What makes a piece of artwork or literature too important to be privately owned? This is a complex issue that I’ve recently mentioned. The Kafka manuscripts that Israel fought for (and has, at least for the time being, won) were deemed to be “literary treasures”. This ruling meant that the legal owners of the manuscripts, who had inherited them indirectly, had no right to withhold the papers until they found a high enough bidder. Instead, the set of deposit boxes will be opened and made public by the Israel National Library.

What happens when the art in question was stolen from its owner during the war?

While most countries have done whatever possible to return lost and stolen property to victims of World War II, Hungary has kept dozens of paintings that belonged to Baron Mor Lipot Herzog, a Jewish art

The Agony In The Garden- El Greco (One of the stolen pieces)

collector, before the war. His family has had moderate success in tracking down and reclaiming pieces of his collection from Germany, but the vast majority of it was returned to Hungary decades ago and now hangs in museums there.

To me, at least, these issues seem pretty cut and dry. Society has too much to learn from any unread Kafka for it to stay in a locked box (though I would personally argue that there’s no reason the owners can’t receive compensation). On the other side of the public domain issue are the descendents of Herzog, who quite truly had their property stolen from them, and have stated that they’d be more than happy to let the museum keep some of the more culturally valuable pieces.

Usually literature passes into public possession because an author simply hasn’t set up a legal alternative, or so much time has passed that a clear owner can no longer be traced (I purse my lips at the thought of all the Pride and Prejudice “sequels” out there, but fair is fair). It’s rare that something is valuable enough for its own sake that governments fight to take it from living owners. Where do you think the line should be?