The burning of notre dame united france in grief — but macron is dividing it again | thearticle

Emmanuel Macron’s pledge to rebuild Notre Dame, delivered to the French people while flames still flickered in the cathedral just a fortnight ago, was undoubtedly the French President’s

finest hour. He framed this grandest of grand projects as an imperative on which France could unite. Yet his over-ambitious timetable, dictated by politics and prestige rather than the

constraints of conservation, threatens to tear apart an already divided nation. Writing in Le Figaro, more than 1,000 architects, academics and administrators with relevant expertise have

warned the President — who is also, for the majority of French signatories, their boss — that the restoration must not be rushed. Macron has demanded that Notre Dame be rebuilt in time for

the Paris Olympics in 2024. By then he hopes to have won a second term of office, enabling him to bask in reflected glory as the cathedral — having risen, Phoenix-like, from the ashes — is

reopened to the world. One can imagine Macron, who revels in such ceremonies, already planning the solemnities that will set the seal upon his legacy. On his orders, a law is already being

fast-tracked to set aside all regulations that might impede the restoration of the roof. But the global conservation community has dared to defy his arbitrary five-year deadline, implying

that it could amount to a betrayal of posterity. Politely but firmly, they put the President in his place: “We know that the political calendar requires you to act quickly. We know how much

a mutilated Notre Dame weighs on the image of France,” they write. “Nevertheless, what is going to happen to Notre Dame commits all of us far beyond this deadline. The outcome of this work

will transcend terms of political office and generations and we will be judged by how we respond.” As civil servants, all the French experts who have signed this critique of Macron’s policy

are potentially risking their jobs by breaking their contractual “obligation of reserve”. But they evidently fear that the haste with which the rules are being bypassed will result in an

architectural catastrophe worse than the fire itself. Macron has called for an international competition of to come up with contemporary ideas to replace the fléche, or spire, bequeathed by

Eugène Viollet-le-Duc. The 19th-century restorer redesigned and rebuilt large parts of Notre Dame, including the choir and roof, that had been damaged before and during the French

Revolution. He added a new altar and rose windows, as well as replaced the gargoyles that had been entirely removed. The cathedral depicted in Victor Hugo’s novel about the eponymous

hunchback predates Viollet-le-Duc’s restoration, which was controversial at the time. Yet his work, much of which has been damaged by the fire, created the Notre Dame we know and love. It is

not only experts who are appalled at the idea of Macron reinventing the Paris skyline with a new spire and perhaps a glass roof, designed by a “starchitect” of his choice. Norman Foster has

already indicated that he would be glad to do for Notre Dame and Paris what he did for the Reichstag in Berlin, where its glass roof has become a tourist attraction. Yet the only thing that

the French cathedral and the German parliament house have in common is that both were damaged by fire — in the case of the Reichstag, both arson and war damage. A secular building of

neither antiquity nor architectural distinction was a perfectly appropriate place for Lord Foster to demonstrate his ingenuity. A great basilica that is rightly renowned as a pinnacle of

gothic architecture and art is another matter entirely. To allow such a sacred place to be turned into a showcase for postmodern design would be widely — and rightly — seen, not as an act of

restoration, but as one of desecration. France is already bitterly divided by politics. Tomorrow the gilets jaunes and anarchists have promised to turn May Day into a “day of the

apocalypse”. The last thing the country needs is to be divided by an unnecessary culture war too. For once, the President should let wiser counsels prevail and accept that Notre Dame does

not belong to him to dispose of as he sees fit. It is dedicated to Our Lady, the Mother of God. As Thomas à Kempis wrote, man proposes, but God disposes.