The world was on the cusp of great change in 1909. The Edwardian era, with its opulent lifestyle and rigid social structures, was in full swing. Yet, amid the grandeur and societal norms, a storm was brewing in the art world, and its epicenter was the town of Southampton.

This storm, known as the "Flora Bust Mystery," revolved around a wax bust of a young woman, believed to be Flora, the Roman goddess of spring. 

The bust, with its delicate features and enigmatic smile, had been acquired by Dr Wilhelm Bode, the esteemed director of the Kaiser Friedrich Museum in Berlin, for the princely sum of £9,250 from a London art dealer, Murray Marks. 

Bode, a renowned art connoisseur, was convinced that the bust was the work of none other than Leonardo da Vinci, the Renaissance genius.

The acquisition, and Bode's attribution, made headlines in the art world. On October 9, 1909, The Times newspaper published an article lamenting the fact that such a valuable piece of art had been allowed to leave Britain. The article sparked a national debate, with many questioning how a work of such significance could slip through the fingers of British collectors.

Southampton 1880 around the time the bust was commissioned and sold.Southampton 1880 around the time the bust was commissioned and sold. (Image: Echo)

However, a Southampton antiquarian with a keen eye for detail and a passion for local history, Charles Cooksey, intrigued by the Flora bust controversy, delved into his research and emerged with a startling claim. In a letter to The Times, he asserted that the bust was not the work of da Vinci, but rather that of Richard Cockle Lucas, a sculptor from the nearby town of Chilworth.

Cooksey's revelation sent shockwaves through the art world. 

He claimed that Lucas, who had lived and worked in the Southampton area, had been commissioned around 1846 to create the bust based on a painting of Flora attributed to da Vinci or one of his pupils. 

The bust, according to Cooksey, had remained in Lucas's possession until his death in 1883, after which it was sold in Southampton for a mere few shillings.

Cooksey's claims ignited a fierce debate that raged for months in the British and German press. Bode, his reputation on the line, vehemently defended his attribution, insisting that the bust's exquisite quality could only be the work of da Vinci himself. 

Leonardo da Vinci.Leonardo da Vinci. (Image: Echo)

He found support from influential figures, including Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany and the renowned musician Edward Speyer.

Speyer, in his autobiography, recounted the controversy and his own involvement: "A campaign was started to prove that Lucas was an artist of the highest quality and fully capable of creating the Flora bust. They arranged an extensive exhibition of his work in the Grafton Galleries. I made a careful study of the exhibition and acquired the conviction that the creator of such dull, conventional and mid-Victorian productions could never have been the author of the fine Renaissance bust in the Kaiser Friedrich Museum."

Despite Speyer's conviction, evidence supporting Lucas's connection to the bust continued to mount. Investigations revealed that after Lucas's death, the bust had passed to his son, AD Lucas, and then to a Mr Simpson, before being acquired by a series of Southampton art dealers and eventually sold to Murray Marks.

Further evidence emerged from Richard Cockle Lucas's own album, which contained two photographs of the bust. 

Richard Cockle Lucas, circa 1858.Richard Cockle Lucas, circa 1858. (Image: Echo)

One was captioned "The Flora of Leonardo da Vinci," while the other was labelled "My Flora." 

These photographs, along with Cooksey's claims and the bust's provenance, cast serious doubt on Bode's attribution.

Faced with mounting evidence, Bode and his supporters revised their explanation. They proposed that Lucas had created a copy of a lost da Vinci original and that the bust in question was indeed Lucas's copy. However, this explanation failed to quell the controversy, as art experts across Europe weighed in on the debate.

The controversy reached such a fever pitch that a German delegation was dispatched to Southampton to investigate the matter. 

The wax bust of Flora.The wax bust of Flora. (Image: Echo)

They interviewed Cooksey and Nicholas Gargano, a local woodcarver who had known Lucas, learning that the sculptor often used a core of rags to conserve wax when creating his models.

At Cooksey's suggestion, the Flora bust was subjected to X-ray analysis, which revealed objects within the figure, supporting the claim of a rag core. Bode was challenged to open the bust to definitively settle the dispute, but the Kaiser intervened, preventing any invasive examination.

According to Gargano, it wasn't until after the First World War that the bust was finally opened. Inside, they found a fragment of material from a 19th-century English bed quilt, seemingly confirming Lucas's authorship. 

Gargano, in a 1961 letter to the local newspaper, the Echo, declared, "It was definitely proved it was not a work of Leonardo da Vinci and the mystery that caused the great controversy was solved."

Bode Museum on spree River.Bode Museum on spree River. (Image: Echo)

Despite the seemingly conclusive evidence, doubts lingered. 

Some remained convinced that the bust was indeed a da Vinci, while others believed it to be a Lucas copy of the lost original. 

The Edwardian art world, shaken by the controversy, eventually moved on, but the Flora bust remained, a silent witness to a time when Southampton found itself at the heart of an international art scandal.

In the end, the Flora bust mystery was never definitively solved. While the evidence strongly suggests that the bust was the work of Richard Cockle Lucas, some doubts persist. The bust remains on display at the Bode Museum in Berlin.

The Flora bust mystery became a media sensation, fueled by the intense rivalry between the British and German press. 

Wilhelm von Bode in 1920.Wilhelm von Bode in 1920. (Image: Echo)

Newspapers on both sides of the Channel seized upon the story. The Daily Echo, The Times, The Daily Mail, and The Illustrated London News in Britain, and the Berliner Tageblatt and the Frankfurter Zeitung in Germany, all devoted considerable coverage to the controversy.

The press played a crucial role in shaping public opinion and escalating the debate, turning the local art dispute into an international incident.

Dinner parties buzzed with discussions about the bust's authenticity, and the controversy even made its way into popular culture. 

Punch magazine published satirical cartoons lampooning the experts and their conflicting opinions. 

The mystery also sparked a renewed interest in Richard Cockle Lucas and his work. Local historians in Southampton began to re-examine his artistic legacy, organising exhibitions and publishing articles about his life and career.