As an historian, watching the gutting of the Cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris is wrenching. In my life, and in my studies, I’ve come to realize that nothing material is permanent, but watching entropy take its toll is awful.
It appears that most of the external structure is still intact, and at least some of the rose windows as well. What was there can be rebuilt, though as one scholar noted, the “layers of history” — the things that were tweaked, covered over, redone, repainted, revised over the centuries, that “revision trail” has been lost. One can theoretically replace the appearance of everything that was there (in such a highly photographed and studied structure), but it will always be a replacement.
From a Christian perspective, it’s both tragic as a loss, but also darkly ironic as Lent is wrapping up — Remember, man, that dust thou art, and to dust thou shall return. Again, nothing material is permanent, and relying on such permanence is vanity and delusion.
My thoughts go out to the people of France, and Paris, and my appreciation to the fire fighters who struggled in the face of danger to protect what they could.
Do you want to know more?
- Notre Dame fire: Macron promises to rebuild, but Paris monument suffers ‘colossal damage’ – The Washington Post
- Photos and video of the Notre Dame Cathedral fire in Paris – The Washington Post
Question, do you think it should be restored to it’s original (pre-fire damage) design/structure or changed?
@Michael – That’s a tough one. It’s important to remember that, historically, the building has changed over time. As just one example, the “trademark” spire that burned was added on in the 19th Century, along with a number of the gargoyles, during a bout of newfound fondness for the cathedral, after post-Revolution neglect. It’s undergone a number of renovations over the centuries, all of them objected to as newfangled until a new generation owned them.
If I were put in charge of the project, I wouldn’t slavishly restore everything as-was, but any changes I made would likely be incremental. It would not be to make something different for the sake of difference, but acknowledge that it is something new.