Neatly summed up
Published:
February 25, 2009 at 10:38pm
One of the most determinedly pragmatic men I know has neatly summed up the St John’s/FAA mountain-out-of-a-molehill:
If the problems are technical, then there are solutions. If the problem is the desecration of graves, then technical experts are irrelevant. But first there must be graves to desecrate.
And he didn’t need a single Thinking Sock to get there.
16 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
I’ve been following this little one-person war against Astrid Vella and the FAA from the beginning and I have to say Daphne you are without doubt the most obnoxious little person I have ever come across. Or to put it another way you haven’t changed much! It is clear no matter which newspaper you read, and I can assure you I have read them all going back to last summer, that the level of support enjoyed by Ms. Vella greatly outweighs anything you can muster dear.
Oh yes there are the ‘usual suspects’ putting their tuppence worth in here and there against the FAA but they are massively outnumbered by the supporters of this organisation. And then it has to be remembered that the only person low enough to turn this into a personal attack on Ms. Vella was of course you Daphne. But then you always did have the ‘common’ touch, didn’t you.
This was shown most aptly by your attack on FAA supporters or indeed just about anyone who has a different opinion from you who live on Gozo. What was it you said about Gozo dear? “Many of these people seem to live in Gozo. I know that it’s utterly boring there, but honestly. They could always do what the natives do and amuse themselves with a couple of goats and a chicken.” A lot of my family live on Gozo Daphne and I can assure you they are not amused.
And then you decided to go one better and launch an attack on a tourist. Well done dear, the PN must be so proud of your latest recruitment drive.
[Daphne – Ooooooh! Nasty! But I’m glad you showed up to remind me what life was like in the schoolyard. “You haven’t changed much” – do I know you? Did I steal your boyfriend or something? Sorry, but I can’t remember. Maybe it’s a case of mistaken identity because even at my smallest, I was never little. I’ll say 10 Hail Marys and forfeit that glass of wine as penance. I’m quite sure you’ve got yourself a new boyfriend by now. Failing that, you could always try a couple of goats and a chicken.]
Oh, golly gosh – look! Now I know who you are, Francesca Meilaq. Yet another axe-grinder with an obsession. This is you, right?
http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/2008/11/02/l6.html
http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/2008/08/17/l1.html
http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/2008/08/10/l1.html
http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/2008/08/31/l10.html
http://www.independent.com.mt/news.asp?newsitemid=73424
http://www.independent.com.mt/news.asp?newsitemid=73424
And on http://www.timesofmalta.com – my, my, you’ve been a busy girl.
Francesca Meilaq (on 22/8/08)
@ M Camenzuli, Your obvious hate campaign against FAA is nothing short of childish. You need to be reminded that Cologne, Vienna, Milan, Siena and Mdina are just a few of the Cathedrals with Museums much further away than is being proposed in this case. Also one can hardly compare L’Institution Nationale des Invalides to a cafeteria! I should also like to remind you that only recently the Vatican declared that development that goes against the environment is regarded as a modern day sin. Are you saying the Vatican is wrong too?
@ P. Busuttil, FAA do indeed campaign on other issues other than St. John’s as you very well know, and to say that they should restrict themselves to Sliema is just silly. By that way of thinking you are saying that it is okay to destroy the rest of Malta and Gozo so long as Sliema is looked after. It’s interesting that you refer to the old Chapel in High Str Sliema which has been closed for nearly 2 years since it sustained structural damages due to the building of a nearby Hotel. Do you want the same thing to happen to St. John’s?
Francesca Meilaq (on 20/9/08)
Some excellent suggestions here Carmel. I honestly don’t think the foundation have looked deeply enough into this matter and are just seeing it from the viewpoint, more feet in the door more cash in the till. People used to travel from all over the world to see the various tombs in the Valley of The Kings in Egypt but due to the vast number of people entering them it was found that the moisture from their breath and perspiration was causing damage to the painted walls. What effect would the same thing have on precious tapestries in an underground chamber?
As you say Carmel the place for these tapestries to hang is along the main nave of the church. As for the UV light causing damage to the tapestries this can be dealt with by the application of UV filters on the windows. This filtration would have the effect of removing harmful UV but would not diminish the look of the windows themselves. Let’s not take a sledgehammer to crack a nut here. Why put at risk the structure of the Co-Cathedral when alternatives such as this are available?
Francesca Meilaq (on 8/9/08)
Given his profession, it’s amazingly obvious from his final comments, writing off the Knights’ passages as “narrow trenches hewn out of the bedrock for raw sewage to flow through them” that Architect Bencini has not even begun to understand what the passages are about. And this is the person who will be in charge of the Foundation’s claims that it would not do anything to damage Malta’s heritage? Further comment is superfluous.”
Francesca Meilaq (on 24/8/08)
@ Jonathan Farrugia. I did not advise either FAA or Astrid Vella not to pursue their argument on this matter. I advised them not to pursue the argument with you, as you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. As has been stated to you on numerous occasions this is not a museum it is a Co-Cathedral and burial place of the Knights. You obviously have some personal petty little vendetta going on here regarding the FAA and don’t think twice about spreading misinformation in order to attack them at the expense of your own country’s heritage. I have studied this proposal with a professional eye and even given the gross mistakes made in the past by Mepa I would be willing to bet my next months wages that this project is a non starter. Not even Mepa could be this stupid. So why don’t you go and prepare for your next battle with FAA and Ms. Vella, as your childish utterances will have no effect here.
Neatly summed up indeed. But it begs the question: Who says there ain’t no graves to desecrate?
[Daphne – Roger de Giorgio (senior), formerly of de Giorgio & Mortimer, the architects’ firm which cleared the site in the post-war period and built the existing courtyard. The few human bones they found there were removed. I am sure you will appreciate that he is a man of his word and that he is unlikely to have given his daughter-in-law the curator the wrong information.]
Daphne – Ms Meilaq is one of Malta’s 400,000 experts on everything-under-the-sun. You can’t win. There is a reason why our compatriots flock to the same, safe, boring and blurry landscapes of Mother Malta when they are purchasing “art” for their peppercorn-rate rented mansions: FEAR of the new and exciting. Everything must be as it was, back in the day when my grandmother was but a glimmer in my great-grandfather’s eye. Give me a break!
Facts and studies are totally irrelevant to Ms. Meilaq and her ilk, because she knows everything about everything. Why on earth would anyone wait for a proper study to be conducted? You just can’t win.
Ms. Meilaq suggests putting up UV filters on the windows. OK. But what will stop the congregants from touching and tugging on the priceless tapestries while they hang in the Cathedral? What effect, Ms. Meilak, does 12 months of incense, and candle smoke have on tapestries that are several centuries old?
Incidentally – if anyone really wanted to know what’s under St. John’s Square, all they would have to do is consult one of Giovanni Bonello’s excellent Patrimonju Malti booklets: that square did not exist at all until a WWII air raid felled the four or five-storey apartment blocks that stood directly opposite the Co-Cathedral, with shops lining the street level. I suspect the only thing a proper geological survey might have revealed is that once, the square was a humble street. Perhaps they might have found the footprint of an art nouveau or an 1800s apartment building, and the sewers and cellars that lay beneath it. Where on earth did Astrid and her munchkins come up with “Knights’ passageways”?
The mass hysteria that surrounds every little issue in Malta is truly amusing from the safe distance of several thousand miles. But the utter inability of anyone in the media or in the general public to pick up on the fact that ST. JOHN’S SQUARE DID NOT EXIST UNTIL SEVERAL GERMAN BOMBS FELL ON IT IN THE 1940s is truly, utterly shocking. Your current President only recently signed the requisition documents requiring the government to purchase the land that now comprises the square from the original owners of those buildings that once stood directly opposite the Cathedral. Fact. Check it out if you wish, Ms. Meilak abd Ms. Vella! In all the hysteria surrounding this issue, none of you ever bothered to check the relatively recent history of the site.
So sad that there are none so deaf as those who do not want to listen………….except to the shrilling of their own pompous voices, that is.
Daphne. I have the utmost respect and admiration for Roger de Giorgio snr. Indeed I am indebted to him for his generous help on another matter. But, as I know you will appreciate, I would need more information before being able to accept this as a fact. I cannot rely on a third hand account. Information such as who exactly “cleared the site” (was it professional archaeologists, did they know what they were doing?), did they know about human bones, what was the extent and depth of the “clearance”, can they definitely exclude there are not burials they might have missed at a deeper level to their “clearance”, or perhaps there might have been an entrance to a crypt on the side they may have missed? What about the report and the plans and photos etc? These are just some of the questions.
But this is not the only concern I had regarding burials, and on which I had hoped an E.I.A. might have shed some light. There is another matter which, to my surprise, was not picked up by the anti E.I.A. lobby. And that concerns the Crypt of Bartollot. I quote from the D.L.H. official statement on the St. John’s issue published in VIGILO: “The restoration of Bartollot’s Crypt for use as a silver vault is a good idea.”
Up until 1603 members of the Order were buried in the Cemetery of the Yard (i.e. not just the fallen of the siege). This cemetery was sealed up in 1603, and from then on all members of the Order (other than those few hundred who were buried beneath the splendid tombstones, and the Grand Masters) were interred in Bartollot’s Crypt.
(Among the less illustrious of these was the brother of my ancestor, Fra Professor G.Simeone Borg, a lawyer priest (an unholy alliance) who was Chaplain of Obedience in the Order in the 18th century, and later Professor of Civil and Criminal Law at the University 1801-1834. Buried in 1839, this is the last burial here I know of, though there may well have been a few more survivors who made it to the Crypt.)
I would have been interested to see whether the E.I.A would also have concluded that it “is a good idea” to clear out Bartollot’s Crypt.
[Daphne – John, on the first matter, I would suggest that you contact Cynthia de Giorgio. It’s something the FAA should have done long ago, before spreading hysteria. I am sure she would not be averse to a cup of coffee, and a genuine enquiry from somebody with precisely the right sort of academic background. The past few months must have been extremely frustrating for her, trying to communicate with people who haven’t a clue what they’re talking about. She will also be able to help you on the matter of the Bartolott Crypt, as we were talking about precisely this the other day – that from 1604, that was where burials took place. There was a presentation on the crypt as part of the public exhibition at the cathedral. Should you need telephone numbers, give me a ring at home (in the book).]
Thanks Daphne. As they say – it’s all academic now. Or is it?
[Daphne – I think it’s a matter now of trying to find a less effective solution.]
Hi Daphne,
Please have a look at Joe Grima’s comment to:
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090226/local/valletta-underground-network-studies-may-lead-to-review-of-plans-for-st-georges-square
Joe Grima (6 hours, 57 minutes ago)
I remember that on the first day I entered the Prime Minister’s office at Castille Mintof f showed me a huge book of plans that outlined the entire underground tunnelling network beneath the Capital as created by the Knights of St John before Valletta was actually built. That huge book of plans must still be in existence and will provide the Minstrry with much needed information aboiut Valletta’s underground tunneling system.
[Daphne – Saw it. This country is unbelievable, with everyone trading on rumour and hearsay. These are matters of recorded fact, not of speculation.]
I am convinced that this Chickie and Mr. Catania would make a lovely couple.
[Daphne – By that, do you mean Miss Meilaq or James Tyrrell’s feathered friend?]
John, you seem to know what you’re talking about, so I’ll ask you this question: What about the elaborate “gravestones” making up the floor of the Cathedral? Do they, in fact, lie over graves, or do they just mark the presence of the particular bodies in the crypt? I, too, was under the impression that burials actually took part in a crypt under St John’s – but then someone wrote something here about us walking on top of the graves in the cathedral after the bones were brought over from Birgu……….so I was wondering, what is the truth?
@Moggy
The “elaborate gravestones” lie over individual graves which we walk over. The Crypt is something else, entered from the Oratory area where the majority were buried. The Cemetery of the Yard (Merchants street side) is something else again, and it was to this burial place that the bones from Birgu were transported.
In the 19th century a misguided exercise was carried out whereby many of the “elaborate gravestones” were moved around to make a “prettier pattern”. No record exists of precisely what they did, so now we don’t know for certain whether some particular tombstones tally with the individual buried beneath.
Some decades ago the skeleton beneath Mattia Preti”s tombstone was exhumed, and on examination it was decided that it corresponded with the age at death of the artist.
The skeleton was re-interred in a new coffin (made of wood from his home town of Taverna, as I recall).
This is all very interesting, John. Thanks for the detailed explanation. One of my ancestors may, therefore, lie just below his own tombstone – unless it was moved around! If the bones from Birgu were moved to the Cemetery of the Yard (Merchants Street) then don’t you think that it would have, indeed, been a pity if this were destroyed and anything erected on top of it?
[Daphne – May I barge in? Even working on the hypothesis that all the bodies taken to the Valletta yard from Birgu were still there, Moggy, how would roofing the yard with a temporary, removable structure of a lightweight frame and, glass and having people walk over the yard – which, incidentally, they do already – be any different to what occurs over the bodies buried beneath the cathedral floor? I am not trying to be a challenging nuisance here. I ask because I genuinely cannot understand. I detect that your reaction is an emotional one, but it is not consistent. If it is all right to walk over the dead in the cathedral, then it is all right to walk over the dead outside the cathedral. I honestly believe that when people expressed outrage at the thought of ‘walking over the bodies’ they genuinely failed to make the connection with what happens INSIDE the cathedral – walking over bodies, whole tour groups with guides and cameras, congregations sitting on top of the bodies on their little wooden chairs, and so on. It just didn’t click.]
I think it’s not walking over the bodies which bothers people as much as removing the bodies from their resting place and excavating (is it going to be three storeys – I’m finding it hard to differentiate fact from fiction at this point?) into the yard. Walking over bodies does not bother me in the least.
[Daphne – Oh my God, Moggy, honestly! With this comment, you have just illustrated how shocking the misinformation has been, and how terrible it is that people – even people with a science background like yourself – have actually made up their minds without knowing what in heaven’s name it was all about. Over and above that, you have been following the debate on this site for the last two weeks or more, and you still haven’t picked up the basics of the project.
1. The excavation was to take place beneath St John’s Square, where there are now cafes. There are no bodies buried there. It was never a cemetery. Before the war, there were private houses standing there.
2. There was to be no excavation in the churchyard – just a light roofing structure mainly of glass, ticketing booths and a small visitor centre.
3. FAA is claiming that there was to be excavation within the cathedral for a lift shaft. No. Wrong. The hollow space is there already.
If you are finding it hard to distinguish fact from fiction, this is because you didn’t do what a person with an academic background in science would have done: gone straight to the source instead of listening to gossip from third parties. You could have gone to the cathedral and examined the exhibition about the project. Or you could have read the articles and letters written by the curator, rather than those written by third parties who were not involved.]
Daphne, you do have a habit of jumping to conclusions about one! I KNOW ( I need italics!) that the main excavation was to be under St John’s Square and that there are no old cemeteries thereunder. But – what, exactly, was going to happen in the churchyard (Merchant’s Street), where there is/was a cemetery? What was the glass roofing meant to be roofing as such? Was there to be a structure built in the courtyard? If there were to be no excavations in the courtyard, what was there to be? How large was the visitors’ centre to be? And here, I am asking questions.
Note that up until now I have always discussed the excavation on St John’s Square, which I regard as risky. I have NEVER included the courtyard problem in my arguments.
[Daphne – The roofing in the courtyard was intended to provide shelter for tourists standing in vast queues waiting to go in – the queues you see on the steps in front of the Law Courts. The structure was to be a light one made of glass and something else – obviously not completely of glass as it wouldn’t have been much use against the sun. I’m rushing out now, but when I get back I will dig out the details and post them for you to read – either tonight or tomorrow morning, depending on the situation. Basically, the foundation wanted to put an end to those queues and get people to enter through Merchants Street instead.]
Moggy How fascinating. I wonder if I may be so bold as to enquire who your ancestor was?
I’ve found this, and it basically explains everything:
http://www.dinlarthelwa.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=329
It was first to be a 3 storey building in the courtyard, and that’s were I got somewhat confused. Later, it was to be the glass roof – which sounds OK.