Confronted with the cruel withholding of fragments of the Parthenon by BritishMuseum, Christopher Hitchens issues a vehement opposition against this brutality in the article “The Lovely Stones”. The author employs galvanic allusions to history, rational analogy and incisive irony to persuade the reader that those separated portions of Parthenon deserve reunion.
In order to set a foundation for his argument, Hitchens introduces multiple familiarhistoric events to convince the reader that the Parthenon has survived thevicissitudes of history. One ways she utilizes facts is by referencing “Christianity”which established five centuries after the Parthenon was desolated, indicatingthat the temple enjoyed a history long before the birth of Christianity. To followthat, Hitchens shifts to mention that the Parthenon transformed from a Christianchurch into a mosque a thousand years later and accents “after the Turkishconquest of the Byzantine Empire”. The dramatic changeover portrays Parthenon as a victim so tragic that sympathy is aroused. Furthermore, the author points out a role played by “Nazi” in the mutilation of the Parthenon and draws in his reader with a personal anecdote associated with a Greek who “climbed up and tore the swastika down”, successfully providing a baseline for readers to find credence with his claims. Hitchens’ intelligently weaving such household names as “Christianity”, “Byzantine Empire” and “Nazi” into the history of the Parthenon help readers to appreciate its great value. After being challenged to face these inflictions imposed on the body of this historic relic, the reader may turn their awe into obligations to protect the temple.
Ingenious literary skill plays a part in Hitchens’ argument as well, since it buildsupon the sentiment basis established at the beginning. Analogy is applied twiceto display the irrationality with regard to the issue of the Parthenon. In paragraph4, he compares the temple to the well-recognized masterpiece, Mona Lisa. It issupposed that Mona Lisa break into two halves, one of which is in Russia andthe other Spain. The reader will undoubtedly realize the necessity to reunite thispainting. The author here skillfully transfers to the temple the veneration felt forMona Lisa, making the audience condemn the overbearing misdeed. Hitchensalso foresees some disagreement based upon the inequality in value between the Parthenon and Mona Lisa and makes a more self-evident analogy. He assumes that the statue of Iris is beheaded and Poseidon amputated. Any reader whohas slightly touched Greek Mythology cannot tolerate such vandalism againstthe Goddess and God of sea. His/her aversion is again disposed to BritishMuseum, nourishing a yearning for restitution.
With a sharp sarcasm when mentioning the destructive influence of “acid rain”on the temple, Hitchens finally attempts to add power to his argument by strikingan emotional chord with his audience. In the end of paragraph 5, Lord Elginagain comes into the spot light. The repeated reference to him reminds his reader of the pre-mentioned narration in paragraph 3, which states that it is Lord Elginwho “sawed off approximately half of the adornment of the Parthenon and carriedit” to Britain. That he is the culprit of our issue discussed today piques theaudience and such words as “goon” and “smash” chosen by Hitchens inparagraph 5 deepen the readers’ resentment. However, the author delivers anunexpected gratitude to him, claiming “That leaves us with the next-best thing,which turns out to be rather better than one had hoped”, that is appreciating hisfeat to save the statue from Greece and spare them from the damaging effectof pollution in Athens. In fact, Hitchens casts an irony, because he mocks LordElgin’s sin and inferred that those who is now concerned about pollution actuallybring owls to Athens as most of the temple is still not in the city but in Britain.Through this humorous satire, the author intensifies the reader’s repugnanceat this British ambassador and appeals to worrisome about the retrieval of theParthenon.
As Christopher Hitchens wishes at the end of the article, “there will be anagreement to do the right thing”, the audience is successfully swayed to urgeBritish Museum to return the plunders of the Parthenon by his allusion to historicevents, persuasive analogy and inspiring sarcasm.
二
Sculptures, bestowed with native people’s wisdom, practice and cultural stamp, should be preserved in appropriate places so as to maintain their integrity. In the article “The Lovely Stones” editorial for Conde Nast Digital, Christopher Hitchens argues that the sculptures of the Parthenon should be returned to its origin, Greece. By the end of this piece, readers will find themselves nodding in agreement with what the Hitchens has to say. Hitchens utilizes contrast, historical event, analogy and appeal to emotion to plead with the readers to take his side.
In order to expose the people’s maltreatment toward the Parthenon, Hitchens starts his article off by employing a sharp contrast. Hitchens first quotes A. W. Lawrence’s remark of the Parthenon, “it is the one building in the world which may be assessed as absolutely right.” Quoting words of praise from an authoritative figure enhances Hitchens’s intention to depict the beauty and glamor of the Parthenon, lending more credibility to his argument. Later, in the second paragraph, Hitchens points out that the beauty and glamor did not deter people’s abuse, destruction and mutilation. To demonstrate this, Hitchens illustrates the Parthenon has been misused as garrison, arsenal and so on. By juxtaposing the fabulous beauty to the destruction of the Parthenon, Hitchens unfolds the harsh fact that the significance of the Parthenon has been ignored. This contrast serves as a vehicle to highlight the irony and gravity of people’s maltreatment toward the Parthenon, drawing the readers into the issue addressed by the writing.
Hitchens strengthens his argument with the portrayal of historical event. In the third paragraph, Hitchens demonstrates that some parts of the Parthenon were occupied by the British people in the 19th century. To present the exquisite sculpture comprehensively, Hitchens first notes that three elements of the Parthenon contribute to its outstanding position in human history — two massive pediments, a series of 92 high-relief panels and frieze. Furthermore, the use of detailed image and statistics leads readers to imagine the wonder of the Parthenon. However, such wonder has been destroyed as parts of the sculpture have been carried away and preserved in British government. With the help of historical events, Hitchens successfully enhances the credibility and legitimacy of his claim, creating a compelling appeal to ethos.
In addition, the utilization of analogy furthers Hitchens’ argument that the sculpture of the Parthenon should not be preserved by different museums. Hitchens adopts several classic forms of arts to highlights the significance of the integrity of art. Hitchens notes that “If the Mona Lisa had been sawed in two during the Napoleonic Wars and the separated halves had been acquired by different museums in, say, St. Petersburg and Lisbon, would there not be a general wish to see what they might look like if re-united?”. Similarly, Hitchens compares the destroyed Parthenon to the goddess Iris as well as the torso of Poseidon. As the assumptions of divided “Mona Lisa” , “goddess Iris” and “the torso of Poseidon” are grotesque, the separate parts of the Parthenon are also ridiculous. Therefore, the analogy adds more power to Hitchens’ s claim that the integrity of the Parthenon should be preserved in Greece.
Finally, Hitchens appeals to readers’ emotion. Hitchens indicates that although the city did not attach much importance upon the protection of the Parthenon in the past, “the Greeks have been living up to their responsibilities”. Harboring a positive attitude, the Acropolis Museum tries to exhibit the integrity of the Parthenon. This practice surely motivates readers’ longing to witness the marvel of the integral Parthenon. At the end of the passage, the readers will definitely agree with Hitchens’s claim that the sculpture of the Parthenon should be returned to its original land. This is a strategy of appeal to pathos, forcing the readers to face an emotionally- charged inquiry that will spur some kind of response.
In conclusion, contrast, historical events, analogy and appeal to emotion, all contribute to an exceptionally well-written argument. It is his utilization of these practices and more that make this article worthy of recognition.
