THE LONG GOOD-BYES AND BELLS

Madison made it into the national news twice today: for the pile-up of 60 cars on the interstate due to snow, and for the foot-ball game victory which was, apparently, against all odds. For me, the week-end was centered around SC’s departure: watching the rituals of packing on Saturday, the cancelled flights on Sunday, delays and reroutings on Monday. I can’t believe I have to go through this again in a few days. Ca, whose winter break is longer, is still home. That’s the good news. The bad side is the anticipation of standing around the airport AGAIN next week-end, trying to fain interest in the permanent 50% sale of giraffe bags at the gift shop-- anything to distract from an imminent departure. The giraffe bags, BTW, have to go. Anyone who has been at the Madison airport in the last three (possibly more) years will know what I’m talking about.

This week-end I read a sentence about the agricultural standards set by the European Community (yes, in one of the 4 books). Having just written something about Poland’s accession to the EU, I had a moment of panic. Does everyone now typically speak of the EC rather than the EU? Has the common vernacular switched, so that I am using passé terms belonging to another era? Resolution no 2: request several more news services with international updates to appear in my morning dose of emails.

So what was the best international story of the day? The Bells one of course. For those not yet clued in to the linking capabilities of the blue words, let me just say that it is about monks in Russia (the old Russia), ancient bells and Harvard. It struck me that the piece challenged a way of regarding principles of ownership. Now, I am fairly immersed in the laws governing property ownership, especially in my work on divorce and family dissolution. I am used to a world where ownership is set by legal standards which in turn are governed by principles of fairness, efficiency, and perhaps some antiquated value-ridden notions of rightful transfers. I get that. But the Bells issues set me spinning. What seems obviously fair (for Harvard to disgorge the blasted bells) has no legal basis whatsoever! It could only be grounded in the idea that in art (and elsewhere?) there is a “true” owner, which supercedes the “rightful legal” owner. If that idea shifts the bells into the hands of the monks, then should every item of art (or non-art) be placed in the hands of the “true” owner?

Yes, sure, you legal types are reminding me that there is nothing new in exploring what an object was intended for in setting rules of ownership. If, for example, a person receives an item as a “gift,” then it is kept out of the cartload of divisible goodies at the time of divorce: it was INTENDED for the individual, and there it shall stay. But the world of bells meant for religious observance somewhere in the mountains sheltering Russian monks – that’s something else altogether. Here (or rather there, in Russia), you are examining what an object was originally created for, and this premise then blasts away the legal rules that frustrated that original intent. Imagine how differently we would treat each object around us if we were to fashion theories of “true intent” for everything in sight.

Nonetheless, I say give it back to the monks. Harvard claims it has a wider audience for the bells. Come on, Harvard, asserting rights of ownership based on a populist appeal: “we want to share them with the masses!” they say. It just rings false to me.