英國(guó)首相約翰遜告訴希臘，英國(guó)是帕臺(tái)農(nóng)神廟大理石雕的合法所有者
Britain is legitimate owner of Parthenon marbles, UK''s Johnson tells Greece
譯文簡(jiǎn)介
“現(xiàn)代希臘人憑什么能合法擁有2000年前的大理石雕像呢？”——《路透社》文章。
正文翻譯
Britain is legitimate owner of Parthenon marbles, UK's Johnson tells Greece
英國(guó)首相約翰遜告訴希臘，英國(guó)是帕臺(tái)農(nóng)神廟大理石雕的合法所有者
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://mintwatchbillionaireclub.com 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
英國(guó)首相約翰遜告訴希臘，英國(guó)是帕臺(tái)農(nóng)神廟大理石雕的合法所有者
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://mintwatchbillionaireclub.com 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
(The Parthenon Marbles, a collection of stone obiects, inscxtions and sculptures, also kmown as the Elgin Marbles, are displayed at the British Museum in London October 16, 2014.)
（2014年10月16日在倫敦大英博物館展出的帕臺(tái)農(nóng)大理石雕，包括許多石制品、碑文和雕塑，也被稱為埃爾金大理石雕。）
新聞：
Britain is the legitimate owner of the Parthenon marbles, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson told a Greek newspaper, rebuffing Greece’s permanent request for the return of the 2,500-year-old sculptures.
英國(guó)首相鮑里斯·約翰遜對(duì)希臘一家報(bào)紙說(shuō)，英國(guó)是帕臺(tái)農(nóng)神廟大理石雕像的合法所有者。他拒絕了希臘永久歸還這些有2500年歷史的雕塑的要求。
英國(guó)首相鮑里斯·約翰遜對(duì)希臘一家報(bào)紙說(shuō)，英國(guó)是帕臺(tái)農(nóng)神廟大理石雕像的合法所有者。他拒絕了希臘永久歸還這些有2500年歷史的雕塑的要求。
Since independence in 1832, Greece has repeatedly called for the repatriation of the treasures - known in Britain as the Elgin Marbles - that British diplomat Lord Elgin removed from the Parthenon temple in Athens in the early 19th century, when Greece was under Ottoman rule.
自1832年獨(dú)立以來(lái)，希臘多次呼吁歸還這些寶藏——在英國(guó)被稱為埃爾金大理石雕塑——這些寶藏是英國(guó)外交官埃爾金勛爵在19世紀(jì)早期希臘處于奧斯曼帝國(guó)統(tǒng)治時(shí)期從雅典的帕臺(tái)農(nóng)神廟運(yùn)走的。
自1832年獨(dú)立以來(lái)，希臘多次呼吁歸還這些寶藏——在英國(guó)被稱為埃爾金大理石雕塑——這些寶藏是英國(guó)外交官埃爾金勛爵在19世紀(jì)早期希臘處于奧斯曼帝國(guó)統(tǒng)治時(shí)期從雅典的帕臺(tái)農(nóng)神廟運(yùn)走的。
But the British Museum in London has refused to return the sculptures, roughly half of a 160-meter (525-foot) frieze which adorned the 5th century BC monument, saying they were acquired by Elgin under a legal contract with the Ottoman Empire and are part of everyone’s “shared heritage”.
但是位于倫敦的大英博物館拒絕歸還這些雕塑，并說(shuō)它們是埃爾金根據(jù)與奧斯曼帝國(guó)的法律合同獲得的，是所有人“共同遺產(chǎn)”的一部分。
但是位于倫敦的大英博物館拒絕歸還這些雕塑，并說(shuō)它們是埃爾金根據(jù)與奧斯曼帝國(guó)的法律合同獲得的，是所有人“共同遺產(chǎn)”的一部分。
In an interview with Ta Nea newspaper released on Friday, Johnson, a former student of the Classics much given to quoting Latin and Greek, reiterated that the British Museum was the legitimate owner of the marbles.
在周五公布的《塔尼亞報(bào)》的采訪中，曾是古典文學(xué)專業(yè)學(xué)生，喜歡引用拉丁語(yǔ)和希臘語(yǔ)的約翰遜重申大英博物館是這些大理石雕的合法所有者。
在周五公布的《塔尼亞報(bào)》的采訪中，曾是古典文學(xué)專業(yè)學(xué)生，喜歡引用拉丁語(yǔ)和希臘語(yǔ)的約翰遜重申大英博物館是這些大理石雕的合法所有者。
He said he understood the feelings of many Greeks about the issue but said Britain had a “firm and long-standing” position about the sculptures. “They were acquired legally by Lord Elgin, in line with the laws that were in force at that time,” he said.
他說(shuō)，他理解許多希臘人對(duì)這個(gè)問(wèn)題的看法，但他表示，英國(guó)對(duì)這些雕塑有著“堅(jiān)定和長(zhǎng)期”的立場(chǎng)。“它們是埃爾金勛爵合法獲得的，符合當(dāng)時(shí)的法律，”他說(shuō)。
他說(shuō)，他理解許多希臘人對(duì)這個(gè)問(wèn)題的看法，但他表示，英國(guó)對(duì)這些雕塑有著“堅(jiān)定和長(zhǎng)期”的立場(chǎng)。“它們是埃爾金勛爵合法獲得的，符合當(dāng)時(shí)的法律，”他說(shuō)。
Greece’s conservative government has stepped up pressure for a return of the marbles since it took power in 2019, a campaign it has said would be intensified by Britain’s departure from the European unx.
自2019年上臺(tái)以來(lái)，希臘保守黨政府加大了要求英國(guó)歸還大理石雕塑的壓力，并稱英國(guó)退出歐盟將加劇這場(chǎng)運(yùn)動(dòng)。
自2019年上臺(tái)以來(lái)，希臘保守黨政府加大了要求英國(guó)歸還大理石雕塑的壓力，并稱英國(guó)退出歐盟將加劇這場(chǎng)運(yùn)動(dòng)。
Culture Minister Lina Mendoni, who has previously referred to Elgin as a “serial thief”, said Johnson appeared to be unaware of recent historical evidence showing the former envoy had not acquired the marbles legitimately.
文化部長(zhǎng)莉娜· 蒙多莉之前曾說(shuō)埃爾金是一個(gè)“連環(huán)竊賊”，她說(shuō)約翰遜似乎不知道最近的歷史證據(jù)表明這位前大使并不是合法獲得了這些大理石雕。
文化部長(zhǎng)莉娜· 蒙多莉之前曾說(shuō)埃爾金是一個(gè)“連環(huán)竊賊”，她說(shuō)約翰遜似乎不知道最近的歷史證據(jù)表明這位前大使并不是合法獲得了這些大理石雕。
“For Greece, the British Museum does not have legitimate ownership or possession of the Sculptures,” she said in a statement.
她在一份聲明中說(shuō)：“在希臘看來(lái)，大英博物館沒(méi)有這些雕塑的合法所有權(quán)?！?/b>
她在一份聲明中說(shuō)：“在希臘看來(lái)，大英博物館沒(méi)有這些雕塑的合法所有權(quán)?！?/b>
In 2019, Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis said he would be willing to lend important artefacts to London in return for putting the marbles on display in Athens in 2021, when Greece marks the 200th anniversary of its independence.
2019年，希臘總理基里亞科斯·米佐塔基斯曾表示，他愿意將重要的文物借給倫敦，以換取2021年在雅典展出這些大理石，屆時(shí)希臘將慶祝獨(dú)立200周年。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://mintwatchbillionaireclub.com 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
2019年，希臘總理基里亞科斯·米佐塔基斯曾表示，他愿意將重要的文物借給倫敦，以換取2021年在雅典展出這些大理石，屆時(shí)希臘將慶祝獨(dú)立200周年。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://mintwatchbillionaireclub.com 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
評(píng)論翻譯
很贊 ( 5 )
收藏
I feel like this specific case just highlights an issue much bigger than the marbles or the British Museum. And ignoring issues such as legal ownership and acquisition (which I don't think should be relevant), the question to ask is simple:
What should be the purpose of modern day museums?
Should they be hubs of collective worldwide history and display artifacts that were discovered all around the world? Or should they be used to display only local history and artifacts that were discovered locally?
Personally I'm undecided, though I imagine it'd be fairer to go with the local option as most of the artifacts that were displaced are now in a handful of European countries.
Either way, I feel like there needs to be some kind of international agreement on the issue (not going to be easy, I know).
我覺(jué)得這個(gè)具體的案例凸顯了一個(gè)比大理石雕塑或大英博物館更大的問(wèn)題。并且撇開(kāi)了法律所有權(quán)和收購(gòu)（我不認(rèn)為這很重要）等問(wèn)題不談，我們要問(wèn)的問(wèn)題很簡(jiǎn)單：
現(xiàn)代博物館的目的應(yīng)該是什么？
它們是否應(yīng)該成為世界范圍內(nèi)的歷史集散地，并展示在世界各地發(fā)現(xiàn)的文物？還是它們應(yīng)該只用于展示本地的歷史和本地發(fā)現(xiàn)的文物？
就我個(gè)人而言，我還沒(méi)有決定答案，雖然我認(rèn)為選擇本地的選項(xiàng)會(huì)更公平，因?yàn)榇蠖鄶?shù)被轉(zhuǎn)移的文物現(xiàn)在都集中在少數(shù)幾個(gè)歐洲國(guó)家。
不管怎樣，我覺(jué)得在這個(gè)問(wèn)題上需要達(dá)成某種國(guó)際協(xié)議（我知道這并不容易）。
It shouldn't be that clear cut. I think the Rijksmuseum has a number of items we gained through war. One is an artwork that was part of a British ship we captured, and if I'm bit mistaken they also have Napoleon's pistols.
Not local, yet not exactly rightfully France's or England's either.
這個(gè)問(wèn)題不應(yīng)該這么涇渭分明。我認(rèn)為荷蘭國(guó)立博物館也藏有一些我們當(dāng)年通過(guò)戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)得到的藏品。其中一個(gè)是我們俘獲的一艘英國(guó)船上的藝術(shù)品，如果我沒(méi)記錯(cuò)的話，他們還有拿破侖的手槍。
雖然不是我們本地的，但也不算法國(guó)或英國(guó)的。
That's a fair enough opinion. The status quo of decisions being made about individual artifacts may still be the best option. I suppose what I was thinking about was a definitive solution to try and put an end to debates like this.
這個(gè)觀點(diǎn)很合理。覺(jué)定對(duì)單個(gè)藏品維持現(xiàn)狀可能仍然是最好的選擇。我想我在思考的是一個(gè)最終的解決方案來(lái)結(jié)束這樣的爭(zhēng)論。
I feel like the only agreement to be made here is "if you'll allow it we'll display them and take care of them, but if you want them back then here you go."
I don't see any other reasonable course of action here.
我覺(jué)得這里唯一能達(dá)成的協(xié)議就是“如果你同意，我們會(huì)展示并照顧它們，但如果你想要它們回去，那就換給你吧”
我看不出還有其他合理的辦法。
Perhaps I should've made it more clear, but I was talking about the issue of displaced artefacts in general, and not specifically the Parthenon Marbles.
Just as a hypothetical (as difficult as it may be to achieve in reality) if all countries could agree that all historical artefacts should be returned to the closest place of known origin, then it would settle debates like this.
Alternatively it could be decided that museums are places that display artefacts which originate from many different places around the world. In which case, there'd be no requirement to return the marbles.
Ultimately I think there needs to be some kind of international agreement about what kind of purpose museums should have.
也許我應(yīng)該說(shuō)得更清楚些，但我說(shuō)的是一般的文物轉(zhuǎn)移問(wèn)題，而不是特別指帕臺(tái)農(nóng)神廟的大理石雕像。
如果所有的國(guó)家都同意將所有的歷史文物歸還到已知的最近的產(chǎn)地——這只是一個(gè)假設(shè)（在現(xiàn)實(shí)中可能很難實(shí)現(xiàn)）——那么它將解決這樣的爭(zhēng)論。
或者也可以認(rèn)為博物館是展示來(lái)自世界各地的文物的地方。在這種情況下，就不需要?dú)w還大理石像了。
最終，我認(rèn)為博物館應(yīng)該有什么樣的目的，需要有某種國(guó)際協(xié)議。
Just as a hypothetical (as difficult as it may be to achieve in reality) if all countries could agree that all historical artefacts should be returned to the closest place of known origin, then it would settle debates like this.
I see no problem here, nor a reason why an alternative should be attempted.
And we all know international agreements are always courtesy. Which is something UK has a tremendous lack of in this issue. I don't see why we should have an "all countries agreement" when UK has already refused.
“如果所有的國(guó)家都同意將所有的歷史文物歸還到已知的最近的產(chǎn)地——這只是一個(gè)假設(shè)（在現(xiàn)實(shí)中可能很難實(shí)現(xiàn)）——那么它將解決這樣的爭(zhēng)論”
我看不出有什么問(wèn)題，也沒(méi)有理由去嘗試另一種選擇。
我們都知道國(guó)際協(xié)議總是禮貌的。而這正是英國(guó)在這個(gè)問(wèn)題上所缺乏的。我不明白為什么我們應(yīng)該有一個(gè)“所有國(guó)家協(xié)議”，英國(guó)已經(jīng)拒絕了。
How hard is it to just do the moral thing? Like what is holding the UK goverment back from doing this nice gesture? It's not like the British people would care and BoJo will drop in the polls. I doubt anyone would care for more than a day since the announcement either way. Will the museum go bankrupt?
做講道德的事有多難？比如是什么阻礙了英國(guó)政府做出這種友好的姿態(tài)？英國(guó)人不會(huì)在乎的，約翰遜的支持率也不會(huì)下降。不管怎么講，我懷疑沒(méi)有人會(huì)在意這個(gè)消息超過(guò)一天。博物館會(huì)破產(chǎn)嗎？
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://mintwatchbillionaireclub.com 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
They are worried that they will have to give everything in the British Museum back to their rightful owners. I don't think this is simply a fuck you to Greece, it's more of a fuck you to the entire world.
因?yàn)樗麄儞?dān)心他們將不得不把大英博物館的一切藏品物歸原主。我不認(rèn)為這只是對(duì)希臘的“qnmd”，更像是對(duì)全世界的“qnmd”
Tbf, we have here in Munich an incredible collection of Ancient Greek statues, cause Bavaria and Greece have been very connected. We even have a incredible beautiful museum items to display them.
But the thing is - the display in the museums are all fakes and the real things are in a very secret place in a nuclear bunker.
Why on earth shouldn’t we give Greece all the things back when everything we are seeing are already fakes?
說(shuō)實(shí)話，我們?cè)谀侥岷谟幸粋€(gè)令人難以置信的古希臘雕像收藏，因?yàn)榘头ダ麃喓拖ＥD是緊密相連的。我們甚至有一個(gè)非常漂亮的博物館展品來(lái)展示它們。
但問(wèn)題是，博物館里的展品都是贗品，真品都藏在核掩體的一個(gè)非常秘密的地方。
既然當(dāng)我們看到的一切都是贗品的時(shí)候，我們?yōu)槭裁床话阉械恼娌仄范歼€給希臘呢？
If you think this is a “fuck you” to the world then you’re incredibly naive and probably have very little idea about what you’re talking about ...
如果你認(rèn)為這是對(duì)世界的一種“qnmd”，那么你就太天真了，可能根本不知道自己在說(shuō)什么……
How are modern Greeks the rightful owners of 2000 year old marble statues exactly? Are modern day Egyptians the 'rightful owners' of 4000 year old Ancient Egyptian artifacts?
現(xiàn)代希臘人憑什么能合法擁有2000年前的大理石雕像呢？現(xiàn)代埃及人是4000年古埃及文物的“合法擁有者”嗎？
I may have missed it, but why do Britain get a say in where a piece of art should belong already?
(And France also, yes, I see you coming)
可能是我想歪了，但憑什么由英國(guó)來(lái)決定一件藝術(shù)品應(yīng)該歸屬何處？
（還有法國(guó)，是的，我看到你正在趕來(lái)）
Every country owns the artifacts within their territory, this isn't even a slightly controversial point... it's in international law. The Greeks own the Parthenon in its entirety in the same way the British own stonehenge in its entirety. Anything of value found within a countries territory is rightfully theirs, oil found in saudi arabia is theirs, diamonds found in south Africa in theirs, antiquities found in greece is theirs. It's delusional to think another country has more of a claim than the country in which an artifact was found.
Yes the Egyptians are the rightful owners of artifacts found on their lands.
每個(gè)國(guó)家都在自己的領(lǐng)土內(nèi)擁有這些文物，這一點(diǎn)都沒(méi)有什么爭(zhēng)議。這是國(guó)際法規(guī)定的。希臘人擁有整個(gè)帕臺(tái)農(nóng)神廟，就像英國(guó)人擁有整個(gè)巨石陣一樣。在一個(gè)國(guó)家領(lǐng)土內(nèi)發(fā)現(xiàn)的任何有價(jià)值的東西都是他們的，沙特阿拉伯發(fā)現(xiàn)的石油也是他們的，南非發(fā)現(xiàn)的鉆石也是他們的，希臘發(fā)現(xiàn)的文物也是他們的。認(rèn)為另一個(gè)國(guó)家比發(fā)現(xiàn)文物的國(guó)家擁有更多的所有權(quán)是妄想。
所以是的，埃及人就是在他們的土地上發(fā)現(xiàn)的文物的合法擁有者。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://mintwatchbillionaireclub.com 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
Saudi Arabia sells their oil to the rest of the world, South Africans sell diamonds, the Ottomans sold Ancient Greek artifacts, as did Egyptians, 90% of the artifacts in British museums were brought from antique dealers in those respective countries. The modern Greek State has no right to Ancient Greek stuff just because they live in the same area and speak a similar language.
沙特阿拉伯向世界各地出售石油，南非出售鉆石，奧斯曼帝國(guó)出售古希臘文物，埃及也是如此，英國(guó)博物館90%的文物都是從各自國(guó)家的古董商那里買來(lái)的。所以現(xiàn)代希臘政府就是沒(méi)有所有權(quán)，僅僅因?yàn)樗麄冏≡谕粋€(gè)地方并且說(shuō)著相似的語(yǔ)言并不是理由。
You are doing some crazy mental gymnastics here? so the Saudi Arabian and South African governments have the right to the geological products of their region? but the greeks don't have the right to the cultural products of their region? because the ottomans pillaged them?
and speak a similar language.
Cop on, Modern Greek is a direct evolution of ancient Greek, as modern English is a direct evolution of old English.
你是在構(gòu)建瘋狂的腦回路嗎？所以沙特阿拉伯和南非政府有權(quán)擁有他們地區(qū)的地質(zhì)產(chǎn)物，但是希臘人沒(méi)有權(quán)利擁有他們地區(qū)的文化產(chǎn)品嗎？因?yàn)閵W斯曼人掠奪了他它們？
“并且說(shuō)著相似的語(yǔ)言”
其實(shí)，現(xiàn)代希臘語(yǔ)是由古希臘語(yǔ)直接演變而來(lái)的，正如現(xiàn)代英語(yǔ)是由古英語(yǔ)直接演變而來(lái)的。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://mintwatchbillionaireclub.com 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
It's not mental gymnastics, your brain is just too smooth to understand.
If Saudi Arabia gets conquered by Iraq, Iraq has every right to sell the oil they find there, if Saudis got independance a few hundred years later it would be silly for them to demand the return of that oil from countries that brought it from Iraq.
The Ottomans has every right to sell the obxt they found in Greece, and modern Greeks have no right to ancient artifacts that have no relation to their modern culture.
這不是腦回路，是你的大腦太簡(jiǎn)單了，理解不了。
如果沙特阿拉伯被伊拉克占領(lǐng)，那么伊拉克就完全有權(quán)利出售他們?cè)谀抢锇l(fā)現(xiàn)的石油，而如果沙特在幾百年后獲得獨(dú)立，他們要求從從伊拉克進(jìn)口石油的國(guó)家歸還石油將是愚蠢的。
奧斯曼人完全有權(quán)利出售他們?cè)谙ＥD發(fā)現(xiàn)的物品，而現(xiàn)代希臘人沒(méi)有權(quán)利去索要與他們的現(xiàn)代文化無(wú)關(guān)的古代文物。
U basically saying “that a person robs another person and then sells the stolen belongings to another person and the last person says that these belongings are legitimate theirs cuz they bought them.”
你基本上是在說(shuō)“一個(gè)人搶劫了另一個(gè)人，然后把偷來(lái)的東西賣給另一個(gè)人，而最后一個(gè)人說(shuō)這些東西是合法的，因?yàn)槭撬ㄥX買來(lái)的。”
Ironically under European Civil Law systems that's exactly what would happen - they protect the right of the buyer to title. Whereas under Common Law the law would protect the right of the original owner to title.
Disclaimer: I do actually think we should give the Marbles back to Greece.
具有諷刺意味的是，在歐洲大陸法律體系下，這正是會(huì)發(fā)生的事情——它們保護(hù)了買家的所有權(quán)。而在英美法系下，法律將保護(hù)原所有權(quán)人的權(quán)利。
免責(zé)聲明：我確實(shí)認(rèn)為我們應(yīng)該把大理石雕還給希臘。
I think that a guy who is buyin stolen goods and he knows that , is called fence and he is actually a criminal or at least thats what the law is in Greece. Here its about morals Britain should give them back and it should receive a refund but the refund must be given by the ones that benefited out of this , and guess what Turkey will never give money to Britain even if its asked to. Under a government this problem is solved through law enforcement but here there's no government and its beneficial for Britain to keep them so they'll never get back to Greece ,because interests are beyond morals and ideals , this is just another example of democratic governments sacrificing "their" democratic ideals for money. Its sad how people dont understand how things work in this scale and get angry over things like this. Here in greece we value too much our history and people here are not just unpleased by this , they are furious towards Britain and thats just sad how hatred can grow in peoples hearts over things they cant control.
我認(rèn)為一個(gè)明知道是偷來(lái)的東西，卻還購(gòu)買的人應(yīng)該被稱為“銷贓者”，他實(shí)際上也是一個(gè)罪犯，至少希臘的法律是這樣的。這是道德問(wèn)題，英國(guó)應(yīng)該把它們還回去，而且應(yīng)該得到退款，但退款必須由從中受益的人來(lái)給，但你猜怎么著，即使英國(guó)要求土耳其給錢，土耳其也永遠(yuǎn)不會(huì)給。如果在某國(guó)政府之下，這個(gè)問(wèn)題可以通過(guò)執(zhí)法來(lái)解決，但這種事情不在政府之下，并且對(duì)英國(guó)來(lái)說(shuō)留住它們是有好處的，這樣它們就永遠(yuǎn)不會(huì)回到希臘，因?yàn)槔媸浅降赖潞屠硐氲?，這只是民主政府為了錢而犧牲“他們的”民主理想的又一個(gè)例子。令人難過(guò)的是，人們不理解這種規(guī)模的事情是如何運(yùn)作的，并對(duì)這樣的事情感到憤怒。在希臘，我們太重視我們的歷史了，這里的人們不僅不高興，他們還對(duì)英國(guó)感到憤怒。并且令人傷心的是，人們心中的仇恨會(huì)因?yàn)樗麄儫o(wú)法控制的事情而繼續(xù)增長(zhǎng)。
I was obviously talking about a good faith purchase - knowingly buying stolen goods is a crime everywhere!
I think on the subject of the marbles they will only ever go back if British public opinion on the matter changes and most people support their restitution (which I think it will over the next few decades).
Incidentally I don't think the British Museum or government is particularly profiting monetarily from having the marbles. The stance on keeping them is because they cannot return them without opening the Pandora's box of the prospect of returning everything else which came from abroad.
顯然，我說(shuō)的是誠(chéng)信購(gòu)買——明知是偷來(lái)的東西還買，在哪都是犯罪！
我認(rèn)為，只有當(dāng)英國(guó)公眾對(duì)此事的看法發(fā)生變化，而且大多數(shù)人支持歸還大理石的時(shí)候，它們才會(huì)被還回去（我認(rèn)為在未來(lái)幾十年里會(huì)看到）。
順便說(shuō)一句，我不認(rèn)為大英博物館或政府從擁有這些大理石雕塑中特別能賺到錢。保留它們的立場(chǎng)在于：只要不打開(kāi)“潘多拉的盒子”，那他們就不用歸還來(lái)自國(guó)外的所有藏品了（不然大英博物館會(huì)被掏空）。
I think it's very ambitious to expect public opinion being enough to do it. Unless the entire world of museums can agree upon a cascade effect of returning stolen goods, handing back stolen goods will cause material damage. I can't see that situation ever arising.
我認(rèn)為期望公眾輿論足以做到這一點(diǎn)太過(guò)理想化了。除非全世界的博物館都同意承擔(dān)返還贓物的連鎖效應(yīng)，否則返還贓物會(huì)造成物質(zhì)損失。所以我認(rèn)為這種情況永遠(yuǎn)不會(huì)出現(xiàn)。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://mintwatchbillionaireclub.com 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
I do hope Greece can have the statue back one day.
1 year ago i went to the Rijksmuseum in The Netherlands to finally see our most famous painting “The Night Watch” and it was absolutely gorgeous words cannot describe how it feels to finale see it with your own eyes. And when talking about these statues i can barely imagine if for example a piece of “The Night Watch” would have been cut out and sent to some other museum in another country.
The Statue should be returned to Greece.
我真的希望有一天希臘能重新?lián)碛羞@些雕像。
一年前，我去了荷蘭國(guó)立博物館，終于看到了我們最著名的畫作《守夜人》，那是絕對(duì)華麗的，無(wú)法用言語(yǔ)來(lái)形容親眼看到它的感覺(jué)。當(dāng)談到這些雕像的時(shí)候，我很難想象，就像，《守夜人》的一部分被剪下來(lái)，然后送到另一個(gè)國(guó)家的其他博物館。
雕像就應(yīng)該歸還給希臘。
The question is not if the marbles were bought “l(fā)egitimately” by the ottomans, but whether or not the ottomans had any right to sell them in the first place.
I’m sure everyone was frustrated when ISIS demolished a couple of ancient temples, but taken the British stance to its logical extent, ISIS had every right to do whatever they wanted since they occupied the place, right?
問(wèn)題不在于這些大理石是否被奧斯曼人“合法”購(gòu)買，而在于奧斯曼人一開(kāi)始是否有權(quán)利出售它們。我敢肯定，當(dāng)ISIS摧毀了一些古老的寺廟時(shí)，每個(gè)人都很沮喪，但從英國(guó)的邏輯角度來(lái)看，ISIS完全有權(quán)利做他們想做的任何事情，因?yàn)樗麄冋碱I(lǐng)了這個(gè)地方，是不是這個(gè)邏輯？
If that is indeed the question, then a lot more artefacts than just the marbles need to be on the table.
Perhaps a suitable show of good faith from the EU would be to return the obelisk that sits at the centre of Place de la Concorde to Egypt, to demonstrate their commitment to the idea that the Ottomans couldn't give away historic treasures?
如果這確實(shí)是問(wèn)題所在，那么要擺在桌子上（討論所有權(quán)）的文物會(huì)比大理石雕多得多。
或許，歐盟展示誠(chéng)意的合適方式是將位于協(xié)和廣場(chǎng)中心的方尖碑歸還埃及，以表明他們堅(jiān)持奧斯曼帝國(guó)無(wú)權(quán)贈(zèng)送歷史寶藏的觀點(diǎn)。
If Egypt is indeed asking it then it should be so. If Egypt is not asking it, perhaps it should be done as a gesture of goodwill nevertheless. If now Egypt allows it to be displayed wherever it is, and is not asking it back (like so many other Greek statues in other places that Greece isn’t requesting) it’s up to them to let them be.
如果埃及確實(shí)要求這樣做，那么歐盟就應(yīng)該這樣做。如果埃及沒(méi)有提出要求，或許它應(yīng)該作為一種善意的姿態(tài)去做。如果現(xiàn)在埃及允許它在任何地方展出，而不要求歸還（就像希臘沒(méi)有要求的其他地方的許多希臘雕像一樣），那么將它們放在哪里就取決于歐盟。
Except the Ottomans had been in Greece longer than the USA has even existed to this day. Its not like they had just turned up, more than 10 generations of Greeks had been born under Ottoman rule.
除了奧斯曼人在希臘的時(shí)間比美國(guó)存在的時(shí)間還要長(zhǎng)。他們并不是剛剛出現(xiàn)的，十多代希臘人都曾出生在奧斯曼帝國(guó)的統(tǒng)治下。
And that proves what? Should the US government sell ancient Mayan or Incan parts of the monuments to another country, if they last long enough?
Is it morally right?
這能證明什么？美國(guó)政府是否應(yīng)該將古瑪雅或印加遺跡的部分出售給另一個(gè)國(guó)家，如果美國(guó)能夠延續(xù)足夠長(zhǎng)的時(shí)間的話？
這在道德上正確嗎？
The british museum, being the worlds foremost collection of illgotten colonial gains, should return artifacts to their home countries should it be requested of them. Other similar museums should follow suit and also return artifacts to their rightful owners.
大英博物館作為世界上最重要的非法殖民所得的收藏，如果他們被要求歸還文物，那么他們就應(yīng)該將文物歸還本國(guó)。其他類似的博物館也應(yīng)該效仿，將文物歸還給其合法的主人。
I have to say I love looking at the Elgins marbles. Thank God they are in a local museum. In any seriousness, isn't it great that the british museum is the only museum in the world with artefacts from other countries. Love the usual anti-uk agenda of this sub, all UK bad but everyone else are Angel's.... love this, blame the Ottoman empire, we ain't giving shit back to the thieves from the EU
不得不說(shuō)我喜歡看埃爾金大理石雕塑。謝天謝地，它們?cè)诋?dāng)?shù)氐牟┪镳^里。嚴(yán)肅地說(shuō)，大英博物館是世界上唯一一家收藏其他國(guó)家文物的博物館，這難道不是很好嗎？喜歡這篇文章里的日常反英國(guó)的議程——所有英國(guó)人都很壞，但其他人都是天使的……喜歡這個(gè)，怪奧斯曼帝國(guó)吧，我們什么都不會(huì)還給歐盟的小偷的
Don't all national museums have some "stolen" things? Sweedes still have our shit since 17th century and they actually stole them, not bought them, but hey they have it for almost 400 years so whatever, it's theirs now.
難道不是所有的國(guó)家博物館都有一些“被盜”的東西嗎？自從17世紀(jì)以來(lái)，瑞典人仍然擁有我們的東西，他們實(shí)際上是偷來(lái)的，而不是買的，但是，嘿，他們擁有這些東西已經(jīng)近400年了，所以不管怎樣，現(xiàn)在這些東西就是他們的了。
Why in particular are the Parthenon marbles such a wide and outspoken issue?
There are tons of other examples throughout the europeon continent where artifacts should be returned to their cultural heritage site but you don't hear any wide spread support for it.
Take the most famous painting in the world, the mona lisa. Shouldn't there be massive support to return that painting to Italy? It is a massive part of Italian culture and heritage, not so much the french. But nothing.
Just seems like double standards to me, although I do agree If there is precedent for it the Parthenon marbles should be returned.
為什么帕臺(tái)農(nóng)神廟的大理石雕塑尤其成了一個(gè)廣泛而坦率的問(wèn)題？
在歐洲大陸還有很多其他的例子，文物應(yīng)該被歸還到他們的文化遺產(chǎn)所在地，但你沒(méi)有聽(tīng)到任何對(duì)此放廣泛支持。
以世界上最著名的畫作《蒙娜麗莎》為例。把那幅畫歸還意大利不是應(yīng)該得到大量支持嗎？它是意大利文化和遺產(chǎn)的重要組成部分，而不是法國(guó)文化。但是任何此類呼聲都沒(méi)有。
我覺(jué)得這是雙重標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，不過(guò)我同意如果有歸還先例的話，帕臺(tái)農(nóng)神廟的大理石就應(yīng)該被歸還。
Greece will never stop asking for the Parthenon marbles, thats typical remind to UK that is a thief as a state. Johnson opinion on the matter is known more than 30 years ago.
希臘永遠(yuǎn)不會(huì)停止索要帕臺(tái)農(nóng)神廟大理石雕像，這是對(duì)英國(guó)的典型提醒：作為一個(gè)國(guó)家，英國(guó)就是一個(gè)小偷。約翰遜對(duì)此事的看法早在30多年前就為人所知了。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://mintwatchbillionaireclub.com 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
If you want them so much then steal them back, easy solution
如果你那么想要，那就把它們?cè)偻祷貋?lái)，簡(jiǎn)單的解決辦法
There is a reason why nobody knows the seller but the buyer. Because they where stolen. Britain is a state of thieves and British museum is a museum of stolen artifacts.
這就是為什么除了買家沒(méi)人知道賣家的原因。因?yàn)樗鼈兪潜煌祦?lái)的。英國(guó)是盜賊之國(guó)，大英博物館就是一個(gè)收藏被盜文物的博物館。