> She was in possession of a looted piece of ancient art. She couldn't keep it. She couldn't sell it. And giving it back to its rightful owners was a lot harder than it sounds.
Why do you think you know that? If an Italian noble finds a marble head when digging out a wine cellar on his own property and keeps it for himself, is that looting? That depends entirely on what the local laws said about such artifacts at the time. You don't know who first found it. You don't know where it was found, and when. You don't even know it was buried in the first place; it might have been privately owned the entire time since it was originally carved, passed along for two thousand years through innumerable legitimate private sales.
Here are some things you could know, if you bothered to read up on the matter: Ludwig I never invaded Italy, never sacked Rome, but did visit Italy as was the fashion of anybody in Europe who had the means to do so. He is known to have purchased numerous artifacts and works of art from wealthy Italian collectors and dealers, which might include this bust.
The article wasn't written by her, that isn't a statement from her. That is the journalist's statement, Matt Largey. It may or may not be completely accurate. What does "couldn't keep it" mean anyway? That she felt morally obliged to return it? Or legally obliged? The article doesn't say.
If you don't trust statements in the article, then you have absolutely nothing to base any of this discussion on. Following your reasoning, why do you trust anything in the story, rather than just select pieces of it - does the bust even exist? Is the person in the story real or just made up? Is the bust even Roman?
Everyone here is discussing the situation, given the story reported. What else do we, armchair critics, have to go on?
Statements from articles should be considered, not absolutely trusted.
> What else do we, armchair critics, have to go on?
Everything outside of the article, the sum of our experience with the way the world works. Our experience with the way people work, the way people will give accounts of their actions that make themselves look good. The way the "telephone game" works, where the more people something goes through, the more uncertainty there is. Presumably, the journalist was told by the woman that she believed she couldn't keep it, yes? But the journalist didn't actually quote what she said. The journalist paraphrased what she said instead, rephrased it in his own words. This is generally fine, but you have to remain cognizant of the fact that it isn't precisely what she said. The comment I responded to claimed "She specifically stated this in her article", which simply isn't true. That commenter failed to perceive the difference between somebody being quoted, and somebody's statements being paraphrased. Even when you trust the journalist to act in good faith, there is a big difference between quoting somebody and rephrasing what they said.
As a general rule, outside of the black market you will not find an auction house that touches a looted piece of art with a ten-foot-pole. Looted art is basically unsellable.
In the real world, she might lose possession of the object and be out $35 if she can keep her receipt. Still way cheaper than a lawyer.
I doubt I would involve lawyers across multiple nations if I ever encountered such a thing. Preserve it, enjoy it, and donate it to a major museum in my home nation when I die. It will find its way to a rightful home.
She 100% did the right thing here.
And frankly she deserves a payout for all of the legwork.