The Parthenon (Elgin) Marbles Controversy

In 1801, Thomas Bruce, Scottish Earl of Elgin and British ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, then in possession of Greece, gained permission to collect any pieces of the Parthenon that had fallen to the ground during the 1687 Venetian siege of Athens. At the time, Europe was possessed by the Romantic revival and fostered a consequent interest in Ancient Greek artifacts. Although his motives are disputed (Elgin purportedly wrote that he was collecting antiquities for his newly-constructed estate in Scotland, which he built for his young wife) Bruce claimed that he was seeking to improve the modern art of Great Britain by providing English artists the opportunity to see what were, and for the most part still are considered some of the greatest examples of high art ever.

The Parthenon was commissioned by Pericles in commemoration of Greek military victories against the Persians. Constructed between 447 and 432 BC and dedicated to Athena, goddess of art and wisdom, it was, at various points in history, a site of military contention. During the Venetian siege of 1687, the Turks used the building to store munitions. A direct hit by the attackers damaged, but did not destroy the temple. Much of the rubble, if it was not snatched up by souvenir hunters, was used as building material. All that remained untouched of the three-dimensional art were portions of the frieze and metopes and a few pediment sculptures.

Initially, Turkish authorities granted Elgin permission merely to make copies of the Parthenon's sculptures. It was Dr. Philip Hunt, Chaplain to the British Embassy at Constantinople and himself a lover of antiquities, who convinced Elgin to obtain the so called "real thing." An impractical man of peculiar vision, he once suggested that the entire Palace of Mycenae be exported to Britain. After observing the copy work that Elgin and his crew were conducting, he encouraged Elgin to leverage his sway as an ambassador to obtain a firman--a decree or mandate issued by the government--to free his crew from local restrictions. Such a request, Hunt wrote, should include "the liberty to take away any sculptures which do not interfere with the works or walls of the citadel." Conveniently, Hunt's suggestions came to Elgin just after Admiral Nelson's victory at the Battle of the Nile. With British influence in the Eastern Mediterranean at a high, Elgin's appeal to Constantinople was favorably received.

Elgin quickly took advatage of the lax restraints. He is said to have filled one-hundred large packing cases with the Parthenon remains. He removed seventeen figures from the pediments, fifteen of the metopes, and 274 feet of the once 524-foot frieze. He had an unfortunate reputation for mishandling the remnants, some of them breaking as they were lowered to the ground. The operation was on such a scale as to require 300 workers employed for over a year. Elgin himself claimed to have spent an exhorbitant sum on the endeveaur (62,440 pounds), and nearly went bankrupt.

It took four years for the temple remains to make their way back to Britain, which had recently renewed its war with France. Elgin, who had decided to make his way back by travelling overland through France, was captured and imprisoned after the fighting flared up. He was held until 1806. While a captive, fame of his Parthenon exploits grew and he began to be disparaged as a thief of ancient civilization. His most famous critic was Lord Byron, infamous in his own right for his invective verse. During a visit to the Acropolis, he carved in Latin the oft-quoted sentence “Quod non fecerunt Gothi, fecerunt Scoti”—“What the Goths spared, the Scots destroyed.” Of Elgin the poet also wrote, “His mind is as barren and his heart is as hard,/ Is he whose head conceiv’d, whose hand prepar’d/ Aught to displace Athena’s poor remains.”

By 1805, most of the cases containing the temple artifacts had been shipped back to Britain, who was now at war with Turkey. Meanwhile, the French had established a presence in Athens. They attempted to steal 80 of the chests, but British naval superiority prevented them from doing so. Nevertheless, a ship holding twelve cases sunk off the island of Cerigo. The chests remained at the bottom of the sea for two years until Elgin paid a small fortune (5,000 pounds) to have them raised. Finally, by 1812, all the marbles were in Britain. Elgin stored them in a shed on Park Lane, behind a house he had rented upon his return to England. It was here that he began exhibiting them to the public. When, in London's humid climate, the marbles began to decay, Elgin offered to sell them to the government for 60,000 pounds. When the government responded by proposing half that sum, he refused. The sculptures were subsequently transported to another shed, this one at the Duke of Devonshire's Burlington House. Still decaying from what Elgin referred to as "destructive dampness," he again offered them to the government for the larger amount of 73,600 pounds. He advised that, in the event that this sum be deemed excessive, a parliamentary committee be formed to determine an approptiate price. Finally, in 1816, the British government offered, and Elgin, by this time quite worn out by the ordeal, accepted 35,000 pounds for the marbles, the nineteenth century equivalent of $2 million. This was not much compensation to the lord, who claimed to have invested 74,240 pounds in the affair. The sum of 35,000 pounds is especially low when one considers the committee's preliminary report, which proudly proclaimed that the marbles would "serve as an example for rivalry and imitation."

After selling the marbles, Elgin returned to Scotland. The British government entrusted the marbles to the British Museum for safekeeping. Unfortunately, further mishandling occured. As is still the case today, there was in the nineteenth century a popular conception that all classical art was spotlessly white. This widespread notion, combined with the seemingly appropriate logic that curators and museums should appeal to the sensibilities of the public, led to an ongoing project to adapt the marbles for display. In 1928, Sir Joseph (later Baron) Duveen offered to build a gallery in the British Museum to house the Parthenon Marbles. He stipulated, however, that he be permitted to make the marbles more attractive to the viewing public. The museum accepted and on Duveen’s orders, masons set to work “modifying” the marbles. The museum’s keeper of Western Asiatic antiquities recalls his dismay at seeing workers “day after day using hammer and chisel and wire brushes” on the ancient works.

The crass modification of the Parthenon marbles for purposes of aesthetic display is one of the most commonly cited justifications for the return of the marbles to Greece. But although the British Museum and, of course, Elgin himself have rightly received criticism for their handling of the sculptures, it should not be ignored that similar techniques were used in Athens in the 1950s on the Hephaistion Temple. Moreover, Dr. Ian Jenkins, the British museum's deputy keeper of Greek and Roman antiquities, makes the point that "while people moralize about bribes paid by Lord Elgin 200 years ago, and protest about cleaning that happened 60 years ago, South Metope 1 and North Metope 32, two of the finest sculptures that ever there were, still rot on the Parthenon as we speak."

Partisan implications aside, England embraced the Parthenon Marbles as a bright augmentation of its cultural repertoire. In addition to praising the high artistic value of the marbles, the Select Committe of the House of Commons' preliminary report also stated, "No other country can offer such an honourable shelter to the monuments of Pheidias and Pericles than ours where, safe from ignorance and degradation, they shall receive the admiration and reverence due them."

Today, the Parthenon Marbles are a point of heated contestation between Greece and Great Britain. This is due, in large part, to the iconic status of the Parthenon itself. After Greece defeated the Turks in its war for independence in 1832, one of the first resolutions of the new government was to restore the Acropolis. Themistokles Vakoulis, an archaeologist at the Center for Studies of the Acropolis, confirms the importance of the Parthenon. He states, “Greeks always love to remember their past, and for that past, the Parthenon is the crowning symbol. We have this saying in Greek, that something is the Parthenon of something. That Mercedes, for example, is the Parthenon of cars.” He adds that "Most Greeks can't tell you the difference between Doric and Ionic columns. They just know that the Parthenon is the emblem of Athenian democracy." Epaminondas Vranopoulos, a prominent Greek scholar, writes, “Classical scholars and art historians are unanimous in declaring the Parthenon to be a unique example of Greek Classical art.” He goes on to comment that the temple is "so important that it has become a symbol of aesthetic beauty, architectural perfection and harmony with the environment as well as of pure reason and democracy." For these reasons, he suggests, the general public is "even more responsive to the demands now being made for the return of its missing parts."

Indeed, as essential as the Parthenon is to Greek identity, it comes as no surprise that its marbles are hotly contested items. Even in the years that Elgin was “excavating” the temple, Greeks were outraged by the careless attitude of their Turkish occupiers towards antiquities. In “A Classical and Topographical Tour through Greece,” published in 1812, Edward Dodwell, a classical scholar and collector, notes that the Athenians despised the Turks’ granting permission to foreigners to remove artifacts. The Greek attitude towards antiquities had always been one of veneration. When a farmer came across a relic in his fields, he would set it in the stonework above his entranceway. One can imagine, then, how readily the Greeks villanized Elgin.

But, as has already been mentioned, Elgin's infamy was not restricted to the Greeks. In addition to the flamboyant Lord Byron, British criticism of Elgin was led by Richard Payne Knight, a prominent member of the Society of Dilettanti. It has been suggested that Knight's aversion towards Elgin was driven not by moral indignation, but rather by spite. Elgin's marbles overshadowed the artifacts of his society, and as a leader, Knight was bound to defend his fellow members. The cause of his resentment may have even been Elgin's Scottish ethnicity. Whatever the instigation, it is clear that Knight fostered deep resentment towards Elgin. At an unfortunate dinner party to which both were invited, he purportedly screamed across the room, "You have lost your labor, my lord. Your marbles are overrated. They are not Greek: they are Roman to the time of Hadrian." Some Visitors to the Parthenon were equally dismayed. One noted, "It is painful to reflect that these trophies of human genius...should at last have been doomed to experience the devastating outrage which will never cease to be deplored."

But not everyone criticized Elgin. Antonio Canova, an Italian sculptor who was one of the most influential artists of the Neoclassical movement, expressed concern over the restoration of the marbles. Nevertheless, he said of Elgin, "I am pursuaded that all artists and amateurs must gratefully acknowledge their high obligation to Your Lordship for having brought these memorable and stupendous sculptures into our neighborhood." In a letter to Elgin, Benjamin Robert Hayden, an English Romantic painter, also expressed praise: "You have immortalized yourself, my lord, by bringing them." In a similar vein, John Keats, a well-known Romantic poet, wrote a sonnet titled "On Seeing the Elgin Marbles" on the occasion of their arrival in Greece.

Even today, opinions of Elgin range widely. Matt Berrett, a publisher of Greek travel guides, calls the lord a "tragic figure" who has been "demonized and turned into a monster by Byron and then generation after generation of romantics and by the Greeks themselves." He adds that after first reading about Elgin, he "had trouble sleeping at night" because he felt so sorry for him. Other travel guides are not as forgiving. One notes that most of the Parthenon has been "blown away, stolen or hacked off by Lord Elgin's crew or the British Museum." Some opinions are even more condemning. One website has the provocative heading "Let's Cut the Shit: Lord Elgin was a Bastard."

But, though the two are inextricably linked, the question of whether the Parthenon Marbles should be returned is of greater concern than any contestation of Elgin's reputation. In ''The Parthenon and the Elgin Marbles,'' Vranopoulos provides a useful argument for the return of the sculptures. He identifies five reasons why Great Britain claims ownership of the marbles: (1) by virtue of the Sultan's firman, they were taken from Greece legally, (2) they were removed in order to prevent them from being destroyed, (3) the Greeks demonstrated marked apathy towards the monument, (4) the cleaner London air minimizes damage caused by pollution, and (5) the marbles can be seen by more people in the British Museum.

After outlining the British perspective, Vranopoulos proceeds to dissect it. Where the first reason is concerned, he suggests that since the Turks were invaders, any purchase from them is intrinsically void. In response to the second argument, he notes that Elgin himself, by removing the marbles from the Parthenon, caused extensive damage to the structure. He also points out that Elgin used a saw to reduce their size during transport. As for the third reason, he claims that any Greeks objecting to the removal of the marbles would have been quickly silenced by their Turkish occupiers. In response to the fourth argument, Vranopoulos contends that the sculptures suffered extensive damage due to air pollution in London than they would have in Athens. The author uses statistics to contend with the final justification. He notes that in 1983, 7000 entrance tickets to the Acropolis were sold per day. The Duveen Gallery, in which the marbles are currently displayed, could never achieve such a figure. Additionally, he gives his own opinion that the marbles would be better appreciated in their "natural" environment.

Vranopoulos' indignation is certainly not helped by the British Museum's permittal, for a hefty fee, of gourmet parties in the Duveen Gallery, which is as much an indication of the British attitude towards the marbles as it is a testament of the sculptures' prominent place in English culture. Of these champaigne banquets, Andrew Dismore, a Greek-speaking parliamentary representative, comments, "I am frankly dismayed at the attitude of the museum. What are we going to do next? Themed orgies in the Roman galleries?" Sir Kenneth Alexander, former trustee of the National Museum of Scotland agrees that this is a "crass misuse of one of the world's greatest antiquities." Conversely, a publicist for the museum expresses casual surprise: "I am amazed that there should be any reaction to the museum holding dinners and receptions there. Everybody does it now."

Aside from nonchalant public statements, the British Museum counters its critics by referring to the aforementioned finding of the Select Committee of the House of Commons that the marbles had been legally obtained by Elgin. The institution also cites the British Museum Act of 1963, under which its trustees are prohibited from parting with objects ad infinitum unless there are copies within the collection or the items in question are not in satisfactory condition and can be discarded without doing any disservice to students. Vranopoulos ignores the potential legitimacy of these British resolutions. More pressingly, he does not address the more complex issue of ownership. The British Museum sagely points out that the Parthenon is just as much a symbol of Greece as it is for the whole of Europe which, the museum claims, culturally identifies with the early Greek city-states. Equally deserving of consideration is the diversity of the Greek citizenry and the question of whether such an ethnically-heterogeneous state can rightfully claim a single city as its quintessence. This is not to say that Vranopoulos' is wrong, only to point out that he does not properly address the complexities instrinsic to the iconic status of Athens and the Parthenon.

Over the years, the British government, acting independently of the museum, has put forth its own varied reasons for not returning the marbles. These include (1) the assertion, however accurately founded, that Greece would be unable to care for them properly if transferred, (2) the contention that, had Elgin not transported the marbles to Britain, they would have been destroyed, (3) the legal acquisition of the marbles on the part of the British Museum, and (4) the assertion that if the antiquities were given back, there would be precedent for other returns. Neil MacGregor, director of the British Museum, labels this latter possibility "very dangerous." This point becomes all the more serious when one considers the 1965 call by the Greek Minister of Culture for the return of all ancient artifacts to Greece.

Held in Athens, the 2004 Olympics appeared to provide an appropriate forum for cooperation between Greece and Great Britain, especially since the Greek Foreign Minister had reliquished his country's claim to ownership in 2001. A pro-return campaign led by members of the UK parliament and backed by famous actors Sean Connory, Vanessa Redgrave and Judi Dench drew international attention, but Britain did not budge. In a January 2002 interview for CNN, while the debate was still raging, British Museum Director Robert Anderson reiterated the stance that the "important thing" was not to be able to view the marbles at their place of origin, but rather "to see these sculptures in excellent conditions, to study them, and to see them in relation to other antiquities of the ancient world." He also repeated the argument that many people come to see the marbles in the British Museum every day. Nicos Papadikos, a spokesman of the Greek government, countered Anderson by pointing out that that line of thinking holds true for Athens as well.

The 2001 exchange between Anderson and Papadikos underscores the stagnance of the Parthenon Marbles dispute. In the same way, it also highlights the Parthenon's on-going relevance to the present day. No matter that they are two and a half milleniums old. The Parthenon marbles still capture imaginations, flare tempers and continue to affect the politics and culture of the modern world. Themistokles Vakoulis, an archaeologist at the Center for Studies of the Acropolis, comments on the changelessness of the dilemma: "knowing in the back of my mind the realities, I am afraid nothing will happen. They were taken during the Ottoman Empire. There was no Greek government. There's not much else we can do." And yet, he recognizes the encouragement intrinsic to the Parthenon, to the triumph of the outnumbered Greek armies over the Persians for which the temple stands and the victory of the Lapiths over the centaurs depicted on the its frieze. "I will say this," he says, "we Greeks are always optimistic." Cooperation between Greece and Great Britain may not be imminent, but it is certainly possible.

Links

---

The British Museum [link]

Center for the Acropolis Studies [link]

Website for the Return of the Parthenon Marbles [link]

Commodification [link]

References

---

“Athens.” Time Out Online. 10 Dec. 2005 <http://www.timeout.com/travel/athens/intro.html>.

Barrett, Matt. “The Parthenon (or Elgin) Marbles.” Athensguide.com. 10 Dec. 2005 < http://www.athensguide.com/elginmarbles/>.

Chamberlin, Russell. Loot!: The Heritage of Plunder. New York: Facts on File (1983).

Chance, Matthew. “Marble Row of Olympic Proportions.” CNN.com. 2002. Cable News Network. 10 Dec. 2005 <http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/01/17/marbles/index.html>.

“Lord Elgin Was a Bastard.” Electroasylum.com. 8 Dec. 2005 <http://www.electroasylum.com/elgin/>.

Rothernbur, Jacob. “Lord Elgin’s Marbles: How Sculptures From the Parthenon Got to the British Museum.” Biblical Archaeological Society. 8 Dec. 2005 <http://www.bib-arch.org/olympicwatch/bswbOWSubPage.asp?PubID=BSAO&Volume=1&Issue=2&ArticleID=8>.

“The Parthenon Sculptures: Facts and Figures.” The British Museum Online. 8Dec. 2005 <www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/gr/debate.html>.

Vranopoulos, Epaminondas. "The Parthenon and the Elgin Marbles." Website Dedicated to the Return of the Elgin Marbles. 8 Dec. 2005 <http://www.xs4all.nl/~securma/elgin-pamflet.html>.

“Will Britain Lose its Marbles?” Salon.com 8 Dec. 2005 < http://www.salon.com/travel/feature/2000/02/05/marbles/index.html>.

Zieglar, Mark. “All the Marbles.” San Diego Union-Tribune. Aug. 10 2004. Elginism.com. 8 Dec. 2005 < http://www.elginism.com/20040816/85/>.