A Note on Notre Dame

Artist's conception on what buttresses
would have looked like early on.

On 15 April, 2019, a fire ravaged Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris. There was no question that re-building was necessary. The important question, however, was how it should be re-built? Should they use recent 3D scans of the structure to restore it to the same look as just before the fire? Or should it be altered to reflect current culture? After all, all buildings are a reflection of their times. Even without the benefit of a class in architecture, we can tell if a building is "old" as in outdated or "old" as in historic or antique.

So how should Notre Dame be rebuilt? Re-designed for a new age? Or restored to an earlier version; if so, which version? Because it hasn't always looked the way it did on 14 April, 2019.

Before it was Notre Dame, the site (rather, right next to it) in the 7th century held an Early Christian basilica dedicated to St. Stephen. There is evidence that a church had existed there since the 4th century, but we are not certain if St. Stephen's was that church, or if it replaced the earlier building. It was 230 feet long—large for that time. This building was renovated in 857 and became a cathedral; that is, the residence of a bishop. After that, a Romanesque-style renovation and enlargement took place; even that was soon deemed too small, given the speed with which Paris was growing.

In 1160, therefore, Bishop Maurice de Sully decided to demolish the Romanesque structure, recycling the stone for his plan of a cathedral in the Gothic style. This new style had already been put into service in St.-Denis, and de Sully was keen on it. The cornerstone was laid 25 April, 1163, but the cathedral was not completed until many decades later, after several phases.

Even so, the new cathedral's transepts were already being remodeled in the mid-1200s, and separately in 1240 the north transept received a gabled portal with a rose window. The flying buttresses were not part of the original plan, being added in the 1200s. They were replaced with larger ones a hundred years later.

1699 saw the decision by King Louis XIV to make extensive modifications. The French Revolution claimed Notre Dame for the public, and removed much of its artwork. In 1801 Napoleon returned it to the Catholic Church, which then began restoration. By 1831, it was in such need of repair that Victor Hugo wrote a novel, now called The Hunchback of Notre Dame, to raise interest and funds for the restoration.

The building has always been changing, and will again. What it looks like after the next round of restoration will be eagerly awaited (and no doubt criticized).

Even before the basilica to St. Stephen, however, there was a pagan temple on the site. There is no record of this; its existence has been extrapolated from a single sculptural find connected with Notre Dame. I'll tell you about it tomorrow.

The King of All Birds

The wren, O the wren, is the King of All Birds.
On St. Stephen's Day he got caught in the furze.

So goes a medieval carol. But why would the diminutive—though disproportionately loud—wren be the king of all birds? The Christians of the Middle Ages had a story for that.

God, wanting to know which bird was the king, challenged them all to a contest. Whichever could fly the highest and farthest would be declared king. They all set off, flying until they dropped from weariness. When the eagle was left, and started to fail, the tiny wren popped out from where it was hiding under the eagle's wing, and won the competition.

Cute, but it looks a little contrived after the fact. Why would the wren be considered king, and therefore need a fable to justify it? And why is it important that it got caught in the furze (gorse) on 26 December? A traditional St. Stephen's Day pursuit is to hunt the wren, kill it, and bury it. The is sometimes still done in England, although these days it is pantomimed with an artificial bird.

The Norse story is that the wren betrayed St. Stephen, leading to his martyrdom; hence the hunting and killing of the wren on his feast day.

There's an older Celtic connection of the wren with the past year; in the Netherlands its name means "winter king" because the European wren sings through mid-winter. The hunting and killing, then, is probably symbolic of getting rid of the old year to make way for the new. Its "kingship" in European/Celtic tradition likely stems from this tendency to keep singing its surprisingly loud song when most other birds have disappeared to warmer climes.

Gisela of Hungary

Window at Cathedral of St. Michael
in Veszprém, Hungary, where Gisela is buried

Gisela (985 - 1065) was mentioned as the wife of King (later Saint) Stephen I, founder of Hungary. She was an important person in the christianization of Hungary and, as the daughter of Duke Henry II  of Bavaria, she was a link to Western Europe, becoming a part of which was one of Stephen's political goals.

She also had an interesting connection to England. When Edmund Ironside was defeated by King Cnut, his sons were sent abroad for safety and wound up in Hungary under the protection of Gisela. One of the sons died young, but the other, Edward Ætheling, was considered a rightful heir to the throne of England. (Known in England as Edward the Exile, he was recalled to England by the childless Edward the Confessor, who hoped to have in him a clear successor; within days of his arrival in 1057, he was dead, possibly killed by the powerful Godwins, who wanted their Harold to take the throne.)

When Stephen died in 1038, Gisela was forced to leave Hungary in the civil strife that followed. She became the abbess of a convent in Passau, in southern Bavaria in Germany. She lived there until her death in 1065.

She was buried in St. Michael's in Veszprém, Hungary, and venerated as a saint. An attempt at canonization failed in the 1700s, but she was labeled Beatus, Blessed Gisela. 

Two Dates for Hungary

St. Stephen I, King of Hungary

Today's date is important in the history of medieval Hungary for two separate events decades apart.

First, it is the anniversary of the founding of Hungary as a kingdom in 1000 CE.

Originally it was just a principality in the Carpathian Basin of Central Europe, established just prior to 900 CE. The Hungarians were semi-nomadic, pushing westward in their search for more territory. The westward push was halted by Holy Roman Emperor Otto I at the Battle of Lechfeld* on 10 August 955. This convinced the Hungarians to settle down where they were.

There was internal strife in Hungary, however. When the ruling probe of Hungary, Géza, died, his brother Prince Koppány claimed the right to rule.  This claim was challenged by Géza's son, Vajk, who had been baptized a Christian and taken the name István (Stephen). Stephen wanted to turn Hungary into a European Christian kingdom. Koppány wanted to adhere to the traditional tribal ways. Forces loyal to each clashed in 998 where Stephen, whose Christian connection brought him the support of Bavaria, prevailed. Koppány was cut into 4 pieces and the parts sent throughout the kingdom as a sign of how troublemakers could expect to end up.

On Christmas Day 1000, Stephen I was crowned King of Hungary with a crown sent to him by Pope Sylvester II, establishing Hungary as a kingdom and country in its own right. Stephen turned out to be a great friend to the Roman Catholic Church, which leads us to the second reason this date is important for Hungary.

In 1083, Stephen I of Hungary was canonized as St. Stephen. He established the presence of the church in Hungary very throughly, with six bishoprics and three monasteries and penalties for not following Christianity. Hungary became a safe route for pilgrims traveling from Western Europe to the Holy Land.

Sadly, no children by him and his queen, Gisela of Bavaria (also known as Gisela of Hungary), survived, and upon his death there was civil war. His reign was a time of peace and a golden age for the spread of Christianity in Central Europe. His feast day, 20 August, is also a holiday in Hungary celebrating the founding of the country.


*Curiously, this was the second Battle pif Lechfeld; in the first, fought in 910, Hungarians defeated a Frankish army, but failed to establish dominance in the region.