Elgin and his marbles - A brief history of the problem

 

On the evening of Monday 27th November 2023, Rishi Sunak, the British PM, cancelled a meeting with his Greek counterpart, Kyriakos Mitsotakis, citing the Greek PM raising of the issue of the Elgin Marbles or Parthenon Sculptures beforehand as an unacceptable breach of an agreement. The ensuing storm in a teacup in both Greece and the UK, highlighted by the ambiguous wearing of a ‘Greek’ tie by King Charles at COP28 illustrated the lasting impact of monuments on the identity of a country. 

But what is the controversy over and is there a clear solution to the issue? This first blog looks at the history of the Elgin marbles, their acquisition by the Earl of Elgin and subsequent history. A second blog will deal with the issues surrounding restitution in general and for the marbles in particular. 

The Earl of Elgin, the 7th Earl of Elgin, was appointed as ‘Ambassador Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of His Britannic Majesty to the Sublime Porte of Selim II, Sultana of Turkey’ in November 1798. Greece at the time was a part of the Ottoman Empire and so ruled over by Turkey, although not for much longer. Before he departed for his post he asked the British government if they would be willing to employ artists to take casts and drawings of the sculptures on the Parthenon. Their response, according to Elgin, was no.

Once in Greece, Elgin moved on from taking casts to taking sculptures and not just from the Parthenon, also from the Temple of Athena Nike, the Erectheion and the Propylaia, all between 1801-1812 and all, he hoped for a private collection. Elgin claimed that he had permission to take the sculptures and the 1816 Parliamentary inquiry agreed with him. The nature of that permission was a little dubious being from Turkish functionaries who may or may not have had the authority to sanction removal. In addition, local officials told Elgin that the local Greeks just burnt any sculptures that fell off the monument for building lime anyway. So the implied local cultural value attached to the sculptures seemed to be virtually zero. Elgin also, in defence of his actions in 1810, argued that the Ottomans were not taking care of the sculpture so he removed them and besides, Napoleon wanted them as well so just as well he took them. The whole cost of the removal and transportation of the sculptures was paid for by Elgin, setting him back about £5 million in current terms. How much Elgin paid in brides and gifts to Turkish officials to ensure the removal is unclear, although it does seem to have occurred, but was dismissed as insignificant by the Parliamentary inquiry as this was viewed by the British as standard practice when dealing with Turks. Elgin sold the sculptures to the British government who gave trusteeship to the British Museum, for about half the cost involved in removing and transporting the sculptures. So a bargain for the British government who hadn’t been prepared to even pay for plaster casts.

So a dubious legal basis for taking the sculptures, compounded by a general imperial attitude of superiority of a British diplomat was the basis for the initial removal. Dealing with the occupying force and dismissing any cultural attachment of the host population meant that the justification for removing the sculptures seemed reasonable to the British, or at least the British class interested in classical civilization as the fount of all knowledge. There were objections from this class, most notably from Lord Bryon who wrote about the removal in Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage in 1812. Keats’ on the other hand was euphoric about the marbles being in the British Museum as he wrote in ‘On Seeing the Elgin Marbles’ in 1817. Exhibitions of the marbles did, however, attract big crowds, although what that means in the context of the early eighteenth century and the composition of the crowd are not really discussed. 

One of the key arguments against returning the sculptures is that they are better conserved in the British Museum. A bit tricky to justify given that as early as 1838 Michael Faraday, yes that one, was asked to figure out how to prevent the deterioration of the marble surfaces from the ravages of the polluted London atmosphere. Even after using dilute nitric acid on the soot and crusted deposits, he declared he could not figure out how to return the marble to its original pristine white state. Further attempts at cleaning the marbles were made in 1858 and 1937-38. The last attempt was made assuming that the original surface must have been a pristine white and so involved the removal of some surface features to get a white surface. Possibly up to 2.5mm of stone was removed along with some of the surface carvings. Despite these occasional ‘cock-ups’ as the British Museum put it, even in 1999 it was still claimed that most of the damage was a result of the 2000 or so years spent in Greece, not any of the time spent in London. The centaur leg being partially kicked off by two schoolboys in 1961 presumably being just another ‘cock-up’. 

The new Greek government of 1835 asked if it could have its marbles back, and asked again in 1890 as well as more formally in 1983, listing the dispute with UNESCO in 1984. A UK parliamentary select committee heard from the Greek foreign minister in 2000, who argued for the return of the marbles on ethical and cultural grounds - no decision was reached. In 2013 the Greek government asked UNESCO to mediate, the UK government and British Museum turned down that offer in 2021. UNESCO said the UK had an obligation to return the marbles and negotiate with the Greek. Negotiations reopened in 2022. The then British Culture Secretary,  Michelle Donelan stated on the return of the marbles that ‘I can sympathise with some of the arguments but I do think that is a very dangerous slippery road to embark down’. Presumably because other countries might ask for their stuff back as well! 

This short potted history of the marbles or sculptures as they are often called, provides a flavour of the current disagreement, but it also repeats some of the common themes that dog not just this but the concept of restitution of artefacts in general. This will be the subject of a second blog.