Sir, - Prof Stalley's response to the proposed re-roofing of Cashel Cathedral (October 27th) betrays a somewhat narrow view of the role that historic buildings can play in contemporary society. They can do so much more than merely providing "interest and enjoyment". Prof Stalley's four objections to the proposal, though doubtless well intended, display a lack of creative imagination and, I suspect, a lack of faith in the abilities of contemporary designers, conservationists and craftsmen. I will deal with them in turn.
First, consolidation of the structure of the cathedral and its further protection from the elements, if sensitively handled, can only be a good thing. The reconstruction of the east front presents a challenging opportunity for a contemporary design that is not a banal imitation of the original. The new west front of Lille Cathedral resolves the problem of its unfinished west end with modern technology and rationale to achieve a stunning visual effect where the old and new produce a harmonious and intriguing composition. Very few mediaeval cathedrals have the architectural unity of Salisbury Cathedral; most extant examples are hybrids. Cashel itself is a hybrid.
Second, Prof Stalley has noted, quite correctly, that the cathedral's appearance has changed quite radically at various times in the past. I can see no good reason why it should not do so again in the future. A roof to a 21st-century design, if executed with sensitivity and a touch of flair, could well improve the original edifice rather than detract from it.
Third, I wholeheartedly applaud Prof Stalley's enthusiasm for all the pieces of historical evidence that ancient monuments contain, but I cannot see why these should necessarily be "obliterated or obscured". To the contrary, the protection from the elements that a new roof will afford would be one of the best ways of conserving these details.
Fourth, Cashel Cathedral may well have been designed for Christian worship in the 12th century, but the assumption that it will either primarily or solely be used for Christian worship in the future is doubtful and in any case somewhat of a distraction. What is relevant is not whether a 12th-century design is appropriate for contemporary worship, but whether the architecture has an intrinsic value and function utility worthy of conservation and development.
Finally, Cashel Cathedral was not designed to be a ruin; a new roof would help conserve its historic fabric and, in the process, provide a magnificent public building. Of course the building would be a hybrid, but who, apart from a manic purist, would excise Semple's 18th-century spire from St Patrick's, Hawksmoor's 17th century twin towers from Westminster Abbey or Street's delightful 19th-century arch over Winetavern Street? I hope that, in centuries to come, people will look with wonder at Cashel Cathedral and its amazing 21st-century roof. - Yours, etc., Richard Wentges,
BA(Hons) DipArch,
Milverton Demesne,
Skerries,
Co Dublin.