-
- The nave of Notre-Dame restored
Photo: Didier Rykner - See the image in its page
It is no exaggeration to say that they have no shame. As they prepare to spend more than four million euros vandalising Viollet-le-Duc’s work by removing stained-glass windows listed as historic monuments that were not touched by the fire — a project against which the association Sites & Monuments and ourselves will continue to fight, with real chances of success — the public establishment in charge of the conservation and restoration of Notre-Dame Cathedral in Paris now dares to call for a further 140 million euros to be given to it (see this interview with its president in Le Figaro).
The continued existence of this public establishment is already, in itself, problematic. Now that all traces of the fire have disappeared, nothing justifies the persistence of this structure, which was created solely for that restoration. Notre-Dame now needs further restoration, but this should continue, as is the rule, under the project management of the DRAC Île-de-France, that is to say the Ministry of Culture, without any need for a public establishment. The latter, whose operating costs are far from negligible, no longer has any justification, unless we now decide to create public establishments for the restoration of all the State’s major monuments…
The national fundraising campaign brought in 840 million, of which only — if one may say so — 700 have already been spent. There are therefore 140 left, which will allow for the restoration of the chevet and the flying buttresses that support it. Philippe Jost now speaks of restoring the sacristy, the three great rose windows, and the north and south façades of the transept, and would still like public charity to provide for these necessary works. But what is the State’s role in all this? Let us recall that it owns the cathedral, and that it is quite astonishing that it should once again need to be rescued in order for it simply to fulfil its role. Let us also recall that the State is its own insurer, that it should have paid for the restoration after the fire (a fire for which it also bears heavy responsibilities), and that it nevertheless made money, as the Court of Auditors confirmed, since tax deductions were far lower than the amount of VAT collected.
There is therefore something quite indecent in once again coming to solicit alms, thereby depriving other monuments, particularly private ones, of patronage that cannot expand indefinitely. No more money should be given to Notre-Dame to compensate for a failing State that refuses to fulfil its obligations. Cathedrals, like Notre-Dame, must be restored and maintained by their owner, the French State. And the public establishment, which has done its job and now wishes to distort the cathedral by removing Viollet-le-Duc’s stained-glass windows, has no further reason to exist. It must be abolished.