This additional note was added to the end of the first English printing of Victor Hugo’s Notre Dame de Paris. Notre Dame de Paris was first published in 1831 in French. In 1933 the first English translation was published. There had been three missing chapters in the first edition, literally misplaced. Victor Hugo explains that as he set out to rewrite the missing chapters for subsequent editions, they were found. Ahead of the first English edition the mob, the trolls and the 19th-Century complainers cried foul that including “new” chapters was a tactic to get people to buy another copy. Hugo explains that the three chapters were written as part and at the same time as the original story, two on architecture and one on plot, that this was his art and anyone who thought they should have a say should simply Fuck Off.

NOTE

      ADDED TO THE DEFINITIVE EDITION.

It is by mistake that this edition was announced as augmented by many new chapters. The word should have been unpublished. In fact, if by new, “newly made” is to be understood, the chapters added to this edition are not new. They were written at the same time as the rest of the work; they date from the same epoch, and sprang from the same thought, they have always formed a part of the manuscript of “Notre-Dame-de-Paris.” Moreover, the author cannot comprehend how fresh developments could be added to a work of this character after its completion. This is not to be done at will. According to his idea, a romance is born in a manner that is, in some sort, necessary, with all its chapters; a drama is born with all its scenes. Think not that there is anything arbitrary in the numbers of parts of which that whole, that mysterious microcosm which you call a drama or a romance, is composed. Grafting and soldering take badly on works of this nature, which should gush forth in a single stream and so remain. The thing once done, do not change your mind, do not touch it up. The book once published, the sex of the work, whether virile or not, has been recognized and proclaimed; when the child has once uttered his first cry he is born, there he is, he is made so, neither father nor mother can do anything, he belongs to the air and to the sun, let him live or die, such as he is. Has your book been a failure? So much the worse. Add no chapters to an unsuccessful book. Is it incomplete? You should have completed it when you conceived it. Is your tree crooked? You cannot straighten it up. Is your romance consumptive? Is your romance not capable of living? You cannot supply it with the breath which it lacks. Has your drama been born lame? Take my advice, and do not provide it with a wooden leg.

Hence the author attaches particular importance to the public knowing for a certainty that the chapters here added have not been made expressly for this reprint. They were not published in the preceding editions of the book for a very simple reason. At the time when “Notre-Dame-de-Paris” was printed the first time, the manuscript of these three chapters had been mislaid. It was necessary to rewrite them or to dispense with them. The author considered that the only two of these chapters which were in the least important, owing to their extent, were chapters on art and history which in no way interfered with the groundwork of the drama and the romance, that the public would not notice their loss, and that he, the author, would alone be in possession of the secret. He decided to omit them, and then, if the whole truth must be confessed, his indolence shrunk from the task of rewriting the three lost chapters. He would have found it a shorter matter to make a new romance.

Now the chapters have been found, and he avails himself of the first opportunity to restore them to their place.

This now, is his entire work, such as he dreamed it, such as he made it, good or bad, durable or fragile, but such as he wishes it.

These recovered chapters will possess no doubt, but little value in the eyes of persons, otherwise very judicious, who have sought in “Notre-Dame-de-Paris” only the drama, the romance. But there are perchance, other readers, who have not found it useless to study the æsthetic and philosophic thought concealed in this book, and who have taken pleasure, while reading “Notre-Dame-de-Paris,” in unravelling beneath the romance something else than the romance, and in following (may we be pardoned these rather ambitious expressions), the system of the historian and the aim of the artist through the creation of the poet.

For such people especially, the chapters added to this edition will complete “Notre-Dame-de-Paris,” if we admit that “Notre-Dame-de-Paris” was worth the trouble of completing.

In one of these chapters on the present decadence of architecture, and on the death (in his mind almost inevitable) of that king of arts, the author expresses and develops an opinion unfortunately well rooted in him, and well thought out. But he feels it necessary to say here that he earnestly desires that the future may, some day, put him in the wrong. He knows that art in all its forms has everything to hope from the new generations whose genius, still in the germ, can be heard gushing forth in our studios. The grain is in the furrow, the harvest will certainly be fine. He merely fears, and the reason may be seen in the second volume of this edition, that the sap may have been withdrawn from that ancient soil of architecture which has been for so many centuries the best field for art.

Nevertheless, there are to-day in the artistic youth so much life, power, and, so to speak, predestination, that in our schools of architecture in particular, at the present time, the professors, who are detestable, produce, not only unconsciously but even in spite of themselves, excellent pupils; quite the reverse of that potter mentioned by Horace, who dreamed amphoræ and produced pots. “Currit rota, urcens exit”.

But, in any case, whatever may be the future of architecture, in whatever manner our young architects may one day solve the question of their art, let us, while waiting for new monument, preserve the ancient monuments. Let us, if possible, inspire the nation with a love for national architecture. That, the author declares, is one of the principal aims of this book; it is one of the principal aims of his life.

“Notre-Dame-de-Paris” has, perhaps opened some true perspectives on the art of the Middle Ages, on that marvellous art which up to the present time has been unknown to some, and, what is worse, misknown by others. But the author is far from regarding as accomplished, the task which he has voluntarily imposed on himself. He has already pleaded on more than one occasion, the cause of our ancient architecture, he has already loudly denounced many profanations, many demolitions, many impieties. He will not grow weary. He has promised himself to recur frequently to this subject. He will return to it. He will be as indefatigable in defending our historical edifices as our iconoclasts of the schools and academies are eager in attacking them; for it is a grievous thing to see into what hands the architecture of the Middle Ages has fallen, and in what a manner the botchers of plaster of the present day treat the ruin of this grand art, it is even a shame for us intelligent men who see them at work and content ourselves with hooting them. And we are not speaking here merely of what goes on in the provinces, but of what is done in Paris at our very doors, beneath our windows, in the great city, in the lettered city, in the city of the press, of word, of thought. We cannot resist the impulse to point out, in concluding this note, some of the acts of vandalism which are every day planned, debated, begun, continued, and successfully completed under the eyes of the artistic public of Paris, face to face with criticism, which is disconcerted by so much audacity. An archbishop’s palace has just been demolished, an edifice in poor taste, no great harm is done; but in a block with the archiepiscopal palace a bishop’s palace has been demolished, a rare fragment of the fourteenth century, which the demolishing architect could not distinguish from the rest. He has torn up the wheat with the tares; ’tis all the same. They are talking of razing the admirable chapel of Vincennes, in order to make, with its stones, some fortification, which Daumesnil did not need, however. While the Palais Bourbon, that wretched edifice, is being repaired at great expense, gusts of wind and equinoctial storms are allowed to destroy the magnificent painted windows of the Sainte-Chapelle. For the last few days there has been a scaffolding on the tower of Saint Jacques de la Boucherie; and one of these mornings the pick will be laid to it. A mason has been found to build a little white house between the venerable towers of the Palais de-Justice. Another has been found willing to prune away Saint-Germain-des-Prés, the feudal abbey with three bell towers. Another will be found, no doubt, capable of pulling down Saint-Germain l’Auxerrois. All these masons claim to be architects, are paid by the prefecture or from the petty budget, and wear green coats. All the harm which false taste can inflict on good taste, they accomplish. While we write, deplorable spectacle! one of them holds possession of the Tuileries, one of them is giving Philibert Delorme a scar across the middle of his face; and it is not, assuredly, one of the least of the scandals of our time to see with what effrontery the heavy architecture of this gentleman is being flattened over one of the most delicate façades of the Renaissance!

      Victor Hugo PARIS, October 20, 1832.

March 9, 2025

[JEAN CHRÉTIEN:] Prime Minister Trudeau, President of the party, Ministers, deputy Ministers and MPs. 

Good evening.

This is an exceptional opportunity for me to be here this evening. This is my ninth Liberal convention that I’ve participated in. And it’s the seventh time that I’ve spoken at the podium. I would have never thought that I could do it at ninety-one. I’m still ready to fight.  I have fight in me yet.

It’s great to see so many young people in the room today. It reminds me of my first Liberal convention when I was the president of the young Liberals at Laval University. In 1958, when Lester Pearson was elected Liberal leader. In 1958, not many of you were born, and he then became a very good prime minister.

I have kept coming to Liberal convention for sixty-eight years. I have kept coming back to Liberal convention because of what the Liberal Party stands for. I have kept coming back because of what the Liberal Party has delivered to make the lives of Canadians better. And I am here today because it is the Liberal Party that can best deliver better lives for Canadians in the days, weeks, months, and years ahead.

It is the Liberal Party that has given Canadians the Canadian Pension Plan and Medicare, the Charter of Rights and Freedom, the two official languages that put the indigenous rights into the Canadian constitution, brought in tough gun control laws, affirmative action. We have always supported women’s right to choose. We are the party who led the way to permit the second party in the country in the world to permit same-sex marriage.

The party is the party of diversity, equality, tolerance, openness, and inclusiveness.

We Liberals call it the very essence of Canada, and it is the Liberal Party that gave us the Red Maple Leaf flag sixty years ago, which flew so proudly in homes across the country on the fourteenth of February to demonstrate our patriotism and love for Canada.

I want to say a special thank you to former prime ministers, Joe Clark, Harper, Martin, Campbell, for coming together with me to rally Canadians across the land to show the Canadian flag with pride, with a lot of pride.

But tonight, I want to pay tribute to Justin Trudeau. I want to pay tribute to him for taking the Liberal Party from third place to government and to three successive election victories. I want to pay tribute to what he and his team have accomplished: Canadian Child Benefit that reduced the poverty for the children in Canada, the ten dollars childcare that opened the labour market to so many women, the dental plan for low-income Canadians, for all the work he’s done on the environment. Ladies and gentlemen, these are Liberal policies.

And let’s talk about the economic reality of the moment now because Canada has done well. This I’m telling you, as I’ve said so many times, Canada is not broken.

Despite the attacks by the critics, Canada has the lowest deficit per capita in the G7, more than five times lower than in the United States. We have the lowest debt per capita in the G7. And in fact, the payment on the interest of the debt today is only eleven percent for each dollar of tax we pay. And compared to what we got when we formed the government in 1993, we were obliged to pay thirty-five cents in every tax dollar. That was a little problem the Tories left to me.

And we balanced the books. We took that mess from the Tories, and we balanced the books. And we had ten years of surplus. And the Tories came back to power, and we went back in debt. Now inflation is 1.9 percent in Canada. It’s 3.2% and increasing south of the border. You know? I spent my life talking about job creation. Now the problem, we’re looking for manpower. It’s a difficult problem, but it’s better than the reverse.

I want to pay tribute to the government, to Mr. Trudeau, and to all the provincial governments for the fact that they have been with the municipalities, put together the best program on the pandemic that we faced, better than any other country in the world. Our death rate was less than half of the United States.

Today, as a party, we’re choosing a new leader. A leader who will assume the mantle of Laurier and St. Laurent and Pearson, Trudeau’s father, Trudeau, the son, who has with him a very beautiful daughter. You know, I’m old enough to say that. And myself. And I want to say, that is very important, I want to take this moment to say how impressed I am by the quality of the candidates whose names are on the ballot tonight. It makes me very, very proud to be a Liberal.

(The Orange Elephant in the Room…)

Let’s talk about the elephant in the room. Long and fruitful friendship with Americans built over decades, which is falling apart before our eyes and is becoming something which is difficult to name. Mutual respect, trust, reciprocal cooperation, friendship, which have long characterized our relationship are now giving way to wariness and more and more open hostility from the Trump administration towards our country.

This is something we’ve never seen, but this is something that Canadians don’t understand, and I think the majority of Americans don’t understand it either without mentioning the rest of the planet. Why? Historians, journalists, and university researchers and experts at international politics are trying to make sense of something that doesn’t make sense.

Well, in Canada, our elbows are up. We’re working together to unite to deal with this threat—the threat to our economy, our sovereignty. In other words, our very existence as a country. At the beginning of the week, tariffs became a reality. And there will only be losers if you measure it in financial terms alone. But for Canadians, it’s more than that. It’s more than money that’s at stake here. We love our country and our independence. We love who we are because we’re unique in the world.

And I want to pay tribute to the Trudeau government and all the premiers for the way they have led Canada in the last few weeks in confronting the menace imposed on us with tariffs, completely unjustified. Governments are absolutely right in retaliating as they are, and I congratulate all of them.

If it is necessary, the governments altogether can consider going further—anything the Americans wear. Really hurts by imposing an export tax on oil, gas, potash, steel, aluminum, and electricity. And we’ll use that money to build infrastructure that is needed in Canada. For example, to build a pipeline for natural gas from Alberta to Quebec. Alberta, the family of my mother, and Quebec of my father. So, you know, I think that if we do that, that will keep the steelworkers working in Canada for a long time.

And I could go on and on, but I’m limited in time. So the world has lived for eighty years with a rule-based order that has brought us peace and prosperity. It has enabled the United States to be the strongest, the most powerful country in the world. It has allowed all of us to sleep well every night. And now Donald Trump has decided to throw it all out the window.

We are going to be living very difficult times, but I’m confident, I’m very confident that the next prime minister will work with the premiers, the leaders of all the political parties in the House of Commons, and allies around the world to stand together to meet the challenges that Mr. Trump is creating for the whole world.

And perhaps speaking of the president, it is time for a little history lesson for him. Probably does not realize that in 1776, Benjamin Franklin spent a year in Montreal trying to convince the people to join the American Revolution. And he was told by the Francophone, “no merci.” And they were right. Look what happened to the French language in Louisiana. The loyalists left the USA to come back to Upper Canada and the Atlantic, and the Francophone of Lower Canada, together, they built our independent country.

During the war of 1812, Americans who came to what is now Canada on a mission of conquest. They were defeated by Colonel de Salaberry in what is now Quebec and by leaders like the great indigenous chief Tecumseh, in what is now Ontario. And I don’t know. Apparently, some burned the White House at that time. But I’m too old to do it. No. It’s a joke.

But ladies and gentlemen, we have been friends and good neighbours with our southern neighbours. But we must stand up for ourselves. Historically, despite our friendship, we have had problems, but we always found a way to solve them.

We have worked with and collaborated with the United States in the past, and I’m telling you, we will do so in the future. We are good neighbours and friends, but we are a proud and independent country. But sometimes one must stand up for Canada. We must always be vigilant, and I did so as minister and as prime minister.

Way back in 1968, when the Americans sent a ship, the Manhattan, with no Canadian flag through our northern passage, they wanted to prove that the passage was international water. As Minister of Northern Affairs, I flew to Pond Inlet at the northern extremity of Baffin Island to confront them. I was under Louis St. Laurent icebreaker. I called the captain. I said I will be there in an hour, and it’s better to have the Canadian flag at the mast. When I arrived, there was a Canadian flag at the mast. And I had a big smile.

You know, we had other problems of the same nature. You remember Newfoundland, the so-called fish war, when we arrested the estate, yes. When my friend Tobin made a great show at the UN with the illegal nets. Yes. And we were successful. They changed the international laws after that because there was a problem that needed to be fixed. And I’m quite proud of it, and it was quite a time.

I was traveling in the west. I came back. It was early week. So it was a Thursday early week. So my wife said, we’ll have a good rest for the weekend. And I said, perhaps not because I’m declaring war to Spain. She did not sleep.

But, you know, we had another problem on the West Coast. You know, we have Vancouver Island, the mainland, and Canadian waters. And the fishermen from Oregon and Washington State were going to Alaska, but they were not respecting our water. So we threatened them to block the passage on Canadian water and forced them to go in the high seas. It was a very difficult problem. The senator Velasquez said it was almost a question of war.

So I discussed that, and I talked with my friend Bill Clinton, and he said that south of Canada, there’s not much I can do. I said if you cannot do something, I will do something. And they were forced to respect our laws. Some were taken to courts. And after that, the problem was solved because we stood for us strongly.

But for eight years, I was a colleague of Bill Clinton, and he would always say that Canada was his best ally. And that I was a very good friend, and we still are very good friends. But we worked together, and we found solution together. And this is what will happen in the future too. We’ve always been good neighbours with anybody.

So I was proud too when I was prime minister, and I had to say no to the participation in the American invasion of Iraq. That decision told the United States and the world that Canada is a proud independent country. Of course, the business community was very nervous. They were afraid of retaliation. So I told them, okay. Give me the list of all the goods and all the services that the Americans are buying from us because they like us. I’ve not received the list yet.

So we will work in collaboration with them, but they have to understand, and everybody understands that we are a very proud country. And for me, I can tell you that sometimes I can say this from one old guy to another old guy: “Stop this nonsense. Canada will never join the United States.“

I can tell you that my parents were not millionaires from New York. They were workers from Shawinigan. But my mother taught us good manners. She would have been ashamed of me if I had treated anyone the way that the president treated my prime minister and the president of Ukraine in the last few weeks.

The reason we don’t want to become American is because of our values as Canadians. We are proud Canadians, and, yes, we owe in fact, we owe a debt of recognition to Mr. Trump. He has united us as never before. So I want to say thank you to him, and I think I will propose him for the Order of Canada. I’m just kidding.

Prime Minister, I would travel across the world. I went to the UN, to the G7, to NATO, to the Commonwealth, to the Francophonie, and to all sorts of international meetings on the five continents. When I came back to Canada, each time I would say that the job of being prime minister is perhaps the easiest of any country in the world. Canada is the country that works the best, I think, much better than any other country in the world. And it’s why there are millions and millions of human beings from all over the world who would like to come and become Canadian citizens.

There was a survey not long ago. They were asking the people, where would you want to go if you had to start again your life? And Canada was number one. Why? It’s because Canada is the land of freedom.

Canada is the land of opportunity, the land of generosity, the land of tolerance, the land of stability, the land of rule of laws. It is our land that is the envy of the world.

Canada will continue to rise through North Strong and Free. Nobody will starve us into submission because Canada is and will remain the best country in the world.

To the Most Horrible Person I have ever met.