Talk:Aachen Cathedral

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Black Death?[edit]

Curious about the Aachen Cathedral's role during The Black Death pandemic, if any documentation can be found. Ccallihan (talk) 03:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sanssouci[edit]

Sanssouci is currently up for peer review here. If anyone has any comments to make to improve it, I would be very grateful.

This is not the article for Sanssouci, though.. Brutannica 22:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WWII[edit]

Was there no damage to the Aachen Catehdral and its priceless relics during WWII? Sca 20:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Aachen article says it was largely unscathed. Brutannica 22:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kaiserdom[edit]

"Kaiserdom" is not usual for the Cathedral in Germany (and let me say this as someone who was born and raised up in Aachen). "Kaiserdom" is not used in the German Wikipedia-article, too.

A couple of suggestions....[edit]

It might be worth mentioning that the Aachener Dom is the home of the oldest boys choir in Germany. I've seen them perform before and was really impressed and think it would be good for them to have a little plug here. You could cite this page: http://www.aachener-dommusik.de/index4-0.aspx

Also, I don't have the book anymore but I remember reading that part of the original intent was for this cathedral to resemble a church built by Justinian, a sort of symbol expressing Charlemagne's hope that the center of Christianity would move to his Empire from Byzantium. The story goes that the basillica was built to copy the earlier one in every detail but be a couple inches bigger in every dimension, or something like that. Though I remember the church in question having been the Hagia Sophia, every source I've browsed on the internet indicates that it was St. Vitale.

Date of construction?[edit]

I'm a little confused about the date of construction. The article says that the cathedral is the oldest in northern Europe, but not when it was built. It DOES give the date for the Palatine Chapel. Is this the oldest component of the cathedral, then, or was the cathedral begun before this time? The article could be a little more clear about this. Stupid me, I read a little further and figured it out. Sorry to waste your time!


Question[edit]

Why does it say in the side bar characteristics:

Region Europe and north america how is that even possible??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.116.194.245 (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lamp?[edit]

Anyone know about a big 'lamp' (or better name for this lighting device) situated in the cathedral? It's supposed to be like 15 ft big, made of wrought iron and has candles. I can't find much from a Google search (web or images). Any help is appreciated. 12.144.160.217 (talk) 01:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, after a second look at the pics here.. " Barbarossa Chandelier" -- beautiful! 12.144.160.217 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Where's the street address?[edit]

All historical facts are well and good, but why omit the basics? Take the word "Aachen" out of this article and this church could well be in the Sahara, or on the Moon for that matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.1.173.227 (talk) 14:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proserpina (Persephone) sarcophagus and Charlemagne ...[edit]

The following statement has proliferated all over the Web:

" ... In 1165, Emperor Frederick Barbarossa again opened the vault and placed the remains in a sculptured sarcophagus made of Parian marble, said to have been the one in which Augustus Caesar was buried."

This does not make it clear that at the time of the death of the Emperor Augustus (Octavian), he was not buried in a sarcophagus. Inhumation was not the custom at Rome at the time of his death. Augustus was cremated and his ashes were installed in the Mausoleum of Augustus at Rome. The above statement gives the impression that Augustus was buried in the so-called "Persephone Sarcophagus" which was used centuries later to re-bury Charlemagne.

If there is evidence that the ashes of Augustus were re-buried in the "Persephone sarcophagus" then that evidence should be referenced. However, it would appear that this could not happen because of the following statement in the Wikipedia article on the Mausoleum of Augustus:

" ... In 410, during the sack of Rome by Alaric, the pillaging Visigoths rifled the vaults, stole the urns and scattered the ashes, without damaging the structure of the building (Lanciani)."

It would also clarify matters if some provenance for the "Persephone sarcophagus" be presented.

Machine-limburgia (talk) 10:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The German article does not mention it. You could ask Kingturtle, who added this ten years ago, for a source. At the time, he mentioned an 1881 encyclopedia. Momentarily, the article only states that such is said, not that it is a fact. For now, I have included a "by whom?"-template. Richard 09:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contents of the treasury[edit]

What exactly are the contents of the treasury considered to be? Sources I have state that certain objects that this page shows as not being "part" of the treasury, such as the Pala D'oro, the Barbarossa Chandelier, and the Ambon of Henry II among others. My main source is the article written by Joachim Gaehde in Jane Turner's Dictionary of Art. I moved them (the aforementioned pieces) into the treasury (by adjusting the layout). It was changed back and whereas I have no issues either way... wrong or right, in or out... my only desire is to be correct, as per sources current or at least notable. Thanks speednat (talk) 09:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Dictionary of Art uses as it's source on the Treasury, E.G. Grimme's book Der Aachener Domschatz, I belive the Aachen Cathedral Treasury from 1972. Again, I have not read that book, but it does seem clear as the quote states that 210 later additions to the treasury occurred since the original group including and then he lists a group of them with the 3 from above included. speednat (talk) 09:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think this might be a translation issue. The Domschatz is the "Cathedral's treasure." The Domschatzkammer is the "Cathedral Treasury chamber". Not all the Domschatz is in the Domschatzkammer. Keeping the two separate is the approach that has been taken by the German wikipedia's page and keeping the structure of these two articles vaguely similar in structure will make it easier to update the English article with new editions to the German one. Furius (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PS. I'd also question the decision to call this building a "chapel" - it was once the "Palatine Chapel", but is now a much larger building incorporating the chapel. Chapel usually implies a small building - and this is one of the larger Cathedrals in Europe. But I'm not entirely clear what the "architecture type" field is meant to be for. Furius (talk) 15:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the chapel already got updated to cathedral. Initially it was the Palatine Chapel which then was incorporated into the present day cathedral. However I still don't understand the need to differentiate based on what is in the chamber and what is considered the treasury. The article discusses the Aachen Treasury, which contains the treasures, which would be all of the items in that group, regardless of whether they are in the chamber or not. Also, we should not base what we do on our Wikipedia on how others do theirs as, they may have different rules, or even more they may be just wrong. I am not sure of the rules/guidelines/policies regarding this but, again without trying to sound petty or xenophobic/biased, we should improve our articles as we see fit. We being the English Wiki. I do notice that they point out on the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Echo to use foreign articles not necessarily as a word for word translation, but more as a guide, and common sense seems to say that once the article gets built or "brought over" from that foreign wiki, that improvement should at that point become independent and not hinge upon maintaining similarity. In doing so, all we are is a translation site and not an independent wiki. Yes, I agree that German/Spanish/Chinese or whatever language may have and does have better articles in certain areas. Does that mean that we can not strive to improve those articles above and beyond. If we limit these articles that are translated from a foreign source to maintaining their similarity as such, then we are limiting our (english only speaking editors) to improve these articles. I don't mean to pick a fight or anything, but I do believe the 2 points brought up: First that this and other foreign translated articles need to maintain similarity, and second that the items that are treasured ie are not part of the treasure just because they do not reside in the "chamber", are both faulty arguments. Again, please don't take me the wrong way, when I reiterate that anything that prevents us from improving the article while following the policies is inherently faulty. One final point is that, basing our editing on how another wiki has decided to act is not fair nor should it be even contemplated as, what this is accomplishing, is a disqualification of english-only speaker from the discussion and formulation of said decision making process. Just as Wikipedia:Consensus#Level_of_consensus states, limiting the pool of consensus makers in any fashion whether it be as the members of a Wikiproject creating and discussing their own rules in direct opposition to the Wiki as a whole, or as in this case. I know I am rambling, and I am sorry, but my final notes on this diatribe are first that nowhere is it a policy or guideline to keep the translated page similar. The ability of the wiki to be translated should not be used as a limiting tool to further edits and should in fact be used as the means to continue to add as the source wiki is changed; and inferring that the bilingual editors cannot translate and create/change the article seems flimsy. speednat (talk) 22:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I take your points and certainly meant no disrespect. I definitely don't think you are xenophobic/biased :). First, "items that are treasured ie are not part of the treasure just because they do not reside in the "chamber"" - but the section entitled "Treasury" is on that chamber/museum, not on the treasures of the cathedral as a whole. The chamber is a noted museum, singled out in UNESCO's summary of the cathedral - it is a distinct entity within the cathedral and therefore deserves its own section. If the "treasury" sub-section is turned into a section simply on the treasure in the cathedral then its purpose will have essentially merged with the "notable items" section which contains it. If you are concerned that this appears to claim that other items are not treasure, then perhaps we could rename the section to "Treasury Chamber" or "Cathedral Museum" (we'd have to make a change to the connected article as well in that case)
I am still not sure I see the distinction. I read the Unesco writeup om whc.unesco.org and it does not seem to mention the chamber per se but the treasure/treasury. Maybe the solution of renaming the layout and linked page as you stated might be a better answer.speednat (talk) 17:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Secondly, I certainly don't mean to say that the English wikipedia article shouldn't evolve its own way, but a) the page currently has a banner on top asking for it to be expanded using the German page - so I think we're in a place where we still consider the German article substantially better than the English one (and this makes sense given that the German editors have easier access to all the best sources), b) it seems a bit rough to update a page which currently draws on Grimme 1972 on the basis of a second hand reference to Grimme 1972. Furius (talk) 08:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PS. It seems equally rough for me to say things about Grimme 1972 without looking at it. So I have now secured a copy. Pages 2-3 explain that "in diesen Katalog wurden auch Stuecke aufgenommen, die zum Teil nicht zum "Schatz" des Aachener Domes zu zaehlen sind, die aber dennoch in einer formalen und geistigen Beziehung zu ihm stehen." (pieces are also included in this catalogue, some of which are not part of the "treasure" of Aachen cathedral, since they nevertheless have a formal and spiritual connection to it). He lists these items as the Roman objects (wolf, pincecones, sarcophagus), items once owned by the cathedral but now in other collections, the Ambon of Henry II (explaining that he included it in the book because new information had been discovered about it) and the Barbarossa chandelier. Furius (talk) 09:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your interest in topics concerning the Aachen Cathedral! As a "selfmade expert" (I live in the town centre and have consulted various works on that matter) on the Aachen Cathedral – and its treasury – I can totally agree to Furius' explanation: parts of what we would call the Aachen Cathedral Treasury are located in the cathedral itself (Pala d'Oro, Ambon of Henry II., Barbarossa Chandelier, Shrine of Charlemagne, Shrine of Mary), the rest you find in the "treasury chamber" (Schatzkammer) itself. But that's nothing new to what Furius has already said. Yet, I hope this will help to finally dispel any misunderstandings. Best regards,--Hinkmar (talk) 16:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These technical matters are slightly different from the question of how to present the contents in the article. Here I think the current approach, as adjusted by Furius, is correct. Johnbod (talk) 17:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Aachen Cathedral. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aachen Cathedral. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cathedral without a bishop?[edit]

The Diocese of Aachen only existed 1802-25 and from 1930. "Aachen." The Catholic Encyclopedia. (1907) calls the big church a minster, not a cathedral. Some earlier English sources (e.g. 1739, 1772) refer to it as a cathedral; my preliminary hypothesis is that they are incorrect. How could it be a cathedral when there was no bishop? The exception I can think of, St Patrick's Cathedral, Dublin, has a story that doesn't seem to have a parallel in Aachen.

Some alternative hypotheses:

  • there was some earlier diocese of which it was a cathedral, retaining the status even after the diocese was abolished
  • it was originally a co-cathedral of a different diocese, e.g. Cologne or Liège

OTOH, if my preliminary hypothesis is correct, then:

  • question of what was it called between the early "[Palatine] chapel" and the later "[Aachen] cathedral"? de:Aachener Dom suggests "Aachener Münster" ([Aachen] minster) or "Aachener Marienkirche" (St Mary's Church[, Aachen]) and also "Stiftskirche" (Collegiate Church).
  • the claim "One of the oldest cathedrals in Europe" is somewhat misleading, since it's been a cathedral less than a century.

jnestorius(talk) 00:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I suggest you read Duomo, of which "Dom" is the German equivalent. Not all these are actual cathedrals, or ever were, though most are. We should go with the commonname, and RS, & note the issue in text (not too prominently, as it won't concern most readers). It is a cathedral now, so what's the worry? The current, too short, lead has FAR too much on this, and FAR too little on the historical and artistic importance. You have to read a good way down before it becomes clear that the Palatine Chapel is part of the cathedral. Johnbod (talk) 13:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest you read Duomo — Thanks, that's helpful, though I think Dom could be MOS:BOLDSYN in its lede. It is a cathedral now, so what's the worry? — I'm not suggesting the article should be renamed, if that's what you worry is my worry; my intention was only to fix one problem (the misleading claim "One of the oldest cathedrals in Europe"). and FAR too little — I agree. I chose to fix a simpler problem rather than a more important one.
    I see there is an article Imperial cathedrals for Kaiserdom, which could replace minster and collegiate church in the lede of this article. Category:Imperial cathedrals includes no-longer-cathedral Worms Cathedral and never-cathedrals Frankfurt Cathedral, Goslar Cathedral and Frauenkirche, Nuremberg (no article yet for de:Kaiserdom (Königslutter)). If "cathedral" rather than Dom is really the WP:ENGLISH WP:COMMONNAME for any or all of those, that's well and good, but the opening of each should make clear they are not actually cathedrals in the usual English sense of the word. Currently some do and some don't. Relatedly, Duomo of Monza is in Category:Cathedrals in Lombardy. It's OK for Duomo to be in Category:Cathedrals but there should really be a separate Category:Duomi for non-cathedrals (Italian, German, or otherwise).
    jnestorius(talk) 17:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm on holiday (in the land of the Duomo) & I'll take a look again in a week or so. Johnbod (talk) 22:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aachen_Cathedral&oldid=1218642774"