476 WILLIAM THALBITZER. 
render it easy to appreciate how difficult it would be, especially during 
the darker season, to get a view of objects placed at the back of the 
case, which is several metres deep, and with glass doors in which the 
light is refracted; also, how inaccessible the objects farthest in would 
be. Only the smaller items were placed on shelves: the larger weapons 
and dresses had to be removed one by one in order to be photographed, 
occasioning a great deal of awkward and unpleasant work for such of 
the Museum staff as were deputed to assist. 
р. 424108. — “a scientifically adequate arrangement of the collec- 
tions etc.” The view here taken by the Museum is unfortunately erro- 
neous. The arrangement was as a matter of fact anything but scienti- 
fically adequate when it came to removing the objects systematically 
for scientific investigation. The method observed was exactly counter 
to the principle on which my removal of the objects must reasonably 
be based, and the difficulty of directing operations was doubled by 
the fact that I was not permitted to touch the objects before they em- 
erged from the case. The items were by no means so arranged that they 
could be photographed shelf by shelf as they lay, or in the order in which 
they were placed against the rear wall or on the floor of the case. 
“He was of course at liberty to have the same shelves removed 
for inspection as often as he might desire”. A public authorisation to 
this effect from the Director would have been of great value to me if 
I had received it at the right time, during the course of my studies in 
the Museum. Now, however, I have no use for it. 
p. 425. — I never proposed to employ any other photographer than 
the one recommended by the Director, as I understood from what was 
said that it would be convenient to act in accordance with his sugge- 
stion. The solemn declaration on p. 4254 as to my having been “per- 
fectly at liberty to engage another had I pleased” may doubtless be 
taken for worth as much or as little as the previous suggestions ten- 
ding in the same direction. By way of guidance here, I may quote 
the following from Director MULLER's letter to me of 26-2-1910. 
[Translation:] “Thanking you for your letter of 24th inst. I am able to 
inform you that the work of photographing may be commenced when you wish. 
Details can be arranged hereafter. If you do the photographing yourself, or 
employ a photographer known to the Museum, nothing more need be said. Should 
you wish, however, to have a photographer not generally employed in the Mus- 
eum, I must reserve the right to consider the question”. 
We see then, that when the Director reserves the right to consider 
a question, he afterwards distinctly recollects having given the party 
concerned full liberty to make his own arrangements. Evidently there 
must be some special directorial conception as to what constitutes “full 
liberty”. 
