• About
    • Mission
    • Team
    • Boards
    • Mentions & Testimonials
    • Institutional Recognition
    • Annual Reports
    • Current & Past Sponsors
    • Contact Us
  • Resources
    • Article Collection
    • Podcast: Art in Brief
    • AML and the Art Market
    • AI and Art Authentication
    • Newsletter
      • Subscribe
      • Archives
      • In Brief
    • Art Law Library
    • Movies
    • Nazi-looted Art Restitution Database
    • Global Network
      • Courses and Programs
      • Artists’ Assistance
      • Bar Associations
      • Legal Sources
      • Law Firms
      • Student Societies
      • Research Institutions
    • Additional resources
      • The “Interview” Project
  • Events
    • Worldwide Calendar
    • Our Events
      • All Events
      • Annual Conferences
        • 2026 Art Law Conference
        • 2025 Art Law Conference
        • 2024 Art Law Conference
        • 2023 Art Law Conference
        • 2022 Art Law Conference
        • 2015 Art Law Conference
  • Programs
    • Visual Artists’ Legal Clinics
      • Art & Copyright Law Clinic
      • Artist-Dealer Relationships Clinic
      • Artist Legacy and Estate Planning Clinic
      • Visual Artists’ Immigration Clinic
    • Summer School
      • 2026
      • 2025
    • Internship and Fellowship
    • Judith Bresler Fellowship
  • Case Law Database
  • Log in
  • Become a Member
  • Donate
  • Log in
  • Become a Member
  • Donate
Center for Art Law
  • About
    About
    • Mission
    • Team
    • Boards
    • Mentions & Testimonials
    • Institutional Recognition
    • Annual Reports
    • Current & Past Sponsors
    • Contact Us
  • Resources
    Resources
    • Article Collection
    • Podcast: Art in Brief
    • AML and the Art Market
    • AI and Art Authentication
    • Newsletter
      Newsletter
      • Subscribe
      • Archives
      • In Brief
    • Art Law Library
    • Movies
    • Nazi-looted Art Restitution Database
    • Global Network
      Global Network
      • Courses and Programs
      • Artists’ Assistance
      • Bar Associations
      • Legal Sources
      • Law Firms
      • Student Societies
      • Research Institutions
    • Additional resources
      Additional resources
      • The “Interview” Project
  • Events
    Events
    • Worldwide Calendar
    • Our Events
      Our Events
      • All Events
      • Annual Conferences
        Annual Conferences
        • 2026 Art Law Conference
        • 2025 Art Law Conference
        • 2024 Art Law Conference
        • 2023 Art Law Conference
        • 2022 Art Law Conference
        • 2015 Art Law Conference
  • Programs
    Programs
    • Visual Artists’ Legal Clinics
      Visual Artists’ Legal Clinics
      • Art & Copyright Law Clinic
      • Artist-Dealer Relationships Clinic
      • Artist Legacy and Estate Planning Clinic
      • Visual Artists’ Immigration Clinic
    • Summer School
      Summer School
      • 2026
      • 2025
    • Internship and Fellowship
    • Judith Bresler Fellowship
  • Case Law Database
Home image/svg+xml 2021 Timothée Giet Our articles image/svg+xml 2021 Timothée Giet Art History image/svg+xml 2021 Timothée Giet Boston Raphael: Legal Art History
Back

Boston Raphael: Legal Art History

September 19, 2014

20140311143536713_0001

By Belinda Rathbone

In 1969, my father, Perry T. Rathbone, then Director of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston (the “MFA” or the “Museum”), bought a previously unknown painting by Raphael from an elderly art dealer in Genoa. Attributed to one of the great artists of the Italian Renaissance, this portrait of a young girl was to be the crown jewel of the MFA’s centennial year: 1970. But questions about the legitimacy of its exportation from Italy, compounded by widespread doubts about its attribution to Raphael, almost immediately turned this celebratory event into a tragic fiasco. For my father, it spelled the unraveling of his distinguished thirty-two year career as a museum director. In the then emerging field of art law, the Boston Raphael became a landmark case.

At the time, Italian export laws established in 1939 stipulated that any work of art considered an important piece of the nation’s cultural heritage could be exported only after the state itself was given a two-month option to acquire it.  Furthermore, if the right was not exercised, a hefty 30% export tax was imposed on any potential buyer from outside of Italy.  This law effectively paralyzed the Italian art trade for important works, and the Art Dealers Association of Italy fought the export tax for years, without success. However, an unknown or unpublished work stood a reasonable chance of legal export. Though technically speaking an important work of art, whether known or not, should have been registered with the Italian government, it was unusual for private owners to volunteer such information. The result was that countless works of art in private hands remained unregistered, including the Boston Raphael. Dealers and foreign collectors alike took advantage of this gray area of the law; while they weighed the odds, the only certainty they could rely on was that once the object was safely outside Italy, Italian law did not apply. As explained by art law specialist John Merryman in Law, Ethics, and the Visual Arts, “although the offended nation could punish the smuggler, if it could catch him, and might have the power to confiscate the illegally exported article if it should be returned to the national territory, it could not expect the foreign nation to punish the smuggler or seize and return the object.” With the Museum Board’s approval, Rathbone agreed to pay art dealer Ildebrando Bossi $600,000 for the painting, drawing on the previously untapped Charles Bayley Fund, which was earmarked for the purchase of an important painting.

Unfortunately for the MFA, contemporaneously with the acquisition, Italy’s top art sleuth, Rodolfo Siviero [1911-1983], was looking for a high profile export case to burnish his diminishing reputation before he retired. Almost as soon as the picture was unveiled in Boston, Siviero began his investigation into its source, working through a network of art historians in Italy. Before long he had traced the picture to Bossi in Genoa, who already had a reputation for illicit art smuggling. Siviero also began to question the U.S. Customs agents to track the painting’s recent arrival in Boston. At the same time, as if there was not enough for the Museum’s administration to worry about, experts on both sides of the Atlantic began questioning the painting’s attribution to Raphael.

With scandal looming, Rathbone and the trustees of the MFA were now faced with a dilemma: how to quell both Siviero’s accusations of smuggling, as well as questions from U.S. Customs agents who had been consequently alerted. Seeking legal counsel, they hired the Washington D.C. law firm of Covington & Burling (Covington), whose lawyers at first reassured them that they had operated within the law. What they did not know at that time was that MFA curator Hanns Swarzenski, who had hand carried the picture to Boston from Genoa, had neglected to declare it when he came through customs in September 1969. While there was and still is no import duty to pay on an object over 100 years old, the painting should have been declared. This technicality, which under regular circumstances would have been considered a minor omission, would end up costing MFA its first and only Raphael.

On the morning of 7 January 1971, U.S. Customs agents, armed with a search warrant, entered the Museum without warning and seized the painting. Because of its fragile nature and the below freezing temperatures outside, the MFA’s head conservator was able to persuade them to leave it in the Museum in a vault under the customs seal. One week later a registered letter arrived from U.S. Customs informing the Museum that it was liable for a penalty of $1,200,000 (the estimated domestic value of the painting, even though the penalty twice exceeded what MFA paid in the end) for Swarzenski’s  failure to declare the painting at Customs in violation of the provisions of section 1497, Title 19, United States Code. Soon afterward Rathbone and Swarzenski appeared before a grand jury in Boston to determine if they had conspired to defraud the U.S. government.

Meanwhile lawyers from Covington in collaboration with Ropes & Gray in Boston hammered out a nine-page petition for the mitigation of fines and release of the painting from Customs, arguing that “The penalty proposed is extremely severe, particularly when the government has no revenue at stake… such disastrous consequences should not be visited upon the museum because of the failure of one employee to declare a non-dutiable painting.”

The fine was reduced from $1.2 million to $5000, and no indictment was returned from the grand jury. No treaty existed requiring the U.S. to return the painting, an action that could only be considered as an act of generosity. The UNESCO convention of 1970, which the U.S. had joined other signatories in adopting, had broken ground on new agreements between nations on the means of prohibiting and preventing the illicit import, export, and transfer of ownership of cultural property, but these were far from codified when the picture left Italy in 1969. However, in a meeting called on short notice when Rathbone was traveling abroad in the summer of 1971, the MFA trustees voted to voluntarily return the painting to Italy.

Soon after a formal agreement between the MFA trustees and assistant U.S. Treasury secretary Eugene Rossides, the painting was escorted on a flight to Rome in September 1971, and received by the triumphant Siviero. The MFA was never reimbursed for the money they had already spent on the painting, about $350,000 USD, for another unfortunate piece of timing was that the elderly Genoese art dealer, Ildebrando Bossi, died in prison awaiting trial for illegally exporting the Raphael. The Italian government had seized his assets and apparently felt no obligation to refund the MFA.

Many questions remain about this curious case. Most importantly: was the painting an authentic Raphael, and therefore an important piece of Italy’s cultural heritage? Based on its consignment to storage in the Uffizi Gallery in Florence since the early 1980s, it would not seem so. Were the MFA Trustees meeting their fiduciary responsibility in returning the disputed painting with no promise of a return on their investment, and its attribution in question?

The case of the Boston Raphael served to heighten awareness of the need for more consistent policies between nations on the export of works of art. The UNESCO convention of 1970 sought to reconcile values of cultural property and the promotion of free trade, breaking ground for bilateral or multilateral agreements on the export laws pertaining to works of art and antiquity. In recent years high profile cases involving illegally excavated antiquities bought by American art museums have brought these issues to the foreground and led to a more vigilant regulatory environment. The Boston MFA is one of the few museums to employ a full time provenance researcher and earlier this year the Museum announced that it would be returning eight antique sculptures to Nigeria after confirming that they had been stolen before making their way onto the United States art market and acquired by the Museum.

About the Author: Belinda Rathbone is a biographer and fine arts journalist. She is the author of Walker Evans: A Biography, and The Guynd: A Scottish Journal.

For the full story of the Boston Raphael read her forthcoming book, The Boston Raphael, Boston: David R. Godine, which reviews the circumstances behind the acquisition and return of the painting, the various conflicting motivations behind the key players in the episode, and the questionable inevitability of its outcome.

Disclaimer: This article is for educational purposes only and is not meant to provide legal advice. Readers should not construe or rely on any comment or statement in this article as legal advice. For legal advice, readers should seek a consultation with an attorney.

Post navigation

Previous Case Review: Karlsson v. Mangan
Next Case Review: United States v. Twenty-Nine Pre-Columbian and Colonial Artifacts, From Peru

Related Art Law Articles

Screen shot from Google scholar of different Warhol cases
Art lawCase ReviewArt Law

Degrees of Transformation: Andy Warhol’s 102 minutes of fame before the Supreme Court

November 17, 2022
Art lawArt Law

“Outsider Artists” and Inheritance Law: What Happens to an Artist’s Work When They Die Without a Will?

November 11, 2022
Art lawCase ReviewArt LawCase Review

Case Review: US v. Philbrick (2022)

November 7, 2022
Center for Art Law
August 2026 Summer Promo (1)

Get your leg up on art law

Just in time for 2026-2027

Become a member and access unlimited articles, our Case Law Database, event archives, and exclusive member pricing on all upcoming events.

Learn MORE
Immigration Guide for Artists 2026 Cover Page

Immigration Guide for Artists

Check out the 2026 overview of U.S. immigration pathways available to artists.

Learn MORE
Center for Art Law

Follow us on Instagram for the latest in Art Law!

Two sculptures have finally returned to Santiago d Two sculptures have finally returned to Santiago de Compostela after seventy-two years.

Our recent article examines the Spanish Supreme Court's decision to return the Abraham and Isaac sculptures to Santiago de Compostela, and the pivotal role that object identification played in resolving the dispute.

📚 Click the link in our bio to read the complete article by Lucas Güimil Valdés!

#centerforartlaw #artlawyer #artlaw #culturalheritage #restitution #provenanceresearch #spain #culturalproperty
Our recent article revisits Professor Matthias Wel Our recent article revisits Professor Matthias Weller's presentation introducing Germany's new Court of Arbitration for Nazi-Looted Cultural Property. It explores how the new tribunal differs from the former Limbach Commission and what its procedures, jurisdiction, and binding decisions could mean for future restitution claims.

📚 Read the full article by Savannah Weiler and Amanda Buonaiuto at the link in our bio!

#centerforartlaw #artlawyer #artlaw #culturalproperty #nazilootedart #restitution #provenanceresearch #culturalheritage #alternativedisputeresolution
It’s August 🔥 Think Art Law. World Cap 2026 is ove It’s August 🔥 Think Art Law. World Cap 2026 is over. For us it will be remembered for Haaland Memes and $25 MILLION lawsuit filed by environmental artist Robert Wyland against FIFA for painting over the iconic 1999 downtown Dallas mural, Whaling Wall 82.* Summer Internships at the Center are winding down. Oh the places we have been together (from UN to MoMA across the US, Canada and the UK). The 2025-2026 Judith Bresler Fellowship is complete and how! and our new fellow is eager to hit the ground running.

As we move into the final stretch of summer, the reality sets in: little and big fires are everywhere and juggling so many balls or making sense of the everyday is getting increasingly impossible. But before we collapse into off-season, we want to thank you for being part of our community. Whether you were here in person, joining us online, or thinking about art and the law from afar, we can’t wait to see what you’ll create, challenge, and defend come fall. Our complements and heartfelt thanks to our Summer Team for everything they’ve accomplished over these months and invested in our future: for staying on track, for research and rigorous work on articles and databases, for genuine team building, and for pushing all of us to grow. And here’s what we’ve learned: when the real world gets too much, look at art. Play ball. Have a hydration break. These are necessities that keep us sane and running overtime. 

📚 Read the full newsletter and become a subscriber using the link in our bio!

#centerforartlaw #artlaw #legalresearch #legal artlawyer
What inspires a career in art and cultural propert What inspires a career in art and cultural property law?

In our latest interview, Professor Matthias Weller shares how his academic and professional journey led him to become one of the leading voices in the restitution field. He also discusses Germany's new Court of Arbitration for Nazi-Looted Cultural Property and what this landmark development could mean for the future of restitution.

📚 Read the full interview using the link in our bio! 

#centerforartlaw #artlaw #legalreserach #legal #art #lawyer #restitution #artcrime #arbitration #germany
ART × LAW INTENSIVE 2026 - the countdown begins! S ART × LAW INTENSIVE 2026 - the countdown begins!
See you in Zurich in September ✨

The response to our inaugural edition has exceeded all expectations, with applications received from around the world. Thank you to everyone who applied! We look forward to welcoming our first cohort of participants very soon.

Sessions will take place across some of Switzerland’s leading institutions, including ZHdK, the University of Zurich, Kunsthaus Zurich, Swiss Re, Homburger, and more. This year’s faculty will be announced in the upcoming posts. 

From copyright and AI to provenance, restitution, dispute resolution, and the future of collecting, the ART × LAW INTENSIVE 2026 brings together the people shaping the future of the art world. Excited! 

 
Photos: 1. “Zardoz” by Monster Chetwynd, the garden of Kunsthaus Zurich. 2. Tram stop of Museum Rietberg. 3. Picnic spot in Belvoirpark. 4. The roofs of Rämistrasse. 5. The drone view over Bellevueplatz.
Major changes to restitution law are underway on b Major changes to restitution law are underway on both sides of the Atlantic.

Recent developments in the United States and the United Kingdom could reshape how Nazi-looted art claims are resolved. Our latest article breaks down the proposed amendments to the U.S. HEAR Act, changes to the U.K.'s Charities Act, and why alternative dispute resolution is becoming an increasingly important part of the conversation.

📚 Read the full article by Marina Rastorfer at the link in our bio!

#centerforartlaw #artlawyer #artlaw #nazilootedart #restitution #provenanceresearch #culturalheritage #museumlaw
The Center for Art Law takes on the MoMA! Our te The Center for Art Law takes on the MoMA! 

Our team recently spent the day exploring one of New York City's iconic museums. Our highlights included the Marcel Duchamp retrospective (on view through August 22) and American Folk Art: Revisiting the Collection of Abby Aldrich Rockefeller (through August 9).

Experiencing art in person is an invaluable complement to our work in art law. Whether exploring questions of ownership, AI, preservation, museum policy, and much more, we believe engaging directly with art is an essential part of the conversation.

Be sure to visit MoMA's current exhibitions and outstanding permanent collection. Or spend some time at your local museum, gallery, or community arts event this summer! ☀️

#centerforartlaw #artlaw #MoMA
Facing financial challenges, the Metropolitan Oper Facing financial challenges, the Metropolitan Opera has proposed a potential sale of its Marc Chagall’s murals.

In her article, Halle O’Hern explores how cultural institutions are turning to creative financial strategies, including art-backed loans and shared ownership models. 

📚 Read the full article at the link in our bio! 

#ArtLaw #CulturalHeritage #ArtFinance #MuseumLaw #MarcChagall #MetOpera
In a world shaped by smartphones, metaglasses, and In a world shaped by smartphones, metaglasses, and AI, what should be considered acceptable when images can be captured and shared so widely?

In 2015, Martha and Matthew Foster sued photographer Arne Svenson, who had spent the previous year taking photographs of them inside their home through their windows, without their knowledge. The court ultimately ruled in the photographer’s favor, citing his right to artistic expression.

In this episode of Art in Brief, Andrea and Paris are joined by Cathy Kaplan—lawyer, professor, and chair of the boards of Yale art gallery and Aperture, as well as the Whitney photography committee—to discuss the questions this case raises about privacy, consent, artistic freedom, and commercial use. 

🎙️ Listen to the full episode using the link in our bio!!

#centerforartlaw #artlaw #legalresearch #privacylaw #artlawyer #lawyer #podcast #newepisode
https://itsartlaw.org/art-law/the-dorville-case-a- https://itsartlaw.org/art-law/the-dorville-case-a-judicial-turn-facilitating-the-restitution-of-artworks-acquired-during-the-french-occupation/ 

A landmark decision from France's highest court could reshape the future of Holocaust-era art restitution.

Our latest article examines the Dorville case, in which the Cour de Cassation adopted a broader interpretation of France's postwar restitution laws. The decision may have far-reaching implications for museums, collectors, and future restitution claims.

📚 Read the full article by Alexandra Kharchenko at the link in our bio! 

#centerforartlaw #artlawyer #artlaw #nazilootedart #restitution #provenanceresearch #culturalheritage #museumlaw #Frenchlaw
Federal funding has long played a role in supporti Federal funding has long played a role in supporting America's cultural institutions. Recent policy changes, however, are changing that. 

Our recent article by Lauren Stein analyzes the legal and economic impact of federal arts funding reductions. Stein highlights how executive action, litigation, and budgetary decisions are affecting museums, nonprofit arts organizations, and the broader creative sector.

📚 Read the full article at the link in our bio! 

#centerforartlaw #artlawyer #artlaw #federalfunding #culturalheritage #museumlaw
Explore the tools, challenges, and real-world meth Explore the tools, challenges, and real-world methods behind conducting due diligence in art market transactions!

Join the Center for Art Law for a practical workshop with Lev Yuriditsky of Sqope Intelligence exploring how due diligence is conducted in real-world art market transactions. Moving beyond theory, this session will focus on live case presentations and demonstrate the investigative process behind researching artworks, artists, and market participants.

Through case studies, Lev will walk participants through the realities of due diligence research: what information is publicly available, what may remain inaccessible, and how investigators work with incomplete records and limited documentation. The session will explore practical tools and techniques, including database research, keyword searches, internet archives, reverse image searches, and other open-source intelligence methods.

This workshop is designed for art lawyers, dealers, advisors, collectors, and professionals interested in strengthening their understanding of due diligence practices and investigative research in art transactions.

🎟️ Grab tickets using in our bio!

#centerforartlaw #artlaw #artlawyer #duediligence #aml
  • About the Center
  • Contact Us
  • Newsletter
  • Upcoming Events
  • Internship
  • Case Law Database
  • Log in
  • Become a Member
  • Donate
DISCLAIMER

Center for Art Law is a New York State non-profit fully qualified under provision 501(c)(3)
of the Internal Revenue Code.

The Center does not provide legal representation. Information available on this website is
purely for educational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice.

TERMS OF USE AND PRIVACY POLICY

Your use of the Site (as defined below) constitutes your consent to this Agreement. Please
read our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy carefully.

© 2026 Center for Art Law
Loading Comments...

You must be logged in to post a comment.