Nagging Notes from Notre Dame

Words and Art by Ram Charan

April 12, 2019. 6:15 am. Paris, France. It’s just another routine shift around one of the world’s most adored church for two unsuspecting security guards.

A recent alarm trip forced the two security workers to look toward the building’s awe-inspiring form in search of fire, danger, or a combination of the two. Luckily, nothing has happened.  28 minutes later, the guards emerge, this time more disconcerted and rightfully so. It is 6:43 am, and the Notre Dame Cathedral is ablaze. Flames the speculated length of three meters have engulfed the center spire, and law enforcement has been notified—so unfolded the burning of Notre-Dame de Paris.

Since the unfortunate blaze, waves of sympathy from around the world have cascaded into France both in words and money. Nearly one billion dollars has been raised to reconstruct damaged parts of the central spire and roof of the burned religious monument. Yet, the ringing questions in everyone’s ears have not been answered.

“Why did the church burn?” “Will it be repaired soon?” “Exactly how old is the church?” “Who built the Church?” “Is there some political agenda hidden involved in repairing Notre-Dame?” All deserve answers. To really understand the significance of the near-millennium-old building to France and the implications of the burning, one should start with the history of the gothic church.

A History of Notre Dame

The construction of the church began after the Bishop of Paris Maurice De Sully proposed that a tribute to the Virgin Mary, in the form of a new church, be built in place of the existing Church of Saint-Étienne. Sully proposed this after his inauguration as Bishop on October 12, 1160, and it was accepted. In 1163, the first stones of the church were placed under the watch of Pope Alexander III and King Louis XIII. Grounds of the church were then consecrated or declared holy in 1189, 26 years after the beginning of construction. This milestone reflects how long the period of construction was for the church.

Building Notre Dame took over 200 years, over which the intricate nature of the church was crafted by various people. Some of the architects involved in designing the church till its first round of completion in 1345 includes Jean de Chelles, Pierre de Montreuil, Pierre de Chelles, Jean Ravy and Jean le Bouteiller.  De Chelles began work on the cathedral in 1240 and helped craft the rose-medallion window, the most famous window of the three rose-tinted windows. His line of work was that of an artisan, but he applied his skills to create the flower-like pattern that encases the medallion window.

He also began work on the South Transept and the North Transept in his five years of work. The now kaleidoscopic windows were finished by de Montreuil. He worked alongside de Chelles by constructing part of the upper choir and nave. The construction of these parts was finished in 1281, after de Montreuil’s death, under the supervision of his nephew.

During this time, the western facade, which is the side of the church where both towers reside, was being constructed during the 1250s possibly under de Montreuil’s supervision. Together, both de Chelles and de Montreuil helped to construct the interior hallways and windows of the church. Construction had taken place prior to their involvement, but they are the two notable gothic architects who were involved early on in the building process.

The church was more simplistic prior to their redesigning of the interior and exterior. The now distinct rib-vaulted ceiling was one of the many other elements incorporated through the work of gothic architects. Following in the footsteps of de Montreuil and de Chelles, Jean Ravy helped to provide the final touches to the church during the 1300s. By this time, the Bell towers and the body and roof of the church without the central spire had been completed. The interior had been fastidiously designed with decorated windows, pillars, and sculptures, but Ravy’s incorporation of outer buttresses and arches helped to deliver the church to its final form in 1345.

After the final touches of gothic design, the church remained untouched until the 16th century, during which vandals destroyed parts of the church. Under the direction of King Louis XIII, architect Robert De Cotte restored damaged parts of the church in a large renovation project and incorporated the now-famous 8,000 pipe church organ. Little occurred over the next 100 years–until the start of the French Revolution.

Once the revolution began in 1789, the cathedral was converted into a storage facility for food and wine. Statues that once stood tall among the pristine decorations of the church were mutilated and severed heads of statues were not discovered until 1977. Luckily, Napoleon Bonaparte, the controversial emperor of France during the early 1800s, helped to save the church by protecting it through his royal authority. He was coronated as emperor in the church in 1804 after various political maneuvers to take power from the French government of the time.

More restoration took place between 1840 to 1875 through the command of French King Louis Phillipe I. The church had become an iconic monument through the publication in 1829 of Victor Hugo’s Hunchback of Notre-Dame, and it was now more of a national symbol. Eugène Viollet-le-Duc and Jean-Baptiste Lassus were appointed as supervising architects; Viollet-le-Duc became the sole supervisor in 1857 after Lassus’s death. During this time Viollet-le-Duc created various architectural diagrams to showcase and emphasize different features of the religious building. He also added the cathedral’s defining 300-foot central spire which collapsed during the recent fire.

Reconsidering Reconstruction

Since then, the church has been maintained by the French government and its most recent restoration project may have resulted in the fire. A large portion of the church had been constructed from older oak trees, and damage to the roof and central spire could take up to 20 years to rebuild. Using medieval methods of construction to maintain a sort of traditional approach to the cathedral’s reconstruction could take up to 40 years. The 856-year-old church has undergone multiple rounds of restoration before, yet this extensive damage is a crushing blow in that the beauty of the Notre-Dame church will not be on display for the world to see for the next few decades.

The church is so distinct for its two ornately carved bell towers, the delicately crafted and domineering central spire, decorated rose-painted windows, and large buttresses that support the sides of the building. Notre Dame is a work of art, admirable for the attention to detail of all architects who worked to build it. The burning of the church is a loss of great artistic proportions, and the once appealing tourist destination is now to be reconstructed.  

A new international competition proposed by French President Emmanuel Macron challenges architects all over the world to provide alternative materials and designs to reconstruct the defining spire of Notre Dame Cathedral. The oak used as support beams on the interior of the church were parts of now depleted primary forests (forests that have remained free from human interaction). Finding alternatives to some of the 1,300-year-old wood used to build Notre Dame will be a part of restoring the magnificently built tribute to the Virgin Mary.

Everything is in the perfect position to work out. The central spire is part of an international restoration project, an initiative that has raised nearly one billion dollars in total funds. In 20 to 40 years, everything will return to pre-6:12 on April 12th. Maybe.

Broader Political Implications

Although the funding to rebuild Notre Dame seems like a relatively unanimous decision, it is incredibly controversial. Yellow-vest protesters have criticized Macron’s obvious ignorance of their movement’s demands. While they have been involved in trying to change the political landscape of France for many months, Macron has refused to fund various yellow-vest initiatives. Yet, he has managed to mobilize nearly one billion dollars in funds to recreate the downed church. Yellow-vests have since noted his hypocrisy, claiming he runs a government in favor of the wealthy class.

Higher taxes for students and lower-income workers in France seem to support their perception that Macron is creating a system of government to benefit the rich. The problem with supporting efforts to rebuild the church is that it is wrapped in a greater controversy of Macron’s actions as the president of France. Rebuilding Notre Dame and Macron’s policies are seemingly different issues, but they are part of the same thing. Macron’s funding for Notre Dame is another move which directly ignores the plight of France’s middle and lower classes.

For those pouring out sympathy to France and commending Macron’s decision to rally funding to rebuild the spire, consider the circumstances of his actions. The broader implication of restoring Notre Dame coincide with supporting a system of taxing, which part of the general American public, concievably, should oppose. Most Democratic candidates in the United State have scathingly criticized the size of the income gap between the rich and the poor, and unequal taxation. This does not mean that supporting efforts to rebuild the Cathedral is wrong, but being aware of its greater implications is important.

Notre Dame will be rebuilt eventually, and its facade will once again emerge against the beautiful landscape of the greater Île de la Cité. The church is a symbol of resilience and hope for France through how it has survived over 856 years of adverse conditions. However, by supporting an administration that opposes the general consensus that all people are equal, are we not imbuing the symbol with the wrong meaning?

[Sources: cbsnews.com, theculturetrip.com, cnn.com, encyclopedia.com, msn.com, telegram.com, nationalgeographic.com, latimes.com, newyorktimes.com, fortune.com, britanica.com ]