Yesterday, the Greek newspaper Kathimerini came out with this supplement on the Elgin Marbles, titled -in the most predictable way- "The plunder".
In this article, I shall point out all the factual and logical issues with its content.
Huge thanks to Alex Chalkidis for enabling me to access this prime example of state propaganda.
---
Let's start with the liar-in-chief, the culture minister, mendacious Mendoni. It takes her only a few lines to state that the "catastrophic" and "violent" removals were "against the laws, the common sense of justice and the morals of the time in which they were carried out".
So much to unpack here. Catastrophic? Clearly, it's a rhetorical exaggeration. It is true that during the removal, some blocks of the cornice were pushed down from the entablature and caused to crash on the ground. It is also true that the back of the Frieze blocks had been sawed off to make the carved portion of the stones more transportable. But it is also true that the loss represents a marginal increase on a process that had already reached catastrophic proportions well before Elgin was even born and that what has been lost was by no means what could be considered the most original and precious part of the building. This is no excuse, of course, but it should allow the reader to put things back into perspective.
What about that "violent" so carelessly left there, then? Were people hurt during the removal? Not as far as we know. Was physical force exercised at any point to coerce the authority to allow the removal, or the labourers to do their (paid) job? Of course not. The use of the term is purely inflammatory.
But let's address the meat of the minister's allegation. She says those actions were against the laws of the time. Which laws is she talking about? Does she not know that the first heritage law to be enforceable in the territory of Athens was that made by the Greeks themselves in 1834? At the time of Elgin's embassy to Constantinople, there was no "cultural heritage" the stones from the Parthenon could be claimed to have been a part of. They were just "stones with figures and inscriptions" lying on the ground in a military fortress which was owned and operated by the legitimate state authority of the time: the Ottoman Empire. The only law that counts here is their law, and in a report made to the Sultan some years later, Ottoman officials were quite clear that "the issue was discussed" by them and found that "there was no harm in ceding them". So again, minister, which laws?
If the Ottoman officials did not violate any law by giving away what was legitimately theirs, then how could the minister pretend that "the common sense of justice" had been offended? Is it not right and just to let people freely dispose of what they own if they so choose? And is it not moral to act according to the law and follow what is just? Dr Mendoni has lost the plot.
But there's more. Minister Mendoni really hammers down the point that the sculptures are an integral part of a single architectonic masterpiece. The building apparently "deserves" the unification of its architectonic decoration. This may be so, but if the building is a unity, why does the decoration not "deserve" to be unified with the building itself? To this question, Mrs Mendoni does not seem to have an answer, apart from maybe saying that having the sculptures close by the temple is "as if" they were on the temple itself. Yet, once the sculptures are disconnected from the walls, they are immediately out of context. They change their form, passing from architectonic decoration to just decorations. It doesn't matter how far from those walls they physically are; they can be on them or not, tertium non datur. Their essence is radically changed and -I should add- betrayed.
So, go on, Mrs Mendoni. Keep pushing your "national goal" and the government's actions towards it. You will never manage to fool those who have eyes to see and enough judgement to evaluate the historical evidence for themselves.
.jpg)
