We mustn't lose our marbles!

First published in Daily Express on 19 August 2024. The text below is the author’s submitted version; the published version may differ slightly after editing. (Working title: “In this game of Marbles, you've got to play by the rules”.)

In the history of international relations, where conflicts between states can go on for decades and even centuries, the longstanding dispute between Greece and the UK over the Elgin Marbles -with its 223 years and counting- is definitely at the top of this sad table. So it is only reasonable that people of goodwill in this country and across the world would try to bring this feud to an end. What is less reasonable is that to achieve this, values such as academic rigour and the rule of law should be sacrificed to an appeasement policy that would want us to just give the party that shouts the loudest whatever they want.

The recent feature by Theo Papakostas on these columns seems to go precisely in this direction. An archaeologist with respectable credentials, Dr Papakostas gives an outline of the story of the removal of the sculptures from the Parthenon and then makes an impassionate plea for their repatriation, pointing out that he feels just as British as he is Greek. Nothing wrong with that, if only the “facts” he reports were correct.

The first misrepresentation of the historical truth has to do with Lord Elgin’s alleged “intention of decorating his stately home” as the motive for the removal. Lord Elgin's "stately home" was in Scotland, yet upon their arrival, the Marbles were sent to London and deposited in Privy Gardens at the house of the Duchess of Portland. After that, Elgin charged his secretary Hamilton to purchase a house to set the marbles up for the enjoyment of the artists and the public. He would have had no reason to do so had he intended to install the sculptures at Broomhall. What he did was instead entirely consistent with his stated intentions: "I undertook the extensive plan … for the purpose of rendering my collection of publick utility and publick property" he writes to Lord Mulgrave in 1808. Two years later, the intention is still confirmed by Mr Planta, the director of the British Museum, who reports that Elgin “unequivocally declared his wish that his Collection of Marbles should become the property of the Public.”

The truth is that Elgin had always intended for the Marbles to stay in London indefinitely. The creation of his private Museum was just a necessary step to produce the general appreciation that would in turn support the Government’s plan to purchase the collection for the nation. That this was the plan all along is further demonstrated by the diaries of Charles Abbott, the Speaker of the House of Commons, who records conversations with Prime Minister Grenville about this as early as May 1806, a full year and a half before Elgin kicked off proceedings for his (in-)famous divorce. Not only did the divorce come after the start of the sale negotiations, but it would also have been a weak motive for them, considering that Elgin was awarded damages for ten thousand pounds by the courts and was not in immediate need of cash.

Let’s now move to the matter of permission. Dr Papakostas writes that Elgin only asked for "the sculptures that had fallen from the building over the years". Where did he get this information? Certainly not from the draft of the request that was submitted by Elgin, in the form of a memorandum redacted by Rev.d Hunt, which clearly states that the request is "to take away any sculptures or inscriptions which do not interfere with the works or walls of the Citadel".

We also have the text of the permission that Elgin got in response to his request, and this is even more ample, stating (twice!) that "if they want to take away any pieces of stone with figures and inscriptions, no opposition be made to this". Where is the mention of sculptures "fallen from the building"? This limitation, which Elgin’s men had purportedly exceeded, seems nothing more than a mystification of the historical record.

The main issue with the Greek position in this debate, and that of its supporters around the world, is that reading the documents seems to have become optional. Sure, the evidence must be analysed and critiqued to ascertain its authenticity and clarify its context, but it cannot simply be ignored. This is not science, and most certainly it is not culture. Yet, the practice is widespread, from academic personalities to volunteers in the various committees supporting restitution, from Greek museum directors to Turkish officials. As we are reminded by Dr Papakostas, it is only a few weeks ago that Dr Zeynep Boz, a high-ranking official of the Turkish Ministry of Culture, declared in a UNESCO meeting that they “have no knowledge” of permission being given to Elgin to remove the marbles. And yet it is a renowned and respected Turkish scholar who published -more than ten years ago- evidence from the Imperial Ottoman Archives which corroborates Elgin’s narrative. Prof. Edhem Eldem is convinced of the authenticity of the so-called firman which empowered Elgin to take the sculptures from the Acropolis. So was William StClair, the British historian who wrote about Lord Elgin and the Marbles for half his academic career.

The Greeks want to recuperate the Marbles so they can tell themselves a story in which the 1687 explosion did not happen and Elgin never got his permission. To tell this story, they are trying to systematically erase all traces of those incidents, rebuilding the Parthenon and ignoring historical documents and eyewitness accounts. By doing so, they tell themselves a dangerous fairytale in which they are all direct descendants of Perikles and Plato and the exclusive heirs to the Athenian legacy. The Italians were told a similar fairytale once, and we all know how it ended.

As both historians and fellow Europeans, we have a responsibility to help our Greek friends in what Byron called their “struggle against the truth”. Strange as it may seem, there is a moral case against restitution too here. It is by saying no, by sticking to the scientific method, and by writing history from the documents (not in spite of them), that we truly honour the ancient Greeks and love the modern ones.

If we really want to find a solution to this bicentenary conundrum, this can only spring from a shared view of what happened in Athens in 1801 and why. No cheating, no brushing of evidence under the carpet. Because it was a Greek man -Aristotle- who first taught us that “between friendship and the truth, you must choose the truth”.