Talk:Portland Vase

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


In the Manufacture section 2 of the main article there is no mention to the work and investigation by Rosemarie Lierke, see the link below: [1] Glasswork is an art but a science too, and as a science it has to be strict in the observation and deriving conclusions.

William Lloyd?[edit]

I've seen several sources claim 'William Lloyd' was a pseudonym given to the authorities rather than the real name of the person who smashed the vase in 1845. Could anyone more familiar with the subject clarify this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

According to The Portland Vase: the extraordinary odyssey of a mysterious Roman treasure By Robin Jeremy Brooks, William Lloyd was the name which he gave to the police. The British Museum later hired detectives to find out more about him, possibly with the intention of bringing a civil suit. Lloyd had said that he was a student at Trinity College, Dublin. The college administrators indicated that a student named William Malcahey had gone missing. It was suspected that Lloyd and Malcahey were one and the same. The detectives determined that the Malcahey family was impoverished and the owner of the vase decided not to bring suit. Chappell (talk), 26 July 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 14:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC).

Mental health[edit]

Did he have mental health issues? I recall reading about the vase in the Ward Lock guide "London 1928", which states dramatically "It was smashed to atoms by a lunatic called Lloyd".Cloptonson (talk) 12:48, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Cloptonson, that appears to be exaggeration; he was probably just drunk. According to Painter & Whitehouse 1990, on occasion of the second reconstruction in 1949, the Sunday Times referred to him as "a lunatic". However, shortly after his arrest is was noted that "There was something strange in his looks and manner at the first examination, but yesterday we could trace nothing in either to justify in the smallest degree that his mental faculties are deranged." He himself stated that "I certainly broke the vase, and all I can say in extenuation of my conduct is, that I had been indulging in intemperance for a week before, and was then only partially recovered from the effects which that indulgence had produced upon my mind. I was suffering at the time from a kind of nervous excitement—a continual fear of everything I saw; and it was under this impression, strange as it may appear, that I committed the act for which I was deservedly taken into custody at the Museum." It is also suggested that he was examined by "medical gentlemen", but that "it appeared from their report that there was not the slightest reason for doubting the perfect sanity of the individual". I would guess that he was drunk when he smashed it, and then sobered up by the time of his confession. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I had not heard of the investigation, and the account I read clearly preceded the reconstruction by over 20 years. However drink and bad mental health are sometimes bad mixers. The 'nervous excitement' about everything suggests a form of paranoia. (I am not a mental health practitioner.)Cloptonson (talk) 09:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)