The sword and dagger of Grand Master Jean Parisot de Valette, which formed part of the Order of St John’s possessions, were legally passed on to France two centuries ago, according to Francophile Charles Xuereb.
A convention signed by France and the Order in 1798 states that the Knights renounced their rights over sovereignty and property in Malta, according to the veteran broadcaster, who is carrying out academic research about France in the Maltese collective memory.
He was contacted after The Sunday Times of Malta last week carried an article that the sword and dagger will be loaned to Malta by the Louvre Museum when Valletta takes on the European Capital of Culture title in 2018.
The article once again stirred the debate about whether Malta should formally request back the sword of the man who built Malta’s capital.
The sword at the Louvre fits into the same ‘colonial theft’ category, where might is right
The sword was given to de Valette by King Philippe II of Spain for his victory against the Ottomans.
Mr Xuereb said the convention was signed on June 12, 1798, between France, represented by General Bonaparte, and the Order, Maltese officials, and the chargé d’affaires of the King of Spain in Malta as mediator.
“The dagger and sword were part of the Order’s possessions and as such were legally passed to France. Bonaparte highly respected the chivalrous past of the Order. As was the tradition when a victorious general takes over some territory, the loser’s official standard and trophies, especially the sword, are taken as symbols of new acquisition and governance,” he said.
Apart from the sword, which was a symbol of courage, Bonaparte was also struck by the accompanying dagger which he seems to have carried to all his later battles as a talisman.
In 1840, the Louvre, founded by Denon, who had accompanied Bonaparte to Malta and Egypt, acquired the items from the Emperor’s relatives to honour France’s most iconic figure, Mr Xuereb added.
Historian Henry Frendo, however, believes de Valette’s sword at the Louvre fits into the “colonial theft” category. He quoted Grandmaster Ferdinand von Hompesch who referred to the convention as a “violent law”.
When Grandmaster Hompesch protested about the French takeover of Malta in October 1798, he took exception to the use of the term “convention”.
Hompesch had described it as a “hostile invasion” just as the Order was implementing its policy of neutrality and hospitality.
“Foreign occupiers have generally tended to regard their acquisitions (whether ceded or conquered) as possessions, and they have all too often helped themselves to precious objects carting these away to their respective capitals.
“De Valette’s sword at the Louvre fits into the same ‘colonial theft’ category, where might is right. It is an abusive right, which in a post-colonial world should be rectified.”
Prof. Frendo said it may be easier to regulate matters when immovables like St John’s Co-Cathedral are involved, rather than items like a sword.
“Ultimately, much depends on the magnanimity or otherwise of the state in possession of such objects, which in time come to be regarded as an acquired patrimonial right. This may be more difficult for the Maltese to stomach as Malta never had an empire.”
The first consignment of iconic artefacts found their way to Britain while the French were still in Malta, Mr Xuereb explained. Paintings, an old silver model of a Rhodes galley, the standard of the Grandmaster and the decorative cannon of Ximenes were all “lost to the British” when they seized the French ship Sensible which was carrying them for conservation in France.
“Although Malta became a British colony, these items were never returned to the island. Worse still, the British authorities some years ago refused to lend Malta the Ximenes cannon while it was exhibited in Rome,” Mr Xuereb said.