--The Albany Journal article I found while looking on fultonhistory.com for something else. See the article here on the Rough Draft of the Introduction to the New Melville Log. As Mr. Stritmatter found, the N-YHS had mistakenly labeled the tooth Melville had owned a 20th century fake.
Dear Mr. Parker,
I was forwarded your e-mail about the scrimshaw
whale's tooth at the New-York Historical Society once owned by Herman Melville
(1949.19). Your message arrived shortly after an inquiry from Roger
Stritmatter voicing the same concerns. I apologize for the confusion
surrounding the whale's tooth and wanted to explain why we changed our
assessment of the tooth, and have since revised it again.
In 2010, we consulted a scrimshaw expert about several whale's teeth in our collection which we suspected were not authentic. These were almost entirely collected by one individual and donated in 1943. The expert examined old photographs of the objects, many of them group photos that included more than one whale's tooth. A photo of the Melville tooth was among those he examined, although it was not targeted for study. The expert was unconvinced by the inscription and was certain (from the photo) that it was a forgery. We added his notes to the file and changed our database record without looking further into the history of the object.
Your inquiry and the one from Mr. Stritmatter -- both citing the the Albany Journal article -- prompted me to dig deeper. Not only does the S.S. Stafford article provide compelling evidence for the authenticity of the tooth, but the provenance of the piece also pulls the whole history together. S.S. Stafford was Samuel Spencer Stafford (1825-1895) of Albany and New York City. His granddaughter, Louise Stafford Gilder (1890-1982), donated the whale's tooth to the Historical Society in 1949. As I think you were already aware, Edwin Stafford Doolittle, who never married, was the nephew of S.S. Stafford.
I have corrected our database record and added some additional information, although it will not be reflected on our website for awhile due to an upgrade in the works.
Thank you very much for getting in touch and setting this all in motion. I have also shared this information with Mr. Stritmatter.
In 2010, we consulted a scrimshaw expert about several whale's teeth in our collection which we suspected were not authentic. These were almost entirely collected by one individual and donated in 1943. The expert examined old photographs of the objects, many of them group photos that included more than one whale's tooth. A photo of the Melville tooth was among those he examined, although it was not targeted for study. The expert was unconvinced by the inscription and was certain (from the photo) that it was a forgery. We added his notes to the file and changed our database record without looking further into the history of the object.
Your inquiry and the one from Mr. Stritmatter -- both citing the the Albany Journal article -- prompted me to dig deeper. Not only does the S.S. Stafford article provide compelling evidence for the authenticity of the tooth, but the provenance of the piece also pulls the whole history together. S.S. Stafford was Samuel Spencer Stafford (1825-1895) of Albany and New York City. His granddaughter, Louise Stafford Gilder (1890-1982), donated the whale's tooth to the Historical Society in 1949. As I think you were already aware, Edwin Stafford Doolittle, who never married, was the nephew of S.S. Stafford.
I have corrected our database record and added some additional information, although it will not be reflected on our website for awhile due to an upgrade in the works.
Thank you very much for getting in touch and setting this all in motion. I have also shared this information with Mr. Stritmatter.
Sincerely,
* * * * *
Curator of Decorative Arts
The New-York Historical Society
170 Central Park West
New York, NY 10024
Well, I am happy to report back in case anyone cares that the museum has acknowledged an error in the labeling of the tooth. It wasn't created with intent to deceive after all -- which I, for one, could not be more grateful for since I was about think of that tooth like some kind of a portent of a more beneficent future. To find out that it was labeled "created with intent to deceive" had temporarily discombobulated me completely. It turns out that the error involved an expert in scrimshaw who either wasn't too accurate or was overworked and, anyway, there was a slip of the chisel, and we got "created with intent to deceive." Its a positively Melvillean little drama. At any rate, I am informed that the museum now acknowledges that this was in error --the tooth was not created to deceive anyone. And the NYHS folks have been very cooperative with our ongoing study. Salve, -His understudy. on Rough Draft of the Introduction to The New Melville Log
ReplyDeleteThe foregoing comment is Mr. Stritmatter's. He is the one who read my Rough Draft and pursued the matter to the point that he found the tooth had been officially declared a fake.
DeleteDear Professor Hershel,
ReplyDeleteThank you very much for your part in clarifying this unusual circumstance. I thought the reply by the curator was a model of openness and scholarly inquiry that others might do well to observe. It is not always that an institution approached with new information about an item it holds responds so pro-actively in redressing a misconception of this nature.
I have been reading (gosh what a big job) Mardi and writing somewhat about it. What an astounding book that is.