The short answer
Yes. In July 1801 the Ottoman government at Constantinople issued Lord Elgin's embassy a written order addressed to the authorities of Athens. It allowed his artists to enter the Acropolis, draw, model, excavate, and take away "qualche pezzi di pietra con vecchie inscrizioni, e figure": pieces of stone bearing old inscriptions and figures. An Italian translation of that order survives in the British Museum, and its authenticity is accepted by the leading historians of the subject.
The permission was used openly, before the Ottoman officials of Athens, for almost a year. Neither Constantinople nor Athens objected, and the House of Commons Select Committee of 1816 found as much. The legal scholar Alexander Herman, examining the question in 2023, concludes: "Whether we like it or not, there is little way of impugning the legality of the permission given for the removal of the Marbles" (Herman 2023, 51).
What remains disputed is the scope of the clause, and in particular the word "qualche". That question is treated below, together with the objections most often raised.
How the permission was obtained
The request was drafted by the Reverend Philip Hunt, Elgin's chaplain, in a memorandum dated Pera, 1 July 1801. It asked that the artists be allowed "to take away any sculptures or inscriptions which do not interfere with the works or walls of the Citadel" (Smith 1916, 189–190). The embassy's dragoman, Bartolomeo Pisani, presented it at the Porte and obtained the order within the month.
On 22 July Mary Nisbet, Countess of Elgin, wrote to her father: "Pisani has succeeded à merveille in his Firman from the Porte, Hunt is in raptures, for the Firman is perfection" (Williams 2009, 64).
The Ottoman text was translated into Italian by Antonio Dané, of a Venetian family in the embassy's service (Williams 2009, 64, 67). Hunt praised "Mr Dané's excellent literal translation". The order went on to Athens with an imperial messenger, addressed to the Cadi and to the Voivode, the governor of the city. Its practical effect was then settled on the ground between Hunt and the Voivode, over the initial resistance of the Disdar, the officer in immediate charge of the Acropolis. The Ottoman original stayed with the Voivode.
Work began at once. Hunt's report to Elgin of 31 July 1801 records that the Voivode assured him the artists "are to consider themselves at full liberty to model, dig, or carry away whatever does not interfere with the works", and describes the first metope being lowered from the temple with windlasses (Smith 1916, 196).
What kind of document it was
The order is usually called a "firman", and that is the word Elgin's circle used. Strictly, a firman was a decree issued in the Sultan's name. The surviving Italian text is signed by "Seged Abdullah Kaimacan": the Kaimakam, deputy to the Grand Vizier. Edhem Eldem identifies him as Seyyid Abdullah Pasha, who held the office from 8 December 1799 until his death on 5 February 1802 (Eldem 2011, 284–285). The more exact term for such an instrument is a buyuruldu, an official order issued by a high minister (Williams 2009, 56–60; Herman 2023, 38–39).
The label matters less than it seems. An order from the Kaimakam carried the authority of the Ottoman government to the officials of a provincial city, and those officials obeyed it. The Acropolis was then a working military fortress, which explains why the order was addressed to the civil authorities and why its terms speak of entering and leaving by the gate of the castle.
The surviving text is in Italian because Italian was the language of Ottoman diplomacy with Europe. The Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca of 1774, between the Porte and Russia, was concluded in Ottoman Turkish, Russian and Italian versions (Baglioni 2022; Lewis 1999). An Italian rendering made inside the embassy was the normal working copy for a European envoy.
The operative words
The key passage of the Italian translation reads:
"e quando volessero portar via qualche pezzi di pietra con vecchie inscrizioni, e figure, non sia fatta lor'oposizione"
That is: "and when they wish to take away any pieces of stone with old inscriptions and figures, let no opposition be made to them". The English version printed by the Select Committee in 1816 renders "qualche pezzi di pietra" as "any pieces of stone", and adds a note giving the Italian words (Report 1816, Appendix No. 10, p. xxvi). The same text limits the artists' movements to "entrando e sortendo dalla porta del Castello d'Athene", entering and leaving by the gate of the castle of Athens.
The full translation is given in the appendix at the foot of this page.
Is the document genuine?
The Italian translation has a clear chain of custody. It passed down in Hunt's family to Mrs A. C. Longland, from whom William St Clair obtained it in 1981. St Clair offered it to the British Museum in 1994, and the Museum acquired it in 1997.
St Clair, a severe critic of Elgin on other counts, judged that its "authenticity as an official Ottoman document, its provenance, and its pedigree" are "secure" (St Clair 1998, 337). Eldem, working from the Ottoman side, found "a convincing match on the name of the signatory" and judged that "the general outlook of this text is very convincing, especially with respect to form and style" (Eldem 2011, 284–285). David Rudenstine, who has been among the sharpest critics of the Museum's legal case, gives a section of his 2021 study the title "The Italian Document Is Not a Fraud" (Rudenstine 2021, 436–439).
The strongest dissent, Vassilis Demetriades (2000, paras 17–19), disputes the document's class: he calls it "nothing more than a 'letter' (mektub), as named in its text", and denies it legal force. He does not show it to be a forgery. On authenticity, then, the historians are in agreement; the argument has moved to the document's status and its scope.
"Qualche pezzi": some, or any?
Much of the modern debate turns on one word. Read as "some", the clause sounds like a licence for a few souvenirs. Read as "any", as the 1816 translators rendered it, it covers whatever pieces of inscribed or figured stone the artists chose.
The reading "some" has distinguished supporters. Harold Nicolson (1949) and John Melville-Jones (2011) argued for it. Eldem called the broader reading "evidently a rather farfetched interpretation" (Eldem 2011, 286–287), and St Clair gives "some" in his 2022 translation. John Henry Merryman (1985) took a different line: the clause, in his view, covered only objects found in excavation.
The case for "any" rests on the Italian of the period. Eighteenth-century dictionaries and grammars gloss "qualche" with the sense of "any, whatsoever": Altieri's dictionary of 1749 is one example. Literary usage from Muratori to Manzoni supports it, and the plural form "qualche pezzi" itself appears in printed texts of 1609 and 1769. Eldem's own reconstruction of the Ottoman wording allows "her bir taşı", each and every stone.
A full treatment of the linguistic evidence is forthcoming in a peer-reviewed article. Until it appears, one point stands on the record alone: the people who drafted, translated and executed the order all treated it as broad, and the Ottoman authorities never said otherwise.
What the witnesses said
Those who saw the permission at work, friends and enemies of Elgin alike, describe it in broad terms.
- Mary Nisbet, 22 July 1801: the firman allowed the artists "to go into the Citadel ... and to bring away any Marbles that may be deemed curious by their having inscriptions on them" (Williams 2009, 64).
- Edward Dodwell, diary for 1801: "Mr Hunt (Elgin's chaplain and agent) was empowered by his Firman, to take away any antiquities He chose from the Acropolis at Athens" (Camp 2022, 46–47). In his published Tour he added that some of the Turks and Greeks of Athens "loudly and openly blamed their sovereign for the permission he had granted. I was on the spot at the time" (Dodwell 1819, I, 322).
- Lord Byron, Elgin's fiercest critic, in a note to Childe Harold II (7th edn, 1814): "two painters contest the privilege of plundering the Parthenon, and triumph in turn, according to the tenor of each succeeding firman". Byron condemned the use; he did not doubt the authority.
Dodwell's complaint is telling. People in Athens blamed the Sultan, which shows they understood the removals as an act of Ottoman sovereign permission.
What the Ottoman state did afterwards
The work ran openly from the end of July 1801 to June 1802, under the eyes of the Voivode and the Disdar. Ottoman officials were civil throughout. Hamilton reported in July 1802, of a site in the city, that "the Voivode is exceedingly civil, and says we may take away any thing we please" (Smith 1916, 226).
The artists also observed limits. The greater part of the west frieze was "moulded and not removed, in order that disproportionate injury to the architecture should not be done" (Smith 1916). The British Museum today holds 15 metopes, 17 pedimental figures and 247 feet of frieze from the Parthenon.
Ottoman internal documents of 1810–11, published by Eldem, state that "it has been verified that figure-bearing stones of this kind have previously been given to the English" (Eldem 2011). Herman accepts them (Herman 2023, 45). The same papers explain the denial later reported by the British ambassador, Sir Robert Adair, as a diplomatic tactic. That denial concerned a second collection which Lusieri was trying to ship in 1811, not the sculptures already in London for five years.
The 1816 Select Committee
Parliament examined the acquisition before buying the collection. Hunt told the Committee that the order gave "the most extensive permission to view, draw, and model the ancient temples of the idols and the sculptures upon them, and to make excavations, and to take away any stones that might appear interesting to them" (Report 1816, 141).
The Committee's report concluded that "no remonstrance was at any time made, nor any displeasure shown by the Turkish government, either at Constantinople or at Athens, against the extensive interpretation which was put upon this fermaun" (Report 1816, 4). Parliament then purchased the collection for the nation.
Common objections answered
"There is no Ottoman original, so there was no permission." Elgin told the 1816 Committee that the original was left with the Voivode at Athens. John Galt, in Athens with Byron, saw it there in 1810. Williams thinks it most likely perished in the War of Independence (Williams 2009, 70). Galt's informant told him it allowed only "to remove a stone", but that is a second-hand gloss by someone reading it aloud, not evidence of its wording. The loss of an archive copy does not cancel an order that was received, read and obeyed, and that the Ottoman government later confirmed in its own papers.
"It only covered loose stones or excavated finds." This is Merryman's reading (1985). Hunt's draft request already set its own limit: nothing that would "interfere with the works or walls of the Citadel". Within days the Voivode confirmed the same terms in person, and the first metope came down from the temple in full view. If the officials named in the order had thought sculpture on the building lay outside it, they had every means to stop the work. They did not, and neither did Constantinople.
"Elgin himself said it was worth little." Before the Committee Elgin called such documents "little better than an authority to make the best bargain you can with the local authorities" (Report 1816, 35–36). He was describing how any order from the capital worked in a province: its effect was settled on the spot with the officials who carried it out. In Athens that settlement went in his favour, as Hunt's and Hamilton's letters record.
"It is a later forgery." The historians who have examined the document, St Clair, Eldem and Rudenstine among them, accept it as genuine. Demetriades contests its class, not its authenticity.
"The Ottomans were occupiers and could not give away Greek heritage." In 1801 the Ottoman Empire had ruled the city of Athens since 1456 and its Acropolis since 1458, and was the sovereign recognised by the European powers, Britain included. International law judges an act by the law in force when it took place (Max Huber's award in the Island of Palmas case, 1928). On that standard the permission was a valid act of the lawful government of the day. The opposing view, that a later nation's claim should reach back over that government, is a moral argument, and should be argued as one.
Sources
- Baglioni, D. 2022. "L'italiano lingua «imperiale» nel Mediterraneo?", in S. Baggio and P. Taravacci (eds), Lingue nazionali, lingue imperiali. Alessandria: Edizioni dell'Orso, 119–138.
- Camp, J. McK. II. 2022. "From Plunder to Protection: Dodwell's Reaction to French and British Spoliations of Antiquities", in I. Apostolou and A. Zambon (eds), Du pillage à la conscience patrimoniale en Grèce et dans l'Empire ottoman (1784–1884). Bordeaux: Ausonius, 45–53.
- Demetriades, V. 2000. "Was the Removal of the Parthenon Marbles by Elgin Legal?", Annex A to House of Commons, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Cultural Property: Return and Illicit Trade, HC 371-I.
- Dodwell, E. 1819. A Classical and Topographical Tour through Greece. London: Rodwell and Martin.
- Eldem, E. 2011. "From Blissful Indifference to Anguished Concern: Ottoman Perceptions of Antiquities, 1799–1869", in Z. Bahrani, Z. Çelik and E. Eldem (eds), Scramble for the Past. Istanbul: SALT, 281–329.
- Great Britain, House of Commons 1816. Report from the Select Committee on the Earl of Elgin's Collection of Sculptured Marbles. London: John Murray.
- Herman, A. 2023. The Parthenon Marbles Dispute: Heritage, Law, Politics. Oxford: Hart.
- Island of Palmas (Netherlands v. United States), Permanent Court of Arbitration, award of 4 April 1928.
- Lewis, B. 1999. "From Babel to Dragoman", Times Literary Supplement, 23 April 1999, 12–14.
- Melville-Jones, J. 2011. "Parthenon Sculptures Lost in Translation", Neos Kosmos, 28 July.
- Merryman, J. H. 1985. "Thinking about the Elgin Marbles", Michigan Law Review 83(8), 1880–1923.
- Nicolson, H. 1949. "The Byron Curse Echoes Again", New York Times, 27 March, SM 12.
- Rudenstine, D. 2021. "Trophies for the Empire", Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal 39, 377–505.
- Smith, A. H. 1916. "Lord Elgin and His Collection", Journal of Hellenic Studies 36, 163–372.
- St Clair, W. 1998. Lord Elgin and the Marbles, 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- St Clair, W. 2000. "The Marbles in London", in The Parthenon: The Repatriation of the Sculptures. Athens: Sideris, 128–145.
- St Clair, W. 2022. Who Saved the Parthenon? Cambridge: Open Book Publishers.
- Trabucco della Torretta, M. 2025. "Recorded Facts and Different Stories: A Response to Catharine Titi", The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, published online 16 September 2025, doi:10.1080/03086534.2025.2559395.
- Williams, D. 2009. "Lord Elgin's Firman", Journal of the History of Collections 21(1), 49–76.
Appendix: the full translation
1 Traduzione d’una lettera di S.E. a il Kaimecam
Pascià, diretta al Giudice, ed anche al voivoda
d’Athene. –
Dop’il saluto, vi si fà sapere qualm. te
5 il nostro amico sincero, S.E. Lord Elgin, Ambasc. e
della corte d’Inghilterra presso la porta della
felicità, avendo esposto esser notorio che la
maggior parte delle corti franche, ansiosa di
legger ed investigar i libri, le pitture, ed altre
10 scienze delli filosofi Greci, e particolarmente
i Ministri, filosofi, primati, ed altri
individui d’Inghilterra essendo portati alle
pitture rimaste dalli tempi delli d. i Greci, le
quali si trovano nelle spiaggie dell’Arcipelago,
15 ed in altri climi, abbiano di temp’in tempo
mandati degli uomini e fatto esplorare l ’
antiche fabriche, e pitture, e che di questo modo
li abili dilettanti della Corte d’Inghilterra
essendo desiderosi di vedere l’antiche fabriche
20 e le curiose pitture della Città d’Athene, e
della vechia muraglia rimasta dalli Greci,
e ch’esistono nella part’interiore del d. o
luogo, egli abbia commesso ed ordinato a
cinque Pittori Inglesi, già esistenti nella d. a
25 Città, che abbian a vedere, contemplar, ed
anche a dissegnare le pitture rimaste “ ab antiquo ” , ed
avendo questa volta expressamente suplicato
acciò
acciò sia scritto ed ordinato che ai d. i pittori,
mentre saran’occupati col’intrar e sortire
30 dalla porta del Castello della d. a Città, che è il
luogo d’osservazione, col formare delle scalinate
attorno l’antico tempio dégl’Idoli, coll’estrarre
sulla calcina (osia sul gesso) gl’istessi
ornamenti, e figure visibili, col misurare gli
35 avvanzi d’altre fabriche diroccate, e coll ’
intraprendere di scavare secondo il bisogno, le
fondamenti per trovar i matton ’ inscritti, che
fossero restati dentro le ghiaja, non sià recata
molestia, nè apportato impedim. o dalla parte del
40 Castelano, nè di verun’altro, e che non si
s’ingerisca nelle loro scalinate, ed instrumenti,
che vi avranno formati; e quando volessero
portar via qualche pezzi di pietra con vechie
inscrizioni, e fi gure, non sia fattà lor’oposizio=
45 =ne, vi s ’ è scritta e spedita col NN. la presente
lettera, afin che dopo compreso il soggetto della
med. a essendo chiaro l’impegno dell ’ Excelso Impero
dotato d’esimie qualità, acciò vengano favorite
simil istanze, conforme richiedono l’amicizia,
50 sincerità, alleanza, e benevolenza ab antiquo
esistenti, e colla vicendevol accettazione d’ambe
le parti, manifestam. e crescenti frà la Sub. e
sempre durevole Corte Ottomana, e frà quella
d’Inghilterra, e già chè non vi è alcun male
55 che le sud. e pitture e fabriche siano vedute,
contemplate
contemplate, e dissegnate, e dop’essere state
accompite le convenevoli accoglienze d’ospitali=
=tà verso li suriferiti pittori, in considerazione
anche dell’amichevol istanza sù questo
60 particolar avenuta, dal prefato Amb. re , e per
esser’incombente che non si faccia opposizione
al caminare, vedere e contemplare dellè medemè
le pittur, è fabriche che vorranno dissegnare, nè
alle loro scalinate, ed instrumenti, all’arrivo
65 della presente lettera usiate attenzione perchè
conformem. e all ’ istanza del d. o Amb. re , mentre li
soprad. i cinque pittori esistenti in codesta parte,
sarann’occupati coll’entrare e sortire dalla
porta del Castello d’Athene, che è il luogo d ’
70 osservazione; col formare delle scalinate attorn
il tempio antico degl ’ Idoli; col estrarre sulla
calcina (osia sul Gesso) gl’istessi ornamenti,
e figure visibili; col misurare i rimasugli d ’
altre fabriche diroccate; e coll ’ intraprendere di
75 scavare second’il bisogno le fondamenta per
trovare i mattoni inscritti che fossero restati
dentro la ghiaja, non vengano molestati nè
dal Castellano, nè da altri, e neppure da voi
sovraccennati, non si s’ingerisca nelle loro
80 scalinate, ed instrumenti e non si faccia
opposizione al portar via qualche pezzi di pietra
con inscrizioni, e figure, e nella su|ri|fferita maniera
operiate, e vi comportiate.
(Sotto. tto ) Sejid Abdullah
Kaimmecam.
Translation of a letter from H.E. the Kaimacam Pasha, addressed to the Justice [Cadi] and also to the Voivode of Athens.
After the greeting, you are informed that our sincere friend H. E. Lord Elgin Ambassador of the Court of England to the Gate of Happiness having explained that it is well known that the greater part of the European Courts being anxious to read and investigate the books, the images, and other sciences of the Greek philosophers, and particularly the ministers, philosophers, primates, and other individuals of England having a taste for all the images remaining from the time of the said Greeks, which are to be found on the shores of the Archipelago, and in other climes, have from time to time sent men to explore the ancient buildings, and images, and that in this way the skilled dilettanti of the Court of England being desirous to see the ancient buildings and the curious images of the City of Athens, and of the old wall remaining of the Greeks, and which now exist in the interior of the said place, [Elgin] has commissioned and ordered fi ve English painters, already present in the said city, to view, contemplate, and also draw the images surviving from antiquity, and having this time expressly requested that it be written and ordered that the said painters, while they are occupied in entering and leaving by the gate of the Castle of the City, which is the place for their observations, in setting up scaffolding round the ancient temple of the Idols, and taking moulds in lime paste (that is plaster) of the same ornaments, and visible figures, in measuring the remains of other ruined buildings, and in undertaking to excavate, according to need, the foundations to find any inscribed blocks, which may have been preserved in the rubble, be not disturbed, nor in any way impeded by the Commandant of the Castle, nor any other person, and that no one meddle with their scaffolding, and implements, which they may have made there; and should they wish to take away any pieces of stone with old inscriptions, and figures, that no opposition be made. The present letter has been written to you and dispatched by means of — [name not known/inserted] in order that, when its contents have been understood and the pledge of the Sublime Empire, endowed with such eminent qualities, is clear, namely, that such requests should be favoured, as required by the long-standing friendship, sincerity, alliance and benevolence which, thanks to mutual acceptance, are now manifestly growing between the Sublime and ever-enduring Ottoman Court and that of England, and since there is no harm in the aforesaid images and the buildings being viewed, contemplated and drawn, and after having fulfi lled the proper show of hospitality towards the aforesaid painters in compliance with the friendly request of the said Ambassador to that effect, and because it is incumbent on us to provide that they meet no opposition in walking, viewing or contemplating the same images, whether the buildings they may wish to draw, or in their scaffolding and implements, on the arrival of the present letter you must use your diligence to act in conformity with the request of the said Ambassador, while the said fi ve artists resident in that place are employed in entering and leaving by the gate of the Castle of Athens, which is the place for their observations; or setting up scaffolding around the ancient Temple of the Idols; or in taking moulds in lime paste (that is plaster) of those ornaments and visible fi gures; or in measuring the remains of other ruined edifi ces; or in undertaking excavations, when they fi nd it necessary, of the foundations, in search of inscribed blocks perhaps preserved among the rubble; that they be not molested whether by the Commandant of the Castle or by any other persons, or even by you the above mentioned [Cadi and Voivode], and that no one meddle with their scaffolding and implements, nor hinder them from taking away any pieces of stone with inscriptions, and figures, and in the aforesaid manner you must conduct and comport yourselves.
(signed) Sejid Abdullah
Kaimmecam
Source: D. Williams, "Lord Elgin's Firman", Journal of the History of Collections 21(1) (2009), pp. 49–76 (author's preprint; page numbers in the text above follow the printed edition)
.jpg)
