NOTRE-DAME.
The church of Notre-Dame de Paris is still no doubt， a majestic and sublime edifice. But， beautiful as it has been preserved in growing old， it is difficult not to sigh， not to wax indignant， before the numberless degradations and mutilations which time and men have both caused the venerable monument to suffer， without respect for Charlemagne， who laid its first stone， or for Philip Augustus， who laid the last.
On the face of this aged queen of our cathedrals， by the side of a wrinkle， one always finds a scar. ~Tempus edax， homo edacior*~； which I should be glad to translate thus： time is blind， man is stupid.
* Time is a devourer； man， more so.
If we had leisure to examine with the reader， one by one， the diverse traces of destruction imprinted upon the old church， time's share would be the least， the share of men the most， especially the men of art， since there have been individuals who assumed the title of architects during the last two centuries.
And， in the first place， to cite only a few leading examples， there certainly are few finer architectural pages than this fa？ade， where， successively and at once， the three portals hollowed out in an arch； the broidered and dentated cordon of the eight and twenty royal niches； the immense central rose window， flanked by its two lateral windows， like a priest by his deacon and subdeacon； the frail and lofty gallery of trefoil arcades， which supports a heavy platform above its fine， slender columns； and lastly， the two black and massive towers with their slate penthouses， harmonious parts of a magnificent whole， superposed in five gigantic stories；--develop themselves before the eye， in a mass and without confusion， with their innumerable details of statuary， carving， and sculpture， joined powerfully to the tranquil grandeur of the whole； a vast symphony in stone， so to speak； the colossal work of one man and one people， all together one and complex， like the Iliads and the Romanceros， whose sister it is； prodigious product of the grouping together of all the forces of an epoch， where， upon each stone， one sees the fancy of the workman disciplined by the genius of the artist start forth in a hundred fashions； a sort of human creation， in a word， powerful and fecund as the divine creation of which it seems to have stolen the double character，--variety， eternity.
And what we here say of the fa？ade must be said of the entire church； and what we say of the cathedral church of Paris， must be said of all the churches of Christendom in the Middle Ages. All things are in place in that art， self-created， logical， and well proportioned. To measure the great toe of the foot is to measure the giant.
Let us return to the fa？ade of Notre-Dame， as it still appears to us， when we go piously to admire the grave and puissant cathedral， which inspires terror， so its chronicles assert： ~quoe mole sua terrorem incutit spectantibus~.
Three important things are to-day lacking in that fa？ade： in the first place， the staircase of eleven steps which formerly raised it above the soil； next， the lower series of statues which occupied the niches of the three portals； and lastly the upper series， of the twenty-eight most ancient kings of France， which garnished the gallery of the first story， beginning with Childebert， and ending with Phillip Augustus， holding in his hand "the imperial apple."Time has caused the staircase to disappear， by raising the soil of the city with a slow and irresistible progress； but， while thus causing the eleven steps which added to the majestic height of the edifice， to be devoured， one by one， by the rising tide of the pavements of Paris，--time has bestowed upon the church perhaps more than it has taken away， for it is time which has spread over the fa？ade that sombre hue of the centuries which makes the old age of monuments the period of their beauty.
But who has thrown down the two rows of statues？ who has left the niches empty？ who has cut， in the very middle of the central portal， that new and bastard arch？ who has dared to frame therein that commonplace and heavy door of carved wood， à la Louis XV.， beside the arabesques of Biscornette？
The men， the architects， the artists of our day.
And if we enter the interior of the edifice， who has overthrown that colossus of Saint Christopher， proverbial for magnitude among statues， as the grand hall of the Palais de Justice was among halls， as the spire of Strasbourg among spires？
And those myriads of statues， which peopled all the spaces between the columns of the nave and the choir， kneeling， standing， equestrian， men， women， children， kings， bishops， gendarmes， in stone， in marble， in gold， in silver， in copper， in wax even，--who has brutally swept them away？
It is not time.
And who substituted for the ancient gothic altar， splendidly encumbered with shrines and reliquaries， that heavy marble sarcophagus， with angels' heads and clouds， which seems a specimen pillaged from the Val-de-Grace or the Invalides？
Who stupidly sealed that heavy anachronism of stone in the Carlovingian pavement of Hercandus？ Was it not Louis XIV.， fulfilling the request of Louis XIII.？
And who put the cold， white panes in the place of those windows，" high in color， "which caused the astonished eyes of our fathers to hesitate between the rose of the grand portal and the arches of the apse？ And what would a sub-chanter of the sixteenth century say， on beholding the beautiful yellow wash， with which our archiepiscopal vandals have desmeared their cathedral？ He would remember that it was the color with which the hangman smeared "accursed"edifices； he would recall the H？tel du Petit-Bourbon， all smeared thus， on account of the constable's treason. "Yellow， after all， of so good a quality，" said Sauval， "and so well recommended， that more than a century has not yet caused it to lose its color." He would think that the sacred place had become infamous， and would flee.