Praefectus Praetorio
R.I.P. Brother of the Quill
But they had Christopher Wren!And moreover the original St Paul's in London had to be rebuilt after the Great Fire of 1666.
-
Sign up or login, and you'll have full access to opportunities of forum.
Notre-Dame ...
- Thread starter messaline
- Start date
messaline
Crucified Amazon
Attachments
ShadowWolf
Tribune
It is such a sad thing to lose such an important part of who the French people are. I wish you the best and hope that the people of France can find some parts form Norte Dame to be able to save and restore. I am glad there are people willing to help with rebuilding the cathedral. This rebuild will never restore the original feeling and pride but I hope it can restore some pride and meaning to the people of France.
old slave
FELIS RESPICIENS
We must remember that York Minster had it's south transept roof destroyed by lightning in 1984. It has now been restored, so hope for Notre Dame (though a much bigger problem).
and experts from York Minster have already offered what help they can give:
https://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/17...for-notre-dame-as-york-experts-offer-to-help/
I was in tears watching what was happening last night, but - as many have been saying now -
the entire roof (which was an amazing work itself, and still contained many massive beams
from 800 years ago) has been completely destroyed, which is a terrible tragedy,
but thanks to the astonishing skill of medieval builders, and today's Parisian pompiers,
the fire was largely confined to the roof and spire (itself a 19th century replica, I understand),
the stone structure, and even much of the wonderful stained glass, still seems to be intact,
though of course it will need great care to restore it all to stability and its original beauty.
Palm Sunday Mass - less than 24 hours later, the spire collapsed onto this spot:
Quis est homo qui non fleret?
Flammis ne urar succénsus,
per te, Virgo, sim defénsus ...
the entire roof (which was an amazing work itself, and still contained many massive beams
from 800 years ago) has been completely destroyed, which is a terrible tragedy,
but thanks to the astonishing skill of medieval builders, and today's Parisian pompiers,
the fire was largely confined to the roof and spire (itself a 19th century replica, I understand),
the stone structure, and even much of the wonderful stained glass, still seems to be intact,
though of course it will need great care to restore it all to stability and its original beauty.
Palm Sunday Mass - less than 24 hours later, the spire collapsed onto this spot:
Quis est homo qui non fleret?
Flammis ne urar succénsus,
per te, Virgo, sim defénsus ...
zfx
Magistrate
très beau, merci
very beautiful, thank you
sehr schön, danke
Ich weiß, dass die Orgel fantastisch ist, eine der größten der Welt, die aus dem fünfzehnten Jahrhundert stammt. Sie ist gerettet
I know the organ is fantastic, one of the largest in the world it dates from the fifteenth century, it is saved
very beautiful, thank you
sehr schön, danke
Ich weiß, dass die Orgel fantastisch ist, eine der größten der Welt, die aus dem fünfzehnten Jahrhundert stammt. Sie ist gerettet
I know the organ is fantastic, one of the largest in the world it dates from the fifteenth century, it is saved
malins
Stumbling Seeker
That spire seems to have a history of ups and downs...
Pictures from ca 1450 show Notre Dame with the spire...
in this early photograph (daguerrotype) from 1838 there's no spire... it came down in 1786
this photo from 1861 shows a new version of the spire completed the year before, during the great restoration of Notre Dame...
... now it's gone again...
The Washington Post has already come up with this very interesting article
about the spire and Viollet-le-Duc's ambition in 'reviving' it:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...uild-it/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.a1185449e09f
quote:
not everyone loved Viollet-le-Duc’s architectural philosophy, said Stephen Murray, a medieval art history professor emeritus at Columbia University who has studied the cathedral’s Gothic architecture and the journals of the man who erected the spire. Viollet-le-Duc had a peculiar vision: To him, restoring the cathedral didn’t mean merely making it look like it used to; it meant restoring it to a state that the original architects perhaps dreamed of achieving — but never could. He wanted to fulfill a vision that, in the course of centuries, had never been completed, Murray said. And to some critics, this was presumptuous, even egotistical, Hearn wrote. “He really thought he could almost become the medieval architect of the building,”
about the spire and Viollet-le-Duc's ambition in 'reviving' it:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...uild-it/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.a1185449e09f
quote:
not everyone loved Viollet-le-Duc’s architectural philosophy, said Stephen Murray, a medieval art history professor emeritus at Columbia University who has studied the cathedral’s Gothic architecture and the journals of the man who erected the spire. Viollet-le-Duc had a peculiar vision: To him, restoring the cathedral didn’t mean merely making it look like it used to; it meant restoring it to a state that the original architects perhaps dreamed of achieving — but never could. He wanted to fulfill a vision that, in the course of centuries, had never been completed, Murray said. And to some critics, this was presumptuous, even egotistical, Hearn wrote. “He really thought he could almost become the medieval architect of the building,”
Apparently Viollet-le-Duc is an interestingly controversial figure. I lifted this quote from a paper submitted to the Pennsylvania School of Architectural design:
I'd like to learn more about him ... I know he had something to do with the restoration of Carcassonne.
Eugène-Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc is often painted as a rational figure of the 19th century however a more accurate depiction would be a man of contradictions. He was undoubtedly a great and progressive theoretician, but there is no escaping that his built work was, in the words of some architectural historians and critics, ordinary at most, failing to live up to his own ambitions. He is also a highly emotional figure, he quarrelled with the institutions of his day throughout his entire career, in fact he spent most of his time sitting outside of the Ecole des Beaux Arts, and yet he was more than happy to accept the Gold Medal from the Royal Institute of Britannic Architects in 1864.
According to Wikipedia with regard to controversy surrounding his work on Notre Dame:
Viollet-le-Duc's restorations sometimes involved non-historical additions, either to assure the stability of the building, or sometimes simply to maintain the harmony of the design. The flèche, or spire of Notre-Dame de Paris, which had been constructed in about 1250, was removed in 1786 after it was damaged by the wind. Viollet-le-Duc designed and constructed a new spire, ornamented with statuary, which was taller than the original and modified to resist the weather, but in harmony with the rest of the design. In the 20th century, his flèche was a target for critics.
He was also criticized later for his modifications of the choir of Notre-Dame, which had been rebuilt in the Louis XIV style during the reign of that king. Viollet-le-Duc took out the old choir, including the altar where Napoleon Bonaparte had been crowned Emperor and replaced them with a gothic altar and decoration which he designed. When he modified the choir, he also constructed new bays with small gothic rose windows modeled on those in the church of Chars, in the Oise Valley.[10] Some historians condemned these restorations as non-historical invention. His defenders pointed out that Viollet-le-Duc did not make any decisions on the restoration of Notre-Dame by himself; all of his plans were approved by Prosper Mérimée, the Inspector of Historical Monuments, and by the Commission of historic monuments.[31]
He was criticized for the abundance of gothic gargoyles, chimeras, fleurons, and pinnacles which he added to Notre-Dame Cathedral. These decorations had existed in the Middle Ages but had largely been removed during the reign of Louis XIV. The last original gargoyles had been taken down in 1813. He modeled the new gargoyles and monsters on examples from other cathedrals of the period.[10]
He was later criticized also for the stained glass windows he designed and had made for the chapels around the ground level of the cathedral, which feature intricate gothic designs in grisaille, which allow more light into the church. The contemporary view of the controversy of his restoration is summarized on a descriptive panel near the altar of the cathedral: "The great restoration, carried to fruition by Viollet-le-Duc following the death of Lassus, supplied new radiance to the Cathedral- whatever reservations one might have about the choices that were made. The work of the nineteenth century is now as much a part of the architectural history of Notre-Dame as that undertaken in previous centuries."[32]
The restoration of ramparts of Carcassonne was also criticized in the 20th century. His critics pointed out that the pointed caps of the towers he constructed were more typical of northern France, not the region where Carcassonne was located, near the Spanish border. His critics also claimed that Viollet-le-Duc sought a "condition of completeness" which never actually existed at any given time.[33] The principal counter-argument made by Viollet-le-Duc's defenders was that, without his prompt restorations, many of the buildings that he restored would have been lost, and that he did the best that he could with the knowledge that was then available.
Viollet-le-Duc's restorations sometimes involved non-historical additions, either to assure the stability of the building, or sometimes simply to maintain the harmony of the design. The flèche, or spire of Notre-Dame de Paris, which had been constructed in about 1250, was removed in 1786 after it was damaged by the wind. Viollet-le-Duc designed and constructed a new spire, ornamented with statuary, which was taller than the original and modified to resist the weather, but in harmony with the rest of the design. In the 20th century, his flèche was a target for critics.
He was also criticized later for his modifications of the choir of Notre-Dame, which had been rebuilt in the Louis XIV style during the reign of that king. Viollet-le-Duc took out the old choir, including the altar where Napoleon Bonaparte had been crowned Emperor and replaced them with a gothic altar and decoration which he designed. When he modified the choir, he also constructed new bays with small gothic rose windows modeled on those in the church of Chars, in the Oise Valley.[10] Some historians condemned these restorations as non-historical invention. His defenders pointed out that Viollet-le-Duc did not make any decisions on the restoration of Notre-Dame by himself; all of his plans were approved by Prosper Mérimée, the Inspector of Historical Monuments, and by the Commission of historic monuments.[31]
He was criticized for the abundance of gothic gargoyles, chimeras, fleurons, and pinnacles which he added to Notre-Dame Cathedral. These decorations had existed in the Middle Ages but had largely been removed during the reign of Louis XIV. The last original gargoyles had been taken down in 1813. He modeled the new gargoyles and monsters on examples from other cathedrals of the period.[10]
He was later criticized also for the stained glass windows he designed and had made for the chapels around the ground level of the cathedral, which feature intricate gothic designs in grisaille, which allow more light into the church. The contemporary view of the controversy of his restoration is summarized on a descriptive panel near the altar of the cathedral: "The great restoration, carried to fruition by Viollet-le-Duc following the death of Lassus, supplied new radiance to the Cathedral- whatever reservations one might have about the choices that were made. The work of the nineteenth century is now as much a part of the architectural history of Notre-Dame as that undertaken in previous centuries."[32]
The restoration of ramparts of Carcassonne was also criticized in the 20th century. His critics pointed out that the pointed caps of the towers he constructed were more typical of northern France, not the region where Carcassonne was located, near the Spanish border. His critics also claimed that Viollet-le-Duc sought a "condition of completeness" which never actually existed at any given time.[33] The principal counter-argument made by Viollet-le-Duc's defenders was that, without his prompt restorations, many of the buildings that he restored would have been lost, and that he did the best that he could with the knowledge that was then available.
messaline
Crucified Amazon
From the last news, the stoned structure is yet supervised : it's not sure that it is stabilized ; in fact, it will depend of the solidity of the vault and if the vault breaks , all the edifice could be destroyed ; all that is a perfect equilibrium betwen the forces of the vault which are pushing the walls to the outside and the forces of the "flying buttresses" which are resisting to these forces ...
We only can hope that all that could stay firm ...
Last edited:
malins
Stumbling Seeker
That's how it goes, ...
once a 'novelty' or invention gets accepted and embraced for long enough ... in his case some of them might be imaginative re-inventions ... it becomes part of history, which is accretive. If it has any depth it's always a thing of many layers.
This is sometimes a relatively quick process ... there were naysayers against the reconstruction of the Frauenkirche in Dresden but by now, not even 15 years after finishing it, they've gone mostly silent.
messaline
Crucified Amazon
Concerning Viollet-le-Duc , I think that he was a great architech but innovateur and as always, some "esprits chagrins" (if Eul can translate this expression ?) are against all novelties : though, as you said Barb , Notre-Dame knew some evolutions during the centuries and it's not necessary bad ...
For example, if the roof will be re-built (and it will ) it could be in iron rather than wood : I dont think that it could be detrimental to the edifice , knowing that the visitors never will see it ... and against the fire, it could be more effiscient ...
For example, if the roof will be re-built (and it will ) it could be in iron rather than wood : I dont think that it could be detrimental to the edifice , knowing that the visitors never will see it ... and against the fire, it could be more effiscient ...
Frank Petrexa
Tribune
It sounds like the original builders did what they could to suppress fires with a lead roof. But, it's not enough, apparently, but it did mitigate the damage.
From today's New York TImes:
“These cathedrals and houses of worship are built to burn. If they weren’t houses of worship, they’d be condemned,”
said Vincent Dunn, a fire consultant and former New York City fire chief.
The timbers could be replaced, the wood treated, and maybe the "forest" in the "attic" could be "compartmentalized" with fire walls among the timbers and a sprinkler system added.
It sounds like there was an alarm system, but the fire was in an obscure place and wasn't found until the second alarm.
Things could have been a lot worse.
There are remarkable "cliff dwellings" in the American southwest, built into the mountainsides with clay and timbers by the Anasazi people, and apparently abandoned as drought took over around the time Notre Dame was begun. You used to be able to tour them, but now access is restricted, and some modern reinforcement has been added to prevent collapse. Neither the past nor the present can afford to ignore nature, as much as we'd prefer to. Preserve what you can, but also pay attention to reality.
Bon chance. Poudrai etre pire. (Yes, my French is atrocious--I don't practice much.)