The State Hermitage Museum: Information

The Schneersohn affair is getting awfully loud
Article in the Sankt-Peterburgskie Vedomosti newspaper
Issue No. 018 dated 31.01.2013

We recently observed sacred dates; the breaking and lifting of the blockade of Leningrad. A special session of the recently reborn Russian Historical Society was held in the city for that reason. Members of the society went to the place where the blockade was broken. On the same day, the Hermitage hosted a presentation of “A Book of the Blockade” by Daniil Alexandrovich Granin. It was printed with chapters that were censored during the Soviet period. The story of the Leningrad Affair has been added to the original text. The blockade and the Leningrad Affair are special phenomena in Russian history and culture.

One of the most important ideas of Granin and Adamovich’s book is that an intellectual city defeated the Nazis. That subject is a timely one. We are living in a time marked by a major attack on the intelligentsia and intelligence. In our time, understanding the blockade is taking on a new, living meaning.

This has relevance for one of the recent sensations, the situation with the “Schneersohn library.” What happened? A court in the District of Columbia decided that a collection of Jewish books and documents created by Rabbi Schneersohn and nationalized in 1918 belongs to the American Hasidic Jews, and demanded that the Russian government transfer them to the American embassy within a few days.

There is a lot of guile in that story. What one has to understand is that we are discussing property rights, and not the fate of cultural treasures. In the text of the American court’s decision there is a formulation that says that nationalization in our country was conducted without compensation and not for the common good. But after nationalization, the books from the Schneersohn library wound up in the Lenin Library, they are accessible to people. There is even a prayer room there, where you can study them and pray.

A few years ago, when the aforementioned American court made its decision about transferring the archive to Russian Hasidic Jews, the employees of the library demonstrated heroism. They closed down and refuse to give anything up.

The “Schneersohn library” never left the territory of our country, and was nationalized after the Rabbi left. We can’t have a conversation about its later fate. Try to explain it today; something was illegally nationalized. That means that other things would have to be given out, transferred, and returned. The entire economic order built on the nationalization that took place on our territory will collapse. There is nothing to discuss. That is when it comes to the library.

Now regarding the archive, it is a different story. Schneersohn removed the archive to Lithuania, where it fell into the hands of the Germans and then was taken by the Soviet Troops. It is, provisionally speaking, a cultural treasure taken as a trophy. There is another legal system for the archive. The law on cultural treasures that have been moved envisages the opportunity to transfer them to religious organizations. For example, a few years ago, we transferred stained glasses windows to the church of Frankfurt an der Oder. A real prospect for negotiations exists. Linking the fates of the archive and the library blocks the entire process.

I will say it once again, the American court’s decision deals not with relics, but with property, which supposedly must belong to a specific person in the United States. This contradicts the legal norms we live by. It is impossible to agree that someone outside our territory can make a decision about what our government must do in our own territory.

As soon as the Hassidic Jews demanded the seizure of Russian property in the USA, museum people became concerned about what would happen to exhibit. The Americans started to explains that they have good legislation that provides immunity form seizure in the event of lawsuits by third parties. The legislation is good, but sometimes it fails. So the question emerged, could the United States Government provide additional guarantees for the return of exhibit items, as the Russian Ministry of Culture demands, and it turned out that no, they can’t.

It would seem there are the law and even the Hassidic Jews’ promise not to demand the seizure of paintings. But we are uncertain, “once bitten twice shy,” as they say. It turned out that we were right to feel that way. A decision that is offensive for Russia was handed down by an American court, regarding a fine of fifty thousand dollars a day until the Hassidic Jews receive the “Schneersohn library”. This emphasizes that they are going to do what they like, and means that the seizure of property is also possible.

It is sad that this conflict was created by a religious organization. In our country, cultural institutions and the church are carefully and delicately searching for a common language. The situation is not a simple one. And now here is a Jewish organization that is hindering the exchange process between the museums of the two countries. Even in America, people are annoyed about this.

I have conducted negotiations with American museum workers, who are also concerned. From their point of view, it is not exactly just that we are not sending exhibits. America museums have even started to deny us things that were promised, and, incidentally, promised in return for paintings that have already been in the USA. The curators of American museums have taken the position that if we don’t get something, we will do the same thing. The American press is hyping this position, which is bad for relations between the cultural elites of the two countries.

I once spoke with the American Secretary State of the United States, Hilary Clinton. We agreed that will prepare joint materials from the museum workers of both countries. At the Economic Forum in Davos, there was a roundtable dedicated to museum, and we may hold a roundtable in Petersburg. We are discussing what the cultural community can do in this situation.

This problem doesn’t just affect us. Greece is involved in lawsuits with England, Egypt and Turkey are demanding the return of their things from European museums, the Italians are suing American foundations, the heirs of private owners and artists are making claims against museums… Trials and lawsuits are going on all over the world. Many exhibits are threatened.

We have a lot of experience of handling problems like that. I’ve had to participate in similar situations. I might remind you of the famous affair with the Matisse exhibit. A large exhibit, involving paintings from the Hermitage and the Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts came to the USA and then went to France. There the widow of a Shchukin collector and her son initiated a lawsuit so that the paintings would be seized. They claimed financial benefits from those paintings. For example, reproductions are published, and they ought to receive a share of the profits, rather than Matisse’s family, which is what is happening now.

Irina Aleksandrovna Antonova and I were summoned to court in Paris. We appeared. Before that, our museum friends in France were very active, including the Pompidou Centre. They explained to the French Government what would happen if the court didn’t make the right decision. Journalists also helped, TASS published my interview. It said that if our paintings are kept there longer than the established time, other paintings will not be going to France, and we made a list. There was something to work with in the intended large exhibit program. In the court, there were references to what the lawyer and prosecutor called “Piotrovsky’s threats”.
The prosecutor said the property rights exist, but in its case it is not advantageous for the cultural development of France. The court’s decision stated the nationalization that took place in a country whose government we recognize is not within the jurisdiction of a French court. These questions must be decided in Russian courts. The paintings were returned on time.

The second, more recent episode took place in Great Britain. That is a country where the courts are independent and cannot be touched. Therefore, in the absence of guarantees, the rare Titian painting “Saint Sebastian” did not go to London due to the real risk of becoming the subject of a lawsuit against the Russian government.
We began to prepare a large exhibit called “Russia” with the participation of many Russian museums. The exhibit was first sent to Germany, where the German lands provide the necessary guarantees for their return. It was then supposed to go to Great Britain. Our Ministry of Culture established a condition: high values, use insurance policies, and if there won’t be a guarantee of return, it won’t go anywhere. The British side’s response was that we have a democratic government, an independent court system, we can’t do anything. The museum community of Great Britain appealed to its Minister of Culture, saying this was putting a stop to cooperation. Work began. I went to Great Britain and met with officials. They told us that a document was being prepared that would satisfy our side. The exhibit was supposed to come right then, but the document still wasn’t approved. The parliament went on vacation, returned and passed the bill that guaranteed the immunity of the paintings. Now exhibits in Great Britain have a guarantee of return.

Everyone thought that the conflict with the USA would be solved quickly. But it stretched out and went on to another level. It is unfortunate; we have brought great masterpieces from Washington and showed them. It was difficult to organize this, persuade the curators of the museums. Every time, these exhibits were political acts and cultural events. Now it would take a while to count the paintings that have not come here or gone to the USA.

It is a situation that many do not want to understand, including politicians and journalists. Never in the history of Russian / American relations has there been a two-year break in the exchange of museum exhibits. In any situations, cultural connections are not broken. That “bridge” was active even where others were broken.

The world is big, people everyone can survive on their own. Isolation and blockades are possible. But that is a catastrophe worse than a diplomatic crisis like the Magnitsky list. There have always been lists of who to let in and who not to, they did not affect the cultural connections between countries.

There are various ways out of this dead end; showing flexibility, mobility, finding correct pressure points, even using blackmail, so that the other side will agree to a compromise. Ultimately, the best thing is to involve cultural workers as much as possible, since they can also solve problems that diplomats cannot.