Council architect advises against excavation of St John's Square

Raymond Sammut

Aug 10th 2008, 13:08

Jonathan, no need to confirm. Wikipedia is well known to most, if not all. Even researchers now, worldwide and at all levels, are using Wikipedia as a starting point before they start mining some of the most prestigious journals from many fields of study, national archives, and numerous other sources.

You have expressed your views on this issue surely, as much as I have expressed mine. And so have done so many others.

Jonathan Farrugia

Aug 10th 2008, 12:17

So, Mr Sammut, you actually confirm that Wikipedia can be changed by anybody
and in some cases the material in Wikipedia is actually a joke.

It is history that cannot be changed, as you well say,
and history has given us more than 200 years of an unresolved issue:
whether St John's belongs to the state of Malta or the Church.

Very sensibly, a joint foundation was set up to manage the Co-Cathedral
without being bogged down by this issue.

The point at the beginning of this exchange
was actually that this foundation would be well beyond
its powers to go around buying unconnected and unrelated property in Valletta
when there is enough space right now that can be utilised
to enlarge the Museum within the precincts of the Co-Cathedral.

If the foundation of St John's went around buying property,
this would further complicate the ownership issue.

Raymond Sammut

Aug 10th 2008, 11:25

@ Jonathan Farrugia

Lawrence is very well known for his sense of humour, just like his great-uncle. That's why we take to liberty, and like to make a joke with him.

More importantly, the deceiver can change Wiki, but he cannot change history.

Jonathan Farrugia

Aug 10th 2008, 10:32

Both Church and Government claim to be the owners of St John's Co-Cathedral
and the issue has never been resolved.

There was actually a right royal rumpus in the 1950s when
the government took the Caravaggio to be placed at the Archaeology Museum.

What government and Church have done is to set aside the issue
and manage better the Co-Cathedral jointly via a foundation
with equal representation of each.

Wikipedia is open source information -
all you need to do is go in and change what is written there -
and anyone can do it.

A few days ago, even Wiki's page on the Prime Minister
was changed to poke fun at him.

Raymond Sammut

Aug 10th 2008, 03:40

@ Franco Farrugia

The knowledge is public domain. Wiki:

Quote:
St. John's was the conventual church of the Hospitallers (the Knights of Saint John). Conventual in the sense of the convent and over time grew to equal prominence with the archbishop's cathedral at Mdina. The name, Co-Cathedral, refers to its later, dual role. In the 1820s, the Bishop of Malta, whose seat was at Mdina, was allowed to use St John’s as an alternative see, hence the name Co-Cathedral. The land on which the Co-cathedral was built belongs to the Government of Malta and the care of the co-cathedral and museum has been entrusted to the St John's Co-Cathedral Foundation whose executive secretary is Dr Claude P.P. Busuttil. The curator is Ms Cynthia de Giorgio, while the project's Co-ordinator is Mr Dane Munro. :Unquote

Franco, please note the word "allowed". My understanding is that if you owned something, then there would be no need to be "allowed". The seat would not have been allowed until the British administration was in place.

The Church never owned the Co-Cathedral of Saint John. The legitimate, true, and perpetual owners are the Maltese people alone. Anything else would be betrayal.

Franco Farrugia

Aug 9th 2008, 19:05

@ Mrs Inguanez - With all due respect, your argument does not hold water. Whether it is a decision to buy property, build over the cathedral or extend said museum by digging beneath the square, someone eventually has to foot the bill, no??????? So, it all amounts to the same thing: it's either one bill or the other!

With regard to the ownership of St John's, I stand to be corrected but I believe that there is now some kind of understanding between Church and State - mixed ownership or some other term, is used.
If you had to ask my (miserable, in this case) opinion, I would say that indeed, the Cathedral belongs to both Church and State, in that the Knights of St John were a religious order and so, with their leaving the Islands, all property should have gone to the Diocese of Malta. But, Napoleon took over all the Knights' possession and hence, St John's reverted to the State. Once can also claim ownership by the State through the fact that the Knights WERE the State.
In this context, one should therefore say, again in my opinion, that both Church and State are co-owners.

Maria Inguanez

Aug 9th 2008, 18:09

It is quite clear that the Co-Cathedral wants to enlarge its Museum within its own curtilage, by going underground (excuse the pun) or, if that is rejected, building over the annex on Merchants Street.
On the other hand, some are suggesting that the Co-Cathedral should buy somewhere else, a private building, apparently, near the old market.
But who's going to pay for this suggested building?
As someone has said in previous comments, this issue about ownership of St John's has been with us since 1798.
If the Co-Cathedral buys another building to partly house its Museum, even if the Church pays for half, it would still be a statement that St John's is therefore owned half-half.
This won't happen, as the Church has long ago stated it is the proprietor of St John's, even though the government disagrees.
People who shoot these volleys of ideas seem to be very unaware of the real issue about St John's ownership.
The foundation that is now running St John's has avoided the issue, but buying new buildings, as is being suggested, would plunge both Church and government back into this old and seemingly unsolvable quagmire, holding up much-needed developments in the Co-Cathedral Museum.

James A. Tyrrell

Aug 9th 2008, 16:19

James Abdilla, can I just say to you that this has nothing to do with the influx of illegal immigrants and I fail to see why you are trying to connect the two. By the way they don't end up in Malta through no fault of their own as you say, unless they are drugged, put on a ship, have their identity papers destroyed and then transferred to a dingy!

Franco Farrugia, I agree with you 100%. At the end of the day St' John's is a church of God first and a museum second.

Jonathan Farrugia, why do you keep referring to 'unconnected and unrelated inferior buildings?' Any building which is purchased for the purpose of housing the remainder of St' John's Co-Cathedral collection is going to be unconnected and inferior, until such times as it is properly developed for the purpose of holding the collection. By being unconnected it will not damage in any way the fabric of the present building, and by starting with a blank canvas so to speak it can be developed specifically for the purpose.

By the way as a tourist I don't have any problem with the idea of walking!

James Abdilla

Aug 9th 2008, 13:03

@ Franco Farrugia

I suggest that the money the government is going to waste on this proposal be spent instead on proper help, food and housing for our fellow human beings, mostly from Africa, who are ending up on our shores through no fault of their own, mostly running away from political persecution and abject poverty, and who are 'welcomed' here with lots of racist feelings.
That would be hitting two birds with one stone: fulfilling our first duty of solidarity with other human beings and doing away with this proposal.

Franco Farrugia

Aug 9th 2008, 12:30

@ Mr Jonathan Farrugia - I will not bother the readers by repeating over and again why there should be NO construction over the Courtyard of St John's. However, you are very wrong and you are doing a lot of harm by advocating ANY kind of changes from the original plan of the St John's enclave.
I maintain that the Foundation's application for two developments is in itself open to critcisim and I believe that there is a lot to meet the eye, here. There is a concerted effort from a particular spectrum so that the Merchants' Street construction goes ahead. and that will be a very bad day for Valletta and particularly for St John's.

Jonathan Farrugia

Aug 9th 2008, 12:23

My argument is that,
if the Co-Cathedral Museum is scattered in two buildings,
one within the precincts of the Co-Cathedral,
and one in an unconnected and unrelated building beyond the flea-market,
tourists, having limited time in Malta,
will just give the secondary building a miss
as it would be the lesser half.

Furthermore,
no one has said the building being proposed
on the corner of south-St-Lucia/lower-Merchants'-Street
is government or Church property.
It will have to be bought
which is a further expense
to buy an inferior building that no one will visit.

And does it have the halls necessary for this kind of Museum?
I wonder.

The Co-Cathedral's proposal is much better:
enlarge the Museum within the Co-Cathedral's own precincts,
rehabilitate areas that are now unused,
show many more artefacts (that are now hidden),
and exhibit the collection in a much more appropriate and spacious setting
directly connected and related to the Co-Cathedral itself.

The Co-Cathedral's proposal sounds
eminently more reasonable
than half baked ideas of private unconnected and unrelated inferior buildings
that you have to reach by wading through the Monti
and that someone came up with
to feed this obsession some people have
with touching absolutely nothing


.

Saviour Sam Agius

Aug 9th 2008, 11:58

@Jonathan Farrugia: What's so shocking about the flee market? It's one of the numerous attractions of Valletta after all, just like the one in Marsaxlokk.
Besides that, what's actually the problem with walking for a few hundred metres? Don't tourists usually WALK around the city anyway to admire its buildings? It's not like we're talking miles here. After all, those who are really interested in seeing the rest of the collections will be more than happy to walk around the corner. Those who aren't interested will give it a miss. Bad luck for them.

Jonathan Farrugia

Aug 9th 2008, 11:31

Does anyone really believe that tourists will be pleased to
visit the Co-Cathedral,
see part of its collection in the present Museum,
then go out,
walk left on St.John's Street,
walk left again on Merchants' Street,
cross St.Lucia Street,
wade through the Monti hawkers (that would be a shock!),
turn right on Merchants' Street and
see what's left of the collection in a building that has
no connection with the Co-Cathedral?

Does anyone really really believe they would?

By the way,
no one has said the 'palazzo' being proposed is
government or Church property.
So the Co-Cathedral will have to buy it from its present owners.
Which would be more waste of money
to house part of the collection in an inferior
and unconnected place
that no one would visit.

Let's talk reason here
and not obsession with changing nothing.

Enlarging the Co-Cathedral Museum as proposed
will be a boon for the Co-Cathedral's collection
that is now hidden or shown in very limited and inappropriate space.


That's why Din l-Art Helwa declared:
" It is imperative that the collection of St.John’s is
not dispersed in other locations.
The collection is unique and should be kept together. "



.

a.cassar

Aug 9th 2008, 10:33

Now that we have a professional opinion regarding the project envisaged by the foundation let us see their reaction. To date, anyone who spoke against this idea has been labeled a spoil sport and ignoramus. The foundation says it is open to opinions. Now is their chance to see if they are true to their word.