And if we ascend the cathedral， without mentioning a thousand barbarisms of every sort，--what has become of that charming little bell tower， which rested upon the point of intersection of the cross-roofs， and which， no less frail and no less bold than its neighbor (also destroyed)， the spire of the Sainte-Chapelle， buried itself in the sky， farther forward than the towers， slender， pointed， sonorous， carved in open work.
An architect of good taste amputated it (1787)， and considered it sufficient to mask the wound with that large， leaden plaster， which resembles a pot cover.
'Tis thus that the marvellous art of the Middle Ages has been treated in nearly every country， especially in France.
One can distinguish on its ruins three sorts of lesions， all three of which cut into it at different depths； first， time， which has insensibly notched its surface here and there， and gnawed it everywhere； next， political and religious revolution， which， blind and wrathful by nature， have flung themselves tumultuously upon it， torn its rich garment of carving and sculpture， burst its rose windows， broken its necklace of arabesques and tiny figures， torn out its statues， sometimes because of their mitres， sometimes because of their crowns；lastly， fashions， even more grotesque and foolish， which， since the anarchical and splendid deviations of the Renaissance， have followed each other in the necessary decadence of architecture. Fashions have wrought more harm than revolutions.
They have cut to the quick； they have attacked the very bone and framework of art； they have cut， slashed， disorganized， killed the edifice， in form as in the symbol， in its consistency as well as in its beauty. And then they have made it over； a presumption of which neither time nor revolutions at least have been guilty. They have audaciously adjusted， in the name of "good taste，" upon the wounds of gothic architecture， their miserable gewgaws of a day， their ribbons of marble， their pompons of metal， a veritable leprosy of egg-shaped ornaments， volutes， whorls， draperies， garlands， fringes， stone flames， bronze clouds， pudgy cupids， chubby-cheeked cherubim， which begin to devour the face of art in the oratory of Catherine de Medicis， and cause it to expire， two centuries later， tortured and grimacing， in the boudoir of the Dubarry.
Thus， to sum up the points which we have just indicated， three sorts of ravages to-day disfigure Gothic architecture.
Wrinkles and warts on the epidermis； this is the work of time. Deeds of violence， brutalities， contusions， fractures；this is the work of the revolutions from Luther to Mirabeau.
Mutilations， amputations， dislocation of the joints， "restorations"； this is the Greek， Roman， and barbarian work of professors according to Vitruvius and Vignole. This magnificent art produced by the Vandals has been slain by the academies. The centuries， the revolutions， which at least devastate with impartiality and grandeur， have been joined by a cloud of school architects， licensed， sworn， and bound by oath；defacing with the discernment and choice of bad taste， substituting the ~chicorées~ of Louis XV. for the Gothic lace， for the greater glory of the Parthenon. It is the kick of the ass at the dying lion. It is the old oak crowning itself， and which， to heap the measure full， is stung， bitten， and gnawed by caterpillars.
How far it is from the epoch when Robert Cenalis， comparing Notre-Dame de Paris to the famous temple of Diana at Ephesus， *so much lauded by the ancient pagans*， which Erostatus *has* immortalized， found the Gallic temple "more excellent in length， breadth， height， and structure."** _Histoire Gallicane_， liv. II. Periode III. fo. 130， p. 1.
Notre-Dame is not， moreover， what can be called a complete， definite， classified monument. It is no longer a Romanesque church； nor is it a Gothic church. This edifice is not a type. Notre-Dame de Paris has not， like the Abbey of Tournus， the grave and massive frame， the large and round vault， the glacial bareness， the majestic simplicity of the edifices which have the rounded arch for their progenitor. It is not， like the Cathedral of Bourges， the magnificent， light， multiform， tufted， bristling efflorescent product of the pointed arch. Impossible to class it in that ancient family of sombre， mysterious churches， low and crushed as it were by the round arch， almost Egyptian， with the exception of the ceiling； all hieroglyphics， all sacerdotal， all symbolical， more loaded in their ornaments， with lozenges and zigzags， than with flowers， with flowers than with animals， with animals than with men；the work of the architect less than of the bishop； first transformation of art， all impressed with theocratic and military discipline， taking root in the Lower Empire， and stopping with the time of William the Conqueror. Impossible to place our Cathedral in that other family of lofty， aerial churches， rich in painted windows and sculpture； pointed in form， bold in attitude； communal and bourgeois as political symbols； free， capricious， lawless， as a work of art； second transformation of architecture， no longer hieroglyphic， immovable and sacerdotal， but artistic， progressive， and popular， which begins at the return from the crusades， and ends with Louis IX. Notre-Dame de Paris is not of pure Romanesque， like the first； nor of pure Arabian race， like the second.
