For the Bayeux tapestry(贝叶挂毯：中世纪刺绣杰作) to return to France would be a scandal(丑闻). It is British, probably made in Canterbury by British women, and displays one of the greatest events in British history. The tapestry certainly does not belong in Normandy(诺曼底（法国北部地区）). It is right that it is now on British soil in the British Museum. Its display is so brief that the herd of visitors desperate to catch a glimpse of the medieval artwork must be jostled to keep moving, as if watching Shakespeare’s Henry V on fast-forward.(它的展出如此短暂，以至于那群渴望一睹这件中世纪艺术品的游客只能被推搡着往前走，就像用快进看莎士比亚的《亨利五世》。) So let’s keep it. Everybody knows possession is nine-tenths of the law(占有即九成合法). We can call it a long-term loan.
把贝叶挂毯还给法国，那简直是丑闻。它是英国的，很可能由英国女性在坎特伯雷制作，展现的是英国历史上最伟大的事件之一。这块挂毯当然不属于诺曼底。它如今安放在英国本土的大英博物馆，这是对的。它的展出时间如此短暂，以至于那群拼命想一睹这件中世纪艺术品的游客，只能被推搡着往前走，就像用快进看莎士比亚的《亨利五世》。所以，咱们就留着它吧。谁都知道，占有就是法律上的九成。我们可以称之为长期借展。
I am joking, of course. This is largely what I assume the British Museum is worried might happen if it lent the precious Elgin, or Parthenon, marbles to Athens.(我猜，大英博物馆主要担心的就是：一旦把珍贵的埃尔金大理石借给雅典，上述情形可能就会发生。) In the Guardian last month, the Greek prime minister, Kyriakos Mitsotakis(希腊总理米佐塔基斯), argued that the status of the Bayeux tapestry is parallel(相似的，可类比的) to that of the Parthenon marbles. “Both were conceive(构想，设想)d as single works, intended to be seen and understood as a whole,” he wrote, arguing it was time for the marbles to be reunited.
当然，我是在开玩笑。我猜，大英博物馆主要担心的就是：一旦把珍贵的埃尔金大理石——也就是帕特农大理石——借给雅典，上述情形可能就会发生。上个月，希腊总理基里亚科斯·米佐塔基斯在《卫报》上撰文指出，贝叶挂毯的地位与帕特农大理石相当。“两者最初都被构想为单一作品，旨在被作为一个整体来观看和理解，”他写道，并主张现在是时候让这些大理石重新聚首了。
The British Museum director, Nicholas Cullinan, even appeared to agree. He remarked that the Bayeux tapestry loan offered a “glimmer of possibility” of a deal on the Parthenon marbles, which were acquired by the British Museum in 1816.(他表示，贝叶挂毯的借展为帕特农大理石问题的解决带来了一线“可能的微光”。这些大理石于1816年被大英博物馆收入囊中。)
大英博物馆馆长尼古拉斯·卡利南甚至似乎也同意这一点。他表示，贝叶挂毯的借展为帕特农大理石问题的解决带来了一线“可能的微光”。这些大理石于1816年被大英博物馆收入囊中。