Today at 4.30 pm I give a lecture at the ICS to complete my Webster Fellowship of this year. I’ve just spent two days reviewing what I think every piece of paper on the Nemi collection from the Museum (at least what curator could pull), AND all of Savile’s papers in the county archive from his time in Italy onwards and few things from before that were intermingled in these folders. I’ve learned a sh!t ton, I have a full deck of slides with speaking notes, I could have just given the talk I gave at WashU slightly tweaked. It was damn good. Wow. I have foul mouth this AM. This is reflective of my dissatisfaction with my talk and my moodiness in general.
At first I thought it was because of the illustrious audience, including potential past mentors, I thought it was self doubt, but it doesn’t taste that way. It tastes like a lack of a red thread. I have so much I want to share that the task is to prune. So I’m hear to try to work out what next in the hours remaining.
I wanted to find the papers relating to Orsini and Savile’s original agreement and a falling out. I wanted mentions of what Savile saw, perhaps even notebooks of his observations. None of that was in the files. I’ve come away from the Archive with a couple of impressions.
Savile was sentimental and curated to some extent his papers. On the outside of folded documents and envelops he wrote notes about the contents that serve as a reminder to himself why he was keeping the papers. He kept a great deal. They are messy and interleaved with other materials. I read a copy of the letter about his birth from his mother to his father who was abroad at the time, that he himself had kept as momento along side letters with violet enclosures addressed to him in Rome from a certain Ida of whom he was very fond.
I read a great deal about his acquisition of a Capuchin property in Genzano including notarized copies of the legal papers. He kept lots of letters from those managing the Lanuvium dig for him. They are not concerned with details of excavation only funding and flattery. He was a man who keep clippings of newspaper reports of his triumphs and other memorabilia. I read many private briefings on everything from housing arrangements at the embassy to negotiations over disease control and the Suez canal. The absence I have come to believe is intentional.
The papers related to Nemi are primarily drafts of published materials. While Savile let others take credit as authors of these pieces, the drafts in his own hand suggest original authorship of all published materials about Nemi should be attributed to him.
The most telling thing I found was some self-censorship in a draft of a piece to appear in NSc after being translated into Italian [DSSR 226/20/11b]. The part cut from the publication is about what Orsini retains in his possession, namely gilt tiles from what we now think of as phase III of the temple. I believe this may refer to a piece in the MFA Boston purchased in 1901. Savile brought to Notthingham fragments of bronze tiles but none that retain visible traces of gilding. When I first saw them in 2023, I was uncertain what they were until I learned more about the phase III and saw the Boston piece.
I take this self censorship as proof of the nature of the relationship between the two men.
Another very telling document to me is the only visual description of the Nemi excavations in progress in the collection. Savile was completely hands off from the day to day operations. And, the must not have kept all the other correspondence he received about the progress and finds.
It is written by William Hawley the excavator famed for his work at Stonehenge. I believe Savile may have saved it as a momento of his connection to Halwey rather than for its excavation details. I believe in his interest in saving such momentos partly because of its proximity in the file (which Savile himself labelled “Letters on Art”) to a charming letter from the artist, Henry Jones Thaddeaus.
I imagine Savile was as charmed by the sketches as I am.
I don’t want to give the impression of Savile of a lack of seriousness with his engagement with art and history. In these files I found evidence of his own self-education project. For example, there are notes with definitions of archaeological terms. He also relied on materials sourced by Lanciani, one of the grandfather’s of Roman archaeology, especially topography and historical image research, to get himself up to speed on the history of Nemi. This materials is exceptionally rich and some of it was new to me.
This is one of the most intriguing documents. I found in it interesting enough to process my photos in to a pdf correcting for distortion. I may transcribe down the road, but least it is here for others.
Thanks to the Nottingham curator I also found that sometime in the past someone associated with the museum/collection (perhaps an intern?) went through the Savile papers in the county archives basically creating a handwritten finding aid to the collection for how it relates to the Nemi artifacts. I’m incredibly grateful to have this check on my own archival work.
My final impression is that Savile was serious things he cared about and that the excavations were about supporting arts and history for others not necessarily his own passion in any particular way. The only find he seems to have loved is one of the horse heads from Lanuvium that he and others thought on par with the quality of the Parthenon marbles. There are detailed reports of measurement for its restoration and gifts of casts. This reminds me of his love of Velázquez and his obsession with his own painting by this artist. Likewise there is much in the letters about the state of the British Academy of Art at Rome the predecessor of the BSR. Savile clearly wanted it to succeed and thrive. This is like concerns that Lanuvium be preserved as an excavated site that carriages could access for the comfort of visitors. Savile is an educated patron one who wants to be seen as such but not very interested in the excavation or science of archaeology. He was happy to send money to Ephesus but doesn’t seem much concerned with what was found or the place itself.
He only kept one object of classical antiquity from his excavations for himself a bronze head from Nemi that was auctioned off in 1938 with the rest of the Rufford Abbey furnishings.
So is the documentation of the excavations he conducted (or rather sponsored and paid for) lost forever? Perhaps. My only thoughts remaining is that he may have gave reports either to Lanciani whose papers are in Rome in Piazza Venezia I believe or he may have given them to the British Art Academy in which case they may be somewhere in the BSR.
I have three weeks in Rome this summer. Will I hunt for them or leave that to others? I don’t know. We’ll see.
Ok. That was a lot of writing. I’m feeling much better for having done this.
Liv Mariah Yarrow 
BONNE CHANCE !!!