More Comments on de Valette's Sword

Here are some interesting comments about de Valette's sword from numismatist and scholar Alan Walker. He has graciously allowed me to post them on the CPO blog.

I just read your blog on the campaign to get back Grand Master Jean de la Valette's ceremonial sword and dagger, which are apparently now in the Louvre. He was given these ornamental weapons by Philip II of Spain in 1565 to celebrate the defeat of the Turkish invasion force. It would be interesting to see what they look like but I can't find them in any simple way. In any event, after his death in 1568, it would seem that they were carefully kept (perhaps as a dedication in a church - someone must know but we are not told) until they were looted by the French in 1798. Now the French of the Revolution, like the Nazis, were stupendous looters of works of art, books, coins, everything imaginable, which they brought back to adorn a great museum in Paris. This is just like Hitler's planned museum in Linz. After Napoleon was finally defeated vast amounts of looted art was returned to museums, churches and wherever all over Europe. This was thought to be correct and was a demand that the French government basically fulfilled. However, by that time Malta had become a British possession and stayed that way until 1964. So what happened with this sword at this point? In fact, what happened with whatever other art works that the French went off with from Malta in 1798? Were some or any returned to Malta, or did they just stay wherever they went? This is something we need to know.

The reason why I say this is that de la Valette was, because of his actions as Grand Master, one of Malta's great heros. Thus, something that belonged to him would be of great resonance for Malta (what else do they have that belongs to him - I don't know). So a demand that France give something back that was clearly looted in a obviously stolen sense (i.e., it was not dug out of the ground or found in ruins or in some way you could say was ownershipless - it was in fact appropriated from some kind of institution) is not at all far fetched. These items were, if they were in a church let's say (we don't know do we ) that would mean that they had been seeable by the public and were known to them over several hundred years. This also means they were really part of the nation's culture (or cultural heritage). This is very much in opposition to all those ancient objects that people scream about since they - let's say the Eupronios Krater for example - are not in any real sense part of a nation's heritage since they had no influence whatsoever on later generations of the people involved. If, for example, people could see the sword of the great hero (perhaps only on special days - we don't know) they could be inspired by it, and this could continue over some 230 years (like religious statues or paintings that stood in churches since the 14th century and were revered by generations of people for generations), we can really talk about heritage. And so, this is the kind of thing that ought, for very good reasons, be considered for repatriation from France to Malta: And not necessarily to SMOM, Valette may have been the Order's Grandmaster,but his connection to the Island is much more important.

We really aren't talking about something that is the same as a coin or an antiquity - it is a specific item that was given by a known person in a known event to a known person, and which stayed where it belonged until it was 'officially stolen'

Facebook Campaign to Repatriate de Valette's Sword-- But to Where?

A Maltese history buff has started a Facebook campaign to seek the return of de Valette's ceremonial sword from France to Malta. See

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110824/local/Facebook-campaign-for-return-of-de-Valette-s-sword.381580



The sword has an interesting history. As the article explains,



"The sword and a matching dagger had been given to the Grand Master by the Holy Roman Emperor Philippe II of Spain in 1565 [better known here for his effort to invade England], to mark the Order�s victory in the Great Siege in the same year, which had led to the retreat of the Ottoman forces.



In 1798, while on his way to Egypt, Napoleon landed in Malta. He captured the islands with the loss of only three Frenchmen. The knights had lost their fighting spirit and although the Maltese forces offered to resist the occupation, Grand Master Ferdinand Von Hompesch surrendered.



In his Facebook page, Bring Back The Sword of La Valette to Malta, Mr Bugeja says: 'This sword was unfortunately taken from us by Napoleon�s soldiers when they invaded Malta and is now on display in the Louvre Museum in Paris. This sword rightfully belongs to the Maltese people and should be in a Maltese museum and not in Paris.'"



But, even if the French would accede to such a request, should the de Valette sword really be sent back to Malta? Or, is its proper place at the headquarters of de Valette's "Order of Malta" in Rome, particularly when his knights continue to maintain many of the trappings of a sovereignty, including diplomatic relations, coins, stamps and even an "air force." See http://www.orderofmalta.org/the-order-and-its-institutions/310/the-knights-of-malta/?lang=en

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Military_Order_of_Malta



Yet another conundrum the comes with the repatriationist territory.