The Parthenon Marbles and International Law, Catherine Titi, Springer, 2023, 311 pages, €171.19
One may perhaps have some reason for amassing gold and silver; in fact, it would be impossible to attain universal dominion without appropriating these resources from other peoples, in order to weaken them. In the case of every other form of wealth, however, it is more glorious to leave it where it was, together with the envy which it inspired, and to base our country’s glory, not on the abundance and beauty of its paintings and statutes, but on its sober customs and noble sentiments. Moreover, I hope that the future conquers will learn from these thought not to plunder the cities subjugated by them, and not to make the misfortunes of other peoples the adornment of their own country.
Polybius of Athens (writing before 146 BCE), as quoted in ICJ Judge Charles de Visscher, International Protection of Works of Art and Historic Monuments, 823 (1949).
It would, I think, now be universally accepted, certainly by the People of Ireland, and by the people of most modern States, that one of the most important national assets belonging to the people is their heritage and knowledge of its true origins and the buildings and objects which constitute keys to their ancient history.
Supreme Court of Ireland, Chief Justice Finlay, Webb v. Ireland, 1988, I.R. 353.
The fate of the Parthenon marbles in the “Elgin Collection” and the merits of their return have been debated ever since Elgin’s agents excised them from the Parthenon on the Acropolis at Athens. Such is the nature of the discussion about the return of cultural property that numerous studies on the topic start with a question purportedly about ownership. Who owns history? Who owns antiquity? Who owns the past? In reality. The questions are aspirational. What they really mean is: who should own antiquity? Or who should own the past? While the questions about ownership and return are legal, the answer to them have been built around a debate.
The Parthenon Marbles and International Law, p. 21.
During a recent visit to London, the proprietorship of the Parthenon Marbles came up in a conversation. I argued that the marbles – which the Brits kept referring to as the “Elgin marbles” – must be returned to Greece. The Brits argued that the marbles were bought by Britain from Elgin, and therefore must remain in the British Museum. Predictably, my interlocutors, who, indecently, were highly educated, learned, if you will, were either misinformed or uninformed of some of some critical facts. In any event, it did not seem to matter much since as one of them put it, Greece would lose on legal grounds because of undue delay, estoppel, implied waiver, or laches in asserting ownership and making a legal claim for redress. Another canard among many peddled over the years, which, as my good friend Michael Vickery, the eminent historian would put it, is part of the Standard Total View (STV): repeating and re-repeating what has been heard as unquestionable truths without questioning the original source. Since 1836, Greece in one form or another has repeatedly requested and demanded the return of the marbles, only to be rebuffed by Britain. Simply because Greece never brought a lawsuit against Britain but has tried repeatedly and uncompromisingly to resolve the matter diplomatically does not mean that Greece has abandoned its claim or has unduly delayed its claim. Greece had partially gained its independent around 1828. While still in the midst of liberating the rest of modern-day Greece, it nonetheless acted with significant alacrity in requesting the return of the marbles from a then-empire (Britain) that it depended on in gaining its full independence. Continue reading “Book Review: The Parthenon Marbles and International Law, by Prof. Catherine Titi”