15th November 2021
No sensible person can deny that the exhibition of the Elgin Marbles at the British Museum is awesome.
To walk into the relevant room at the museum is breathtaking.
But.
The splendid display by itself does not justify the British Museum holding on to them – there needs to be a more compelling reason for retention than how the artefacts are being presented.
For instance: were the marbles lawfully acquired by the museum?
The British Museum states that the acquisition of the marbles was sound:
“Lord Elgin’s activities were thoroughly investigated by a Parliamentary Select Committee in 1816 and found to be entirely legal.”
*
Beware of adverbs: and you will see the word ‘thoroughly’ is doing a lot of work in that sentence.
But putting that word aside, you would expect the British museum to realise that title in property is not (and cannot) be determined by a parliamentary select committee.
A report by a parliamentary select committee is irrelevant as to who owned the marbles and whether the acquisition was sound.
A parliamentary select committee cannot determine or approve ‘title’ – the legal right of ownership in a property.
One suspects the British Museum knows this, hence the deft insertion of the word ‘thoroughly’.
Perhaps the British Museum should have said is was a superly-duperly-thorough investigation, so as to clinch the point.
*
But.
That there was even a sound legal transaction to begin with is disputed by many, including the American academic lawyer David Rudenstine.
Rudenstine avers in this fascinating paper that the parliamentary committee did not see any original legal documentation – but instead accepted an English translation of an Italian translation of the Ottoman original:
If Rudenstine is correct then the assertion by the British Museum that there was a ‘thorough’ investigation by the parliamentary committee cannot be correct.
And this is apart from the legal fact that a parliamentary committee cannot determine or verify title anyway.
In essence: there was – and is – no original documentary proof that title in the marbles ever passed to Elgin to begin with.
(There is also no record of the transaction in the Ottoman archives.)
And Rudenstine shows that the (supposed) Italian translation of the Ottoman instrument (and thereby the English translation) is not credible and is flawed.
Rudenstine goes so far to say that the Italian translation could only have been a fraudulent instrument.
This is what can happen when there is translation, upon translation, upon translation.
There can be unreliable narratives.
*
‘On sober reflection, I find few reasons for publishing my Italian version of an obscure, neo-Gothic French version of a seventeenth-century Latin edition of a work written in Latin by a German monk toward the end of the fourteenth century.’
Umberto Eco, The Name of the Rose
*
A previous post on this blog set out the legal principle known in its Latin form nemo dat quod non habet.
In plain language: a person cannot have a greater property right – title – in a thing than the person who provides them with that thing.
Garbage in, garbage out – legally speaking.
And if you do not have title to a thing, it does not matter how well you subsequently treat that thing, you still do not own it.
It is not yours.
It never was.
If the Elgin Marbles never did belong to Elgin this means title could never have passed to the British Museum.
And if the British Museum never acquired title then a great deal of the sophisticated and elegant defence of the British Museum must fall away.
The facts that the marbles have been looked after and are on show for the benefit of the world are wonderful and welcome – but they are also legally irrelevant.
(If the position were different, and there was a reliable copy of the conveyance instrument for the marbles, then it would be this blogpost that would fall away instead – and I emphasise this post is not about the general merits of repatriation of the marbles but the legalistic argument being used to justify retention.)
*
It is reported that Greece is making another request for return of the marbles.
And it looks like the prime minister is resorting to the legalistic argument as a defence:
Greek govt says PM Kyriakos Mitsotakis will ask Boris Johnson to return the Elgin Marbles during talks in London tomorrow. In March, the PM said they would not be sent back as they had been 'legally acquired by Lord Elgin under the appropriate laws of the time'
— Jason Groves (@JasonGroves1) November 15, 2021
Well.
Let’s see if the United Kingdom prime minister has an answer if the Greek prime minister asks for proof that the marbles were ‘legally acquired by Lord Elgin under the appropriate laws of the time’.
******
This daily law and policy blog needs your help to continue – for the benefit of you and other readers.
Each free-to-read post takes time and opportunity cost.
This law and policy blog provides a daily post commenting on and contextualising topical law and policy matters.
If you value this free-to-read and independent legal and policy commentary – both for the you and for the benefit of others – please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.
*****
You can also have each post sent by email by filling in the subscription box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).
******
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated.
Comments will not be published if irksome.