LONDON COLLOQUY ON REUNIFICATION OF THE PARTHENON MARBLES LONDON 19 – 20 JUNE 2012

Adv George Bizos SC (A member of Johannesburg Bar and The British Committee for the Reunification Of the Parthenon Marbles) 

A LEGAL AND MORAL ISSUE - WAS A VALID FIRMAN ISSUED?

The Modern Greek state is the successor in title to the territory of Greece that was under control of the Ottoman Empire at the turn of the 19th Century and where the marbles were located prior to their removal by Lord Elgin.  Greece believes that it is legally entitled to the return of the Parthenon Marbles.  Furthermore, it has a clear interest in its cultural heritage, as is reflected in Law 30228 on the Protection of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage in General.  In particular that law makes clear that Greece has a duty, to itself and to its citizens, “to care, within the context of international law, for the protection of cultural objects, which are connected historically with Greece wherever they are located.”  

The marbles that are the subject of this memorandum adorned the Parthenon, on the Acropolis.  They were removed between 1801 and 1810 from the sites at which they were located by Lord Elgin, a Scottish Earl who was at the time the British Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire.  The last of the marbles were finally removed from Greek territory in 1810 and were taken by Lord Elgin back to Britain.

In 1816 Lord Elgin sought to sell the marbles to the British government.  The government, which was interested in making the purchase, conducted a parliamentary enquiry into the question whether Elgin had had permission to remove the marbles.  Having satisfied the majority of the members that Elgin indeed had permission, Parliament resolved to purchase the marbles from Elgin.  In 1816, Parliament passed an Act that vested the ownership of the marbles in the British Museum.  The marbles have been housed there ever since.

As will be seen below, it is the opinion of three of us including Richard Moultrie and Adrian Friedman in the Constitutional Litigation Unit of the Legal Resources Centre in Johannesburg that there may well be a case to be made against the current possessors of the marbles for their return.  In our view, the most effective potential cause of action would be based on the principles of private law and would be litigated by means of an action launched in the English Courts, applying the accepted rules of private international law (conflict of laws).  The strongest arguments are those based on a consideration of, and challenge to, the legality of the original acquisition of the marbles by Lord Elgin.

There is a range of possible causes of action for any claim that might be brought by Greece.  Greece could bring a claim based on its possession at the time at which Elgin removed the marbles.  It could also theoretically bring a claim on the basis that it would presently be the owner of the marbles, had they not have been removed.

It is a well-established principle of private international law that the legality of a transfer of property is to be assessed in terms of the law applicable at the time of the transfer.  Because of the 1816 Act that transferred ownership of the marbles from Elgin to the Trustees of the British Museum, it is important to bear this principle in mind.  If one progresses on the assumption that the Greek claim is one of possession, the predecessors in unlawfully dispossessed Greece (or, more precisely, the predecessors in title of the current Greek state) of the marbles, then the claim must be assessed in terms of the law applicable at the time of the dispossession; i.e., between 1801 and 1810.  The 1816 Act then becomes less significant.  In our view, this approach offers the best prospects of success.  The strongest arguments that we have considered concern the question of whether Elgin truly had permission, and was therefore lawfully entitled, to remove the marbles.  If those arguments are to be advanced, it is important to frame the claim as a possessory action, based on the unlawful removal of the marbles from Greece’s possession.  Our recommendations in this memorandum (a fuller version ahs been published “Colloquium: Protection and Return of Cultural Property, Sakkoula Publications, Athens 2001” ) therefore proceed on the assumption that the best prospect of success involves Greece instituting a claim based on its possession prior to Elgin’s removal of the marbles.

This memorandum is based on an approach in terms of which Greece would seek relief from a British court in terms of the law or England.  England is, of course, the jurisdiction in which the property is located and it therefore the appropriate jurisdiction in which to institute an action.  Our prima facie view is that, in terms of the private international law currently applied in England, the court will be required to apply the law applicable in Greece at the time of the dispossession.  This is also a well-accepted principle.  Indeed, in the recent case of Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran v Barakat Galleries Ltd the parties accepted that the dispute had to be determined according to the law of Iran at the time of the removal of antiquities from that country, “being the lex situs of the antiquities at the time of derivation of such title”.  This case is the most recent example of the application of this essentially trite principle.

While we have considered the factual bases for arguments to the effect that Elgin did not have the right to remove the marbles, we have relied exclusively and uncritically upon the work of Rudenstine and Demetriades in relation to the law applicable in Greece at the time of the marbles’ removal.  A full consideration of the legal framework will be necessary before a claim may proceed.  

THE VALIDITY OF THE “FIRMAN” . Those who argue that the removal by Elgin of the marbles was lawful rely on the issuance, by the Ottoman authorities, of a firman that was presented to the authorities in Athens on 23 July 1801.  It is our view that there are a range of arguments that could potentially be raised that contradict the view that Elgin was authorised, through a firman, to remove the marbles. In short, these arguments are:

• That the document on which Elgin relied was not in fact a firman but was simply a letter setting out the recommendation of the writer.  The letter was purportedly signed by Kaimmakam Seyid, Abdullah Pasha, the Deputy to the Grand Vizier or Yusuf Ziyauddin Pasha (then currently in charge of the Ottoman army fighting the French in Egypt), whereas only the Sultan, according to this argument, could give authority for the removal of items from the Parthenon; and

• That the English document commonly relied upon to support Elgin’s claim was in fact a distorted translation of an Italian translation of the original Ottoman document.  On this argument, the document has even less weight when considering whether it did indeed grant the required authority to remove all or any of the marbles.

We proceed to deal with each in turn.  We begin by setting out, briefly, the argument that the “firman” was not in fact a firman.  It must be emphasised that the Ottoman Empire was a theocracy.  There was no legislative body and the law in force was sharia.  The Sultan alone was authorised to interpret the sharia law to the extent that it was inadequately expressed and to issue decrees to the extent that they were not inconsistent with sharia.  This latter power was expressed in the issuance of firmans.

Therefore, if the Sultan had issued a firman to Elgin authorising him to remove the marbles, there would be strong support for the view that the act of removal was legal (subject to arguments discussed below).  However, a case could be made out that the firman allegedly relied upon was not in fact a firman.

According to Demetriades, whose views are supported by Islamic scholars, a valid firman would have had the following features:

• It would have contained a “tougras”, which was the emblem of the Sultan.  Only the Sultan could issue a firman. • It would have begun with an “invocatio”, an invocation to God.

• It would have been headed with the Sultan’s monogram.

• It would have contained an “inscriptio”, which would have mentioned the officials to whom it was addressed.

• It would have contained various phrases that were contained only in firmans.  For example, the section containing the specific authority to perform the particular act would begin with the phrase “Upon arrival of the great imperial document, let it be known that …..”.

• It would have ended with the date in Arabic set out in full.

• It would never have mentioned the name of the drafter or editor because the document was written in the name of the Sultan alone.

The document upon which Elgin relied to establish his authority (in the House of Commons enquiry in 1816) contained none of these features.  Furthermore, it was signed by Seged Abdullah Kaimacan, which would never have occurred in the case of a real firman, for the reasons given above.

As will be discussed in more detail below, the document upon which most modern historians rely in support of their view that Elgin had permission to remove the marbles was an English translation.  The authenticity of the English document is open to serious doubt.  However, even if one accepts that the English translation is an exact translation of the original document issued by the Ottoman authorities, the evidence would tend to support the view that the document was an official letter, rather than a firman.  Its author was a high-ranking official in the army (specifically, the deputy to the Grand Vizier), who was present in Egypt fighting against the French army.  As a result of the defeat by the British of the French, this letter was addressed to Elgin as a sign of gratitude.  It did not, however, have the force of a law that would have applied to a firman.

There is no reason in principle why this could not be achieved during the course of a trial.  The ultimate prospects of success of this argument (or any of the other fact-based arguments) may only be assessed cogently once proper consultation with the relevant expert witnesses has taken place.

The second argument relating to the firman focuses on the translated document upon which Elgin relied in the hearing before Parliament in 1816.  The argument is as follows:

• There are potentially three documents upon which Elgin’s claim to have received permission to remove the marbles is based.  First, there is the original document that Elgin obtained from the Ottomans in Constantinople in 1801.  It was referred to in the report of the parliamentary committee that investigated Elgin’s claims in 1818.  Secondly, there is a document in Italian that was revealed at the 1816 hearings by Philip Hunt, an assistant of Elgin’s who was present with him in Constantinople.  Hunt claimed that this document was a direct translation of the Ottoman firman and that the translation had been done in Constantinople in July 1801.  Thirdly, there is an English translation that was referred to in the 1816 parliamentary report, but which was in fact derived from Hunt’s Italian document.

• The original document is now lost, and was already lost by the time that parliament conducted its enquiry in 1816.  No copy of this document has ever been found and there is no reference to it in the archives of the Ottoman Empire.

• The circumstances surrounding the Italian document are somewhat suspicious.  At the Parliamentary hearings, Elgin testified first.  He was repeatedly asked whether he had written proof of having been given permission to remove the marbles.  He answered that he had been given written permission but that he had not kept any of the documents given to him.  He made no mention at all of an Italian translation of the original document.  Hunt was called as a witness towards the end of the hearings and made reference, for the first time, to the Italian translation.  Despite the clear incentive that Elgin had to fabricate the existence of an authentic translation of the original document (because he desperately needed to sell the marbles and Parliament was eager to be satisfied that he had received permission to remove them), the Committee accepted at face value the authenticity of the Italian document.

• There are arguments against the notion that the Italian document was fraudulently created by Elgin with the co-operation of Hunt: in the first place, it would not have been necessary for the document to have been rendered in Italian.  Secondly, and more importantly, the document does not seem to authorise the removal by Elgin of the marbles (see below).  If one were to devise a fraudulent document in these circumstances, one would expect to devise a document that is water-tight in giving the permission required.

• However, even if one accepts that the Italian document was not fraudulently created by Hunt or Elgin to satisfy the Parliamentary committee, there are discrepancies between the Italian document (which has been rediscovered relatively recently) and the English translation relied upon the Parliament.  These discrepancies undermine the claim that the Italian document is a translation of a firman giving permission to Elgin to remove the marbles.

• If one believes the account provided in the report by the Parliamentary select committee, Hunt was in possession of an Italian translation of the original firman given in 1801.  An English translation of that Italian document is annexed to the parliamentary report and it is upon the latter that those claiming that Elgin had authority to remove the marbles rely.

• In the English translation of the document, there appears the following sentence: “We therefore have written this Letter to you, and expedited it by Mr Philip Hunt, an English Gentleman, Secretary of the Aforesaid Ambassador”.  In the Italian version of the document, this sentence actually reads as follows: “We therefore have written this Letter to you, and expedited it by N.N.”  It seems that the initials N.N. were used when the name of the person in question was to be inserted later.

• The second discrepancy is as follows: In the English translation, it says at the bottom “Signed (with a signet) Seged Abdullah Kaimacan”.  However, the Italian version of the document is not signed, with a signet or at all, by anyone, let alone Seged Abdullah Kaimacan.

• In the light of the above, it is clear that the Italian document could not have been a translation of a firman.  No final document would have contained the initials N.N. in it, because the identity of the deliverer would have been known to the drafter by the time the draft was finalised.  In addition, there is no explanation for translating the firman into Italian since neither Elgin nor Hunt spoke Italian.

• The most plausible explanation of the nature of the document is that it was a document drafted by Pisani, Elgin’s negotiator and translator, which was to be presented to the authorities.  In other words, it was a document that had been drafted by Elgin’s men in the hope that the authorities would approve its content and issue an official letter based on its text.  However, the evidence seems compelling that the Italian document could not have been a translation of a firman and was not even a final version of a letter.

• In short, the Italian version of the document is clearly not a firman and does not seem even to be a final draft of a letter.  The English version of the document is a final draft, but not of a firman.  Although the evidence seems to support the view that it was the Italian document and not the English document that constitutes an authentic translation of the original Ottoman text, on either version there was no firman granting permission to Elgin to remove the marbles.

THE OTTOMANS HAD NO POWER TO GIVE TITLE IN THE MARBLES. There are a range of arguments that might be advanced that relate to the authority of the Ottomans, or the particular officials that ostensibly gave authority, to permit Elgin to remove the marbles.  A brief synopsis of these arguments is as follows:

• To the extent that permission was indeed given to Elgin, it was given by officials who did not have the authority to give it.  This argument is similar to the argument advanced above in respect of the firman.  In terms of this argument, to the extent that Elgin was indeed authorised to remove the marbles, he was authorised to do so by persons who lacked the requisite authority.

• A similar argument is to the effect that the Ottomans were bribed into giving permission and therefore the authority given was not lawful.  This argument must be approached with caution.  As argued above, it is well-accepted, both in terms of private and public international law, that the legality of the acquisition of title in property must be assessed by the law of the country in which the property is acquired at the time at which it was acquired.  In terms of that approach, the validity of Elgin’s acquisition of the marbles must be assessed according to the law in force in Greece at the time of the acquisition (i.e. between 1801 and 1810).  Those that argue that the bribery of the Ottoman officials renders the permission that they gave nugatory, rely on the fact that, at the time, bribery was already proscribed by the law of England.  While bribery may well have been the norm at the time in Athens, we cannot imagine that it would have actually been legal.  However, the question would still arise whether proof of bribery could render the otherwise valid firman invalid – not to mention the further question that there is no indication in any of the evidence that we have obtained that the firman itself was obtained by bribery, whereas it is quite clear that bribes were regularly paid to the local Athens officials such as the Disdar and Voivode.

• The last of the arguments in regard to the authority of the Ottomans to give Elgin permission is of broader application.  In terms of this argument, the Ottomans’ military occupation of Greece did not give them authority to alienate the marbles.  Once again, this argument should be approached with caution.  It is based on developments in the law of occupation under public international law that have occurred in the 20th Century.  On the assumption that the legality of the transfer must be assessed at the time at which it took place, it is difficult to argue that modern developments in the law of occupation may be applied retrospectively.

• More than one third of the members of the British Parliament voted against the purchase of the marbles. Might the result have been different if the House had not been misled by Elgin and his agents?

In another important case of Autocephalous Greek Orthodox Church of Cyprus v Goldberg and Feldman Fine Arts Inc the laws of Cyprus, Switzerland and Indiana in the United States were considered.  The case is discussed by Professor Symeon Symeonides, Distinguished Professor of Law; Dean Emeritus Willamette University in “Colloquium: Protection and Return of Cultural Property, Sakkoula Publications, Athens 2001”. Although there may be arguments to the contrary the law of the state of origin of the property should prevail.  The law of Cyprus did prevail even though they were removed from the northern part of Cyprus which is occupied by the Turkish military force. 

However, litigation is not our first option.

The Director of the British Museum persists in describing the Parthenon as a ruin.  For the Greeks and philhellenes, despite the damage done to it by the Venetians, the Ottomans and Lord Elgin, it is still a symbol of Athenian Democracy, civilisation and the spirit of Hellenism.  Pericles who declared that “we are lovers of beauty without extravagance” had the Parthenon in mind.  Lord Byron, the most ardent Philhellene, condemned Elgin’s removal of the marbles.

Nadine Gordimer the Nobel Laureate has written in the foreword to Christopher Hitchens’ book “On any criteria of ability, facility to preserve and display their own heritage of great works of art as their importance decrees, Greece has created a claim incontestably unmatched.  The Parthenon Gallery in the New Acropolis Museum provides a sweep of contiguous space for the 106-metre-long Panatheneaic Procession as it never could be seen anywhere else, facing the Parthenon itself high on the Sacred Rock. But there are gaps in their magnificent frieze, left blank. They are there to be filled by an honourable return of the missing parts from the British Museum.  Reverence - and justice - demand this.”

The people of Greece, of the Diaspora and the Philhellenes of the world cannot rest until the Parthenon Marbles are restored to their home.  It would enhance the friendship between the people of Greece and those in the United Kingdom. It would be the right thing to do. 

Adv George Bizos SC (A member of Johannesburg Bar and The British Committee for the Reunification Of the Parthenon Marbles)

20 July 2020, Professor Paul Cartlegde on decolonising Hellenic studies, writes in History & Policy.

Responding to the recent excellent pieces by Nick Draper (10 June), Trevor Burnard (17 June), and Simon Szreter (22 June), I feel obliged to put an ancient-historical oar into this flood of what we might want to call (following Kenyan novelist and postcolonialist theorist Ngugi wa Thiong’o’s 1986 Decolonising the Mind) mental decolonisation. I feel especially obliged to do so, in fact, as I’ve just recently become President of the Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies: a professional association and friendly society founded in 1879 that is inevitably somewhat tainted as well as ennobled by its association with, indeed promotion of a discourse that takes its origin from, a world with often deeply alien values.

There seem to me to be three main axes of aptly Hellenist concern: race/slavery/whiteness; gender/sexuality; and colonialism/imperialism. It is not as though none of these has ever before been subjected to the right sort of in-depth, critical, self-reflexive examination. For conspicuous example, the late (non-Hellenist) Martin Bernal’s massively controversial ‘Black Athena’ project starting in 1987 flushed out a slew of debate over the ‘racial’ components of ancient Hellenic culture, a debate that acquired strong Afrocentrist overtones. I myself debated with him publicly on two occasions, once in Cambridge, once in Victoria, BC. If I may be even more personal, I have also myself been engaged in debates over unfreedom ever since I embarked on an Oxford doctorate on ancient Spartan history and archaeology in 1969. Feminism too, second- or third-wave, also directly affected my research, and the peculiar society of ancient Sparta afforded me plenty of scope for re-examining the quintessentially sexist view of Woman as a species purveyed by that ‘giant thinker’ (as Marx called him) Aristotle.

Colonialism-imperialism, however, although I saw myself as a kind of ethnographer of ancient Sparta, did not affect me in the same direct way, as it no doubt would have done had I been a participant-observational anthropologist of a contemporary living society. Moreover, all three of these debates have, as they say, moved on, acquiring peculiar and current salience from the Black Lives Matter movement, from resistance to the white-male supremacism peddled so perniciously since 2016’s US Presidential election, and from renewed righteous abhorrence of the clearly negative aspects of the legacy of colonialism and imperialism.

Naturally enough, such debates have been especially acute within Classics/Hellenic Studies circles on the other side of the pond, and particularly in the States. In a profoundly challenging interview with Elena Giusti, Dr Sarah Derbew (a former PhD student of Emily Greenwood at Yale) has vibrantly addressed the issue of ‘decolonizing blackness, alongside the Classics curriculum’. She will shortly take up a position at Stanford in Classics, but significantly in collaboration with the Center for Comparative Studies in Race and Ethnicity.

With regard to gender/sexuality, Donna Zuckerberg (a Princeton Classics PhD) has herself published a robust response to the ‘red-pill’ masculinists who have sought to (mis)appropriate ancient Greek sexism for their own malign and reactionary purposes: Not All Dead White Men: Classics and Misogyny in the Digital Age (2018: reviewed here); and her online journal Eidolon has recently published articles arguing for ‘decentering’ the West with regard to ancient sexuality (Jeremy LaBuff), and for tying ‘together the different strands of comparative research into a unifying movement that dislodges the Eurocentrism of Classics wholesale’ (Krishnan Ram-Prasad).

We in the UK must go and do likewise. One avenue that strikes me as having an especially strong potential for bearing more and original fruit is the peculiar association between Classics and colonialism-imperialism, already well explored in Barbara Goff’s 2005 collection Classics & Colonialism. The topics of the six essays include the modern historiography of the ancient Athenian and Roman empires; and the uses of Classics in both Caribbean and West African literature. But it’s the cover illustration of the bookthat I’d like to draw particular attention to. It shows what is described on the back cover as ‘One of the “Elgin Marbles”’, in fact one of the marble, high relief-sculpture metopes. The scene depicted on the metope is of a semi-bestial and wholly brutal centaur attacking a wholly human – and wholly nude – male. It thus perfectly illustrates the theme of the 2016 collective volume The Topography of Violence in the Greco-Roman World, edited by W. Riess and G.G. Fagan, in which violence against women and against slaves as well as between men on the battlefield is very thoroughly explored.

Yet even more apropos are the scare quotes around ‘Elgin Marbles’; for they are indeed scary. In fact, the Parthenon Marbles in the British Museum (since 1817) are a, perhaps the classic illustration of the colonialist-imperialist complex that so disfigures that august collection today. The large fortune acquired by the Museum’s founding collector and benefactor, Dr Hans Sloane, was itself deeply mired in the slave trade, and Lord Elgin, ambassador to the Sublime Porte, was able to loot the Parthenon marbles only thanks to Britain’s being an enemy of the Ottoman Sultan’s enemy, Napoleonic France, at a time when Greece was a possession of the Ottoman Empire. Next March 25, 2021, will mark the bicentenary of the Greeks’ declaration of independence from the Ottoman yoke after a subjection of nearly 37 decades. Is it too much to hope that it will also mark a significant moment in the decolonisation of the British Museum?

Whatever the answer to that, as President of the Hellenic Society I shall be promoting intense scrutiny and reflection on the nature as well as the history of our ‘Hellenic studies’, and I invite all like-minded persons to join me in this effort of renewal, reintegration, regeneration – and maybe even redemption.

Paul Cartledge is Professor Emeritus of Greek Culture at the University of Cambridge, newly appointed President of the Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies, and the author of numerous booksand articles on ancient Greek culture, history and political thought. He is also the Vice-Chair of the BCRPM and the IARPS.

The Acropolis and the Parthenon in Modern Greek art as symbols of national and world heritage
In the context of the 2020 "Year of Melina Mercouri" and the vision for the reunification of the Parthenon sculptures
By Dr. Alexandra Kouroutaki 

Alexandra Kouroutaki is a member of the Laboratory teaching staff (EDIP) at the School of Architecture, Technical University of Crete. She holds a doctorate in Art History from the University of Bordeaux Montaigne, a Postgraduate Diploma in French Literature from the School of Humanities of the Hellenic Open University, and is an honors graduate of the Department of French Language and Literature of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens.

 This essay was first published in the Greek News Agenda, General Secretariat for Public Diplomacy, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Hellenic Republic and translated in English by Marianna Varvarrigou and Magda Hatzopoulou.

What sorrow it would have been – my God –
what sorrow
if my heart was not consoled
by the hope of marbles
and the prospect of a bright sunray
which shall give new life
to the splendid ruins[1]
Nikos Engonopoulos

Nikos Engonopoulos, The oath of members of the Society of Friends, 1952, oil on canvas, Municipal art gallery of Rhodes

Introduction
A diachronic symbol of Hellenism and the fundamental principles and values of European civilization, the Parthenon is a UNESCO World Heritage Site. This essay endeavors a study of the Parthenon, which is present as a symbol in modern Greek art, both in landscape paintings of the early 20th century as well as in artworks of the interwar years, in compositions with historical and mythological-allegorical subject matter, in portraits and still lives.
In the first part of the study, the focus is on landscape paintings of the 1910-1930 period that have the Acropolis as their subject matter and the direct, dialectical relationship between the Parthenon and the Attic landscape is explored. The sight of the monument gives Greek artists the opportunity to capture in their paintings the "spirit of the place" that inhabits these rocks, the hills, the natural qualities of the landscape, the curves on the ground, the brightness of the natural Mediterranean light and the blue of the sky. Here, in the natural setting which shaped this aesthetic model, the building blocks of the monument, the marbles, converse with history.
In the second part, the study focuses on paintings produced in the interwar years. Compositions of the celebrated "Generation of the ‘30s" in whose depictions the Parthenon functions as a symbol of national as well as world heritage are examined. The Monument on the one hand becomes the mirror of the cultural consciousness of the Greek nation, whilst it is also inextricably linked with a broader symbolism that includes the ideals of Athenian democracy, the achievements of rationalism and dialectical philosophy as well as humanitarian values.
Apart from the symbolic function of the Monument however, the study aims to highlight the ideological background of the pursuits of Modern Greek art, according to the historical context and broader developments in arts. In particular, emphasis is given on the Greek transformations of Modernism. There is reference to the influences of Symbolism and Post-Impressionism in early 20th century landscape paintings and to the influences of Cubism and Surrealism on works by important artists of the interwar generation.

1. The Parthenon in landscape paintings and the unbreakable unity between the Monument and the Attic landscape
At the beginning of the 20th century, landscape painting was the major event in the development of Modern Greek art, pointing to new directions[2]. Innovative Greek landscape painters moved away from conventional representation, releasing themselves from the mainstream aesthetics of Academic Realism of the Munich school. Their interest at that point turned to the pioneers of Modernism and the avant-garde movements of Paris[3].
The historical and political context in Greece was favorable to this development. The policies of Venizelos contributed decisively to the reorientation of the Greek intelligentsia towards European Modernism. In 1917, and in the spirit of "Venizelismos" that was associated with the need for modernization and the cultural and civic regeneration of the Greek state, the "Art Group" (Omada Technis) was established with the purpose of transplanting new ideas onto the conservative Greek artistic landscape[4].
Landscape painting in the years 1915-1930 was astonishingly uniform. It was a post-impressionist, subjective art[5], with several influences from Symbolism. Important Greek artists of this generation, who were members of the "Art Group" such as Konstantinos Parthenis, Konstantinos Maleas, Nikolaos Lytras, Periklis Vyzantios, Nikolaos Othonaios, Othon Pervolarakis, Lykourgos Kogevinas, as well as Michael Economou and Spyros Papaloukas, approached landscape portrayal insightfully, investing it with symbolic dimensions. M. Stefanidis points to this evolution in Greek painting towards subjectivism: "One could say that our artists are dazzled by their discovery of the landscape, its energy, the uniqueness of the bright summers and the strict contours of the mountains … and approach it in an exploratory and insightful way[6]".

Fig. 1. Kogevinas (1887-1940), Acropolis, Oil on canvas, National Gallery - Alexandros Soutzos Museum

Subjectivism in landscape imagery and the tendency towards symbolism characterise the oil paintings of the Acropolis and the Parthenon by Lykourgos Kogevinas. His landscapes (figs. 1, 2) observe the principles of anti-naturalistic representation, as indicated by the flat portrayals, the shaping of surfaces and the general rendering of natural elements. The solid masses, in their immobility, bear witness to the influences of P. Gauguin and M. Denis[7]. In any case, we must underline the impression made by these landscapes. The prevailing feeling is that we are not just seeing an accurate representation of a natural or structured space but a Monument that’s a symbol. The theatrical, anti-realistic lighting connects the Parthenon with its unique cultural burden and renders life to the memory of the eternal Mediterranean light.

Fig.2. Lykourgos Kogevinas (1887-1940), Acropolis, oil on canvas, Averoff Museum

Fig.3. Lykourgos Kogevinas (1887-1940), Parthenon, oil on canvas, Averoff Museum

We get the same feeling of the symbolic function of the monument in the landscape paintings of Konstantinos Maleas (figs. 4, 5) of the Acropolis. In the landscape background, the Monument's shapes are rendered austerely and abstractly, under the blue or golden sky of Athens. In the foreground, we can see the dense vegetation of the region which consists mainly of pine and cypress trees. All the elements of the composition, the monument, the rocks, the trees, the ground and the sky are stylised, with flat colors on the surface[8]. Antonis Kotidis points to the influence of the French painters Gauguin and Bernard on the aesthetics of Maleas’s landscapes and notes the influence of Symbolism in the subjective rendering of nature and the "correspondence" (according to Baudelaire) between colors and emotions, in path lines and the development of musical phrases.
In conclusion, the landscapes of the innovative painters of the "Art Group" depict the Parthenon as a symbol, emphasizing its inseparable unity with the Attic landscape. This unity is pointed out and invoked by Le Corbusier, in a 1933 lecture, stating characteristically: "The Acropolis made me a rebel. This belief has remained with me. Remember the Parthenon pure, clean, intense and bursting with a superior economy. This cry that erupted in a landscape full of joy and terror. Strength and purity[9]".

Fig.4. Konstantinos Maleas (1879-1928), Acropolis, oil painting 1918-1920

Fig.5. Konstantinos Maleas (1879-1928), Acropolis, oil painting 1918-1920

One hundred years after it was founded, the "Art Group" continues to arouse the interest of scholars and art lovers as it was identified with the beginnings of Modernity in modern Greek art. It was a Greek Modernism that looked for global characteristics[10]. However, in the mid-20s, the demand for a move towards tradition gained strength, giving a new twist to the Greek version of Modernity. The "Art Group", and Parthenis especially, had prepared the ground for the appearance of the painters of the legendary "Generation of the '30s", a generation that produced works with greater ethnocentric ideology[11].

2. The Parthenon in the realm of "Greekness" and the artistic "Generation of the 30’s"
Important modern Greek artists of the interwar generation, such as Gerasimos Steris, Giorgos Gounaropoulos, Konstantinos Parthenis, Nikos Engonopoulos and Nikos Hadjikyriakos-Ghika, created paintings in which the Parthenon is depicted as a symbol of the Greek spirit and a universal symbol of civilisation. In the interwar years, artistic creation in Greece entered a new phase, between Modernism and Tradition[12]. The turn to Tradition became imperative following the traumatic experience of the Asia Minor Catastrophe that created the need for national self-affirmation, which was also expressed in the arts. The "Generation of the '30s", known as the most characteristic wave of Modernism in Greece, created an art with an ethnocentric ideology whose central tenet was the quest for "Greekness", while at the same time it adopted and assimilated creative elements of the European artistic avant-garde.
The case of Gerasimos Steris is indicative of the developments that took place in Modern Greek art in the course of the interwar years. He introduced significant change in Greek painting by way of his abstract forms and the freedom of his painting style, together with its symbolic and metaphysical extensions. In Landscape with the Acropolis (fig. 6) the idealistic character of the composition is intensified by the progressive elimination of color and decorative logic of the design. Once again, the Monument that dominates the sacred rock, functions as a symbol that "shapes" the ideal.

Fig.6. Gerasimos Steris (1898-1987), Landscape with the Acropolis, 1931-1935, Oil on canvas, National Gallery –Alexandos Soutzos Museum

The influence of Symbolism in Greek art is also found in paintings with mythological and allegorical subject matter. In 1938, Giorgos Gounaropoulos painted a mural in oil and wax covering a total area of 113 m² in the grand chamber of the Athens City Hall where the Municipal Council met (figs. 8, 9)[13]. The mural is a micro-historical composition[14] depicting various episodes from the mythology and history of the city of Athens, such as Athena's dispute with Poseidon over the name of the city, the struggle of Theseus with the Minotaur, Aegeas waiting for the return of his son Theseus’s ship from Crete, Socrates drinking the poison, the naval battle of Salamis, the Persian wars, and the scene of the death of Georgios Karaiskakis, a hero of the Greek war of independence[15].
In the central scene of the mural, the Parthenon is depicted in the background, atop the sacred rock of the Acropolis. The figure of Pericles is rendered idealistically and spiritually (fig. 7). He is the charismatic leader of the "golden age" of Athenian democracy. The composition obviously aims at connecting the Monument with the ideals of democracy.

Fig.7. Giorgos Gounaropoulos, The apotheosis of Pericles, Mural section, Oil and wax, 1938-1939. Old Town Hall, Athens

Fig. 8. Giorgos Gounaropoulos (1890 – 1977) The Struggle between Athena and Poseidon, mural, Oil and wax, 1938-1939. Athens Town Hall;

Fig. 9. Athens City Hall. The municipal council chamber with the mural by Giorgos Gounaropoulos. Photo: Paris Tavitian, Lifo

Also symbolic is the presence of the Acropolis and the Parthenon in the compositions of the poet and painter Nikos Engonopoulos, where Surrealism and metaphysical painting intertwined in a unique way (figs. 10, 11). Engonopoulos creates an anarchic montage of images, working with his imagination and memories. He creates theatrical scenes with his famous anthropomorphic mannequins (borrowed from Giorgio De Chirico) depicted either naked or dressed in vintage costumes. Engonopoulos's enigmatic compositions are strewn with many diverse objects - symbols that refer to different periods of history, including antiquity, the medieval West, the Renaissance, but also Greek tradition and art. In the background of his compositions, Engonopoulos depicts the Acropolis in the Byzantine style. The Parthenon dominating the Acropolis functions as an allegorical bridge that connects modern Greece to its glorious past and at the same time highlights Greece's intercultural relationship with the West.

Fig.10. Engonopoulos Nikos, Alexander, Son of Philip, and the Greeks apart from the Spartans, oil painting, private collection, 1963

Fig.11. Engonopoulos Nikos, The oath of members of the Society of Friends, 1952, Oil on canvas, Municipal Art Gallery of Rhodes

Fig.12. Yannis Moralis, By the outdoor photographer, 1934, oil in canvas;

Fig.13. Yannis Moralis: By the outdoor photographer (detail), oil on canvas, National Art Gallery - Alexandros Soutzos Museum

The Parthenon is also depicted in a composition by Yannis Moralis with the title By the outdoor photographer (figs. 12, 13) emphasizing the special significance of the monument for the sense of national pride of modern Greeks, as confirmation of their cultural continuity. In this composition, the painter presents three portraits - of two women and a child - as they are posing for a photo, outdoors. In the background lies the Acropolis, sketched abstractly, in simple lines. The relationship between the people and the monument is emphasized, as is the moral right of every people to enjoy the aesthetic perfection of their country’s monuments and to reconnect through them with their cultural heritage and tradition.
The Parthenon as a subject appears in the still life compositions of Konstantinos Parthenis (fig. 14), in a cerebral, spiritual, ideocratic and at the same time emotional art that employs elements from Cubism. The geometric rendering of the patterns takes place within recognisable frames of clarity. It should be noted that the morphology of Cubism does not prevent the artist from attempting to bestow a spiritual content to his painting and to express his philosophical perception of the world. The viewer is confronted with the spiritual meaning of the elements portrayed, while the artist attempts to transfer the "ideal" (Parthenon) to the realm of the human (still life).

Fig.14. Konstantinos Parthenis, Still life with the Acropolis in the background, oil on canvas, before 1931, National Art Gallery Gallery - Alexandros Soutzos Museum

The presentation of the paintings depicting the Acropolis in Modern Greek art concludes with a composition by Nikos Hadjikyriakos-Ghika, View of Athens (fig. 15). With his particular Cubist style, Ghika depicts the three hills of Athens: the Acropolis, Lycabettus and Philopappos. The sacred Acropolis rock, the humble Greek homes, the golden light and nature are the ingredients that make up the Attic landscape. The Parthenon becomes the symbol of Athens, the bridge that unites the past to the present and future of the city.

Fig.15. Nikos Hadjikyriakos-Ghika, View of Athens, 1940, oil painting, Private Collection

Fig.16. Sir William Gell, The removal of the Sculptures from the Pediments of the Parthenon by Elgin, 1801, Watercolor on laid paper, Benaki Museum

Epilogue
In conclusion, the Parthenon, which dominates the top of the Acropolis hill, often appears as a subject in the landscape paintings of the early 20th century, as well as in compositions with historical and mythological themes, still lives, even portraits. It functions as a landmark of our national identity and as an emblem of the Greek spirit, carrying the message of an enduring civilization, democracy, free-thinking and open society. Melina Mercouri's words seem more applicable than ever: "This is what Greece is, its heritage and its wealth, and if we lose this, we are nothing.[16]"
Stylistically, Greek artists were undoubtedly influenced by developments in European art and the modernist movements. The compositions analysed in the present study highlight the profuse influences from Symbolism, Post-Impressionist painters, Surrealism, Cubism and Abstract art. Besides, these works were created in the general context of the emergence of a cultural vision where Greek art could coexist and converse on an equal basis with the West[17].
The Acropolis and the Parthenon stand out in Modern Greek art as symbols of national and world heritage. Greece's call for the reunification of the sculptures of a Monument with universal symbolic value and unifying power is becoming universal. And this day will come soon, as the strong support from international public opinion indicates. The sculptures that were violently removed from the Parthenon (image 16) are not self-existent works of art. They form an indivisible, natural, aesthetic and semantic unit with the looted Monument and for this reason they should be reunited historically and aesthetically as one. The role of art in international awareness is important. The reunification of the Parthenon Sculptures is an ongoing European cultural and moral issue.

________________________________________
[1] Engonopoulos, N., "Tram and Acropolis", from the poetry collection Don’t talk to the driver (1938), Poems A’, Icarus, pp. 11-12.
[2] Kotidis, A., Modernism and tradition in Greek art of the interwar period, University Studio Press, Thessaloniki, 1993, pp. 182, 192.
[3] Papanikolaou, M., Greek Art of the 20th Century, Paintings – Sculpture, Vanias, Thessaloniki, 2006, p. 49.
[4] Kouroutaki, A., "The beginnings of Modernism in modern Greek art in the spirit of 'Venizelismos'", Kritiki Estia, volume 15th, (2014-18) periodical edition of the Historical Folklore and Archaeological Society of Crete, Typokreta, Heraklion, 2018, p. 271.
[5] Kotidis, A., Modernism and tradition in Greek art of the interwar period, op.cit., p. 182.
[6] Stefanidis, M., Ellinomouseion, Seven centuries of Greek painting, Vol. C. Light Engineers Free Press, 2009, p. 85.
[7] Kotidis, A., Modernism and tradition in Greek art of the interwar period, op.cit., p. 182.
[8] Ibid, p. 196.
[9] Le Corbusier, «C’est l’Acropole qui a fait de moi un révolté. Cette certitude m'est demeurée: Souviens-toi du Parthénon, net, propre, intense, énorme, violent, de cette clameur lancée dans un paysage de grâce et de terreur. Force et pureté » dans « Air, son, lumière », conférence publiée dans les Annales techniques, 15 octobre-15 novembre 1933 (Le IVe Congrès international d’architecture moderne), Athènes, 1933, p.1140. See also Lucan J., «Athènes et Pise: deux modèles pour l'espace convexe du plan libre. Les cahiers de la recherche architecturale et urbaine: Le Corbusier, l’atelier intérieur », n. 22/23, 2008, p.66.
[10] Kouroutaki, A., "The beginnings of Modernism in modern Greek art in the spirit of 'Venizelismos'", op.cit., p. 271.
[11] Lambraki-Plaka, M., (ed.), 2001, “100 years National Gallery - Four centuries of Greek Painting”, from the Collections of the National Gallery and the Euripides Koutlidis Foundation. Athens: National Gallery and Museum of Alexandros Soutsos, pp. 122-123.
[12] Kotidis, A., Modernism and tradition in Greek art of the interwar period, op.cit., p.15.
[13] Skaltsa M., Gounaropoulos, Cultural Center of the Municipality of Athens, Athens, 1990, p. 55.
[14] Kotidis, A., Modernism and tradition in Greek art of the interwar period, op.cit., p.118.
[15] Skaltsa M., Gounaropoulos, pp. 140, 141, 145 – 147 and Kotidis, A., op.cit., p.118.
[16] Melina Merkouri about the Parthenon Marbles, 2009. iPedia (2016) Melina Merkouri and the British museum director (YouTube).
[17] Kouroutaki, A., "The beginnings of Modernism in modern Greek art in the spirit of 'Venizelismos'", op.cit., p. 249.