Oct
Saturday Salon: the Elgin Marbles

Lord Elgin, famous for his marbles
I grew up in England with parents who believed in culture. My father’s idea of a fun game was guessing the date of a Gothic church. Hardly a month went by when my siblings and I weren’t dragged off to see a museum or historic site of some kind. And although I like to think I was a normal child (I had an-eight year calendar in which I checked off the days until I was old enough to legally marry Paul McCartney) I mostly enjoyed these educational outings. There were limits to my tolerance, however, as I discovered when I was taken to the British Museum to see the Elgin Marbles, the sculptures from the Parthenon. Confronted with these masterpieces of art, I felt very like Freddy Standen, the adorably beta hero of Georgette Heyer’s Cotillion:
… when … he confronted these treasures of ancient Greece, he was quite dumbfounded, and only recovered his voice when he was called upon to admire the Three Fates, from the eastern pediment, “Dash it, they’ve got no heads!” he protested.
“No, but you see, Freddy, they are so very old! They have been damaged!” explained Miss Charing.
“Damaged! I should rather think so! They haven’t got any arms either!”….
… the disclosure that he had been maced of his blunt by a set of persons whom he freely characterized as hell-kites only to see a collection of marbles of which the main parts were missing so worked upon him that he could not be brought to recognize the merits of the frieze, but seemed instead to be … much inclined to seek out the author of this attempt to gull the public….
The Three Fates decried by Freddy are the three headless ladies on the right
To my teenage self the Parthenon sculptures became the gold standard for tedium. “As boring as the Elgin Marbles” was a terrible insult, often applied to the spotty sons of my mother’s friends.
The marbles are an important part of Regency lore. Lord Elgin, British ambassador to Turkey, had them removed from the Parthenon in Athens and shipped to London in the early years of the nineteenth century. They were put on display in London and eventually sold (for less than Elgin’s costs) to the British Museum. Even then the removal of sculptures from such a famous and ancient building was controversial. Elgin’s actions were condemned by Byron, among others. But visitors flocked to see them and they were much admired (notwithstanding the opinions of Philistines like Freddy and me).

A section of the Elgin Marbles frieze. Photo by ChrisO, 26.06.2004 (Wikipedia Commons)
All right, I didn’t remain a total Philistine. When I grew up, I visited the marbles again a few times and admired them, in a slightly academic way. And, as a student of the Regency era, I envisioned my characters’ reactions to them a couple of hundred years ago. But I didn’t really “get” them until last month, when I visited Athens for the first time. I saw the Parthenon (which was rather more beat up than I expected) and the remaining sculptures, which are housed in the spiffy new Acropolis Museum, designed to hold them. To hold the ones in Greece, the ones in London, and the odd fragments scattered in other museums around the world.
In the new Acropolis Museum the parts of the Parthenon sculptures still in Greece are displayed along with white plaster casts of the Elgin Marbles. Photograph by Tilemahos Efthimiadis (Wikipedia Commons)
Because the Greeks want them back. They seriously want the British Museum to pack ‘em up and reverse what they regard as Lord Elgin’s act of vandalism. Watching a movie shown (in English) at the Acropolis Museum, I got the distinct impression that Elgin’s actions were a far greater tragedy than the seventeenth century explosion that destroyed half the temple when the Turks were using it as a gunpowder repository. If Elgin were alive today, he’d be a dead man.
I stopped in London for a few days on my way home from Greece and revisited the marbles, now called the Parthenon Marbles (no one likes Elgin anymore). The display at the British Museum is just as splendid as that at the Acropolis, but the curatorial message is very different. How excellent, it implies, that people can see these masterpieces of world art in a major cultural institution in a major city, where admission is free for all.

The Parthenon Marbles in the British Museum. Photograph © Andrew Dunn, 3 December 2005 (Wikipedia Commons)
Should the British send the Parthenon Marbles back to Greece? Reams have been written on both sides of the argument and I only offer a quick, incomplete, and no doubt grossly simplified summary.
The British side:
- Since Greece was part of the Ottoman Empire in 1801 and Elgin got permission from the Turkish government, the removal was legal.
- Even if it wasn’t legal, the statute of limitations applies.
- Elgin saved the marbles from further degradation and even destruction had they been left in Athens.
- Returning the marbles to Greece would set a precedent that would empty half the museums in the world.
The Greek side:
- Elgin acted illegally.
- The Parthenon is one of the most famous buildings in the history of the world and it’s an outrage that part of its decoration should have been removed.
- The marbles that Elgin didn’t steal (and his method of removal isn’t exactly up to modern standards of conservation) have survived in Athens, proving that Elgin’s action wasn’t necessary for their safety.
- All the marbles should be together, in their original home city, in the state-of-the-art facility build to house them.
I don’t have a dog in this race, largely because I doubt the British Museum will let them go, even if hell’s temperature should happen to drop below 32 degrees. I also worry about restitution setting off a tempest of other claims and making a lot of lawyers richer and museums poorer. But I know nothing about international law and could be talking utter rot. What about you? Do you think the Elgin Marbles should be returned to Greece, so are you happy for them to remain in London?












Oct 15, 2011
4:27 am
Wow Miranda, what a tough question. As you’ve pointed out there are very good points on both sides of the argument.
I don’t think I’d like to take a stand for either side and since this row has been running for 200 years, I can’t imagine it will be settled any time soon.
Oct 15, 2011
9:39 am
That is exactly my feeling, Beebs. While reading up on this, I tended to agree with most arguments on both sides!
Oct 15, 2011
5:00 am
Sure, from a historical point of view, the marble should be returned. HOWEVER, given how close the Greek government is to bankruptcy AND all those demonstrations/riots going on there, NOTHING should be given back. I am never for returning priceless items to any unstable government (and even some stable ones – because you never know). They may just disappear, never to be seen again.
Oct 15, 2011
9:46 am
The current problems in Greece have definitely dealt a blow to the restitution argument. I will say that the new museum is wonderful and the Greeks are very serious about caring for their heritage. Whatever economic straits the country is in, I believe historic preservation will be a priority. But as you say, infinitieh, stability is a concern and the British Museum is probably as safe as anywhere.
Oct 15, 2011
5:34 am
I have to agree it is a tough question. I understand that Greece wants them back, and didn’t apprectiate the Turks allowing them to leave the country. It was the Turkish gov’t right to say what left the country while they were in charge, so it is just something that Greece has to deal with. I think if the Greeks didn’t like it at the time, something should have been done to prevent Elgin from removal of the marbles even if the gov’t allowed it. After the removal, I think the Greeks lost all claims in crying foul.
I don’t like the fact that lawyers could potentially get weathly off of claims and museums get poorer or just close. That would be a tragedy if people weren’t able to enjoy musems and get a better understanding of history by going to them.
Oct 15, 2011
9:50 am
One thing I learned, Ora, is that the original paperwork from the Turkish government was lost and there’s quite a bit of argument about what it said. Some argue that Elgin took more than he should have. Whether past illegalities should affect current claims is one of the questions. It’s a very complicated question.
Oct 15, 2011
8:05 am
It is a tough question, but I think the cases of what SHOULD have been done at the time and what can be done now are very different.
I don’t believe the marbles should have been taken in the first place, and I feel the same about most historical artefacts taken away from there original place of origin. The fact is these items have a lot more meaning when placed in there original context. Seeing the Elgin Marbles alongside the Parthenon would probable make them a lot more impressive ( I myself described them as utterly underwhelming and remember wholeheartedly agreeing with Freddy when I read Cotillion, also the extortionate amount of money the government paid for them in times when people were in England were really struggling doesn’t sit well with a modern conscience).
However I don’t feel that now they are in The British Museum they can be returned. It would be the beginning of a mass exodus of historical artefacts from museums to countries which would probably be overwhelmed. Take Egypt for example, the Cairo Museum has long campaigned to have the Rosetta Stone returned to them by the British Museum. But why would it stop there? The British Museum has a whole section of Ancient Egyptian artefacts, so does the Berlin museum, I think a lot of major cities around the world have at least one obelisk placed somewhere. The Cairo Museum already has a massive Basement filled with the things they don’t have the space to display and they work on a rotation system. So what would be the point in adding more things to the vaults where they wont be seen rather than leaving them on display in other countries?
I also don’t see that there would be a financial benefit to having these items. Tourists who travel to these historical destinations generally do so to see the bigger item, like the buildings. Tourism is unlikely to increase just because they have more artefacts.
Finally, it is denying people of lesser means the opportunity to learn about ancient cultures hands-on. Most countries have a museum with some artefacts from Greece, Rome and Egypt which gives people who do not have the means to travel the chance to see and become interested in the history of these places.
I didn’t have the money to travel to Egypt until I was 21 but the British Museum was on my doorstep and I developed a passion for Egyptology because I had the chance to see those things. We should be encouraging children to spark their interests in history and by taking these things away and concentrating them in one country we would be denying them the chance.
Oct 15, 2011
10:01 am
Well said, LL. When I read about Elgin’s workmen hacking the sculptures off the Parthenon I absolutely cringe. By today’s standards it was an abomination. I believe Elgin may have been acting in good faith, but even back then his actions were questionable.
Very good point about all the Egyptian artefacts in museums around the world that were grabbed under dubious circumstances. I thought of that when I was visiting the National Archeological Museum in Athens which, ironically, has a splendid Egyptian collection.
I agree that having objects from around the world in museums is very important to giving children (and adults) an appreciation for different cultures. It would be too bad if every country was only permitted to keep its own stuff (though that is taking the argument to an absurd conclusion
)
Oct 15, 2011
8:28 am
Very interesting post, Miranda.
I actually believe that the marble shouldn’t be returned, partly because it would harm the other museums that have them (and who have been doing a good job promoting/conserving the marble), and also because of Greece’s current economic situation. Also, considering the situation during the Turkish rule at that time, I’m pretty confident that the marbles would not have been so well-preserved today. As far as I’m concerned, they owe England a big thank you.
This reminds me of what’s going on right now in Romania (that’s where I’m from). The state is trying to obtain the sculptures by a Romanian artist that are currently in France, even though: a) the artist was never appreciated in Romania during his lifetime. b) the Romanian state isn’t doing anything to promote all the sites they have under their wing, including the sculptures they’ve already obtained from France.
Oct 15, 2011
10:14 am
That’s very interesting about the Romanian case, Antonia. How far back does this go? In recent decades many countries have had statute law governing the export of cultural objects, so the legalities are much clearer. For example, if I’m an English duke and want to sell my Rembrandt (not a British artist, note!) to an American museum or collector, I have to get an export license from the British government. Before the license is issues, a British museum or gallery has the right to pre-empt the sale.
Oct 15, 2011
11:08 am
You mean, for how long they’ve been trying to obtain the sculptures? I think it must have started around 2000 or in the 90′s. The thing is, the artist himself gave most of his work to the French state decades ago, on condition that they rebuild his workshop (which they did). So, in my eyes, they belong to France. I know he also has sculptures in the art museums from NY, Philadelphia and Washington DC, but I have no idea if the Romanian state wants those as well. And I don’t know how the whole process works.
I forgot to type the name of the sculptor in the first reply. His name is Constantin Brancusi. He’s a 20th century sculptor.
Oct 15, 2011
1:47 pm
I’m familiar with Brancusi’s work, Antonia. I had no idea he was Romanian. If his sculpture was sold or given away by the artist himself, I don’t see how his native country can argue.
Oct 15, 2011
9:18 am
I have one word for you, Miranda: Pevsner.
My former in-laws’ idea of a good time was photographing churches that Nicholas Pevsner (a Dutchman!) thought architecturally interesting. When the slides returned from the developer, the in-laws would try to figure which church was which (one dispute was resolved by referring to Pevsner and noting that one church tower had three pinnacles and the other four). Of course that has nothing to do with Lord Elgin’s Marbles, just a moment of cultural bonding with someone else who undoubtedly heard the sentence, “Pevsner says the 15th century font cover is particularly fine,” on the way into a church.
My reaction to this game of international marbles is quite cynical. It would be possible to make perfect replicas of the marbles. (Greece has white plastic casts because they *want* them to look fake.) Why not create a duplicate set, then ship the originals back to Greece for 200 years, then swap over after another 200 years?
It’s easy to avoid creating a legal precedent: don’t use the international courts. If the two museums agreed to some sharing scheme, that merely puts pressure on other museums to share (which they often do, in the form of loans, etc.) and doesn’t rise to the level of a legal argument.
Oct 15, 2011
10:19 am
Love Pevsner, Magdalen! I wish there was an online edition because it would be so handy to get detailed descriptions of every slightly important building in England, at will.
I agree that having very fake-looking plaster casts in Athens is intended to send a message to visitors to the Acropolis Museum. The British Museum has indicated a willingness to lend the marbles to Athens but I don’t see it happening. Even if the Greeks swore black and blue and signed every document in the world, I don’t believe they’d ever let them leave the country once they got them back. Then what? A war between the United Kingdom and Greece, both members of the European Union?
Oct 15, 2011
10:21 am
Fascinating Miranda!
Thanks for sharing this with us.
I too am a big museum fan. Every time I go somewhere new, I always check out a museum. NYC is a great spot for museums in particular. When my family and I went to London, we went to the National Gallery and the British Museum. The funny thing is, we had a tour guide at the British Museum, and when we got to the marbles, he went through a bit of the history, and some of the arguements you discuss in this post. But he ended it by very clearly stating the Brits have no intention of handing them over to Greece.
As to my personal opinion on the matter, I’m conflicted too, but I agree with a lot of the arguments above, especially about the setting of a precedent and the stability in Greece right now, so if pressed, would probably say it should stay in Britain
Oct 15, 2011
1:24 pm
I always love a trip to NYC, Lisa. The Metropolitan and the Frick are my favorites. Interesting that the BM openly discussed the pros and cons of the Elgin Marbles issue.
Oct 15, 2011
1:45 pm
I absolutely adored the Frick Collection too, Miranda!
It’s still mind-boggling to me that one man collected all these masterpieces and displayed it in his home. He and his family came home to Rembrandts, Holbiens, Renoirs, and Vermeers every day. Incredible, right?!?!
The tour guide we had wasn’t actually affiliated with the British Museum. We were part of a group from London Walks, whichdoes great guided walks all over London. I highly recommend them. I’ve been on a number of London Walks and they are always entertaining and informative!
Oct 15, 2011
11:02 am
Wow what a great topic. I have no bone in this fight.
It doesn’t matter where the artifacts are housed, only that everyone has the
Ability to see them.
Oct 15, 2011
1:26 pm
It is important that everyone should be able to see great works of art, Lady Susan. Would it be better if the remaining Parthenon sculptures were united in one place? If so, Athens is the obvious answer.
Oct 15, 2011
11:16 am
“My father’s idea of a fun game was guessing the date of a Gothic church.” HA! I think I would love your father.
I love this post, Miranda. Take me to task for wearing rose-colored glasses, but when I finally saw the Elgin marbles I was in alt. I even wrote them into my first Regency. The history behind them — both the mythology and Elgin’s part in the story — gives them a fantastical quality that goes beyond their physical accidents, to me. Also, the battle depicted in the frieze was so horridly lusty, when I look at them I get the shivers. What can I say, I tend toward the dramatic.
Oct 15, 2011
1:32 pm
I think my initial attitude to the marbles may have been the fact that I was only about 8 years old when I first saw them! I appreciate them much more now – though I found some of the earlier figures in the Athens museums more appealing.
“What can I say, I tend toward the dramatic. ” LOL
Oct 15, 2011
11:40 am
What a thought-provoking post, Miranda! I can see the arguments on both sides, although I lean toward the idea that the marbles (or at least most of them) should go back to Greece. Ideally it should be possible to return them now without getting into the “who wronged whom”, “was it illegal” politics of it, but simply as a recognition that the world community has learned so much more about conservation and preservation than we knew 200 years ago. Certainly today all parties involved would know better than to use the Parthenon as a powder magazine, or go hacking sculptures from its friezes. The motives and legal permissions of people who did such wrongheaded things hundreds of years in the past is sort of irrelevant, in my opinion – they were all committing crimes against art! The point is, we know better now, and I think the parties involved should make decisions based on how the artifacts would be best preserved, displayed, and made accessible to the people of the world. I haven’t been lucky enough to visit the Parthenon, but I have to imagine that these sculptures would look more impressive and meaningful when presented in the larger context for which the artists created them. But I also understand the argument that displaying some of them in other countries gives more people the chance to view and appreciate them.
Personally, I think a compromise is in order, but the politics seem so entrenched on both sides. Mostly, I’m just glad the statues are preserved and safe now, unlike so many designated World Heritage Sites:
The UNESCO list of Sites in Danger
Oct 15, 2011
1:42 pm
That is an eloquent argument in favor of restitution, Tessa. Makes me want to stand up and yell “pack and ship!” So many of the world’s problems would go away if people would let go of long held grudges and ancient claims, forget about blame, and try and deal with each other in a spirit of cooperation and tolerance. I’d love to think my native country would lead the way and set an example, but I’m a cynic.
The Acropolis is the most amazing site and preservation work continues, according to modern standards, despite the Greek government’s difficulties. With or without the Elgin marbles, it was a marvelous experience to visit it. And the National Archeological Museum completely blew me away. I thought I’d seen good Greek stuff in London and New York, but the sculpture, vases, jewelry etc. in that collection were an eye opener.
Oct 15, 2011
1:08 pm
Very thought provoking posting, Miranda. It’s a question that may not have an easily settled solution. I can see both sides of the argument and reasons for them to stay and reasons for them to be moved. I would worry about moving them safely – it’s best not to tempt fate – but most of all, I’m glad I don’t have to make a decision on it. Having grownup just outside Washington, DC, as a child I was fortunate enough to be dragged to every museum, historical site and art museum – it’s why I still love going and have visited them many times. I’m also an avid sight-seer because of it. Love to visit places, especially historical places, and learn all about it. The most important thing to consider is protecting such items from our past no matter where they are located in the present or future.
Oct 15, 2011
1:44 pm
Love the Washington museums, Amy, though I haven’t spent enough time there to see everything. I think it’s marvelous that American collections contain major works of art from all over the world, since not everyone is fortunate enough to be able to travel.
Oct 15, 2011
7:57 pm
Like a lot of the British Museum, these are as much a British Imperialism exhibit as an Ancient Greece exhibit. I was in college when I first visited the BM, and walking through the collections of older artifacts seemed like an unending catalog of “look what we took from these folks!” All, of course, in the name of preservation, because the British could appreciate what lesser people could not. The arguments for taking and keeping the artifacts of another culture were a lot like the arguments for colonial Imperialism: a) because it’s good for them, and b) because we can. While I think something should have been worked out a long time ago, it’s certainly an interesting history lesson.
Oct 17, 2011
9:05 am
Thanks for visiting, SonomaLass. Interesting perspective. I guess many museums are imperialistic. Not so much European fine art, which has mostly changed hands in an open market, but certainly the ancient and tribal objects which tend to have been just taken. I think museum culture has changed now, with curators more sensitive to the origins of objects (and laws governing how they are acquired). But museums still want to hold on to what they have, hence the current argument which I don’t expect to see resolved anytime soon!
Oct 16, 2011
10:39 pm
I have a cute church story for you, Miranda. While visiting Denmark many years ago, I was able to see the church where my grandfather was baptized, then attended. Like a lot of the Danish churches, it is white and a beautiful structure built in the 1100s. (Wow, mind-boggling that it still exists.) While enjoying a day of sight-seeing in another town with my cousin Hanne-Doris, I saw another beautiful church that was built with red bricks. “That’s a pretty church. It looks new.” To which Hanne-Doris replied, “Oh, yes. It was built in the late 1700s.” Still tickles me to think about “new”.
I was only a little conflicted with the argument; however, the British side has won me over. Everyone is able to enjoy the pieces and the history of the marbles since placed in the British Museum. I think this is true with many other artifacts as well. I’m not saying that people can’t enjoy artifacts in Greece or Egypt or any other country, but more people would probably visit the British or New York Museums than a museum in another part of the world.
Oct 17, 2011
9:08 am
Great story, Deb. I’ve never been to Denmark – sounds like a fascinating place. It’s always awe inspiring to see very old buildings – a thousand year old church – or far, far older in the case of the Parthenon!
Oct 22, 2011
4:46 pm
What a fantastic post Miranda…. and what a can of worms to open!!! I’ve been visiting the British Museum since I was about 8 years old, and I’ve never once stepped through that portico entrance without heading for the Parthenon Room at some point.
) And let’s not forget – the shiny new Acropolis museum was built slap bang on the top of a 14th century BC Mycenaean palace, historically important in its own right… it’s enough to make me shudder!
From my personal perspective, I love the accessiblity of the artefacts in major museums – I’m never likely to walk through the ancient palaces of Iran in person, but can marvel at the Persian sculptures (or the Nereid Monument in the room next door to the Marbles) in the BM. I’ve been lucky enough to visit museums in Paris, Rome, Florence, Naples, Athens, along with archeological sites in Greece, Italy and Turkey, but there’s so much of the world in a museum that you can travel continents in a few steps… but I’m gushing, and must stop!
Thinking of the Elgin *coughs* Parthenon marbles always puts me in a quandry. I can absolutely understand the Greek perspective – I had a Greek lecturer in Classical Archaeology at university, and always remember her rant about the Marbles. On the other hand… I’ve seen ‘Before and After’ photographs of the Parthenon sculptures in the open air – not all the metopes (those square blocks with centaurs and Trojans) made it into the old museum there – and the effects of acid rain are obvious. (Poor Cassandra – the indignity of first not being believed by the Trojans and then her Parthenon sculpture fading away.
Finally, quoting from the very first point in the official Code of Ethics for Museums in the UK: “1.0 Museums behave as ethical guardians as well as owners of collections. They never relinquish the trust invested in them, without public consent.” The BM, which has signed up to this (rather extensive) Code of Ethics, has to take this statement into account when even considering repatriation of any object in its collections.
Yikes! Sorry – I tend to get quite passionate about this (blame my Masters in Museum Studies…) – the BM actually has an excellent section at http://www.britishmuseum.org/gr/debate.html which puts forth both sides of the debate!
Oct 23, 2011
2:17 pm
Thanks for coming by, Amy. It’s true about the Acropolis Museum, but what they are doing is fascinating. The excavations underneath are partially visible and they are setting it up so visitors will be able to walk among them. I’ll try and upload a photo I took from the entrance area, showing the site below.

I gather the BM couldn’t return the marbles without an Act of Parliament which would require public support.
Aug 6, 2012
6:55 am
[...] ancient Rome, Greece, and Egypt. Recall Miranda’s delightfully provocative discussion of the Elgin Marbles. We ladies of The Ballroom aren’t above capitalizing on England’s obsession with [...]