Summary Of The Parthenon Marbles
The Home of the Parthenon Marbles
The Parthenon Marbles are national treasures of Greece and many years ago, were maliciously stolen by Lord Elgin, a corrupt business man, for his own personal gain. With aid of enemies of Greece and with the full knowledge of the crime Brittan refused to relinquish the stolen property to its rightful owner. The greed and corruption of England has allowed for the long-term confinement of a Greek monument within the dark and winding halls of a dusty British museum. Even as facts have repeatedly come out over the centuries showing just how corrupt Lord Elgin’s “noble” expedition was, the British Museum continues to deny Greece access to the art. To this day, the British Museum will not consider …show more content…
the Acropolis Museum eligible for loan of the “Greek exhibit”. Throughout the article concerning the home of the Parthenon there were several weak arguments. The writer was accurate in saying that the marbles were at risk. In time of war all property of both sides naturally becomes more likely to take damage than if no fighting were to take place. Another good point was that the marble was for a very brief speck in time more safe in England. The last good remark made was that Lord Elgin did care very much that the marbles made it to England well cared for. There is certainly no doubt that the utmost care was paid to be given in transporting the marbles. Sadly, beyond this the writer’s argument seems to fall to pieces. First, Lord Elgin was indeed reputable. He had a reputation for losing large sums of money given to him in inheritances. The theft of the Parthenon Marbles was little more than a scheme to make back the money lost in his divorce. Second, if the marbles had stayed in the Acropolis, it turns out there would have been less damage than the chips that resulted from having them removed. The ottomans were not in any way threatening to steal the Greeks art. Finally, Greece has been a safe place for art for decades if not centuries. If England was concerned with keeping it safe why didn’t they give it back to Greece? Greece has been a fit home for the Parthenon marbles for years. In fact, the united Nations Educational and Cultural Organization suggested in the early 80’s that the marbles be returned to Greece. (Goodwin, Paige S. 688) The author of the previous article cleverly wrote that the marbles were, “Placed in a secure museum that had never been threatened by ground troops raiding or cannons leveling the stones”. He seems to have danced around the fact that for several years London was relentlessly bombed by Nazi aircraft. Why was the art not given back then? The previous article also goes about using many rhetorical devices such as using harsh diction when referring to the Greeks, even going as far to call Greece, “bleak”, “savage”, and “bloody”.
At the same time the writer used words like “upstanding” and “artisans” when acknowledging the English. The juxtaposition of wording among the two groups is harsh, and it seems that the author is making up for the poor argument by trying to villainize the Greeks. Another rhetorical device poorly used was the parallel of the Parthenon Marbles and the Liberty Bell. This supposed situation is an enormous stretch to say the least. The Marbles were stolen by looters during war time. It was not moved by an occupying force. The Liberty Bell also was not made in England as the Parthenon marbles were sculpted in Greece. In fact, it seems that the two situations have hardly anything in common. The authors lack of knowledge about American history makes the reader begin to question if they are any better with history of Greece and England. The author also goes about asking a few rhetorical questions such as, “If he were planning to loot the temple…why would he have traveled all the way from England with a team of craftsmen and artisans trained in copying ancient classical statues?”. To which the not so rhetorical answer is widely available, if they had bothered to look for it. The Lord originally came to copy the marbles to sell, but seeing that they were “up for grabs”, he took the actual monuments with
him. Next, in this article the reader comes across a mine field of logical fallacies. The most blatant, being that the writer’s argument is built upon a false premise. The author argues that if the marbles were rescued, then they should remain with the wonderful heroes that were their salvation. The fact is this; the marbles were not rescued. They were not even taken with a drop of legitimacy involved, therefore, the rest of the argument falls apart. The writer also makes the incorrect assumption that if something happened in the past, then it will certainly happen again. The writer tells of how ,in past wars, Greece suffered the loss and destruction of art. This is a valid statement in the sense that it is true, but the fact of the matter is that if the marbles had stayed in Greece they would actually be significantly less damaged than they are today. In transporting the marbles from Greece to Britain the workers did a significant amount of damage. They not only chipped the priceless sculptures, but they also permanently lowered the integrity of the Parthenon’s stability. (Merryman 1884) Another crippling fallacy consistently woven through the paper is the stunning lack of citation. In fact, there is no citation at all. The readers are at the absolute mercy of whatever the writer decides happened historically. This essentially takes all weight away from the words of the writer, since there is nothing what so ever to back up his or her claims. Lord Elgin, also known as Thomas Bruce was a wealthy Englishman from a noble family. The bureaucrat enjoyed spending his money just as fast as he inherited it. The Lord was in the process of building an estate to reside in and came across the idea to go to Greece to make copies of the classical works to put around his roof. (Wood 172) This is a stark contrast to the lies woven by the previous article. When the Lord arrived in Greece he thought he had hit the jackpot. The marbles were taken back to England, but because he lost his home in his divorce he was forced to sell the marbles to the British museum, who at the time were hesitant to purchase the stolen art. In fact, a member of the royal family and active writer, Lord Byron, was heavily opposed to this acquisition. (Brysac 74) This is a dramatic contrast to the lord simply rescuing the sculptures out of the goodness of his heart, and seems to be a calculated omission. The next question to ask is, was it wrong for Lord Elgin to take the marbles for himself? The answer is not necessarily no. Many great art pieces are privately owned, and as long as they are legitimately acquired there is often no quarrel. The issue with The Parthenon Marbles is that they were not bought or given as a gift. The Parthenon Marbles were taken from Greece, while the rulers of Greece were forced out of the city. This legal ambiguity aids in the crippling of Britain’s right to ownership. The article references a certificate given to the Lord when he acquired the marbles. What is actually beside the marbles on display is a rough translation made by the British Museum of what could be translated from Ottoman into Italian. The original “certificate” has since been lost to time forcing us to take the word of the institution profiting from this conveniently misplaced document. When the museum first acquired the marbles their reason for keeping them was allegedly to keep them safe from the war ongoing in Athens. For hundreds of years the acropolis has been as safe or safer than London. This raises the question, why won’t the British Museum return the art if it is no longer at risk of destruction? The museum is constantly asked this question, to which the museum responds, “no comment”.
In sum, the paper written on the home of the Parthenon Marbles was riddled with weak points, logical fallacies, and misrepresentation of facts. The author also left out citations, which gives little reason for the audience to take anything said seriously. The paper seems to have been written from an extreme point of bias leading to a passionately, yet clumsy conglomeration of poorly constructed thoughts. The fact is that the Parthenon marbles were taken unlawfully from the acropolis to cap the roof of a rich English bureaucrat. Elgin, later being short on cash, pawned the artifacts to the British Museum of Art. To gain public approval the museum then spun the story as a tale of British explorers valiantly saving Greek art. The stolen artifacts should for no reason remain in London. The home of the Parthenon marbles is and always will be in Greece.
Works Cited
Goodwin, Paige S. “Mapping the Limits of Repatriable Cultural Heritage: A Case Study of Stolen Flemish Art in French Museums.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review, vol. 157, no. 2, 2008, pp. 673–705., www.jstor.org/stable/40380251.
Merryman, John Henry. “Thinking about the Elgin Marbles.” Michigan Law Review, vol. 83, no. 8, 1985, pp. 1881–1923., www.jstor.org/stable/1288954.
Brysac, Shareen Blair. “THE PARTHENON MARBLES CUSTODY CASE: Did British Restorers Mutilate the Famous Sculptures?” Archaeology, vol. 52, no. 3, 1999, pp. 74–77., www.jstor.org/stable/41779253.
Wood, Gillen D'Arcy. “Mourning the Marbles: The Strange Case of Lord Elgin's Nose.” The Wordsworth Circle, vol. 29, no. 3, 1998, pp. 171–177., www.jstor.org/stable/24043819.
The Parthenon Marbles are national treasures of Greece and many years ago, were maliciously stolen by Lord Elgin, a corrupt business man, for his own personal gain. With aid of enemies of Greece and with the full knowledge of the crime Brittan refused to relinquish the stolen property to its rightful owner. The greed and corruption of England has allowed for the long-term confinement of a Greek monument within the dark and winding halls of a dusty British museum. Even as facts have repeatedly come out over the centuries showing just how corrupt Lord Elgin’s “noble” expedition was, the British Museum continues to deny Greece access to the art. To this day, the British Museum will not consider …show more content…
the Acropolis Museum eligible for loan of the “Greek exhibit”. Throughout the article concerning the home of the Parthenon there were several weak arguments. The writer was accurate in saying that the marbles were at risk. In time of war all property of both sides naturally becomes more likely to take damage than if no fighting were to take place. Another good point was that the marble was for a very brief speck in time more safe in England. The last good remark made was that Lord Elgin did care very much that the marbles made it to England well cared for. There is certainly no doubt that the utmost care was paid to be given in transporting the marbles. Sadly, beyond this the writer’s argument seems to fall to pieces. First, Lord Elgin was indeed reputable. He had a reputation for losing large sums of money given to him in inheritances. The theft of the Parthenon Marbles was little more than a scheme to make back the money lost in his divorce. Second, if the marbles had stayed in the Acropolis, it turns out there would have been less damage than the chips that resulted from having them removed. The ottomans were not in any way threatening to steal the Greeks art. Finally, Greece has been a safe place for art for decades if not centuries. If England was concerned with keeping it safe why didn’t they give it back to Greece? Greece has been a fit home for the Parthenon marbles for years. In fact, the united Nations Educational and Cultural Organization suggested in the early 80’s that the marbles be returned to Greece. (Goodwin, Paige S. 688) The author of the previous article cleverly wrote that the marbles were, “Placed in a secure museum that had never been threatened by ground troops raiding or cannons leveling the stones”. He seems to have danced around the fact that for several years London was relentlessly bombed by Nazi aircraft. Why was the art not given back then? The previous article also goes about using many rhetorical devices such as using harsh diction when referring to the Greeks, even going as far to call Greece, “bleak”, “savage”, and “bloody”.
At the same time the writer used words like “upstanding” and “artisans” when acknowledging the English. The juxtaposition of wording among the two groups is harsh, and it seems that the author is making up for the poor argument by trying to villainize the Greeks. Another rhetorical device poorly used was the parallel of the Parthenon Marbles and the Liberty Bell. This supposed situation is an enormous stretch to say the least. The Marbles were stolen by looters during war time. It was not moved by an occupying force. The Liberty Bell also was not made in England as the Parthenon marbles were sculpted in Greece. In fact, it seems that the two situations have hardly anything in common. The authors lack of knowledge about American history makes the reader begin to question if they are any better with history of Greece and England. The author also goes about asking a few rhetorical questions such as, “If he were planning to loot the temple…why would he have traveled all the way from England with a team of craftsmen and artisans trained in copying ancient classical statues?”. To which the not so rhetorical answer is widely available, if they had bothered to look for it. The Lord originally came to copy the marbles to sell, but seeing that they were “up for grabs”, he took the actual monuments with
him. Next, in this article the reader comes across a mine field of logical fallacies. The most blatant, being that the writer’s argument is built upon a false premise. The author argues that if the marbles were rescued, then they should remain with the wonderful heroes that were their salvation. The fact is this; the marbles were not rescued. They were not even taken with a drop of legitimacy involved, therefore, the rest of the argument falls apart. The writer also makes the incorrect assumption that if something happened in the past, then it will certainly happen again. The writer tells of how ,in past wars, Greece suffered the loss and destruction of art. This is a valid statement in the sense that it is true, but the fact of the matter is that if the marbles had stayed in Greece they would actually be significantly less damaged than they are today. In transporting the marbles from Greece to Britain the workers did a significant amount of damage. They not only chipped the priceless sculptures, but they also permanently lowered the integrity of the Parthenon’s stability. (Merryman 1884) Another crippling fallacy consistently woven through the paper is the stunning lack of citation. In fact, there is no citation at all. The readers are at the absolute mercy of whatever the writer decides happened historically. This essentially takes all weight away from the words of the writer, since there is nothing what so ever to back up his or her claims. Lord Elgin, also known as Thomas Bruce was a wealthy Englishman from a noble family. The bureaucrat enjoyed spending his money just as fast as he inherited it. The Lord was in the process of building an estate to reside in and came across the idea to go to Greece to make copies of the classical works to put around his roof. (Wood 172) This is a stark contrast to the lies woven by the previous article. When the Lord arrived in Greece he thought he had hit the jackpot. The marbles were taken back to England, but because he lost his home in his divorce he was forced to sell the marbles to the British museum, who at the time were hesitant to purchase the stolen art. In fact, a member of the royal family and active writer, Lord Byron, was heavily opposed to this acquisition. (Brysac 74) This is a dramatic contrast to the lord simply rescuing the sculptures out of the goodness of his heart, and seems to be a calculated omission. The next question to ask is, was it wrong for Lord Elgin to take the marbles for himself? The answer is not necessarily no. Many great art pieces are privately owned, and as long as they are legitimately acquired there is often no quarrel. The issue with The Parthenon Marbles is that they were not bought or given as a gift. The Parthenon Marbles were taken from Greece, while the rulers of Greece were forced out of the city. This legal ambiguity aids in the crippling of Britain’s right to ownership. The article references a certificate given to the Lord when he acquired the marbles. What is actually beside the marbles on display is a rough translation made by the British Museum of what could be translated from Ottoman into Italian. The original “certificate” has since been lost to time forcing us to take the word of the institution profiting from this conveniently misplaced document. When the museum first acquired the marbles their reason for keeping them was allegedly to keep them safe from the war ongoing in Athens. For hundreds of years the acropolis has been as safe or safer than London. This raises the question, why won’t the British Museum return the art if it is no longer at risk of destruction? The museum is constantly asked this question, to which the museum responds, “no comment”.
In sum, the paper written on the home of the Parthenon Marbles was riddled with weak points, logical fallacies, and misrepresentation of facts. The author also left out citations, which gives little reason for the audience to take anything said seriously. The paper seems to have been written from an extreme point of bias leading to a passionately, yet clumsy conglomeration of poorly constructed thoughts. The fact is that the Parthenon marbles were taken unlawfully from the acropolis to cap the roof of a rich English bureaucrat. Elgin, later being short on cash, pawned the artifacts to the British Museum of Art. To gain public approval the museum then spun the story as a tale of British explorers valiantly saving Greek art. The stolen artifacts should for no reason remain in London. The home of the Parthenon marbles is and always will be in Greece.
Works Cited
Goodwin, Paige S. “Mapping the Limits of Repatriable Cultural Heritage: A Case Study of Stolen Flemish Art in French Museums.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review, vol. 157, no. 2, 2008, pp. 673–705., www.jstor.org/stable/40380251.
Merryman, John Henry. “Thinking about the Elgin Marbles.” Michigan Law Review, vol. 83, no. 8, 1985, pp. 1881–1923., www.jstor.org/stable/1288954.
Brysac, Shareen Blair. “THE PARTHENON MARBLES CUSTODY CASE: Did British Restorers Mutilate the Famous Sculptures?” Archaeology, vol. 52, no. 3, 1999, pp. 74–77., www.jstor.org/stable/41779253.
Wood, Gillen D'Arcy. “Mourning the Marbles: The Strange Case of Lord Elgin's Nose.” The Wordsworth Circle, vol. 29, no. 3, 1998, pp. 171–177., www.jstor.org/stable/24043819.