Miracle in London!

On 17 July, the Bayeux Tapestry, having arrived in London, was removed from its crate. The Ministry of Culture was enthusiastic: “there was no visible alteration and […] the Tapestry travelled well”. Better still! According to Catherine Pégard: “it arrived safely, in very good condition”. Yet, in the opinion of everyone who had studied it, the work was in very poor condition before it was sent to London. Indeed, one could read — to give just one example — that “the general and particularly the structural condition of the Tapestry is a matter of concern” in a 2021 document, Conservation Recommendations for the Display and Handling of the Bayeux Tapestry.
It is therefore a miracle: the journey to London was enough to restore the Tapestry, through the will of the Almighty or perhaps that of Emmanuel Macron, the miracle-working president whom we shall surely have to consider canonising. Unless…

Unless — but this would be so surprising that we can scarcely believe it — we have been somewhat misled. For the information we are learning today is far less triumphant. According to Le Monde, “according to the conservators who carried out the condition report after the journey, no major damage was found, despite a few fibre breaks”. No major damage, certainly. But does this mean that there was “minor” damage? A few fibre breaks? How many, and where?
La Croix provides a few further details. The newspaper confirms that there was “no major damage”, but states that “‘small, slight breaks in two areas’ of the linen cloth were observed”.
We are no longer talking about “a few” fibre breaks, but an unspecified number, in two areas whose location on the work and size are both unknown.

To settle the matter once and for all, it would be enough to consult the condition report drawn up before its departure and the one prepared after its arrival. Since it arrived in “very good condition”, why would anyone wish to conceal these documents? Yet, curiously, although we first submitted this request to the Ministry on 17 August and were told that they would get back to us “as soon as possible”, we have heard nothing further despite repeated reminders!
Contrary to those reassuring claims, the Tapestry therefore suffered damage (not major damage, thankfully) during transport, although we do not yet know its extent. But even if it is limited, as we hope, that is still too much. Reckless risks were taken with this outstanding work, and it is obviously not over yet, since the return journey still lies ahead.
In this connection, Nicholas Cullinan, director of the British Museum, claims to have “drawn lessons from the outward journey to strengthen security even further”. But if the Tapestry was at no risk during transport, what lessons could have been learned that would improve security which was already optimal? All this is very strange.

So no, there was obviously no miracle, except that the Tapestry suffered no “major damage”. Apparently, we shall have to make do with that.