The Cutthroat World of Antiquities Trading in 16th-Century Rome
Paragraph 1
During the 16th century, the Roman market for antiquities became highly competitive. Competence and money were crucial, but so were unscrupulousness and a fighting spirit. In the words of Cardinal Giovanni Ricci, who acted as a Medici agent in Rome in the 1560s, antiquities were ‘a prey which many dogs were ready to catch’. Like many of his contemporaries, Ricci perceived the process of procuring artworks as a hunt performed against other voracious contenders…
Paragraph 2
Given that theft was the most common crime in 16th-century Rome, it is no wonder that antiquities were stolen and then sold illicitly. Many people were involved in this: diggers and stonecutters; restorers and antiquarians; and – perhaps surprisingly – cardinals and princes. Cardinal Ricci once again offers an example of how fluid the concepts of legality and illegality were. In 1569, he informed the Medici court that, among the antiquities he was going to send to Florence, there was a ‘beautiful head, that I suspect might have been stolen, because the man who has shown it to me by night wanted to be well paid for it and wanted to be assured that I would take it out of Rome’. The nocturnal negotiation and the request that the stolen head should leave Rome were clearly precautionary measures to avoid them being tracked down. But such suspicious provenance was not enough of a concern and Ricci did not hesitate to conclude the deal.
Paragraph 3
Antiquities’ high visibility and easy accessibility encouraged theft. Ancient and modern marble blocks, temporarily left near building and excavation sites, stored under porches and in courtyards, or simply piled up along the street, were extremely tempting. … The abundance of ancient items in collections, on the facades of churches and palaces, in gardens and even along the streets, and the lack of surveillance and protection meant thefts passed unnoticed, unreported and mostly unpunished…
Paragraph 4
For every buyer eager to acquire objects with uncertain provenance, there was a collector eager to protect his or her beloved belongings from the very same thieves. Indeed, collectors’ fears and defensive counter-manoeuvres are heavily documented. The best pieces of some collections were often kept under lock and key and access was limited... Aristocratic residences, however, were by their very nature extremely permeable places because of the continuous comings and goings of servants and occasional visitors; as such, they were highly exposed to the risk of theft, no matter how attentively court officials guarded their lord’s possessions…
Paragraph 5
The pressing demand for antiquities, the outrageous prices that collectors were willing to pay, the relative ease of stealing them and the awareness that thefts were rarely punished all fuelled the traffic. Acquiring ancient pieces, albeit stolen, to satisfy the desires of one’s master was perceived as more important than complying with current papal legislation. … In this panorama, what role did collectors themselves play? Did they connive with their agents to acquire antiquities by whatever means necessary, or did they leave the matter completely in the agents’ hands, preferring to ignore the details of the process and just enjoy its outcome? Although it is impossible to give a general answer to these questions, it is nevertheless interesting to highlight that, in many cases, 16th-century collectors were ready to tacitly endorse the intrigues of the art market...
