Recommendation regarding Hiegentlich II

On 18 December 2023 the State Secretary for Culture and Media (hereinafter referred to as the State Secretary) asked the Restitutions Committee (hereinafter referred to as the Committee) to issue advice. This advice concerns the application for restitution of two ceramic objects in the Netherlands Art Property Collection (hereinafter referred to as the NK Collection).

The restitution was submitted by XX (hereinafter also referred to as the Applicant). The Applicant is one of the heirs to the estate of the antiques dealer Aron Salomon Hiegentlich (1868-1943). The Netherlands Cultural Heritage Agency (Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed, hereinafter also referred to as the RCE) represented the State Secretary in this case.

The application concerns the following two ceramic objects.

• NK 933-A – Standing Young Woman – Glazed Porcelain Figurine with Polychrome Décor (Staande jonge vrouw van geglazuurd porselein met polychroom decor), unknown maker, c. 1760-1790;
• NK 933-B – Standing Young Man – Glazed Porcelain Figurine with Polychrome Decor (Staande jongeman van geglazuurd porselein met polychroom decor), unknown maker, c. 1760-1790.

2. The Procedure and the Applicable Assessment Framework

The Committee told the Applicant in a letter of 22 December 2023 about the request for advice from the State Secretary and on 5 April 2024 explained the Committee’s procedure and regulations. The Committee took note of all submitted documents. It sent copies of all documents to the applicants and the RCE.

Chronological Overview

• On 21 November 2023 the RCE told the Applicant about the results of the investigation into the Artworks in the context of the Programme to Accelerate WWII Restitution Policy (2022-2025).
• In an e-mail of 28 November 2023, the Applicant asked the State Secretary to restitute the Artworks.
• On 18 December 2023 the RCE, on behalf of the State Secretary, asked the Committee to advise about this restitution application.
• On 12 February 2024 the RCE provided the Committee with information about the rightful claimants in this case and handed over a restitution deed of 7 August 2013.
• In view of the information known to the Committee about the family’s history and the previously assessed case relating to Hiegentlich (RC 1.116), on 5 April 2024 the Committee told the Applicant and the RCE that the case was not being submitted to NIOD’s Restitution Expertise Centre (ECR) for investigation. In addition, the Applicant and the RCE were asked whether they wished to submit further supplementary information and whether they wanted the opportunity to attend a hearing.
• On 8 April 2024 the RCE stated that it did not have any supplementary information to submit and that, with regard to a hearing, it would comply with the Applicant’s wishes. On 22 April 2024 the Applicant advised that it had no supplementary information and that it did not wish to have a hearing.
• On 26 April 2024 the Committee told the Applicant and the RCE that it would proceed with preparation of its draft advice.
• The Committee sent its draft advice to the Applicant and the RCE on 23 July 2024. The RCE responded on 19 August 2024 by making a few comments. The Applicant responded on 30 August 2024 by stating its agreement with the draft advice.

Restoration of rights and continuation of the antiques dealership after the Second World War

In 1946 the NBI appointed a nephew of Hiegentlich as administrator of the latter’s estate. Salomon Jacob Hiegentlich took over management of his father’s affairs in 1947, after he had recovered from an illness. At the same time, he and his wife were appointed guardians of their niece Hanni Wolff.

After the war, Hiegentlich’s family received redress in regard to its property that had been sold during the war. The family furthermore received payments from the Dutch authorities in connection with losses sustained during the war. The German authorities also awarded payments, in part due to applications by the family via the Jewish Communities and Social Organizations Foundation for Compensation Matters (Stichting Joodse Kerkgenootschappen en Sociale Organisaties voor Schadevergoedingsaangelegenheden (JOKOS)).

The Artworks are not referred to in the files about the Hiegentlich family’s compensation claim procedures consulted during the investigation. In so far as it has been possible to check, the family did not request restitution of the Artworks concerned from the post-war Dutch or German authorities.

Salomon Jacob Hiegentlich stated in a letter of 1 October 1949 to the NBI that he had ‘continued the business on Spiegelgracht as the only heir at his expense’. After the death of Salomon Jacob Hiegentlich in 1951, in December 1953 his widow Judith Katoen notified the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Amsterdam of ‘continuation of a business not originally registered in the Commercial Register; 26 March 1951’. It concerned the antiques dealership ‘S.J. Hiegentlich’, established at Spiegelgracht 7, Amsterdam. The business was wound up with effect from 1 March 1965.

Previous restitution application concerning Hiegentlich with regard to the NK Collection

On 14 November 2011 the Restitutions Committee recommended (RC 1.116) restitution of three artworks with inventory numbers NK 302 A-B, NK 915 and NK 936-B to the heirs of Aron Salomon Hiegentlich. The Restitutions Committee concluded with regard to the ownership of these restituted artworks that they were probably acquired in the Netherlands during the 1941-1944 period by the book and antiques dealership Math. Lempertz/Buchhandlung und Antiquariat in Cologne (hereinafter referred to as Lempertz).

Research conducted at the time in the context of that case revealed that the SNK archive had a list with the heading ‘LISTE A DER NOCH VORHANDENEN, IN HOLLAND ERWORBENEN KUNSTGEGENSTÄNDE IM BESITZE DER FIRMA MATH. LEMPERTZ, KÖLN, SCHILDERGASSE 107/9’ (‘LIST A OF ART OBJECTS PURCHASED IN HOLLAND AVAILABLE FROM THE FIRM OF MATH. LEMPERTZ, COLOGNE, SCHILDERGASSE 107/9’) (hereinafter referred to as the Lempertz list). The Lempertz list belongs with a statement dated ‘Cologne, 30.6.46’ drawn up by the then owner of Lempertz, Josef Hanstein. In that statement Hanstein said that Lempertz had acquired the objects on the list during the 1941-1944 period ‘in Holland from the following businesses, partly in auctions’. On the list there are the numbers 1 to 12, each followed by a name. The second number is followed by: ‘2. Hiegentlich, Amsterdam, Nieuwe Spiegelstraat’.

Josef Hanstein subsequently stated with regard to all the objects that he could not say with certainty which he had acquired from whom because his business records were lost during the war. In so far as he could remember from which dealers he had bought the objects named on the list, he had noted this with ‘by adding one of the above numbers 1 to 12’. The fact that Hiegentlich sold artworks to Lempertz is confirmed by a letter dated 9 April 1950 from Hiegentlich’s son to the SNK, in which he wrote

Ik herinner mij nog wel dat mijn Vader aan Lempertz te Keulen eenige kleine dingen verkocht heeft. Dit is dan gebeurd voor den 16 [October] 1941. De zaak behoorde mijn Vader. Hij is door de Duitsers getransporteerd en vermoord. / De zaak is geliquideerd en ook de boeken zijn weg. / Gaarne zou ik U alle mogelijke inlichtingen willen geven. Maar ik kan mij met geen mogelijkheid [herinneren] wat het geweest is. [I remember that my Father sold Lempertz from Cologne a few small items. That happened before 16 [October] 1941. The business belonged to my Father. He was transported and murdered by the Germans / The business was liquidated and all the books are gone. / I would be happy to give you all possible information. But I cannot for the life of me [remember] what they were.]

Provenance Research into the Artworks

New research by the RCE has revealed, with regard to the Artworks, that Lempertz acquired them from Hiegentlich’s antiques dealership between 1941 and 1944.
The Artworks were not included in the earlier restitution application RC 1.116. At that time it was not possible to link the name Hiegentlich to the provenance of the Artworks. Now, however, it has been. The artworks that were the subject of the earlier restitution application could be traced to the Lempertz list thanks to the numbers noted alongside the objects concerned on the registration form completed by the SNK. The L numbers concerned on the Lempertz list were preceded by the code ‘2’. This number refers to number ‘2 Hiegentlich’ on the Lempertz list. There are altogether eight objects (A to H) listed on SNK registration form no. 19081. On the SNK registration form there is a reference to ‘object A’. Comparison with the objects in the NK Collection reveals that ‘object A’ probably refers to the Artworks.

Object A is described on the registration form as follows:

Twee porseleinen figuurjes “Knabe u. Mädchen. Gemerkt Z.H. / Twee beeldjes van een ongelukkige eierboer en boerin. Duits, 18e eeuw. Hoog: 16 cm. Cer. 299. D. 167/168. [Two porcelain figurines Boy and Girl. Marked Z.H. / Two figurines of an unhappy egg farmer and farmer’s wife. German, 18th century. Height: 16 cm. Cer.     299. D. 167/168.]

This description matches the information about the Artworks. For example, ‘Ned. Kunstbezit Cer. 299’. [‘Netherlands Art Property Foundation Cer. 299’] is quoted on the SNK inventory card under provenance. ‘Zurich 19th century’ is noted under information about the artist The dimensions are 15 x 16.7 cm. It is described as:

jonge man in lila costuum met groen gerande hoed, neerziende op mand met gebroken eieren; de hand steunend op groentemand waaruit een dier kijkt. Jonge vrouw met rood en blauw gestreepte rok, witte schort, gelig jakje en groen gerande hoed met geheven handen waarin zij een thans afgebroken voorwerp heeft gehouden. [Young man in a lilac suit with green-brimmed hat, looking down at a basket of broken eggs; a hand resting on a vegetable basket from which an animal looks out. Young woman with a red and blue striped skirt, white apron, yellowish jacket and green-brimmed hat with raised hands in which she holds a broken object.]

The current location is given on the white (inventory) card as ‘Por. Dus. 167/168’. This also matches the information on the SNK registration form. Next to it is the annotation:‘? Lempertz’.

Object A on the registration card is linked to the number 1852. Thanks to the earlier restitution application it is known that this is a Lempertz number, referring to the Lempertz list. The description given in the list for this number is: ‘Porzellan-figuren Knabe und Mädchen. Marke Z.H’. This also matches the description of the work on the registration form. This object is furthermore noted on the list as ‘code 2’, which refers to Hiegentlich.

Involuntary loss of possession (section 3 of the assessment framework)

In the assessment of the nature of the loss of possession, the applicable principle, on the grounds of the first paragraph of criterion 3.2 of section 3 of the assessment framework, is that a sale by a Jewish art dealer is considered to be involuntary if there are indications that make involuntary loss of possession sufficiently plausible.

The provenance research recently conducted by the RCE has not provided greater clarity about how and when Hiegentlich lost possession of the Artworks than was known at the time of the investigation into the facts concerning the earlier restitution application RC 1.116. In line with the earlier advice issued by the Restitutions Committee in 2011, the Committee is therefore still of the opinion that, given the statement by Josef Hanstein, owner of Lempertz and the Lempertz list at the time, it has to be assumed that possession of the Artworks passed to Lempertz at some point between 1941 and 1944.

As was the case in RC 1.116, that the Committee also takes into account the possibility that it concerns a sale that:

a. took place in the ten-month period between January 1941 and 17 October 1941, in which sale Hiegentlich may have been personally involved;
b. took placed during the three-year period (between 17 October 1941 and 1944) after Hiegentlich’s antiques business had been wound up.

Regarding a sale between January 1941 and 17 October 1941

It is clear to the Committee that Hiegentlich, were he to have sold the Artworks during the period between January 1941 and 17 October 1941, must have been experiencing the threat of the Nazi regime to a progressively greater degree. In that case, in the Committee’s opinion the sales to the firm of Lempertz, a German buyer with a dubious reputation, cannot be considered in isolation from the context in which they took place. The Committee is referring here to the increasingly severe anti-Jewish measures and the threat to and the limited freedom of movement of Jewish citizens such as Hiegentlich arising from them. After the German invasion of the Netherlands, Hiegentlich could not count on a certain degree of protection from anti-Jewish measures, as was the case for some other Jewish art dealers. In this context the Committee refers to the following facts and circumstances:

• in February 1941 hundreds of Jewish residents of Amsterdam – where the Hiegentlich family lived – were assaulted, arrested, violently driven onto lorries and deported. This raid was a response by the occupying forces to fights between Jews, anti-Semitic gangs and the German police;
• on 12 March 1941 regulation VO 48/1941, concerning the removal of Jews from the business community, was promulgated. This regulation was aimed at Aryanizing or closing down Jewish businesses. Hiegentlich’s antiques business was closed down on 17 October 1941.

The aforementioned threatening general circumstances need to be assessed in conjunction with following facts:

• Hiegentlich’s antiques dealership was a small one-man business;
• Hiegentlich lived above the shop with his son;
• It is known that Hiegentlich’s son and his wife survived the war by going into hiding;
• Hiegentlich’s mental health was such that he stayed in a psychiatric institution prior to his deportation.

Against the backdrop of the above, the Committee concludes that it is unthinkable, in the absence of circumstances indicating the contrary, that Hiegentlich did not experience pressure or threats at the time of the possible sale to Lempertz, which might have taken place during the period between January 1941 and 17 October 1941. The Committee therefore takes the view that there was no normal sales transaction during that period.

On the grounds of the aforementioned facts and circumstances considered together, the Committee concludes that Hiegentlich’s involuntary loss of possession during the period between January 1941 and 17 October 1941 is sufficiently plausible, in accordance with the first paragraph of criterion 3.2 of section 3 of the assessment framework.

Regarding a sale between 17 October 1941 and 1944

Even if sale of the Artworks were to have taken place between 17 October 1941 and 1944, in the Committee’s opinion involuntary loss of possession has to be assumed. The third paragraph of criterion 3.2 of section 3 of the assessment framework stipulates that, in the absence of a declaration as referred to in the second paragraph, part a, or in cases where only the Netherlands Art Property Foundation made a declaration, as is the case here, involuntary loss of possession is assumed if there are indications that make theft or confiscation sufficiently plausible. In such cases the threatening general circumstances are also taken into account.

According to a post-war statement by Salomon Jacob Hiegentlich, Hiegentlich’s antiques business was liquidated by the German occupying forces on 17 October 1941. Given associated events during that same period, among other things, the Committee concludes that Hiegentlich’s antiques business’s trading stock can be considered as having been confiscated by the German occupying forces from that moment. The fact that Omnia actually sold Hiegentlich’s trading stock is evidenced by the valuations of the trading stock carried out on Omnia’s instructions and the payment of a sum of NLG 28,697.52 by the Dorotheum auction house. In the Committee’s opinion, the fact that these indications are dated November 1942 and January 1943 respectively, in other words after the liquidation itself (17 October 1941), do not affect this. It is, after all, improbable that Hiegentlich was still able to access the antiques dealership’s stock after the business had been liquidated and before Omnia actually converted the possessions into cash.

Conclusion with regard to the restitution application

The Committee concludes that it is highly plausible that NK 933-A and NK 933-B came from the collection of the antiques dealer Aron Salomon Hiegentlich, and that it is sufficiently plausible that Hiegentlich lost possession of the Artworks involuntarily as a result of circumstances directly related to the Nazi regime.

In view of sections 2 and 3 of the assessment framework (criterion 3.2 and the end of section 3), the upshot of all this is that the Committee will recommend that the Artworks should be restituted to the Applicant.