How oft en do we not recognise familiar people,
sometimes even ourselves, in old photographs. Th at
could never be said of Asya – she was always recognisable,
perhaps because she never changed her hairstyle,
perhaps because she did not run to fat with age, perhaps
because of her invariable turquoise earrings.
I have never met a more decent, absolutely decent
person. Th at does not mean that she had no shortcomings.
She had some, naturally, but they were insignifi -
cant in comparison with her general purity of character.
She was sensitive and capricious. But how could a
woman not be capricious when she had been the object
of a man’s adoration and worship for many years? Some
people probably still remember how, at the event devoted
to his anniversary, Matvey Alexandrovich fl ew across
the whole of the Hermitage Th eatre to where Asya was
sitting in the upper rows to place at her feet a bouquet
of fl owers he had been presented with. She was one of
the fi rst among us to be given a bottle of very expensive
French perfume that had only just become available.
Gukovsky was old enough to be her father, but in her
marriage there was not and could not be any sense of
gaining an advantage. Matvey Alexandrovich returned
from exile as poor as a church mouse. To the credit of
the then Director of the Hermitage Mikhail Artamonov,
he was engaged to take over the library. He was also given
a room in a communal fl at (a fl at shared by several
families) on the ground fl oor of the Hermitage Th eatre.
He and Asya later moved to a small two-roomed fl at in
the same building but just below the roof.
Asya was a very devoted person. She loved her husband
and remained faithful to his memory aft er his death.
She always had his photographs on her desks at home and
at the Hermitage. She was just over forty when he died,
but it never crossed anybody’s mind, particularly her
own, that there could ever be anyone else in her life. “Did
she fall in love with him because of his trials?” I think not;
there are people who are always interesting to be with –
every day brings something new and there is no room in
their lives for boredom and monotony. Th ey were both
great ballet fans. I well remember Matvey Alexandrovich
going to the Mariinsky Th eatre, where he was a regular,
with Asya and, as a rule, with her mother and sister. Attending
the Philharmonic Society, watching fi lms at Dom
Kino (Cinema Club), meeting friends from abroad. Th at
was how their life was.
218 219
I do not know if he was her fi rst love or whether she
had had something earlier. In all the years of our friendship
we never touched on intimate matters – Asya was
too chaste for that. Th at word, which has now fallen out
of use, fully refl ected her essence.
In the year of Matvey Alexandrovich’s death Asya
wrote what was not so much a will as a short note, found
aft er she had passed away, in which she expressed a desire
to be buried with her husband. She survived him by
almost forty years, but her wishes were carried out.
Asya was devoted in everything – in her love for her
husband, her family and friends. Staff taken on to work
in the Hermitage library adored their boss and also became
close friends of Asya Solomonovna.
On my part, I remember my little daughter falling ill
yet again when she was staying with her grandmother
in Zelenogorsk. I had to urgently call a taxi and dash off
to fetch her. Asya immediately off ered to come with me
At the reception for the opening of the exhibition “European
Painting. 16th – 19th Centuries. Australian Painting. 19th Century”.
Th e Hermitage. 1979. Left to right: Eric Rowlison,
Director of the National Gallery in Melbourne;
Emma Devapriam, Curator of Western European Painting
at the National Gallery in Melbourne; Asya Kantor;
Mr. Harrison, representative of the Australian Embassy

and travelled almost a hundred kilometres in freezing
conditions, just to help me cope with another trouble.
And at the most tragic time for me she was by my side,
unobtrusive, with no superfl uous words, always benevolent.
Th is last quality she had to the highest degree. Everyone
who came into contact with her remembers how
friendly and solicitous she was to young people, always
ready to help. Sometimes Irina Novoselskaya, our Head
of the Department, would grumble about this: “Asya
spoils them all”. And she was right. Not having children
of her own, Asya displayed a maternal tenderness towards
children and young people. Th ey sensed this. Th e
words of my little grandson were instructive in this regard:
“Of your old girls I like Asya best of all”.
She was always generous. When I was preparing an
exhibition on Sienna paintings, I saw a book in Sienna
that I wanted to buy, but it was expensive and very heavy
to carry, so I decided against it… Shortly aft erwards
Asya went to Italy. She knew nothing of my attack of
miserliness and bought the book, realising that it was
necessary for the work in which I was engaged.
Asya was hospitable. For many people her home was
their home. Aft er Matvey Alexandrovich’s death, his
220
pupils held scholarly conferences in May, the month of
his birth, at the University, and subsequently at the Institute
of History. Aft er these conferences they all went
to Asya Solomonovna’s home, where a plentiful table
awaited them. Many young people today do not realise
what pains it took to organise a decent spread in those
days of dreadful shortages, especially as the number of
guests was unknown beforehand, and it could be up to
thirty. Th is tradition continued for a very long time, and
it was only in the last three or four years (I don’t know
exactly) that it ceased.
If one looks at Asya’s life, how much of it could be
called relatively prosperous? In her youth – the travails
of war, work in a logging area, the diffi culties of the
postwar period. Th en came the illness and death of her
father, followed by her mother, then the long illness of
Matvey Alexandrovich, who, aft er a relative recovery,
needed constant care.
Unlike a number of her colleagues, who were unable
to travel abroad during the Soviet period because of the
so-called “fi ft h point” – to put it more simply, because of
their Jewish ancestry, Asya was lucky: she was included
in the list of those allowed to travel, in which an absurd
At an evening in the Hermitage Friends’ Club “‘A Priceless Gift ’. Dedicated to Lydia Delectorskaya”. 1 November 2005.
Photograph by Evgeny Sinyaver
principle was observed: some non-party members and
one Jew could be included, and aft er that – only Communist
Party members.
She travelled a great deal by our standards, and was
prepared to go anywhere by any means. If somebody
was required to accompany cargo on a transporter, she
always volunteered, even when she was by no means a
young woman. But this is understandable if you take
into account how many years she never had a holiday.
I cannot remember exactly, but the last time was when
she spent about ten days with me at Repino, and that
was some thirty years ago. In later years her sister, with
whom she lived aft er Matvey Alexandrovich’s death, was
unwell, and Asya could not and would not leave her on
her own. She permitted herself business trips – of no
more than a week – aft er making sure everything was
taken care of at home, but wherever she went, she telephoned
every day to fi nd out whether her sister was alright.
Asya Solomonovna worked hard and successfully,
and her colleagues were well aware of this. Th e books,
catalogues and articles that she wrote still remain.
I should just like to mention her sense of responsibility
as regards her work. Occasionally I would ring her just
aft er fi ve o’clock to suggest going home, and she would
reply that it was still early, inconvenient: she said many
of the staff were still at their desks. She forgot that, unlike
those “many”, she had arrived in the morning before
anyone else.
However, there was also lots of amusement, sometimes
fun. Several times we would laugh at Asya’s absent-mindedness.
A famous example among us was the
story of the pie. Asya once liked a pie I had baked and
asked me for the recipe. I religiously started enumerating
the amount of milk, eggs, sugar, etc., when suddenly
she asked: “And does fl our also go into it?”. Aft erwards,
naturally, she would take umbrage when we reminded
her of this incident.
Who knows, if she had consulted doctors earlier, it
may have been possible to do something, but she suffered
in silence.
She never complained, unlike many people who begin
a conversation by describing their aches and pains
and the diffi culties of their lives. Only occasionally, as we
were returning from work together, she would suddenly
say: “Wait a second, I don’t feel too well, it will soon pass,
just wait a bit,” – and a minute later she would go on.
She left us just as delicately as she did everything. We did
not see her in her hospital bed, suff ering from pain. Th at
lot fell to her relatives in Novosibirsk, where she went to
have an operation and never returned. It was as if she just
slipped away from us. On the day before she left we returned
home together as usual and, as always, she waved
to me from the window of the bus when I said goodbye
to her at my stop. Th at was the last time I saw her. Even
now, as I leave work, I always remember her: she would
groan quietly as she opened the heavy door of the Small
(Staff ) Entrance, then would smile her kind sweet smile.
By Tatyana Kustodieva
Translated by David Hicks

Anastasia Lvovna Rakova
21.07.1938 – 28.04.2010
OBITUARIES
Anastasia Rakova, Senior Researcher in the Print Room of the Department of
Western European Fine Arts, passed away on 28 April 2010. It seems untimely, strange
and unnatural to say and write that. It oft en happens that it is only when somebody
passes into Eternity that you realise particularly keenly what an irreparable loss it is
and how important their life was with all its colours.
Anastasia’s parents were exceptional people with close links to the Hermitage: Alexandra
Voshchinina was a well-known expert on ancient art who worked in the Antiquity
Department, and Lev Rakov was Academic Secretary of the Hermitage, the
founder and Director of the Museum of the Defence of Leningrad, and later Director
of the Public Library and the Academy of Arts Library. It was only natural that Anastasia,
who had inherited the cultural traditions of the Russian intelligentsia, should be
destined for a career in the Hermitage.
She started work in the museum as a guide aft er graduating from the Repin Institute
of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture (Academy of Arts) in 1962. From 1963 to
1965 she continued her education as a postgraduate (she defended her thesis on nineteenth-
and twentieth-century Belgian art in 1974), then returned to the Hermitage
as a non-staff guide. In 1970 she was taken on by the Print Room of the Department
of Western European Art as curator of the collection of ornamental prints. For the
fi rst time this rich fascinating collection, which had once been part of the museum
treasures of the Baron Stieglitz Central School of Technical Drawing, acquired a researcher
and become an object of serious scientifi c study. And although one oft en
heard Anastasia complain that it was not the sphere of activity she would have chosen,
every one of her works, be it an article or a report, refuted these regrets and confi rmed
by their impeccability that they were entirely baseless. She wrote articles about modern
Belgian and old French prints – about Jean Lepautre, Stefano della Bella, Jean Berain;
about the history of the collection of ornamental prints, and others. She was also
involved in exhibitions of contemporary Western art: for example, the work of Francis
Bacon. Th e article she wrote “On the Journey of John Wilkins” was original and absorbing.
Th e pedantry of cataloguing was not her element – she was more attracted
by the aesthetic aspect of art, that which merited admiration, delight and amazement.
She was one of the few people who are capable of conveying their vision, their appraisal
of an item under consideration. Her very fi rst exhibition, on sixteenth-century
Western European ornamental prints (1981), demonstrated how skilfully, easily and
interestingly she was able to describe “her” ornaments – items that were apparently
diffi cult to describe in words. Th at exhibition was followed by “Seventeenth-Century
Ornamental Prints” (1986), then by “Th e 18th Century in the Mirror of Ornamental
Prints” (1997). Anastasia particularly loved the 18th century; the aesthetics of that
time seemed to be dearest to her, most in keeping with her cast of mind.
Th e major exhibition “Festivals – the Favourite Toy of Sovereigns”, which opened
in March 2004, was an outstanding success, undoubtedly the most brilliant of her exhibitions.
Th e catalogue was written so vividly and so captured the interest that it was
impossible to tear oneself away from it, and it seemed that it was impossible to write any
better. Th e light, elegant style of the comments corresponds perfectly with the implausibly
sumptuous festivals portrayed in the prints, and helps the viewer to get the best possible
impression of their splendour, which has long since faded into oblivion. Th is truly
inspired work seems to refl ect the author’s own predisposition to the pleasant side of life.
An especially important event for Anastasia was the publication in 2007 of a book
about Lev Rakov in the “Curator” series, which she wrote with unconcealed admiration
of her father’s outstanding personality. Th is work stands out not only for its indisputable
literary brilliance, but also for its original concept. A very valuable quality
of the monograph was that the author managed to refl ect in it the life of the cultural
elite of Leningrad from the 1930s to 1960s.
Anastasia won people’s hearts with the calm, good-natured simplicity of her conversation,
coupled with the harmonious and intellectual style of a bygone generation
that had not had to cope with the magnetic power of career advancement and ambition.
She was not a public person, not having a so-called social temperament, but
she could occasionally stand on principle and defend her point of view. Th e scope
of her life may appear to have been especially restricted, but it brought out the fairly
wide range of her talents. Anastasia was very fond of music and knew it well, being a
regular concertgoer. She read a great deal, and her beautiful Russian was littered with
quotes that have almost disappeared from modern conversational style. She possessed
an elegant, artistic talent as a raconteur, regaling us with entertaining accounts of her
business trips, holidays or other incidents from her life. She could sometimes be sharp
and caustic or launch a scathing attack concerning colleagues who were overly selfassured
and “scholarly”. She took lessons in watercolour painting for a while, and her
still lifes were of undoubted artistic merit. She had an insatiable love for nature in all
its variety and was constantly in need of it.
Anastasia’s outstanding literary talent found an outlet as a translator. In 2003 the
“Molodaya Gvardia” publishing house in Moscow published her translation (from
French) of Georges Lenotre’s book “Everyday Life at Versailles in the Time of the
Kings” [Versailles Au Temps Des Rois]. One cannot help but mention the remarkable
consonance and impeccable identicalness of the translation to the extraordinary narrative
of the original. Her translation of another book – “Th e Artist’s Wife” [La femme
de Louis David] by Henri Troyat – remained unfi nished. It was also very unfortunate
that an exhibition with the working title “Paris and Parisians”, conceived by Anastasia,
never came to fruition, as it was genuinely “her” subject. One can only speculate on
the creative passion and literary brilliance she could have demonstrated in describing
the subjects of the chosen prints, and how remarkable the result would have been.
222 223
By Nijolė Massulionyitė

Nadezhda Bronislavovna
Petrusevich
27.07.1933 – 26.10.2010
Nadezhda Petrusevich passed away on 26 October 2010 aft er a long serious illness.
Nadezhda Bronislavovna was born on 27 July 1933 in Bobruysk (Byelorussian
Republic) into a military family. From 1934 to 1938 the family lived in Tbilisi, subsequently
in Moscow. Her father fell victim to Stalin’s repressions in 1938 (he was
rehabilitated posthumously). Aft er his death, his widow took the family to live with
relatives in Leningrad.
In 1941 Nadya remained in the besieged city with her mother, who worked in a
hospital, and other family members. She survived the whole blockade, experiencing
to the full the bombardments, shelling, starvation and other suff erings that fell to the
lot of the people of Leningrad. In the 1990s she was awarded the insignia “Resident
of Besieged Leningrad”.
In spite of the diffi cult wartime conditions, Nadezhda attended school, and in 1952
entered the Faculty of the Th eory and History of Art at the Repin Institute of Painting,
Sculpture and Architecture (Academy of Arts), from which she graduated in 1957.
Aft er temporary jobs in the Department of Graphic Art in the Academy of Arts
Museum and as a guide in the Lower Park at Peterhof, Nadezhda Bronislavovna was
accepted by the State Hermitage Education Department in the same year as a casual
guide, and was taken on to the permanent staff in early 1959. As soon as the following
year she was placed in charge of the Department’s methodologists’ section. In 1964
Nadezhda Bronislavovna was transferred to the Cabinet of Drawings in the Department
of Western European Fine Arts, where she became the curator of old master
drawings from the collections of the Academy of Arts (transferred to the Hermitage
in 1924), portrait miniatures, illuminated manuscripts and precious metals. She was
the organiser of many exhibitions from the reserves of the Hermitage and from foreign
museums.
Nadezhda Petrusevich’s scholarly interests were concentrated on the art of France.
Her 1973 monograph on “Fift eenth- and Sixteenth-Century French Art” (from the
series “Essays on the History and Th eory of Fine Arts” issued by the “Iskusstvo” publishing
house) is still in demand with specialists, students and art lovers. Another essay
on “Fontainebleau and Versailles”, which she prepared at about the same time and
sent for printing, was unfortunately never published. Another important contribution
to the study of French art was her foreword to the fi rst volume of a two-volume album
on works by French artists in the Hermitage and the Pushkin Museum in Moscow
(“Five Hundred Years of French Painting”. Leningrad: Aurora Art Publishers, 1990, in
French and English).
Nadezhda Bronislavovna was also interested in the French art of the 17th and
18th centuries. She was co-author of the album “Nicolas Poussin in USSR Collections”
(1989, compiler Yuri Zolotov). She organised an exhibition of drawings from the Hermitage
collection to mark the 400th anniversary of Poussin’s birth and published its
catalogue (1995).
Nadezhda Bronislavovna had in her charge the remarkable collection of drawings
of Sicily by the Age of Enlightenment master Jean Houel (1735–1813). Th ey had
been purchased by Catherine II from the artist himself. Nadezhda Petrusevich wrote
prefaces to the catalogues for exhibitions of the collection in Palermo (1989) and in
the Hermitage (1993).
Another area of Petrusevich’s research was the history of Western European portrait
miniatures. By studying the works in her charge she became an expert in this
fi eld, organised a number of exhibitions (the most signifi cant of them in 1968 and
1980–1982), compiled catalogues and wrote articles on individual masters.
Yet another aspect of the history of art that interested Nadezhda Bronislavovna
was fourteenth- to sixteenth-century illuminated manuscripts. Her most important
work in this fi eld is an article (co-authored with Elena Solomakha) about the Hermitage’s
remarkable “Hunting Book of Gaston Febus de Foix in Western European
Graphic Art of the 14th to 20th Centuries” (St. Petersburg, 1996).
In all her time at the museum, not only as an employee of the Education Department,
Nadezhda Bronislavovna devoted a great deal of attention to that type of
work. Her guided tours were always successful owing to her outstanding ability to
convey her knowledge, vision and understanding of art vividly and intelligibly. Th is
was facilitated to a signifi cant degree by her charm and artistry. It was no coincidence
that it was she who was entrusted in 1963 with conducting a “typical” guided
tour for a commission headed by Vladimir Serov, President of the USSR Academy
of Arts, and Andrey Lebedev, Head of the USSR Ministry of Culture’s Department
of Fine Arts. Th e commission intended to fulminate against and close the display of
late nineteenth – early twentieth-century French art that had been restored in the
Hermitage aft er a long absence. Th e exhibition included works by the Impressionists,
Picasso, Matisse and other famous masters of that period, and was considered
to contradict the “party and government line”. Fortunately their intentions were
not fulfi lled and the Hermitage defended the display. It is worthy of note that, even
though they were indignant concerning the exhibition, the high-ranking visitors
from the Academy of Arts and the Ministry of Culture were forced to admit the
skill of the guide and the high artistic quality of the tour, though they remarked
that the drawbacks, from their point of view, were its formalism and lack of “social
conditioning”.
Nadezhda Bronislavovna undoubtedly had pedagogical tendencies. She enjoyed
working with young people, willingly supervised students’ annual papers and degree
works, helped postgraduates, suggested subjects and generously provided works in
her care for research. She also devoted a great deal of time to school clubs. She was
able to awaken in children an interest in works of art: she tried to show them not
only the treasures in the Hermitage, but also other artistic and cultural monuments,
organising trips beyond the city’s boundaries. Her sincere attention to children, her
penetration into their peculiarities of character and aspirations led to mutual aff ection
that brought the club members closer to their guide. Some of them retained this
aff ection all their lives: years later they kept in touch with each other, visited Nadezhda
Bronislavovna and tried to help her.
I should like to mention another aspect of Nadezhda Bronislavovna’s life in the
Hermitage. She took an active part in the museum’s social aff airs. As a creative, talented
person who was able to bring together the great variety of people in her social
circle, she was always in the centre of the organisation of celebratory events in the
museum and her Department, composing witty verses on the topic of the day and
scenarios for festive shows, in which she herself oft en acted.
Perspicacity, intellect, honesty, constant benevolence, calm gentle irony and humour…
Nadezhda Petrusevich had all those qualities in full measure, and that is how
she is remembered by her friends and colleagues.
224 225
By Irina Grigorieva

Natalia Alexeyevna Lebedeva
05.06.1948 – 13.06.2010
Natalia Lebedeva, head of the Methodic Sector of the School Centre, died suddenly
in 2010. Her unexpected and untimely passing is an irreparable loss for the School
Centre. Th is wonderful person is greatly missed by her friends and colleagues.
Th e whole of Natalia Alexeyevna’s life was connected with the Hermitage. As
a schoolgirl she attended classes in the School Centre and took part in children’s conferences.
A brilliant report she made in those years was long remembered by both pupils
and teachers. Aft er entering the Department of Art History in the History Faculty
of Leningrad State University, Natalia Alexeyevna combined her studies with work as
a museum attendant, and aft er graduation she came to work in the Education Department.
Natalia Lebedeva’s repertoire included a large number of subjects for guided tours
and lectures on Western European art. Her special interest was medieval and Renaissance
art and, most of all, Byzantine culture, of which she had a profound and
thorough knowledge. Natalia Alexeyevna had a command of all forms of museumteaching
activity. A superb lecturer and guide, she was extremely popular with the
public. She gave lectures in the Hermitage and in lecture halls in various Russian
cities. She loved children and was eager to work with schoolchildren. Th e classes organised
by Natalia Alexeyevna drew them into a special world where they not only
studied art, but were also able to show their own creative abilities. She never tired of
inventing new absorbing ways of working with children, making mosaics and stained
glass, writing scenarios for plays and staging them. Her production of “Th e Story of
the Knight François” was a success when it was performed in the Hermitage, at Vyborg
Castle and at the Archeon Museum in the Netherlands.
Aft er becoming the methodologist of the School Centre, Natalia Alexeyevna was
successful in her training of young guides, devised new tours for children, did a great
deal of work with the city’s teachers, and participated in many scientifi c and practical
conferences, where she shared her museum-teaching experience with employees of
various museums. When the Hermitage opened its education centre and the necessity
arose to create computerised educational programmes for children, Natalia Alexeyevna
devised a methodology for these programmes and wrote many of them herself.
Th e multimedia educational programme “Th e Bible in Art”, issued for the 2,000th
anniversary of Christianity, whose principal author was Natalia Alexeyevna, won the
Grand Prix in Budapest in 2001 as the best programme about art.
Natalia Alexeyevna contributed articles on art history to various publications for
children and adults, including the “Russian Icon” and “Th e Teaching of History in
School” books and the “Avtobus” magazine. “Th e World of the Hermitage” guide, one
of whose authors was Natalia Alexeyevna, was placed fi rst by the “Bookvoed” chain of
bookshops in the nomination for “Best Book for Children on Art” for 2008. Natalia
Lebedeva laid the methodological foundations for a new departure in the work of the
School Centre. It involves working with children with diffi cult circumstances (homeless
children and those suff ering from oncological diseases).
Th e bright, charming image of Natalia Alexeyevna will always remain in the memory
of our museum’s staff .
By Olga Atamanova and Natalia Krollau
Tamara Malinina, Leading Researcher in the Department of the History of Russian
Culture, Candidate of Art History and curator of the collection of Russian artistic
glass, passed away on 29 August 2010 aft er a long serious illness.
Tamara Alexeyevna was born in Leningrad on 7 October 1948. Her father had
fought in the Great Patriotic War (WWII), while her mother had remained in the
besieged city.
Tamara Alexeyevna was accepted for employment at the Hermitage in 1970 after
graduating from a pedagogical college and while still an evening student in the
Department of Art History in Leningrad State University’s History Faculty. Her career
in the museum took her from research assistant to leading researcher, and she
was the curator of the collection of Russian glass for nearly thirty-fi ve years. In all
her years at the Hermitage, with love, understanding and genuine enthusiasm, Tamara
Alexeyevna dealt not only with glass as such, but also with general matters
concerning the history of Russian art. Her many years of research resulted in over
70 scholarly works on the history of glass manufacture in Russia, particularly on
the history of the Imperial Glassworks. Her range of interests included matters of
interior, architecture and style that are inextricably linked with the study of works
of applied art.
Tamara Malinina’s academic articles, catalogues, guides and monographs cover
virtually every aspect of Russian artistic glass-making, from its inception to the works
of contemporary glass artists. On account of her rare enthusiasm and enormous capacity
for work, Tamara Alexeyevna became one of the leading specialists on Russian
artistic glass. Besides that, her huge museum experience, taste and artistic fl air enabled
her to become one of the most authoritative experts in this fi eld.
Along with academic research, Tamara Malinina devoted a great deal of attention
to curator and exhibition work. She was the originator of conceptions, one of
the principal organisers of major exhibitions such as “Historicism in Russia” (in the
Hermitage), “Nicholas and Alexandra” (USA) and many others; she prepared several
exhibitions devoted to glass-making in Russia from the 17th to early 20th centuries
and to contemporary original glass in the Hermitage and in the Corning Museum
of Glass (USA). Th ese exhibitions were great events in the museum world and their
catalogues were real encyclopedias of the history of Russian art.
Tamara Alexeyevna’s collecting activity was extraordinarily fruitful. Th anks to her
eff orts, the Hermitage collections acquired whole sets of eighteenth- and nineteenthcentury
artistic glass objects. In addition, it was on her initiative that a unique collection
of remarkable works by contemporary glass masters was formed.
With the persistence of a true curator, Tamara Alexeyevna succeeded in creating
one of the exemplary modern repositories of decorative applied arts in the Hermitage.
She invested a great deal of mental power and artistic taste in its reconstruction and
design.
Special mention must be made of Tamara Malinina’s participation in the Hermitage’s
travelling exhibitions that visited various cities in Russia and the former USSR
territory – from the Ukraine to Siberia, as well as countries in Europe, America and
Asia. It is necessary to underline Tamara Alexeyevna’s major contribution to the replenishment
of the reserves of the Department of the History of Russian Culture,
chiefl y icons, costumes and collections of folk art. She took an active part in the Russian
Department’s numerous ethnographic expeditions to collect monuments of traditional
art, and from the late 1970s she led these expeditions.
226 227
Tamara Alexeyevna Malinina
07.10.1948 – 29.08.2010

Lyudmila Konstantinovna
Galanina
02.11.1929 – 04.10.2010
Tamara Malinina was also a talented teacher. For many years she taught art history
in St. Petersburg’s higher educational establishments and was a senior lecturer
(dozent) at the Baron Stieglitz State Academy of Industrial Art, where she helped to
train future masters of applied art. Her pupils, who also became her friends, included
talented artists, art historians and local history experts.
For the last four years of her life Tamara Malinina struggled bravely with her serious
illness. Despite that, she was full of creative ideas and selfl essly continued to work
on projects for new exhibitions and on scholarly subjects. Literally a few days before
her death, a landmark monograph she had written on the Imperial Glassworks was
completed and published. Tamara Alexeyevna was awarded a gold medal by the Russian
Academy of Arts for this book.
Tamara Malinina was a sensitive and responsive person, always ready to come
to the aid of her friends and colleagues. Her bright image will always remain in the
hearts of those who knew her well.
By Tatyana Petrova
When Lyudmila Galanina passed away on 4 October 2010, the Hermitage lost one
of its beauties. For almost six decades she had been a good colleague, a close comrade
and a true friend to all the staff of the Department of Archaeology. Like all her
contemporaries – the “children of three wars”, as they sometimes called themselves
half jokingly, half seriously, she was a strong, hardened person, very responsible and
thoroughly reliable. Having said all that, what fi rst impressed those who met her and
remained forever in their memory were her extraordinary feminine beauty and attractiveness,
the grandeur, austerity and nobility of her speech, her movements, her
manners. Occasionally these external qualities even put people slightly on their guard
and were perceived by those who did not know her well as a manifestation of aloofness
or even arrogance, which was, in fact, not in the least like her. Indeed, Lyudmila
Konstantinovna was a benevolent, responsive and generous person, not at all
demanding and stoically enduring the diffi culties and deprivations of expedition life.
She was always trustful, even somewhat naive, but with an adventurous streak that
enabled her to act decisively, sometimes unexpectedly. She knew how to work and
have fun, and was a well-educated and knowledgeable person with whom it was both
interesting and invariably pleasant to converse.
Th e years of Lyudmila Konstantinovna’s youth were much like those of all her generation:
starting school in Leningrad in 1937, then the war and evacuation to Omsk,
returning to Leningrad in 1944, fi nishing school and entering Leningrad University
in 1947 (in her case, the Archaeological Department of the Faculty of History). In
those days many more archaeologists were trained in the faculty than today – there
were 25 students in Lyudmila Konstantinovna’s year. Some of her course-mates went
on to become well-known academics: Irina Zasetskaya, Lyudmila Barkova, Boris
Gamburg, Nonna Grach, Ksenya Kasparova, Vera Dyakonova, Ilya Gokhman, Valentina
and Vladimir Kotovichs. At the University Lyudmila Konstantinovna specialised
in ancient archaeology and completed her diploma work – “Rural Fortifi ed
Settlements in the Heracleian Peninsula” – under the guidance of Victor Gaydukevich.
Later, when her interests had shift ed entirely to the history and culture of the
“barbarian” tribes of the Northern Black Sea Coast – the Scythians and the Maeotians,
her training as an “ancient” archaeologist played a major role in the success of her
scholarly works.
Aft er completing her University studies in 1953, the “maiden” Galanina, as she
touchingly described her marital status on her application form, started work as
a research assistant at the Hermitage, initially and temporarily in the Department
of Western European Art (in the Arsenal), but shortly aft erwards and permanently –
in the Department of the History of Primitive Culture (now the Department of the
Archaeology of Eastern Europe and Siberia). She worked there for over 57 years,
moving many steps up the career ladder, as is the custom at the Hermitage, from
technical research worker to leading researcher. During that time she participated
in numerous Hermitage projects. In the late 1950s and early 1960s she took an
active and energetic part in the creation of a permanent display about Scythian
history and culture which, despite the fact that it is now physically aging, remains
one of the museum’s best archaeological exhibitions in form and content. Th e didactic
completeness of the Scythian exhibition expressed itself in the writing of
a children’s guide to the history of the Scythians (one of the fi rst such books in the
Hermitage), undertaken by Lyudmila Galanina in collaboration with Irina Zasetskaya.
She then started work on the study and preparation for publication of one of
the most widely known archaeological monuments from the Scythian period in
the Kuban Region – the Kurdzhipsky burial mound, excavated in the late 19th century.
It was the fi rst attempt at a work of this nature in Russian archaeology and
ended with her defence of a Candidate’s dissertation in 1975 and the publication
in 1980 of the monograph “Th e Kurdzhipsky Burial Mound. A Cultural Monument
of the Kuban Tribes in the 4th Century B.C.”. Th is monographic publication became
a model for other researchers of Scythian antiquities. In parallel with this work, Lyudmila
Konstantinovna prepared and published in 1977 her book “Scythian Antiquities
of the Dnieper Region (Th e Hermitage Collection of Nikolay Brandenburg)” as
part of the academic series “A Collection of Archaeological Sources”, then started
work on another, even more celebrated, archaeological collection of the Scythian
era – materials from the Kelermes burial mounds. In this work she did not confi ne
herself only to information available in archive repositories and the museum collection
itself. It was obvious that further examination of the Kelermes burial mounds,
which had been poorly and incompletely excavated in the early 20th century, was
necessary, and Lyudmila Konstantinovna organised a Hermitage expedition with
the aim of completing the excavation of the partly investigated Scythian tombs and
excavating new burial mounds. She was greatly helped by her experience as a fi eld
archaeologist accumulated at various archaeological monuments during the Bosporus,
Volga-Don, Nikopol and other expeditions, starting from her student years
under the leadership of the outstanding archaeologists Victor Gaydukevich, Ivan
Lyapushkin and Mikhail Artamonov and continuing later with Konstantin Smirnov,
Vladimir Shilov, Iosif Brashinsky and others. Th e Hermitage’s Kelermes expedition
continued for fi ft een years, amassing a great deal of new information about the
history of the Kuban region in the Bronze and early Iron Ages. Suffi ce it to say that
among the fi nds in the Kelermes burial mound was a previously unknown type of
monument – an earthen necropolis of the local “Maeotian” population of the same
date as the Scythian burial mounds; this enabled Lyudmila Galanina to reappraise
the ethnic and social history of local society in the early Scythian period. In 1997
a book about the Scythian “royal” burial mound at Kelermes was published. It was
228 229

the fi rst of a number of monographs published with the support and participation of
the German Archaeological Institute and the Centre for the Comparative Study of
Ancient Civilisations of the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Institute of General History
in a series entitled “Th e Steppe Tribes of Eurasia”. Th en began work on a joint
publication (with colleagues from the State Museum of Oriental Art and Cultures)
of another outstanding Scythian-Maeotian monument, the Ulskaya burial mounds
of the 7th and 6th centuries B.C. – work that has now been fully completed. Almost
to her last days in the Hermitage Lyudmila Konstantinovna was working on
a monograph about the famous Elizavetinskaya burial mounds excavated by Nikolay
Veselovsky in Kuban in the early 20th century. Here too she achieved a great
deal, thoroughly researching well-known and new archive material, and publishing
several articles concerning various categories of fi nds. Illness prevented Lyudmila
Konstantinovna from completing this work, but a suffi cient amount had been done
for her successors to prepare it for publication.
Apart from her expedition and academic work, Lyudmila Konstantinovna always
devoted a huge amount of attention and expended a great deal of energy and time in
routine, but essential, curator work – the formal acceptance and transfer of collections,
checking their state of preservation and drawing up inventories. Th is work was
particularly time-consuming when permanent displays were being set up, as, for example,
in the Hermitage’s Treasure Gallery. Neither was it straightforward to prepare
and install the dozens of temporary exhibitions devoted to the Hermitage’s Scythian-
Sarmatian treasures that were held with invariable success in many European, Asian
and American museums between 1970 and 2000.
Any museum employee has to talk a great deal to colleagues and visitors, give
consultations, conduct guided tours and give public lectures, so the ability to popularise
the achievements in one’s particular fi eld is an essential condition for working
in a museum. Lyudmila Konstantinovna had that ability from her youth and did it
all wonderfully well and with love, as evidenced by the number of her popular books
published both in Russia and abroad. Th ey are invariably characterised by lively exposition,
emotion and fi ne style.
Alas, however, even her books, which have become classic reference works for
many archaeologists, can never make up for the loss of the opportunity to chat with
Lyudmila Konstantinovna, nor can they reduce the bitterness of that loss. It is banal to
write that we will never forget her, but that really is the case. Her friends will not only
ensure that she is remembered while they are still alive, but also consider it their duty
to describe her to all young members of staff and future colleagues who will never be
lucky enough to know Lyudmila Galanina, whether it be amusing stories about her
life and work in the Hermitage in the distant past or instructive admonitions concerning
her scholarly accomplishments.
By Andrey Alexeyev
Marianna Vinokurova passed away on 11 November 2010, leaving everyone who
knew her with blessed memories. As she had worked in the Hermitage for nearly fi ft y
years, she was for many of us a teacher and mentor in our profession, and an example
of a person of high moral rectitude and nobility. Th e history of the creation and development
of the Laboratory for Restoration of Mural Painting is closely linked with
Marianna Pavlovna, whose personal interests never dominated the interests of the job
to which she had devoted her life – the restoration of ancient monuments.
Marianna Vinokurova was born in Leningrad on 1 March 1928 into a military family.
When she returned from evacuation aft er the war, she graduated from a secondary
school in 1946 and entered the Faculty of History at Leningrad University. Aft er graduating,
Marianna Pavlovna worked in Tadzhikistan, participating in archaeological expeditions
in Central Asia. At that time excavations of the ancient city of Penjikent were
already under way, and the possibility of preserving the glue paintings discovered on
many of the walls there was being examined. Th e work was conducted according to the
method devised in the Hermitage by Pavel Kostrov. By then Marianna Pavlovna already
had a great deal of experience of working with archaeological material.
When she returned to Leningrad in 1955, she joined the staff of the Hermitage’s new
restoration workshop, headed by Pavel Kostrov. It has to be said that it is hard to imagine
stricter requirements than his on the recruitment of staff , both in professional and moral
terms. However, Kostrov’s policy justifi ed itself, as it produced a fi ne body of people devoted
to their work. Relationships based on trust, benevolence, mutual assistance, concern
for educating and broadening the horizons of young colleagues – for all this we are
indebted to our teachers, one of whom was indisputably Marianna Pavlovna.
In the 1960s, as a result of the increase of materials requiring restoration, the staff of
the Workshop for Restoration of Mural Painting and Loess Sculpture was augmented.
Th e new members of staff acquired their experience under the guidance of their teachers
on the job – in the process of working with the artefacts. How much attention, concern
and participation Marianna Pavlovna exhibited in this situation, not only showing what
needed to be done and how to do it, but also striving to make the restorers understand
the physical and chemical properties of the materials with which they were working.
For a lengthy period Marianna Pavlovna was engaged essentially in research work,
enabling us to enrich our methods by the use of blends of solvents for the reinforcement
of porous materials (loess plasterwork, frescoes). Th e results of these and other
investigations by Marianna Pavlovna were presented in reports, papers, articles in
scientifi c journals and methodical publications, materials which became educational
aids for new staff members.
Special mention should be made of Marianna Pavlovna’s responsible attitude to
her work – to everything that she regarded as her duty. Her strict adherence to routine,
discipline, order and methodical rules in dealing with documentation initially
seemed to us to be superfl uous. Later we were convinced of the expediency of this approach.
It was amazing how she managed to combine this adherence to principle and
her demanding attitude with the touching concern she showed towards us; we sensed
that she felt for us and was protecting us from errors and mistakes. When working
alongside Marianna Pavlovna in the fi eld or in the laboratory, we, her pupils, could
always count on her support and protection – essentially, maternal care. Now, having
said goodbye to her, we defi nitely do not want to think that we have been orphaned,
because a person so near and dear cannot go without leaving a trace, but will remain
a paragon of fairness, kindness, nobility and devotion to her work.
By Rimma Belyayeva
230 231
Marianna Pavlovna
Vinokurova
01.03.1928 – 11.11.2010

Sergey Leonidovich Plotnikov
23.02.1974 – 14.02.2011
Sergey Plotnikov, Head of the Military Heraldry Section of the “Arsenal” Department,
died suddenly on 14 February 2011.
Sergey Leonidovich devoted his whole life to museology. He graduated with distinction
from the Department of Museum Management Studies and the Preservation
of Monuments at the St. Petersburg State University of Culture and Arts in 1996. He
completed his postgraduate studies in the same Department in 1999.
Sergey Leonidovich came to the Hermitage from the Museum of Military Medicine
in 2001. By that time the span of his scholarly interests had already taken shape:
he had more than ten published works on military history, the history of military
uniform and symbolism to his credit.
Sergey was generously endowed with all the qualities essential for a researcher:
a wonderful memory, industriousness and passionate enthusiasm for his work. He
readily and willingly found a common language with colleagues and was invariably
prepared to provide assistance or give a scientifi c consultation. He did all this as
a genuinely indispensable expert, gladly sharing his profound knowledge and amazingly
easily fi nding the answers to extremely complex questions.
During his time at the Hermitage Sergey Leonidovich participated in the setting
up of a number of permanent displays, such as the Guards’ Museum, “Th e Ministry
of Foreign Aff airs. Th e St. Petersburg Age”, “Th e State Symbols of Russia”, in addition
to more than thirty temporary exhibitions in Russia and abroad. His last work was the
display “In the Service of the Tsars. Th e Russian Imperial Guard from Peter the Great
to the October Revolution” at the Musee d’Armee in Paris.
Along with his intensive work on exhibitions and as a curator, Sergey Leonidovich
was a successful author of scholarly works, writing more than forty articles and reports.
Sergey Plotnikov’s bright image will remain in our grateful memory. We will remember
him as he was when he worked with us: a profound expert, a reliable colleague,
a colourful Hermitage employee, a kind and cheerful person with a ready,
somewhat mischievous smile. We miss Sergey Leonidovich and know in our hearts
that we will always miss him.
By his colleagues
It is always a misfortune when a person’s earthly life ends – for his family, friends
and colleagues. When it is a young man at the height of his creative and professional
powers, it is a tragedy, and if we add that he was a kind and cheerful person, decent
and generous, it is an irreparable loss.
Sergey Plotnikov displayed the interests that were later to become his profession
while still a student, when he attended sessions of the Hermitage’s Heraldic Seminar.
Even at that time he attracted attention by his outstanding personality, which manifested
itself in his appearance and behaviour, in his turn of speech and, of course, in
his knowledge. Even then he seemed to blend very well into the Hermitage, and when
he came here from the Museum of Military Medicine in 2001, it seemed like a natural
progression.
Sergey immediately carved out his own niche in the Hermitage, but he did it
quietly, without elbowing people out of his way. He very quickly gained deserved
authority, not only in his own Department but with all the museum’s staff . People did
not merely regard him highly and respect him – they loved him. He rapidly gained
232
the experience of a professional museum employee. His participation in setting up
numerous exhibitions was inevitable, given his scope of knowledge. And he did this
work with enthusiasm, with taste for his subject and for the pieces. Of course, he
worked with particular aff ection on the creation of the Guards’ Museum and the temporary
exhibition “In the Service of the Tsars. Th e Russian Imperial Guard from Peter
the Great to the October Revolution” at the Musee d’Armee in Paris. Th at was the last
in a long line of more than thirty temporary exhibitions that he helped to organise.
Th e loss of Sergey has been very keenly felt by everybody. His presence in the Hermitage,
his conformation with the Hermitage spirit and his adherence to Hermitage
traditions were necessary to all of us, even if it did not occur to us at the time. Now
that he has gone, however, we realise that we have lost not only a good and reliable
friend, a brilliant and profound expert and professional, but also a part of our Hermitage
life.
By Georgy Vilinbakhov
Translated by David Hicks

COLLECTION STUDIES
Elena Korolkova
A Horse “Aigrette” with a Scene of a Predator
Tormenting Its Prey from Peter the Great’s Siberian
Collection 5
Natalia Vasilyeva
Th e Repeated Restoration of a Wooden Vessel
from Tuekta Kurgan I 14
Andrey Nikolaev
Ancient Egyptian Cones in the Hermitage Collection 21
Maria Menshikova
Figured Silk with Rocks, Tree,
Birds and Mushrooms from Noin-Ula.
A Possible Interpretation of the Subject 30
Anastasia Bukina, Olga Shuvalova
Th e Restoration and Attribution of a Black-Figure
Olpe from the Collection of Marquis Campana
Anna Petrakova, Natalia Borisova
A Krater with Ships from the Hermitage Collection.
Th e Importance 47
Nadezda Gulyaeva
Greek Lamps from Private Collections
in the State Hermitage 63
Elena Khodza
Th e Statuette of Eros and Psyche
from Pyotr Sabouroff ’s Collection 71
Ludmila Kagané
Elijah and the Angel. a Forgotten Painting
by Meneses Osorio, Pupil of Murillo 79
APPENDIX. Liliya Vyazmenskaya, Sergey Khavrin
Technical and Technological Study
of Francisco Meneses Osorio’s Painting
Elijah and the Angel 93
CONTENTS
234
Elizaveta Renne
A Portrait of Lady Lavinia Spencer by Sir Martin
Archer Shee from the Vorontsov Collection 98
Olga Lokalova
Oliphants with Portraits of Monarchs 108
Tatyana Lekhovich
Velvet Wall Coverings in the Peter the Great
(Small Th rone) Room in the Winter Palace.
A Forgotten History 115
Sergey Tomsinsky
A Sixteenth-Century Silver Reliquary
in the Collection of the Department
of the History of Russian Culture
of the State Hermitage 125
Yuri Gudymenko
Th e Rossica of the First Half of the 19th Century
from the Painting Section of the Department
of the History of russian Culture 136
Galina Printseva
Portraits of Field Marshal Kutuzov’s
Granddaughters at the Department
of the History of Russian Culture 143
Natalia Avetyan
Daguerreotypes of the State Hermitage Collection:
Attribution to Sergey Levitsky 150
Irina Ukhanova
A Group of Twentieth-Century Bone Carvings 156
Tatyana Slepova
Gold Coins of the Duchy
of Savoy from the 16th and 17th Centuries
in the State Hermitage Collection 160
APPENDIX 1. Biographical Details of Dukes of Savoy 164
APPENDIX 2. Description of Coins
of the Duchy of Savoy 165
FROM THE HISTORY OF THE HERMITAGE
Galina Miroliubova
On the History of the 1928 Stamping
of the Hermitage Collection of Prints 168
NEW ACQUISITIONS
Kira Samosyk
A Chinese Illustrated Manuscript about
the Descent of Mulian into Hell 175
Maria Menshikova, Alexey Bogolybov
Th e Oriental Collection of Sergey Varshavsky 183
Irina Ukhanova
A Toilet Box of the First Half of the 18th Century 192
NEW PERMANENT EXHIBITIONS
Anatoly Ivanov
Th e Art of Dagestan. 14th to Early 20th Centuries 196
IN MEMORIAM
Nina Alexandrovna Livshits 201
Curator of Russian Architects’ Designs,
Anna Nikolayevna Voronikhina 208
Asya Solomonovna Kantor 218
OBITUARIES
Anastasia Lvovna Rakova 222
Nadezhda Bronislavovna Petrusevich 224
Natalia Alexeyevna Lebedeva 226
Tamara Alexeyevna Malinina 227
Lyudmila Konstantinovna Galanina 228
Marianna Pavlovna Vinokurova 231
Sergey Leonidovich Plotnikov 232

Reports of the State Hermitage Museum / Th e State Hermitage Museum – St. Petersburg, Th e State Hermitage
Publishers, 2011 – Vol. LXIX: 236 pp., ills.
ISBN 978-5-93572-446-7
Reports of the State Hermitage Museum is an annual edition presenting the results of the museum’s recent research,
restoration, preservation and exhibition activities. Th e articles are primarily concerned with the Hermitage
collections and individual works of art. Th eir authors introduce art pieces unknown to the wide public, as well as
specify and make more accurate attributions, datings and interpretations of the already published works, on the
basis of the latest scientifi c and scholastic achievements. Other sections of the book deal with most important recent
acquisitions of the museum, its newly-opened and reorganised permanent exhibitions and new studies on the
Hermitage’s history. “In Memoriam” section covers careers and activities of outstanding members of the Hermitage
staff . Th e edition is published in Russian and English.
Scholarly edition
REPORTS
of
THE STATE HERMITAGE MUSEUM
LXIX
Computer design by Valeria Krayneva, Nadezhda Lakatosh
Colour correction by Igor Bondar and Vitaly Demiashev
Th e State Hermitage Publishers
34 Dvortsovaya Embankment, St. Petersburg, Russia, 190000
Отпечатано в ООО «Первый издательско-полиграфический холдинг».
194044, Санкт-Петербург, Б. Сампсониевский пр., д. 60, лит. У