“Who Owns the Elgin Marbles?” this question continues to linger in some minds today, and just so happens to be reviewed in the respectfully titled article written by John Henry Merryman in 1986. In this article, Merryman, in the most unbiased way possible, assesses both Britain’s and Greece’s side of the argument pertaining to the ownership of the Elgin Marbles and whether they should be returned to Greece after being removed from the Parthenon by Lord Elgin in the early 19th century. Within the article, the main points discussed regard the morality and legality of the removal of the marbles. Merryman goes on to discuss three more main concerns dealing with the marbles and where they belong: preservation, integrity and distribution. The author discusses all of these points in a well-organized manner that keeps the paper flowing and continuously makes sense to the reader. Merryman tries to remain as unbiased as he can, but with all the facts presented, it is hard to not see the article as biased towards the British. Overall, the article boils down to Greece winning the emotional argument, but Britain holds power with a legal ownership. Was the removal of the marbles from the Parthenon legal? The answer to this commonly asked question is one hundred percent yes. The Ottoman government gave Elgin a formal firman allowing him to take what he pleased from the Parthenon. Although this firman is at best ambiguous, the law states that an act in excess of the authority granted can be legalized by ratification, and the Ottomans ratified Elgin’s removals twice. Since permission was given multiple times and with proper paperwork, Greece’s argument against legality is very weak and insignificant, especially considering the statutes of limitations. The Greeks have lost any right of action due to the fact that they could have sued for the marbles since 1828 and have never attempted to. Ultimately, they waited too long. Some wonder
“Who Owns the Elgin Marbles?” this question continues to linger in some minds today, and just so happens to be reviewed in the respectfully titled article written by John Henry Merryman in 1986. In this article, Merryman, in the most unbiased way possible, assesses both Britain’s and Greece’s side of the argument pertaining to the ownership of the Elgin Marbles and whether they should be returned to Greece after being removed from the Parthenon by Lord Elgin in the early 19th century. Within the article, the main points discussed regard the morality and legality of the removal of the marbles. Merryman goes on to discuss three more main concerns dealing with the marbles and where they belong: preservation, integrity and distribution. The author discusses all of these points in a well-organized manner that keeps the paper flowing and continuously makes sense to the reader. Merryman tries to remain as unbiased as he can, but with all the facts presented, it is hard to not see the article as biased towards the British. Overall, the article boils down to Greece winning the emotional argument, but Britain holds power with a legal ownership. Was the removal of the marbles from the Parthenon legal? The answer to this commonly asked question is one hundred percent yes. The Ottoman government gave Elgin a formal firman allowing him to take what he pleased from the Parthenon. Although this firman is at best ambiguous, the law states that an act in excess of the authority granted can be legalized by ratification, and the Ottomans ratified Elgin’s removals twice. Since permission was given multiple times and with proper paperwork, Greece’s argument against legality is very weak and insignificant, especially considering the statutes of limitations. The Greeks have lost any right of action due to the fact that they could have sued for the marbles since 1828 and have never attempted to. Ultimately, they waited too long. Some wonder