Re: Codex Argenteus - the Silver Bible

From: Martin Reboul (martin_at_spamfukreboul1471.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: 07/30/04

  • Next message: NancyB: "Old rats -" 
    Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 04:21:36 GMT

    "Jim Webster" <Jim@zerospam.ok.net> wrote in message
    news:ce8oa2$q50$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
    >
    > "Kathy" <kathy@slipknotland.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
    > news:+5NnmcAJn1BBFwCH@knotland.demon.co.uk...
    > > In article <qpDNc.1080$bi1.317@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net>, Martin Reboul
    > > <martin@spamfukreboul1471.freeserve.co.uk> writes
    > >
    > > snip discussion on the advisability of returning the Elgin marbles,
    > > amongst other things
    > > >
    > > >I only speak of this one, individual and unique case. Others should be
    > > >considered on their own merits and very, very carefully. The fact is,
    > anyone who
    > > >has been to the BM and the V&A will appreciate that they are truly vast
    > > >collections, which has both drawbacks and advantages.
    > > >
    > > >Everything could be lost in one go were any cataclysm to occur. Unlikely
    > in
    > > >London, but you never know.
    > >
    > > We did recently have a fire in a warehouse full of modern art, which
    > > destroyed the lot. Mind you, as most of it was by Tracy Ermin, that was
    > > probably a good thing :-}
    >
    > I have heard several people who reckonned that it was a piece of performance
    > art they could really empathise with.

    Insurance job, no doubt! I mean, what would you rather look at, the crap that
    got burned, or a big fat wad of cash?

    > > >On the other hand, having them securely kept in good
    > > >condition by experts, and available to compare and research has many
    > benefits.
    > > >
    > > >I wouldn't send anything back to Iran, Iraq or many other places at
    > present.
    > >
    > > Exactly. If artefacts are returned, then they must go to suitable
    > > accommodation in stable countries. Many countries do not met both
    > > criteria.
    > >
    > > > It
    > > >sounds patronising, but the artefacts cannot be guaranteed safety. Some
    > things
    > > >should go back to Egypt however, where they would be welcome and safe.
    > > >
    > > >I think the great fear of the BM is that if they return the marbles, it
    > will
    > > >start a landslide and set a precedent, which may ruin their collection.
    > All they
    > > >have to do to prevent that is to make that point, and make it clear -
    > this is a
    > > >very, very special case, and a one-off. Something good done, and done for
    > the
    > > >good of us all.
    > >
    > > What about all the stuff in "Private" collections? When I lived in
    > > Dorset, we used to take the cherubs I was teaching then to Kingston
    > > Lacey to see the Egyptian collection. OK, so compared to the BM it is
    > > exceedingly small, and the NT are doing their best with it, but you
    > > definitely got the impression that it was deteriorating due to the way
    > > it had/was being kept.
    >
    > I think one thing that you have to bear in mind was the method of
    > acquisition. If it was legitimately bought from a legitimate seller, then it
    > is a different issue from where it came from out of a dodgy dealer network

    The problem here is what you consider 'legitimate'. Lorg Elgin (gawd bless 'im)
    paid cash for them but bought them from a 'dodgy dealer'. Did he know? Did he
    care? Most importantly, who cares, it was a long time ago and they're all long
    dead.

    All that matters (to me) is doing the right thing. The Greeks, our great friends
    and loyal allies for centuries, are rightly hurt by what appears to be British
    reluctance to return a very important national treasure (what if the Crown
    Jewels were pinched, then sold to a Greek - same thing).

    I'll be honest - they are nothing to shout about as they are, nearly all the
    heads missing (and where did they go, eh? Some are 'available' I believe), and
    magnificent as they are, they are most definitely 'out of place'. Incomplete as
    they are, they seem almost tragic, however beautifully displayed, merely hinting
    at their past magnificence. They are however unquestionably part of the jigsaw
    of a unique magnificence - they are out of context, and the Parthenon is even
    less complete.

    Here we come to a tough point - how far do you go in 'restoration'?

    I liked the way the Greeks had restored dome of the statues and buildings in
    Athens, making it clear what was original and what was restored through colour.
    They could have perhaps done it with more suntlety, but the scale and splendour
    of everything was nicely hinted at.

    When it comes to the Parthenon, I know very well that there is no intention of
    replacing the original marbles for 'safety' reasons, and agree with that
    entirely - they are too precious to risk. However, with modern technology, it is
    easily possible to mould, cast and reproduce them exactly as they are, in
    weatherproof, eartquake proof epoxy and acrylic - no problem. Perfect replicas
    can be placed on the Parthenon, and (I sincerely hope) will be soon.

    It is the *principle* of the thing - the BM has offered to provide such things I
    believe, why should they not? Then they can display them, and return the marbles
    to where they came from, where they ordered in the first place, carved and
    installed. Make that two sets of castings?

                     Cheers
                              Martin

  • Next message: NancyB: "Old rats -"