From a Russian Perspective. Notes on the History of the Italian Sculptures from the Berlin Museums in the Custody of the Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts, Moscow, 1945–2015

In 2015 the Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts in Moscow embarked on an important cooperative project with the Bode Museum of the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin. Linked together by the tragic events of World War II, this is not the first time that the Moscow and Berlin museums are collaborating in the cultural field.1 It is the first time, however, that such a collaboration takes place in the domain of Italian Renaissance sculpture. The sculptures the project deals with, relocated to Russia as a result of the war, like many other cultural assets, make the fate of the Berlin sculpture collection largely inseparable from the his- tory of the Moscow museum. However, an even older history links these muse- ums: it is the one started by the founder and first director of the Pushkin Mu- seum, Ivan Tsvetaev, who was in contact with Wilhelm von Bode and acquired many plaster casts of works in the Kaiser Friedrich Museum collection.2 Many of them can be seen today in the Italian Renaissance Hall of the Pushkin Mu- seum. (fig. 1) Keeping that period in mind, the museums have now started the joint project with the goal to study, restore, and present to a wider audience the works of Italian Renaissance sculpture that once formed a central part of the Berlin Skulpturensammlung and are now in the custody of the Pushkin Museum. Many sculptures featured in this project were long considered irrevocably lost and are now reappearing for the first time since the end of the war. They were damaged by disastrous incidents at the end of the war and need extensive restoration before they can be presented to the public. Likewise, their history after 1945 needs to be reconstructed piece by piece, on the basis of whatever documentary sources are available. Of great importance for this task is the 2014 publication by Anna Aponasenko, Deputy Head of the Register Department of the State Hermitage Museum, presenting a collection of documents related to the history of the »relocated artworks«, an admirable example that will hope- fully be followed by the Moscow museum in the years to come, as well as previ- ously published works by independent researchers Konstantin Akinsha and Grigorii Kozlov, which were instrumental in documenting the fate of the sculp- tures from the Berlin Skulpturensammlung after 1945.3

This article must be understood as the first step toward such a reconstruction. Research undertaken in the archives of the Pushkin Museum has shown that information available in oral or written form to the curators assigned with the task of caring for the sculpture collection in the years between 1945 and 2015 was quite often not fully passed down to the next generation, for various reasons – beginning with the atmosphere of secrecy surrounding the transported objects. A plan for a book documenting the evacuation of items from the Berlin Muse- ums and their eventual return to the GDR in 1958, not devoid of a certain pro- pagandist goal, exists in the archives of the Pushkin Museum. The draft of the monograph was titled »Saving German Cultural Treasures by the USSR in the Great Patriotic War«; it never reached completion, and the chapter on sculpture, assigned to S. D. Romanovich, curator of Western European sculpture at the time, is sadly missing.4 All in all, the documents of the Pushkin Museum archives are important sources and make it possible to reconstruct the history of this part of the museum collection. Many of them are published here for the first time.

Berlin 1945 – 1946: The Friedrichshain Disaster and its Aftermath

In 1939, the galleries of the Kaiser-Friedrich-Museum (today's Bode Museum) in Berlin were closed to the public, and the works of art were evacuated in preparation for the war.5 A system of evacuation measures involved putting the works in various storage locations both in Berlin and outside the city. In 1942, the majority of the collection was transferred to one of the allegedly safest loca- tions in Berlin – the Friedrichshain anti-aircraft flak bunker. However, in the last days of World War II, two devastating fires led to the greatest single loss to the art world in the twentieth century, with its precise circumstances largely unknown. The fires took place between May 2 – the day of the occupation of the

Friedrichshain district by Soviet troops – and May 18, 1945, when the conse- quences of the second fire that reduced the famed masterworks of Italian sculp- ture to their present state were noted and documented.

Reading the purely factual accounts of the situation in reports by members of the Berlin Museums staff, such as the »War Chronicle« report of Friedrich Winkler, then director of the Berlin Kupferstichkabinett, one cannot ignore the bitter impression that the situation in the bunker could have been avoided, at least in part, if only the necessary precautions had been taken.6

An inspection on May 5 still found everything in order; on May 6, the lower story of the bunker, where large-format canvases of the Berlin Gemäldegalerie and part of the Nationalgalerie canvases had been stored, was found burning after a conflagration.7 Famed masterpieces by Signorelli, Botticelli, Caravaggio, and Rubens had been located on that level. However, the doors and seals on the upper floors, which contained the works of the sculpture collection together with numerous objects from other departments of the Berlin Museums, were still intact as of May 7, according to a statement by Otto Kümmel, director gen- eral of the Berlin Museums, made to Capt. Hathaway of the American Monu- ments, Fine Arts, and Archives program (MFAA) on July 19, 1945, regarding a visit he made with Maj. Lipskerov of the Soviet Military Administration.8

The second fire, which is not dated with precision in most of the accounts, destroyed the artworks – including the works of the Berlin sculpture collection – housed on the upper story; Kümmel's letter places it as early as May 14, while a period between May 14 and May 18 is commonly named in other sources.9 His statement also names possible reasons for both fires: With regard to the first fire, a correction in the draft of his statement, later incorporated in the final version, indicates »Werwolf?«.10 The possibility that the Friedrichshain fires were no accident, but a planned act of sabotage by the Werwolf organization made in accordance with Hitler's so-called »Nero Decree« was developed further by Günther Schade of the East Berlin Museums during the 1980s.11 For the Eastern Block, this point of view was certainly ideologically appropriate. It should not be completely discarded, however, since the cause of the first fire was apparently an explosion so powerful that it jammed the building's elevator and rendered the upper stories inaccessible for inspection on Мay 6 because of the extreme temperature in the stairwell.12 It seems unlikely that such an explosion could have occurred by accident.

For the second fire, Kümmel names an absence of proper military guards and museum employees, together with a lack of electricity and carelessness of plunderers using paper torches, as likely causes. However, the origins of the second fire are even less certain. According to Schade, it was again a revenge act

of the Werwolf sabotage group. If this version is accepted, it may be possible to suppose that the act was triggered by the Soviet evacuation of works of art stored in the bunker near the Berlin Zoo, which had started on May 13. This evacuation, which included the famous Trojan gold and the reliefs of the Perga- mon Altar, was carried out in order to prevent the Western Allies from taking possession of these art treasures. Unlike the Zoo bunker, located in the soon- to-be British Sector, the Friedrichshain bunker was in the future Soviet sector, and it had already burnt; evacuation thus did not seem to be urgent. According to Kümmel and Carl Weickert, head of the Berlin Antiquities Collection, only general neglect and lack of proper guarding (civilians were seen walking in and out of the building) were accountable for the deplorable state of affairs which led to greater damage. Indeed, a combination of different factors could have led to the destruction here, as the various conditions of the damaged works, now preserved in Berlin and in Moscow, indicate. Some of the works suffered from the fire much more than others; some emerged relatively unharmed, and others are almost certainly lost. In many cases, such as the marble relief of the »Flagel- lation of Christ« ascribed to Donatello (see p. 152, 153, fig. 7, 8), there is evi- dence that the sculpture had first been broken into pieces and subsequently damaged by fire, a situation unlikely if the transport crates had not been opened. Of particular interest is a statement made in July 1945 by Soviet Army Colo- nel Belokopytov, representative of the Committee for the Arts, who played an important role in the evacuation of artworks from Berlin: »Reasons exist to suggest that the fire was laid by the Germans. Of all the rooms of the tower, only the three spaces housing the artworks have been burnt«.13 This version became the official one in the USSR, complicating relations with the Berlin museum employees and the Western Allies. Besides these versions, various conspiracy theories have been suggested over the years.14 Yet, with all the unanswered ques- tions and in the absence of new documentary evidence, it is probably wise to accept that an objective account of the events which took place in Flakbunker

Friedrichshain in the first half of May 1945 is impossible to reconstruct.

After the fire, the bunker had to be excavated, with remains of the works salvaged if possible, but the participation of any non-Soviet parties was ex- cluded from the start. At the request of Victor Lazarev, a prominent Soviet art historian who was to become a key figure in the history of the »trophy art« operation, Vladimir Blavatzky, an archaeologist and professor at Moscow Uni- versity, was summoned to Berlin to lead the »excavation« of the bunker, where the Italian sculptures were still in place under layers of ash and dust.15 Oral ac- counts of Lazarev's visit to the bunker, transmitted by his students and col- leagues from Moscow University, include gruesomely picturesque details: pud-

dles of molten bronze on the floor from what were originally works of art, and sculptures crumbling away at the slightest movement of air in the room.

Accounts by Blavatzky himself, who first visited the Friedrichshain bunker in July 1945, state explicitly that the crates holding the works of art had been burnt by using »Thermite«, an oxygen-containing wartime incendiary com- pound capable of burning at very high temperatures in rooms with no ventila- tion at all.16 Part of the ceiling had fallen on top of the fragile works of art, and after the fire some plundering had been done by unknown people. A layer of ash and dust, 50 to 80 cm thick according to a restorer from the Tretyakov Gallery, Mikhail Ivanov-Churonov, who was also present on this preliminary visit, was covering the artworks and hiding them from sight. His notes on the sculpture collection were quite brief: »On the third floor there were some statues covered with dust, but I heard nothing about their value from Blavatzky«.17 Weickert, who, in the absence of Blavatzky, visited the bunker with an Anglo-American Commission on August 31, 1945, also noticed the layer of ash up to 1 meter thick and recommended an excavation together with Berlin museum personnel and a Russian Commission.18 For a variety of reasons, a full and proper excavation did not start until December 28, 1945, when Blavatzky came back to Berlin with Nikolai Sokolski, a professional archaeologist.19 There is anecdotal evidence, of- ten repeated in publications on this matter, of truckloads of unprocessed ash being carried away by Soviet soldiers for further examination.20 On April 10, 1946, the Soviet member of the »Allied Kommandantura Berlin Monuments and Fine Arts Committee« Capt. A. Gouliga stated that the Friedrichshain bunker had been emptied of all items.21 Blavatzky's official account of the excavation, stating that more than 10 000 objects of antique and Western European sculp- ture and objects of applied art had been found, is dated May 14, 1946.22

The Berlin part of the story will end here, only for another one to begin. On a side note, a small number of objects from the bunker which had escaped the archeologists fell in the hands of Monuments, Fine Arts, and Archives officers and was brought to Collecting Point Wiesbaden afterwards, to be later trans- ferred to the museums in West Berlin. Their existence was not revealed to the Soviet military administration.23

Between Moscow and Leningrad, 1946: Unpacking the Sculptures

As we now know, the yields of the Friedrichshain excavations were sent to the USSR in two stages, on two different military trains. Both of them carried sculptures damaged in the bunker, along with a long list of other items removed from Berlin by the Trophy Commissions. The first one, numbered #176/1759, left Berlin on February 18, 1946, and arrived in Moscow on March 17, 1946. In the key to the inventory of freight train #176/1759 one can read what it contained:

"Crates with Letter B- / Bunker / Classical and Western-European artworks, such as: antique vases, terracottas, bronze, glass, Western-European monu- mental sculpture, porcelain, small bronzes and fragments of the above. Ob- jects of art, found by way of excavation and in the bunker blown up and burnt by the Germans, damaged by fire, high temperature, and explosion".24

The second freight train (#178/4090-91), carrying an even larger portion of ex- cavated sculpture, would depart on June 6, 1946, arriving on June 22 in Lenin- grad.25

The sculptures of the Berlin Skulpturensammlung have thus been distribu- ted to various places, not only in Eastern and Western Germany, but also in the Soviet Union, where they were divided between Moscow and Leningrad – a fact that will account for several confusing situations later on. In some cases, even fragments of the same sculpture broken into several pieces became separated between the two museums of Western art in the USSR – The Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts and the State Hermitage Museum.

The reasons for this are twofold. First of all, in the chaotic atmosphere of the post-war evacuation of former German property, relatively little attention was paid to the final destination of the items, as long as they were sent to the USSR. We know of examples of cultural objects being routed to Georgia and to Ukraine and then sent back.26 However, there were other factors at play in this particular case. The process of distributing the works of art, as well as any other former German property, between the museum collections in the USSR was a compli- cated one. In accordance with the idea of »compensatory restitution« set for- ward by the academician and painter Igor E. Grabar, the art was to be distrib- uted among museums to offset the wartime losses of cultural objects.27

Shortly before the end of World War II, special lists of museum »desiderata« were compiled by Soviet researchers to determine the objects of interest and to help the trophy commissions in their work.28 Plans for incorporation of some of the artworks in Soviet museums existed. The process was far from complete, however, and the documents available today show that a certain rivalry existed between the institutions competing for valuable additions to their collections. On August 30, 1945, State Hermitage director I. A. Orbeli wrote a letter to A. A. Kuznetsov, First Secretary of the Leningrad Party Obkom, requesting his aid for securing some of the objects transported out of Germany for the museum col-

lection.29 As an argument supporting his request, Orbeli describes the situation in Moscow, where the treasures of the Dresden Gallery had arrived shortly be- fore, and begs for support in routing the works of art from Berlin to the Her- mitage to compensate for his museum's losses in 1929 – 1932, when many im- portant works of art had been sold abroad. In addition to this letter, he provided a list of 46 sculptures (and many other items) from the Berlin Museums, includ- ing the bronze »John the Baptist« by Donatello, now in storage in Moscow (see p. 140, 159, fig. 1, 13), along with two other Donatello works now in Berlin, the "Putto with a Tambourine" (Inv. 2653) and the bronze »David« (Inv. 2262). They are listed as first-class items, while Donatello's famous »Pazzi Madonna« – also in Berlin (Inv. 51) – follows in the second-class list.30 The marble »Flagellation of Christ« by the same master is, strangely, not listed at all, a fact possibly ex- plained by Orbeli not having access to the more recent editions of the Berlin catalogues of the sculpture collection written by Frida Schottmüller.31

However, the letter by Orbeli arrived too late. Sergei Merkurov, director of the Pushkin Museum in 1944 – 1949, had already famously proposed to the Party officials his project for transforming the Pushkin Museum into a Museum for World Art, significantly enlarging its collections and exhibition spaces, as early as 15 June 1945.32 The outstanding, if somewhat controversial, personality of Sergei Merkurov is well remembered in the museum even today.33 A talented sculptor and creator of iconic images of Soviet leaders, he was unusually well trained and widely traveled for someone in his role and felt at ease with many members of the Party elite. In his youth, Merkurov had traveled in Italy exten- sively, sometimes walking between cities to see works of Renaissance art in re- mote churches. There are reasons to suspect that it was precisely the presence of works by Donatello among the items removed from Berlin that triggered his interest, forcing him to exercise his authority and connections to get the first Berlin transport routed to Moscow. On February 2, 1946, he sent a letter to Mikhail Khraptchenko, head of the Committee for Arts, requesting the items from the first freight train – »3 000 objects from the bunker, including antique bronzes, vases and terracottas, Renaissance sculpture (Donatello) and byzantine bronze" – and demanding »a directive to leave these valuables in Moscow and route them to the State Museum of Fine Arts, where special storehouses are provided for receiving and housing these items".34

This decision, in retrospect, proved to be largely impractical. The unpacking of the damaged items from the Berlin bunker was an exhaustive and time-con- suming endeavor, for which the members of the staff working in the Moscow museum were largely unprepared. The unrecognizable condition of the dam- aged sculptures and other works of art, along with limited documentation, lack of recent editions of Berlin catalogues, and other difficulties led to many misat- tributions and therefore confusing situations later on. In addition, this labor was constantly interrupted by new arrivals of works of art coming with the trains from Leipzig and Danzig.35

The unpacking of the Berlin items in the Pushkin Museum began in April 1946.36 Contemporary accounts collected from documents from that time paint a picture of haste and ineffectiveness inherent in the whole procedure. An order of the Central Administrative Authority for Fine Art Institutions dated 29 July 1946 urges the directors of both the Moscow and Leningrad museums, in rather strict terms, to finish processing the new arrivals before August 31, cancelling if need be any vacations of the museum staff.37 Another document dated 17 De- cember 1946 and signed by Elizaveta Alexandrova, Head of the Trophy Group of the Committee for Arts, accuses the employees of the Pushkin Museum of ineffectiveness in processing the material and describes a situation of nonadher- ence to protocol in the creation of necessary paperwork. The staff of the Her- mitage Museum, by comparison, receive praise in the same document for their copious labor.38 It is likely, but by no means certain, that exactly this situation, documented so acutely in this letter, had already developed several months before and had influenced the representatives of the Committee into routing the remainder of the Friedrichshain objects to Leningrad.

It is under these conditions that the unpacking of the sculptures from the Berlin collections took place in Moscow. On September 27, 1946, a commission of museum employees and a representative of the Committee for Arts, presided over by Andrei Guber, Chief Curator of the Moscow museum, opened crate B-63. It contained an object labeled B-8366, described by the commission as "fragmented slab with a relief image of a Flagellation of Christ. Marble. Broken in 14 parts"39. On the same day, crate B-52 was opened, producing an object labeled B-II-506, "John the Baptist. Bronze. Burnt, heavily damaged, hands bro- ken off and lost, lower part missing. Beaten, surface heavily damaged, restored places visible«40. The objects described were, obviously, the two Donatellos now in Moscow. (see p. 153, 159, fig. 8, 13)

The unpacking was followed by entering the entries in the inventory books. However, the objects obtained by the trophy commissions were not, in fact, incorporated into the main inventory of the museum. Forming part of a "Spe- cial Inventory", the group of objects with German provenance was treated sep- arately in both the Moscow and in Leningrad state museums. This was done in accordance with the original idea of »compensatory restitution«, making this special inventory only a temporary repository for the items destined to take a permanent place in some museum in the USSR.41 Neither the Pushkin Museum

nor the Hermitage acted as new owners of the transported objects, but only as temporary keepers charged with the primary processing of the material.

The distribution, however, never took place. In a document dated November 12, 1946, and signed by the same Elizaveta Alexandrova, we read that "Accor- ding to the directive of Mikhail Khraptchenko, the distribution of the trophy goods is delayed until special order".42 This special order never came. In the end, Merkurov's ambitious plans for a Museum for World Art quietly fell through. The project of the Palace of Soviets, famously including in its design a colossal statue of Lenin by Merkurov, met a similar fate in the years to come, quite sym- bolically.43

Decades of Secrecy, 1949 – 2001

In early 1949, Mikhail Khraptchenko (Head of the Committee for Arts) visited the Pushkin Museum with Joseph Stalin's secretary Alexander Poskrebyshev. This visit, intended to decide the fate of the trophy collections, was soon fol- lowed by the introduction of a new regime of secrecy. From now on, only select members of the museum staff and restorers would have the right of access to the special repositories.44 In Leningrad, a similar regulation had already been in force for a few months: a document dated December 21, 1948, regulating the right of access to the trophy collections in the State Hermitage, refers to a doc- ument from May 26, 1948 that makes the works of art and information about them the subject of »strictly confidential« policy, a State Secret.45 From February 1949, access to the works was given only to bearers of written permission by the Head of the Committee for Arts. An additional Hermitage document, an inter- nal museum instruction for handling the special repository inventories dated February 25, 1953, contains specific requirements for absolute secrecy, based on an order of the USSR Presidium Higher Council, July 9, 1947. Even the printed text of the instruction itself was subject to secret storage alongside the inventory list, that is, inside the special repository.46 A similar regime of secrecy had ex- isted in the Pushkin Museum, making even the knowledge of the existence of the sculptures the privilege of a select few individuals in the years to come.

Documentation related specifically to the Italian sculptures from Berlin in the archives of the Pushkin Museum becomes scarce in the period 1950 – 1958, and almost nonexistent after 1963, when these sculptures and other works of trophy art were handed over to the special Ministry of Culture State Repository for Works of Art in Zagorsk.47 Enough material exists, however, to conclude that the condition of the damaged collections from the bunker had always presented

an insurmountable problem for the museum personnel involved in its process- ing and storage. A bleak picture is painted in accounts and letters of other mu- seum departments, such as the Antiquities Department and the Department for Applied Arts, to which the majority of the Friedrichshain items had been as- signed. Lack of necessary space and conditions unfit for sensitive items, as well as transport damage, rot, and rust to be taken care of by a limited number of restorers coincided with a grave deficit of necessary funding and sometimes of the simplest of essentials. One account signed by the curator of the applied arts objects fund, I. Drozova, is a complaint presented to the Soviet Ministry of State Control in 1950 describing an abundance of problems involved with storage of the objects of the so-called Special Inventory. Directly stating that the objects

»cannot be stored in the present conditions in the Pushkin Museum in accord- ance with the rules of museum keeping«, she describes how the lack of an enam- eled pot in the restoration workshop stops the restorers from undertaking an acid bath for cleaning – and how such a pot can nowhere be bought legally.48 Astonishing as it may seem for a modern reader, this situation was quite the norm in post-war Soviet Russia.

Despite these difficulties, an attempt to restore several items stemming from the Berlin sculpture collection was undertaken in 1950 – 1953. While no docu- mentation or photographs of the work at this time seem to have survived, the restoration measures are briefly mentioned in a handwritten report by Sofia

D. Romanovich dated June 17, 1957, and made in preparation for the GDR res- titution in the following year.49 It was during that time that two bronze plaquettes ascribed to Donatello, a »Virgin and Child« (see p. 147, fig. 4) and a »Flagellation of Christ« (see p. 154, 155, fig. 9, 10) were subjected to an electrochemical pro- cess in order to remove the layers of ash and byproducts left by the burning, which were completely covering them. Unfortunately, the original surface pat- ina was also lost with this method.

Plans for a more profound and intensive restoration of the damaged items from Berlin existed, but were never carried out. In a handwritten protocol dated March 17 – 27, 1953, by the same curator for Western European Sculpture, Sofia Romanovich, Donatello's marble »Flagellation« is mentioned, along with 102 other items, as having been examined by a restorer and scheduled to be worked upon.50 This later formed the basis for an official document dated April 5, 1953, which was signed and approved by the museum director at the time, Nikolai Slonevski, on June 3, 1953.51 It is currently unclear why this restoration of the sculptures of predominantly Berlin provenance never took place. Of particular importance, however, is the date of creation of the first document. Stalin's death on March 5, 1953, marked the beginning of a new era in the history of the coun-

try and of the Pushkin Museum, which had been utilized since 1949 as an ex- hibition space for Stalin's birthday gifts. In December 1953 the museum re- sumed its normal functions and opened a new permanent exhibition for the public. Slonevski, who is regarded today predominantly as a placeholder figure in 1950 – 1954, was soon to be replaced.52

Changes in the political climate during this period led to a massive wave of restitutions of art objects kept in USSR museums. The return of the Dresden Gallery collection, which took place in 1956, is the best-known example, while the restitution to museums of the People's Republic of Poland in 1956 is less known.53 The restitution of works of art to East Germany in 1958/59 was the most extensive of all and resulted in the transport of 1 574 106 cultural objects from the USSR to the GDR.54 However, many items were not included in the lists, and unanswered questions remain to this day in Germany as to the criteria behind the selection of the objects, namely, why some items were returned and others not.55

Some light on the circumstances preceding the restitution of art objects to the GDR is shed by the January 1958 letter to the Minister of Culture, N. A. Mikhailov, signed by the three leading Soviet museum professionals of the time: Boris Wipper (scientific director of the Pushkin Museum), Andrei Guber (chief curator of the Pushkin), and Vladimir Levinson-Lessing (executive di- rector of the Hermitage). In this letter, the art historians express their concerns with the upcoming restitution of artworks and state directly the impossibility

»of a reciprocal restitution«, also maintaining that »the return to the GDR of all the artworks and cultural valuables now in the USSR would not be in the interest of the Soviet Union«.56 Despite these protests, the restitution took place, and among other objects, 269 sculptures from the Berlin museums were handed over to GDR representatives by the curators of the Pushkin Museum.57 A selection of these works was exhibited in the museum in 1958 before this transfer.58

A report signed by A. Guber, dated March 6, 1961, and kept in the archives of the Moscow museum, allows us to reconstruct the three criteria guiding the museum works during the restitution program. Exempt from the restitution were artworks which originated from private collections, those owned by mu- seums in Western Germany, and those with provenance unknown.59 However, the sculptures from Berlin collections today conserved in the Pushkin museum belong to none of these three groups.

A handwritten notice by Sofia Romanovich, bearing no date but stemming obviously from before 1958, is of supreme importance. It allows us to under- stand why these sculptures were excluded from the restitution. The document

is quite interestingly named »The list of outstanding works of sculpture from the Berlin Museums«, and begins with eight works which include the famous "Adoration of the Child" by Antonio Rossellino, J. A.Houdon's "Portrait of C. W. Glück" and several others.60 All these works now form part of the Bode Museum collection as they were included in the 1958 restitution.61 Only after a break, with a comment "works conserved in fragments or heavily damaged during the explosion and fire in the bunker«, do three sculptures ascribed to Donatello appear (along with other important sculptures): the marble »Flagel- lation«, the »Baptist«, and the small bronze »Cupid« (see p. 148, 151, fig. 5, 6). Not all the assessments made by the curator at the time as to which works should be considered most valuable hold up under closer scrutiny today; also, some factual errors regarding the sculptors' lifetimes mar this document. More importantly, however, this document suggests that it was not a wish of the cu- rators to expand the collections of the Moscow museum that prevented the sculptures from being returned to Germany.62

Indeed, it can be demonstrated with confidence that politically motivated concerns about the state of conservation of these artworks were the single main factor having prevented their inclusion in the restitution program of 1958. For example, in the case of antique terracottas and other antique items (shown after restoration in the 2005 exhibition "Archaeology of War" in the Pushkin Museum), a document exists stating explicitly: »not given over to GDR in due order because of bad condition – mainly damaged by fire – (from the so-called bun- ker)« for a range of items.63 A generally similar report by curator Romanovich, dated February 2nd, 1959 and mentioning »burnt sculptures from the bunker of the Berlin museum«, also exists.64

The reasons for this decision can also be understood today. In order not to compromise the desired propaganda effect of the 1958 restitution, works in bad condition were excluded. The situation in the Hermitage preceding the handing over of the artworks to the GDR is now also widely known. A massive restora- tion program dedicated to erasing all traces of transport damage from the works of art was an extremely labor-intensive endeavor, involving a great number of people, and was scheduled to be completed before the end of 1958.65 Fears of negative feedback resulting from the potential reception of works in imperfect condition were in the air, with official documents explicitly proposing to destroy objects that by way of their condition had lost their historical value in order to avoid »provoking the enemy propaganda".66

A contemporary document from the State Hermitage Museum (dated June 16, 1958) mentions the Friedrichshain marble sculptures specifically as unfit for transportation in their current state and necessitating special treatment. Furthermore, the same document deems it impossible to restitute »items which by their condition have lost their artistic and historical significance. Objects se- lected by Hermitage employees and checked by commission members should be inspected and sanctioned for destruction by special representatives of the USSR Ministry of Culture".67

Clearly, this fear-inducing formula was not applicable to works from the Berlin sculpture collection remaining in the Pushkin Museum after 1958, along with other trophy art items. No one was asking for their destruction. But still, exempt from the restitution process, these objects posed no less a problem from a curatorial point of view. Unfit for exhibition for reasons both political and related to their state of conservation, with no realistic possibilities of restoration and with a regime of secrecy negating their very existence and preventing scientific research, these objects had no future. The problem was well under- stood by the museum staff and by the museum director Alexander Zamoshkin, who in early 1960 tried to develop at least a partial makeshift solution.

At the request of Andrei K. Lebedev, head of the Department for Fine Arts and Monuments Preservation in the Ministry of Culture, a project for transfer- ring the remainder of the trophy inventory to the State Hermitage Museum was developed. Originally, the process was scheduled for July – August 1960. It had been triggered by the government handing over the buildings of St. Petersburg's well-known Smolny Monastery to the State Hermitage in the same year.68 The full paperwork documenting this process exists in the archives of the Pushkin Museum, complete with lists and curatorial reports. The Berlin items from the bunker were also included.69 However, the transfer never occurred, as the idea was rejected by Hermitage executive director W. F. Levinson-Lessing, who stated in August 1960 that the Hermitage had no space to receive the items from Mos- cow because the plans for expanding its facilities into the Smolny Monastery had proven to be impractical.70

The idea of freeing the limited space in the storerooms of the Moscow mu- seum from the unusable works of trophy art proved tempting, however. In the following years, another occasion presented itself and this time it was used. On March 11, 1963, a document giving over the custody of the Italian sculptures from the Berlin sculpture collection to the State Ministry of Culture Archive for Works of Art, located in the town of Zagorsk, was signed.71 This institution had been founded in 1951 with the aim of storing for posterity large-format Social- ist Realism canvases that had been made for the 1939 exhibition on »Industry of Socialism«.72 In 1958, during the de-Stalinization campaign, it had received a massive amount of outmoded visual propaganda items. From 1963 on, marble and bronze busts of Stalin would share a common space with the forgotten and

1 »The list of outstanding works of sculpture from the Berlin Museums«, written by curator Sofia D. Romanovich [1956 – 1957] (transliteration see annex). Pushkin Museum Archive

2 The list allows to understand why certain works were excluded from restitution in 1958 – it seems to be due to politically motivated concerns about the state of the objects.

half-destroyed masterworks of Renaissance sculpture in one of the least likely places imaginable. One of the 16th-century towers of the Trinity Lavra of St. Ser- gius Monastery, itself a famous historical and religious monument saved from Bolshevist demolition by conversion to a museum, housed the sculptures from 1963 until the end of the 20th century. During that time, only periodic inspec- tions several times a year by a member of the museum staff from Moscow took place.

In the period of 1981 – 2002, the curatorship of the »special find« was as- signed to O. D. Nikityuk, member of the European and American Art Depart- ment of the Pushkin Museum. It was she who was responsible for the Zagorsk Archive Inspections, and it was under her direction that the sculptures and other works of art were finally moved back from the Zagorsk Archive to small facilities closer to the Pushkin Museum, to be photographed, cleaned, and systematized by the museum curators, members of a different generation already. At first, the nearby building of the church of St. Antipius was used as a temporary repository for the sculptures. In the 2000s, when the church was given to the Moscow Patriarchate, an adjacent building in the neighborhood was used. S. S. Morozova, the curator in charge of the sculptures from 2002 to 2015, was occupied with systematizing the storage and arranging the restoration of the artworks and also began the scientific work on the collection. Some of the artworks were shown in smaller exhibitions in the Pushkin Museum despite the fact that the official ban on publishing these works had not yet been lifted.73

The Last Fifteen Years

The problem of whether, and how, to exhibit the damaged items, however, re- mained unsolved. The dissolution of the Zagorsk Archive coincided with a time of renewed interest in the trophy art question. The 1996 Trojan Gold exhibition and the 2005 »Archaeology of War«, while evoking controversial reactions in- ternationally, were part of an inevitable and necessary process of reintroducing the objects in question into the field of archaeology and art history.74 The more recent »Merovingians« (2007) and »Bronze Age« (2013/14) exhibitions, coop- erative efforts with the Stiftung Preußischer Kulturbesitz (Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation), have introduced new and more efficient ways for collab- oration between Russian and German museum institutions.75 The 2015 Berlin exhibition »Das Verschwundene Museum« in the Bode Museum, dedicated to the fate of the museum collections after the war, was remarkable in dealing not so much with the consequences of Soviet art trophy operations, but for raising

questions of remembrance and historical legacy on a wider scope.76 It has also shown a new and valid approach to exhibiting the war-damaged works of sculp- ture in a museum environment. Finding a way of dealing with the controversial and complicated history of these objects seems possible as well today. Modern restoration technologies open new perspectives on items believed to be irrepa- rable in the 1950s, and even in the case of fragments, a greater part of the aes- thetic and historic significance of the rediscovered works is not lost on the viewer.

Today, with a period of change and reconstruction underway in the Pushkin Museum, we hope to write a new chapter in the story of the »lost« works of art together with the Berlin Museums. Working in collaboration, we hope to return these treasures to those to whom they matter most – the researchers and muse- umgoers worldwide.

Annex (fig. 2, 3)

The list of outstanding works of sculpture from the Berlin Museums

S. D. Romanovich, [1956 – 1957]

[author's punctuation and orthography conserved]

1. Donatello. Italy XV c.

Holy Family [SKS #60, ЗС-7, Returned to GDR]

2. Luca della Robbia. Italy XV c.

Madonna Alessandri [SKS #139, ЗС-19, Returned to GDR]

3. Giovanni della Robbia. XVI c.

Adoration of the Child. [SKS #153, ЗС-22, Returned to GDR]

4. Rosselino, Italy XVI c.

Adoration of the Child. [SKS #81, ЗС-32, Returned to GDR]

5. Sperandio Mantovano. XVI c.

Port. of Niccolo Sanuti [KFMV M.9, ЗС-48, Returned to GDR]

6. Sancovino, Jacopo. Italy XVI c. [written in error – should read Ammanati, Bartolomeo]

Madonna with Child [SKS #288, ЗС-63, Returned to GDR]

7. Sansovino, Jacopo. Italy XVI c.

Madonna with Child [SKS #286, ЗС-64, Returned to GDR]

8. Houdon. France XVIII c.

Portrait of Glück [SKS #1960, ЗС-222, Returned to GDR]

Works conserved in fragments or heavily damaged during the explosion and fire in the bunker.

Donatello. Italy XV с.

1. Flagellation of Christ – burnt, broken [SKS № 1979 ЗС-5] FIG

2. John the Baptist – burnt [SKS № 50 ЗС-8] FIG

3. Dancing putto - burnt [SKS № 2764 ЗС-9] Luca della Robbia. Italy. XV c.

4. Madonna Frescobaldi –part of the head of Madonna. [SKS №2180 ЗС-502]

5. Madonna with child – burnt, broken [SKS #143, ЗС-17] Giovanni della Robbia. Italy XVI c.

6. Lamentation of Christ – Christ in the Hermitage, 3 figures in Pushkin Museum

[SKS #160, ЗС-25, ЗС-26, ЗС-27. Returned to GDR]


7. Madonna with child - destroyed [SKS #92, ЗС-665] Mino da Fiesole. Italy XVI c.

8. Portrait of a young woman – marble [SKS #97, ЗС-35] Burnt, beaten, deformed

9. Faith – relief – burnt, broken [SKS #99, ЗС-36] Verrocchio. Italy XVI c.

10. Lying putti – burnt, broken [SKS #115,116 , ЗС-14,15]

11. Lamentation of Christ – broken. [SKS #117, ЗС-12] Laurana, Francesco. Italy XVI c.

12. Bust of Neapolitan Princess [SKS #260, ЗС-58]

Parts of the neck and torso survive. Head missing. [Head conserved in Berlin]

Mazzoni, Giulio. Italy XVI c.

13. Bust of Francesco del Nero – burnt. [SKS #2261, ЗС-224] Curator Romanovich

Pushkin Museum Archive, Fund 10, Listing 1, Folder 78, Pages 127, 128.


1 See Manfred Nawroth: Zurück zum Diskurs. 20 Jahre deutsch-russische Zusammenarbeit zu kriegsbedingt verlagerten Objekten, in this yearbook, pp. 118 – 129.

2 On this, see И. В. Цветаев – Ю. С. Нечаев-Мальцов. Переписка 1897 – 1912. Публ., коммент. [I. V. Zsvetaev – Yu. S. Nechaev-Maltsov: Correspondence 1897 – 1912. Publ., Comment]. М.Б. Аксененко, А. Н. Баранов. М., 2008 – 2011 [M. B. Aksenenko, A. N. Baranov. M., 2008 – 2011];

E. Hexelschneider (ed.): In Moskau ein kleines Albertinum erbauen. Iwan Tsvetajew und Georg Treu im Briefwechsel (1881 – 1913), Köln 2006.

3 Апонасенко А. Государственный Эрмитаж. «Перемещенное искусство». 1945 – 1958. Архивные документы. Часть 1. (Серия «Страницы истории Эрмитажа»). СпБ., 2014 [A. Aponasenko, State Hermitage: »Displaced Art«. 1945 – 1958. Archive documents. Pt. 1 (Ser. Pages History of Hermitage), Saint-Petersburg, 2014); Konstantin Akinsha / Grigorii Kozlov: Stolen Treasure. The Hunt for the World's Lost Masterpieces, London and New York 1995, and, more specifically for the Berlin sculpture collection: Konstantin Akinscha / Grigori Koslow / Clemens Toussaint: Russische Dokumente zur Beutekunst. Bemerkungen zum Aktenfonds Akinscha/ Kos- low im Archiv des Germanischen Nationalmuseums, in: Anzeiger des Germanischen Nationalmu- seums, 1997, pp. 137 – 154.

4 Pushkin Museum Archive, Find 10. Listing 1. Folder 194. 1964 – 1965, p. 18. Order of USSR Ministry of Culture № 137 of 21 April 1965. Secondary title for the monograph was »Manifestation of Great Soviet Humanism« (see page 24, »Plan Prospects«). It is unclear if the text of the chapter on sculpture was ever finished, as it is listed as »sent back to the author for revision« in April 1970. Pushkin Museum Archive, Fund 10. L. 1. F. 194, pp. 49 – 50.

5 The most detailed account of this is to be found in Irene Kühnel-Kunze: Bergung – Evakuie- rung – Rückführung. Die Berliner Museen in den Jahren 1939 – 1959 (Jahrbuch Preußischer Kul- turbesitz, Sonderband 2), West Berlin 1984. Also of importance are the reports by Carl Weickert and Otto Kümmel reprinted in: Martin Miller (ed.): Antikensammlung: Skulpturen, Vasen, Elfen- bein und Knochen, Goldschmuck, Gemmen und Kameen (Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Doku- mentation der Verluste, Vol. 5.1), Berlin 2005, pp. 11 – 30.

6 See Friedrich Winkler: Kriegschronik der Berliner Museen [Mai 1946]. Berlin, Zentralarchiv der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin. See also: M1947. Records Concerning the Central Collecting Point (»Ardelia Hall Collection«): Wiesbaden Central Collecting Point, 1945 – 1952, Washington

D.C. 2008, Roll 67 ( [accessed on 16. 9. 2016]).

7 See Weickert's note: Bericht über die Bergungsmaßnahmen der Antikenabteilungen und wei- terhin über diejenigen der Gesamtheit der Staatlichen Museen, in: Miller (ed.): Antikensammlung (as in note 5), p. 30.

8 M1941. Records Concerning the Central Collecting Points (»Ardelia Hall Collection«): OMGUS Headquarters Records, 1938 – 1951, Washington D. C. 2004, p. 10 ( search/microfilm/m1941.pdf [accessed on 16. 9. 2016]). See also Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Zen- tralarchiv: IIA/ GD 0034, p. 1.

9 The document says that the upper story was found burnt out by a member of the staff »a week later« after 7 May, effectively making the date May 14. Kühnel-Kunze (as in note 5), pp. 61 – 63 and 355 – 356, mentions a date between May 14 and May 18. In Akinsha/ Kozlov (as in note 3), p. 91, a date between May 7 and May 15 is suggested as probable.

10 Another variant in M1941. Records Concerning the Central Collecting Points (as in note 8), p. 6.

11 Günther Schade: Die Berliner Museumsinsel. Zerstörung, Rettung, Wiederaufbau, East Berlin 1986, pp. 31 – 37.

12 See information collected by members of the American MFAA division in: M1941. Records Concerning the Central Collecting Points (as in note 8), pp. 151 – 152.

13 Aponasenko (as in note 3), pp. 151 – 155. Document 14 / РГАЛИ. Ф. 962. Оп.6. Д. 1357. Л. 263 – 268 [RGALI. F. 962. Op. 6. D. 1357. L. 263 – 268].

14 See for instance: Hartwig Jürgen Niemann: Das Geheimnis der 434 Gemälde aus dem Leit- turm Friedrichshain. Tatsache oder ???, Berlin 2012, who suggests an American participation in the matter, following the thesis of Klaus Goldmann. On the latter, see Walter I. Farmer: The Safekeep- ers. A Memoir of the Arts at the End of World War II, Berlin and New York 2000.

15 Further in Belokopytov's note: »An inspection of the Friedrichshain flak tower, in which aca- demician Lazarev took part, deemed necessary an excavation in search of artworks remaining after the fire. The excavation must be made under the control of academician Blavatsky, whose arrival in Berlin is expected in the following days«. Cited in Aponasenko (as in note 3), p. 154.

16 Aponasenko (as in note 3), pp. 164 – 165, Document №17. РГАЛИ. Ф. 962. Оп. 6. Д. 1357. Л. 25, 26 об (handwritten) [RGALI. F. 962. Op. 6. D. 1357. L. 25, 26].

17 Aponasenko (as in note 3), p. 166. Document №18. A report on inspection of museum collec- tions in the anti-air raid bunker Friedrichshain by representative of the Committee for Arts. 26. 10. 1945. РГАЛИ Ф. 962. Оп.3. Д. 1350. Л. 13 [RGALI F. 962. Op. 3. D. 1350. L. 13]. See also ibidem, p. 168. Document №19. V. D. Blavatsky note on the Friedrichshain bunker inspection. РГАЛИ. Ф. 962. Оп. 6.Д. 1357. Л. 84, 85 [RGALI. F. 962. Op. 6. D. 1357. L. 84, 85].

18 Together with Weickert were present »Mr Norris, Col. Wabb and Col. Pertli of Russian Kom- mandatura«. See M1921. Records relating to monuments, museums, libraries, archives, and fine arts of the Office of Military Government, U.S. Zone (OMGUS) in post-war Germany, 1946 – 1949, Washington DC 2008, p. 52.

19 Konstantin Akinscha / Grigori Koslow / Clemens Toussaint: Operation Beutekunst. Die Ver- lagerung deutscher Kulturgüter in die Sowjetunion nach 1945, Nuremberg 1995, p. 29. »P. Sokol- skij« is mentioned, probably mistakenly.

20 See V. P. Tolstikov's note in the catalogue of the exhibition »Archeology of War«: В.П.Толстиков, Возвращение из небытия // Археология войны, кат. выст. М. 2005. с. 10 [V. P. Tolstikov: Return from Nothingness // Archaeology of War. Exh. Catalogue, Moscow 2005, p. 10].

21 Minutes of the Sixteenth Meeting of the Monuments and Fine Arts Committee held at the Allied Kommandatura, Tuesday, 10 April 1946. See M1921 (as in note 18), pp. 112 – 113.

22 Akinscha / Koslow / Toussaint (as in note 19), p. 29. РГАЛИ. Ф. 962. Оп. 3. Д. 1513. Л. 196 [RGALI. F. 962. Op. 3. D. 1513. L. 196].

23 Lothar Lambacher (ed.): Skulpturensammlung: Skulpturen. Möbel (Staatliche Museen zu Ber- lin. Dokumentation der Verluste, Vol. 7), Berlin 2006, p. 12, notes 18 – 19.

24 »A description of the crate index of transport # 176/1759 of the Committee for Arts of the USSR People's Kommissar Council«. Pushkin Museum Archive Fund 10. L. 1, F. 56. P. 4.

25 Akinscha / Koslow / Toussaint (as in note 3), p. 155.

26 Albrecht Dürer's so-called Dresden Triptych, moved first to Kiev, then to Moscow, then re- turned to Dresden, can serve as one famous example. See Akinscha / Koslow / Toussaint (as in note 19), p. 33.

27 On this, see Akinscha / Koslow / Toussaint (as in note 19), pp. 18 – 21.

28 Akinscha / Koslow / Toussaint (as in note 19), p. 19 – 21.

29 Aponasenko (as in note 3), p. 112 – 122. Document №7, Letter of State Hermitage Director I. A. Orbeli of 30 August 1945 about including »trophy art« items in the collections of the State Her- mitage. ОНД ГЭ. Оп. 1. Д.2. №3. Л. 48-49 [OND SE. Op. 1. D. 2 No. 3. L. 48 – 49].

30 On these last works, see the entries by Neville Rowley on

31 The Hermitage list was compiled using the following Berlin Museum catalogues: Wilhelm Bode / Hugo von Tschudi: Beschreibung der Bildwerke der Christlichen Epoche. Berlin, 1888; Wil- helm Bode: Die Italienischen Bronzen. Königliche Museen zu Berlin. Beschreibung der Bildwerke

der christlichen Epochen, Band II. Berlin, 1904; Wilhelm Vöge: Die Deutschen Bildwerke und die der anderen cisalpinen Länder. Königliche Museen zu Berlin. Beschreibungen der Bildwerke der christlichen Epochen, Bd. 4, 2. Auflage, Berlin, Reimer 1910. The more recent Frida Schottmüller: Die italienischen und spanischen Bildwerke der Renaissance und des Barocks in Marmor, Ton, Holz und Stuck, Berlin, 1913, p. 15, cat. № 27, and Schottmüller: Die Italienischen und spanischen Bildwerke der Renaissance und des Barock. Erster Band. Die Bildwerke in Stein, Holz, Ton und Wachs, 2. Auflage, Berlin / Leipzig, 1933, s. 8 Nr 1979, were obviously not available to museum staff.

32 Aponasenko (as in note 3), pp. 109 – 111. Document №6. A letter of the Pushkin State Mu- seum of Fine Arts Director S. D. Merkurov to G. M. Malenkov, secretary of the Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party (VKPBb), about transformation of the State Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts into a USSR Museum of World Art and the accession of »trophy« art items into its collections. РГАСПИ. Ф. 17. Оп. 125. Д. 368. Л. 20-25 [RGASPI. F. 17. Op. 125. D. 368. L. 20 – 25].

33 A. D. Chegodaev, a prominent Pushkin Museum worker in charge of the trophy art fund at the time, names Merkurov as »one of five best museum directors in its history since 1924«; see Чегодаев А.Д. Моя жизнь и люди, которых я знал. М. 2006, с. 138 [A. D. Chegodaev: My Life and People I Knew, Moscow 2006, P. 138].

34 Pushkin Museum Archive, Fund 10, L. 1, Folder 55, p. 53.

35 Akinscha / Koslow / Toussaint (as in note 3), pр. 156 – 158.

36 Akinscha / Koslow / Toussaint (as in note 3), p. 160.

37 Aponasenko (as in note 3), p. 214. Document № 41. Архив ГЭ. Ф. 1. Оп.5. Д. 3190. Л. 47 [Archive SE. F. 1. Op. 5. D. 3190. L. 47].

38 Aponasenko (as in note 3), p. 214 document № 44. A report of the Head of the Trophy Group of the Committee for Arts about accession and inventory of museum assets from Germany in the State Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts and the State Hermitage. РГАЛИ. Ф. 962. Оп. 3. Д. 1513. Л. 10, 11 [RGALI. F. 962. Op. 3. D. 1513. L. 10, 11].

39 Pushkin Museum Archive, Fund 10, L. 1, F. 60, p. 94.

40 Pushkin Museum Archive, Fund 10, L. 1, F. 61, p. 38.

41 See for example Akinscha / Koslow / Toussaint (as in note 19), pp. 13 – 21.

42 Akinscha / Koslow / Toussaint (as in note 19), p. 40, note 122. РГАЛИ. Ф. 962. Оп.6. Д. 1342. Л. 27 [RGALI. F. 962. Op. 6. D. 1342. L. 27].

43 The proposed colossal statue by Merkurov was heavily criticized by the aforementioned I. E. Grabar. See: Архитектура Дворца Советов. Материалы V Пленума правления союза советских архитекторов СССР 1-4 июля 1939 года. М. 1939. С. 65 [Architecture of the Soviet Palace. Materials of the 5th board plenum of the Union of Soviet Architects of the USSR, July, 1-4, 1939, Moscow 1939, p. 65].

44 Akinscha / Koslow / Toussaint (as in note 19), p. 40, note 123, mentions A. D. Chegodaev's interview as a source for this information. This interview was later reprinted in his memoir: See: «О трофейном искусстве» // Чегодаев А.Д. Op.cit . М.,2006. С. 352 – 353 [»About Trophy Art«, in: Chegodaev (as in note 33), pp. 352 – 353].

45 Aponasenko (as in note 3), pp. 223 – 224. Document № 47. Letter of the State Hermitage Di- rector I. A. Orbeli to the Chairman of the Committee for Arts concerning the access of third parties in the repositories with »trophy« art items, and the response of the Chairman of the Committee for Arts. State Hermitage Archive, Fund. 1. L. 5. F. 3386. pp. 57 – 58.

46 Aponasenko (as in note 3), pp. 256 – 257. Document № 61. Instruction for accountancy of and storage of temporary fund items in the State Hermitage. ОНД ГЭ. Оп.1.Д.3.П.1.Л.1-3 [OND SE. Op. 1. D. 3. P. 1. L. 1-3].

47 Акт №1 от 2.3.1963. Архив ГМИИ [Act No. 1 from 2. 3. 1963. Archive PM].

48 Pushkin Museum Archive, Fund 10, L. 1. F. 80, pp. 153 – 154. See also Козлов Г. Выставка подарков И.В.Сталину имени А.С.Пушкина. Отечественные записки. 2006. №1 (28)

С. 266 – 272 [G. Kozlov: Exhibition in honour of I. V. Stalin on behalf of A. S. Pushkin. // native Notes, 2006, No. 1 (28), pp. 266 – 272].

49 Pushkin Museum Archive, Fund 10, L. 1. F. 78, p. 81.

50 17 – 27 March 1953. Handwritten, w/o No. Sculpture repository, internal documentation.

51 Pushkin Museum Archive, Fund 10, L. 1. F. 82, pp. 56, 57, 58.

52 Алленова Е. От Ивана Цветаева до Ирины Антоновой: все директора ГМИИ им. А. С. Пушкина. 04. 07. 2013 [E. Allenova: From Ivan Tsvetaev to Irina Antonova: all the directors of the Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts. 4. 7. 2013], va-do-iriny-antonovoi-vsie-diriektora-gmii-im-a-s-pushkina (accessed on 1. 9. 2016).

53 Выставка картин Дрезденской галереи: каталог/ ГМИИ им. А.С.Пушкина. М., 1995 [Ex- hibition of pictures from the Dresden Gallery: Catalogue Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts, Moscow, 1995].

54 See Petra Kuhn: Comment on the Soviet Returns of Cultural Treasures Moved because of the War to the GDR, Spoils of War, 2, 15 July 1996, pp. 45 – 47.

55 For example, see «Немецкая политика в вопросе трофейных произведений искусства потерпела крах». Интервью с заведующими музеями Берлина, Дрездена и Потсдама [Ger- man Politics on Trophy Art Has Failed. Interviews with heads of museums in Berlin, Dresden and Potsdam / original: Die deutsche Beutekunstpolitik ist gescheitert. Ein Gespräch mit den Leitern der Museen in Berlin, Dresden und Potsdam über gefährdete Kultur und das Schweigen des Kanz- lers],in:FrankfurterAllgemeineZeitung,27. 4. 2005( html [accessed on 16. 9. 2016]).

56 Akinscha / Koslow / Toussaint (as in note 19), p. 49. Letter signed by B. R. Wipper, W. F. Lev- inson-Lessing, A. A. Guber. Pushkin Museum Archive, Fund 10, L. 1. Folder 128, pp. 1 – 3.

57 The transfer of the sculptures was effected in two stages. First, the sculptures forming part of the exhibition were handed over to the German representatives (59 items, signed act of 19 Septem- ber 1958, Pushkin Museum Archive, F. 10, L. 1. F. 128, pp. 124, 125), then the remaining part (210 items, signed act of 15 December 1958, Pushkin Museum Archive, F. 10, L. 1. F. 128, pp. 179 – 182). The full list of 269 items is also present in the Pushkin Museum Archive: F.10, L.1. F. 188.

58 Выставка произведений живописи, графики, скульптуры и прикладного искусства из музеев Германской Демократической республики. М. 1958 [Exhibition of paintings, graphic works, sculptures and applied art from museums of the German Democratic Republic, Moscow 1958]. A similar catalogue was prepared by the State Hermitage: Выставка произведений искусства из музеев Германской Демократической Республики. Л., 1958 [Exhibition of art- works from museums of the German Democratic Republic, Leningrad 1958].

59 Chief curator A. Guber, while listing the number of items remaining in the Museum, con- cludes: »all this quantity was not given over to GDR in accordance with instructions received be- cause of its being property of museums and institutions in FRG, or comes from private collections, or is of unknown provenance«, in: A report on conservation of the special repository in the State Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts, Pushkin Museum Archive, F. 10, L. 1, F. 191, L. 7.

60 Pushkin Museum Archive, F. 10, L. 1. F. 78, pp. 127 – 128.

61 See Annex to this article.

62 An emotional remark by the aforementioned A. D. Chegodaev, published in his memoir, and originating from the 1990s is probably relevant here: »the burden and misfortune of our museums was first made effectively a sensation, and then the sensation became an accusation of willful reten- tion of foreign property in the repositories«, in Chegodaev (as in note 33), p. 350.

63 Pushkin Museum Archive, F. 10, L. 1. F. 191, p. 11.

64 Pushkin Museum Archive, F. 10, L.1., F. 191, p. 10.

65 Akinscha / Koslow / Toussaint (as in note 19), pp. 45 – 46.

66 Akinscha / Koslow / Toussaint (as in note 19), p. 47, note 140.

67 Aponasenko (as in note 3), p. 314: Protocol of the final session of the commission for inspec- tion of special repository items in the Leningrad city museums (16. 6. 1957). It is also worth noting that several of the items deemed irreparably damaged by this commission were successfully re- stored in the 2000s. See ibid., p. 320, note 1.

68 Pushkin Museum Archive, F. 10, L. 1. Folder 192, P. 1. A letter from the chief curator N. E. Elisaberg to director A. I. Zamoshkin, manuscript.

69 Pushkin Museum Archive, F. 10, L. 1. F. 192, pp. 1 – 80.

70 Pushkin Museum Archive, F. 10, L. 1. F. 192, p. 2. Letter №1294 of 4 August 1960.

71 Pushkin Museum, sculpture facilities, inner documentation.

72 З. И. Трегулова, Ф. М. Балаховская. Соцреализм: Инвентаризация архива: Каталог выставки: Искусство 1930 – 1940-х годов из собрания Государственного музейно- выставочного центра «РОСИЗО» – СПб: Славия, 2009 – 72 с [Z. I. Tregulova / F. M. Balak- hovskaia: Socialist Realism: Archive inventarisation: Exhibition catalogue: Art of the 1930 – 1940s from the meeting of the museum and exhibition center »Rosizo« – Saint Petersburg: Slaviya 2009, p. 72).

73 For example, the exhibitions »Bestiarum« 2010, »Music and Form« (2012), »Translatio Num- morum« (2014) included some sculptures of German provenance, not mentioned in the catalogues.

74 Irina Antonova / Vladimir Tolstikov / Mikhail Treister: The Gold of Troy. Searching for Homer's Fabled City. New York, London 1996. Археология войны. Возвращение из небытия. Реставрация и восстановление античных памятников, перемещенных в результате Великой Отечественной войны. кат. выст. М. 2005 [Archaeology of War. Return From Nothingness. Res- toration and Recovery of antique monuments, displaced as a result of Workd War II, Exhibition catalogue, Moscow 2005).

75 Merovingian period. Europe without borders. Archaeology and history of the 5th to 8th centu- ries, exh. cat. (Moscow, Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts, Mar. 12 – May 13, 2007; St. Petersburg, The Hermitage, June 19 – Aug. 16, 2007), Berlin / Wolfratshausen 2007; Bronzezeit – Europa ohne Grenzen. 4. – 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr., exh. cat., St. Petersburg 2013 (dt. / russ.).

76 Julien Chapuis / Stephan Kemperdick (eds.): The Lost Museum. The Berlin Sculpture and Paintings Collections 70 Years after World War II, exh. cat. (Berlin, Bode-Museum, 19 March – 27 September 2015), Berlin / Petersberg 2015.