The Warburg Institute's Appeals for Support in 1935-36

In coordination with Taking Root in London: The Warburg Institute 1933-1944, currently on display in the Wohl Reading Room, Clementine Bowring, the Warburg’s Graduate Archive Trainee, examines the Warburg Institute’s appeals for support during the fraught period of 1935-36.[1] 

In Spring 1936 the Warburg Institute, owned by Aby Warburg’s heirs since his death in 1929, was in crisis. The offer from Lord Lee and Samuel Courtauld in 1933 to house the Institute at No. 3 Thames House in London for three years was coming to an end and there were no new arrangements for its future. It seemed likely that the Institute would cease operating and the Library would be put into storage. Additionally, pressure from Aby’s brother Felix, who was based in America, to move the Institute to New York was hampering discussions with the English. 

The possibility of the Institute closing, even after its transference from a now untenable home in Hamburg was a painful possibility, and one that the Warburg Society, staff and friends were not willing to accept. 

To understand the efforts made to source funds, this blog post will examine four documents issued on behalf of the Warburg Institute during 1935-1936. Two are memoranda for signature collections in early 1935 and two are appeals for support issued in 1936. At each stage, there is one document intended for English recipients and one for German and all shed light on the increasingly dire situation that the Institute was facing.

English Signature Collection

On 1 February 1935 a memorandum to collect signatures in support of the Institute's future in England was issued.

It was arranged by Lord Lee of Fareham, the co-founder of the Courtauld Institute of Art (and donator of Chequers to the nation). He had been crucial to the Warburg Institute’s move to England and was Chairman of the Warburg Society. The Society, which was primarily made up of English supporters but also included two members of the Warburg family, had been established to “further the interests of the Institute in [England] and to assist in making it a centre of educational activity.”[2]  

The memorandum praises the Institute’s purpose and activities. It begins and ends:

“Since the establishment of the Warburg Library in London, its present and still more its potential value to British scholarship has come to be realised…In view of these facts, it is much to be hoped that every effort will be made to enable the Warburg Library to remain permanently in this country.”[3] This is followed by a list of fifty-six signatures.

Eric M. Warburg (the son of Aby’s brother Max and the family member responsible for organising affairs concerning his uncle’s Library) identifies these signees as “the foremost scientific names of this country” and that the purpose of this memorandum was to “bring moral pressure upon Lord Melchett [Chairman of Thames House] and in order to raise generally some funds for the budget of the Library.”[4] 

Interestingly, a different version of this memorandum exists and was sent to an unknown number of recipients, likely prior to the other version. It survives in the Archive in only three signed examples. A comparison between the two versions provides an understanding of how carefully written the memorandum was.

This different version begins “One of the most striking results of the present regime in Germany has been the removal…of the Warburg Institute and Library together with certain members of its staff from Hamburg to London.” [5] 

The alteration is notable: a version in which the beginning draws attention to the Institute’s escape from persecution in Germany was seemingly put aside in favour of one which emphasised England as the Institute’s home and future. This is perhaps a result of an assessment that English supporters would be unlikely to favour an Institute that might leave the country.

German Signature Collection

Another memorandum, this time a German effort, was issued at a similar time under the direction of Eric M. Warburg. In contrast to the English effort, this memorandum focuses on the Institute's German origin:

“The export of the library took place with the consent of the Hamburg authorities; the possibility of returning it to Germany was expressly stipulated. Among the well-known Aryan scholars from all countries who have expressed their interest in the Warburg Library through their collaboration or expressed recognition, the following should be highlighted."[6] (there follows a list of sixty-nine signatures accompanied by their cities of residence covering Europe and America).

The German memorandum is longer and goes into further detail on the Institute’s areas of research, publications and budget. The German authorities had insisted on no press coverage on the loan to England and this memorandum highlights the temporary nature of the agreement, allowing for a return to Germany. 

These two memoranda, issued in two languages but with the same aim, unfortunately did not result in new funds. By late 1935 the situation was becoming dire and an increased effort was required.

The Spring 1936 Appeal [7]

On 19 November 1935 an appeal was drafted by Professor C. S. Gibson (chair of chemistry at Guy's Hospital Medical School) and Professor W. G. Constable (director of the Courtauld Institute) who, in association with the Academic Assistance Council, had visited the Library in Hamburg in July 1933 and recommended its move to London and were now members of the Warburg Society. The draft was strictly confidential and stressed that the “essential question” to be put to “possible English subscribers was whether the Library was to be a permanency in England.”[8] Here then the focus from the (mostly) English Warburg Society was still for a future in England.

However, by March 1936, the Appeal had not been issued, a delay caused by disagreements within the Warburg family as the American Warburgs hoped to move the Institute to New York. This made the English members of the Warburg Society uneasy and they halted discussions until the family had made up its mind. One major reason to keep the Institute in England, besides proximity to Europe and the Institute’s position within the country’s scholarly community, was that the German authorities had agreed to the loan to London on condition that there was no press coverage. There was therefore concern that a move to America could bring unnecessary attention which in turn could have a negative effect on the German Warburgs.

The delays frustrated the Institute’s staff. Gertrud Bing, the Assistant Director, wrote to Eric on 21 March 1936 that they had missed a potential offer for finance for five years from The Carnegie Trust (which had an endowment for charitable causes in the UK and Ireland) due to the wait for the American answer. She informed him that the Appeal was to be revised as the Warburg family would no longer be contributing 50% of the necessary budget. [9]

This Appeal is the November 1935 draft. It includes a list of fifty-one signatures, likely directly linked to the signees of the February 1935 memorandum discussed above, and was issued accompanied by the Institute’s Annual Report. It tells the history of the Institute, its financial and housing needs, why London is “its most suitable permanent resting-place”, the uniqueness of its collection, and ends with a plea to supplement the money provided by the Warburg family. 

The Archive holds a draft of this Appeal, likely the November 1935 version, and the final Spring 1936 version. Several of the differences between the two are noteworthy:

Additions

• "[The Warburg's] library, which is organised on the "open-access" principle”
• “Moreover it is estimated that nearly 50 per cent of its 70,000 books are not to be found in the library of the British Museum.” 

Amendments (the final version is in yellow)

• “The total budget necessary expenditure is now estimated at £7000-£8000 a year, of which, it is understood, the Warburg family and their friends may undertakecontinue to contribute one half a substantial share.”
• “In addition, the Institute has to find a new home, since its present temporary quarters in Thames House will not be available after July 1936. This will involve expenditure not anticipated in 1934 when the Warburg Society made emergency arrangements for the temporary activity of the Institute in this country, the modesty of these plans being dictated by the limitation of funds available during this period September 1936 at latest. There is a prospect, however, that this problem of accommodation may be advantageously solved, provided that the remainder of the Institute's budget can be guaranteed from other sources.”
• “The regular staff of the Institute consists of a nucleus of scholars of acknowledged international reputation who came with the Library from Hamburg, but these have been supplemented by a large number of distinguished collaborators who have been attracted to follow it to England.”
• “If, however, the necessary supplementary funds can be made available in the near future, there is every reason arrangements can be made, thanks to hope that, with the approval generous decision of the Warburg family, for the Institute may to remain on permanent loan in this country, where it would be available not only merely for scholars resident in London but for those who come to work here from any part of the world.”

These changes reflect the Warburg family’s updated contribution mentioned by Bing and reveals that by this time the University of London agreed to supply accommodation if funding could be found. Additionally, the text is revised to further emphasise the Institute’s international accessibility and standing as well as its unique offerings. Altogether, the impression is of an institute that is advantageous to London as much as London is to it. 

While the Appeal does refer to the German origin of the Institute, the move to England is unexplained, merely stating that “circumstances necessitated its transference to this country”. It appears that again the English did not want to focus on the negative political background behind the move.

Buchthal and Kitzinger Appeal

A final appeal was issued on 25 June 1936 by Hugo Buchthal and Ernst Kitzinger, two young German Art Historians who were part of the scholarly community of the Warburg Institute. Writing in German to other German scholars and using more impassioned language than the Warburg Society Appeal, they asked recipients to sign an English statement in support of the following

“It seems to us that it is the duty of all German scholars living abroad who work in the immediate or wider area of ​​the Bibliothek Warburg and for whom it represents a support or a centre in some sense during these years of struggle for their own scholarly existence, to express this special connection with the spirit and fate of the institute…the appeal is not intended for the public.”[10]

This final appeal reflects how the Institute was viewed as a symbol of the struggle of German scholarship at this time and asks German scholars to speak out in favour even thought it seemed the Institute would remain in London.

Crisis at the Courtauld

While they were still receiving signed responses to this appeal in July 1936, a crisis at the Courtauld secured the future of the Warburg Institute in London. Summarised in a letter from Gertrud Bing to Eric M. Warburg on 10 July 1936,[11] she explains that due to differences of opinion amongst the Board of the Courtauld Institute regarding its teaching standards, its director, Professor W. G. Constable, had offered his resignation and it had been accepted. In order to stabilise the Courtauld Institute, it was decided that it would partner with the Warburg Institute, with the Warburg becoming a university institute providing post-graduate teaching. The Warburg then accepted an offer for accommodation in University premises at the Imperial Institute in South Kensington and £5,500 annually supplied by Samuel Courtauld for a fixed period of seven years. The Warburg Institute was therefore again ‘on loan’ in England for a fixed term from January 1937 until 1944. 

References