January 25, 2006
Should the marbles be put back on the Parthenon?
This slightly ridiculous response to Anthony Snodrgrass’s earlier letter appeared in the Times today. The Author seems to think that the case is entirely about who has the title of ownership, whereas the context & the reunification are far more important issues. He also shows little knowledge of the New Acropolis Museum; a space specifically designed to hold the marbles & carefully related to the proportions & orientation of the Parthenon – something that cannot be said of the Duveen Gallery at the British Museum.
He then goes on to say that they should have been left on the building & replaced as required, in the same way as happens to the sculptures on some cathedrals. This point neglects the importance of the marbles from a both a historical & cultural point of view. The cathedral sculptures that he describes are usually replace as part of a general system of maintenance to the building, the replacement of them has always been part of the tradition. Although their haven been many modifications to the Parthenon, this regular replacement of damaged sculptures has never been a part of the tradition of the building.
From:
The Times
Letters to the Editor
The Times
January 25, 2006
Elgin’s bits of the ParthenonSir, Professor Snodgrass (letter, Jan 21) advocates removing the Elgin Marbles from the British Museum while the museum retains title of ownership.
It would of course be equally valid to suggest that the British Museum could transfer title of ownership while retaining the Marbles in London. However, neither approach really improves anything.
Read the rest of this entry »