#16 - JRL 8005
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004
From: "Nicolai N. Petro" <kolya@uri.edu>
Subject: More on the Danilov bells

Harvard professor William Bossert ("For Whom Will Harvard's Bell Toll?, January 5, 2004) is quoted in the New York Times as saying that if the bells of Lowell House were returned to Russia's Danilov monastery there wouldn't be the same "openness" of access to them. Quite the opposite is true.

As any visitor knows, monasteries in Russia are open to the public. The only restriction one typically encounters is that personal living quarters are off limits to visitors. Moreover, the bells are among the most public aspects of a monastery. They are rung to call all within hearing to prayer, in public concerts, and to train future bell masters.

With all due respect to Harvard traditions and to Lowell House, we should also consider the original intention of the bell makers. While we can be thankful that Charles R. Crane bought the bells from an atheist government bent on their destruction, it should be obvious that their usage in a purely secular setting, for "pranks" and other less than edifying uses, comes uncomfortably close to the literal definition of sacrilege.

Restoring the Danilov bells to their proper setting, to the only purpose for which they were ever cast, and to a local Orthodox audience (not to mention pilgrims) capable of appreciating that purpose, would therefore be only proper.

With the burden of raising the funds needed to transport the bells back to Russia and to replace the bells at Lowell House being assumed by the Danilov Monastery, what further reason can there be for hesitation?

With best wishes,

Professor Nicolai N. Petro
Department of Political Science
Washburn Hall
University of Rhode Island
Kingston, RI 02881 USA
Voice: 401.874.2290 Fax: 775.659.5343
Home page: www.uri.edu/artsci/psc/nickpage.htm