Doctor Ox and St Michael’s, Hamburg
65 views
Skip to first unread message
Tad Davis
Jul 23, 2025, 8:08:45 PMJul 23
to Jules Verne Forum
Another Doctor Ox question. This is not related to Flanders but to St Michael's Church in Hamburg.
When Niklausse and Van Tricasse are climbing the belfry, they stop on a platform 266 feet up, and Niklausse says they are “14 feet higher than St Michael’s Church in Hamburg.” I've struggled to make sense of this reference. I can find a lot of information about the clock tower as it exists today, but I also know the church has been rebuilt several times, including once 1906 and again post-World War II. The spire of today's tower is 433 feet high. How high was it when Verne was writing? When the church was rebuilt, an effort was made to preserve its main architectural features, but did that extend to preserving the clock tower in all its essentials, or was the opportunity taken to enhance it?
Was the clock tower in 1872 only 252 feet high, as Verne suggests? If anyone knows, or can suggest where I might look for an answer, it would be much appreciated.
When Niklausse and Van Tricasse are climbing the belfry, they stop on a platform 266 feet up, and Niklausse says they are “14 feet higher than St Michael’s Church in Hamburg.” I've struggled to make sense of this reference. I can find a lot of information about the clock tower as it exists today, but I also know the church has been rebuilt several times, including once 1906 and again post-World War II. The spire of today's tower is 433 feet high. How high was it when Verne was writing? When the church was rebuilt, an effort was made to preserve its main architectural features, but did that extend to preserving the clock tower in all its essentials, or was the opportunity taken to enhance it?
Was the clock tower in 1872 only 252 feet high, as Verne suggests? If anyone knows, or can suggest where I might look for an answer, it would be much appreciated.
Tad Davis
Jean-Louis Trudel
Jul 23, 2025, 9:02:50 PMJul 23
to jules-ve...@googlegroups.com
Greetings,
Having a quick look at various websites about the church, I do get the
impression that the 1786 tower was rebuilt faithfully so that the
current height of 132 meters would reflect the 1786 design, but there
are several mentions of a viewing platform about 80 meters high,
reached by going up 452 steps (the viewing platform might be as much
as 100 metres above the river, though). Did they replicate these
features in 1906 (and in the subsequent restorations) to match what
existed in the 19th century? That remains unclear. Still, if they
do, Verne might still have been using either 80 or 132 metres.
Jean-Louis Trudel
Le mer. 23 juill. 2025, à 20 h 08, Tad Davis
<tad.dav...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jules Verne Forum" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to jules-verne-fo...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jules-verne-forum/1dcd95d4-9df3-487d-9742-90eecc008c05%40Spark.
Having a quick look at various websites about the church, I do get the
impression that the 1786 tower was rebuilt faithfully so that the
current height of 132 meters would reflect the 1786 design, but there
are several mentions of a viewing platform about 80 meters high,
reached by going up 452 steps (the viewing platform might be as much
as 100 metres above the river, though). Did they replicate these
features in 1906 (and in the subsequent restorations) to match what
existed in the 19th century? That remains unclear. Still, if they
do, Verne might still have been using either 80 or 132 metres.
Jean-Louis Trudel
Le mer. 23 juill. 2025, à 20 h 08, Tad Davis
<tad.dav...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jules Verne Forum" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to jules-verne-fo...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jules-verne-forum/1dcd95d4-9df3-487d-9742-90eecc008c05%40Spark.
Tad Davis
Jul 23, 2025, 10:42:19 PMJul 23
to jules-ve...@googlegroups.com
Thanks. I believe the 80 meters may be the walkway that appears to run around the base of the clock faces in the pictures I’ve seen. That’s still off a bit but at close to the right level to make sense of what Verne said.
Since I posted my note, I was able to track down some sketches/etchings of the church purportedly from 1850 that show a clock tower and spire that, to my eyes, look identical to the present-day structure. That’s not the most solid evidence, but it may have to serve for now. Is it too weaselly to say, “as of this writing, I haven’t been able to find a definitive answer as to the height of the clock tower in the 19th century. Pictorial evidence suggests that it was the same or similar to the present structure, in which case. . .”
Tad Davis
mken...@aol.com
Jul 24, 2025, 3:34:09 AMJul 24
to Jules Verne Forum
Hi Tad, German Wikipedia says that after the fire of 1906 they had a discussion about the design of the reconstruction. In the end they decided against a new design. No difference in height is mentioned, so the new tower has the same height as the old one. The platform is above the clock, at 83 meters. You can read it yourself using Google Gemini or the like or DeepL https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauptkirche_Sankt_Michaelis#Turm
The French foot had 32.48 cm, different from the English foot; later it was redefined as having 33 1/3 cm.
Cheers,
Matthias
Tad Davis
Jul 24, 2025, 10:23:01 AMJul 24
to jules-ve...@googlegroups.com
Matthias - that’s very helpful. It’s reassuring to know there were no major changes in the measurements during the rebuilding. I wasn’t aware that the definition of “foot” had varied over time — in current US usage, it’s 30.48 cm. If Verne is talking about an observation platform, and his information was that the platform is 82 meters high (not 83), that would account for the difference: to him, 82 meters would be 252 feet, and the difference would be 14 feet.
That height for the platform contradicts most of what I’ve seen about the church. Just as a sampling, the English language Wikipedia, hamburg.com, and the US News & World Report travel section put the height at 106 meters or 350 feet (326 feet to Verne). Is it possible one thing that did change during the reconstruction was to move the observation area from the base of the clock faces to the area above them? There does seem to be a railed walkway around the base of the clocks — was that once an observation area?
The site https://www.hamburg-travel.com/see-explore/sightseeing/st-michaelis-church-hamburg-michel/ mentions two viewing areas, one at 82 meters and one at 106 meters.
I don’t want to beat this tired horse to death. It’s such an obscure and passing reference in Verne that it may not seem worth a footnote to anyone else. But it’s such a specific reference that it’s frustrating not to be able to follow his thinking.
Tad Davis
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jules-verne-forum/7804df85-1ade-4bbf-82e6-1b83795696aan%40googlegroups.com.
Message has been deleted
Tad Davis
Jul 24, 2025, 3:27:22 PMJul 24
to jules-ve...@googlegroups.com
It occurred to me that I could write to St Michael’s directly and ask them. So I did. (Not being fluent in German, although I took three years of it in college, I attached a Reverso translation of my query.) Since I raised the question here, I’ll let you know what they respond. “Responses during normal church office hours.”
Tad Davis
On Jul 24, 2025 at 3:34 AM -0400, 'mken...@aol.com' via Jules Verne Forum <jules-ve...@googlegroups.com>, wrote:
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jules-verne-forum/7804df85-1ade-4bbf-82e6-1b83795696aan%40googlegroups.com.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
mken...@aol.com
Jul 24, 2025, 3:42:49 PMJul 24
to Jules Verne Forum
Good idea, I had even
suggested you do so in another message that …, so it could
not reach you. I had included the URL of the contact page of the St.
Michael foundation, maybe that was the reason? You can
normally write in English because learning English is standard in German
schools. But with technical questions maybe it’s not a bad idea to
include a German translation. I’d recommend DeepL or Google Gemini, but
maybe Reverso is just as good.
Tad Davis
Jul 24, 2025, 4:46:56 PMJul 24
to jules-ve...@googlegroups.com
I have a DeepL account. I used it pretty heavily as a reference when I was working my way through Doctor Ox.
AI is in such bad repute, for good reasons, that I feel I should add that I have only used tools like this to check my understanding of the literal meaning of the French, not as a substitute for composing the English. That may still constitute cheating in some minds, but I’ve been clear about my procedures in a preface, and at any rate I’m not plugging the French into a machine and passing the results off as my own work. I’ve been working on this since October of last year.
My process has been to start with the George M Towle translation, revise a chapter for style, and then scan the French to see if anything is missing. If something seems “off,” or I can’t piece out what the French is saying, or I want to make sure I haven’t introduced new errors, I’ve turned to DeepL and Reverso. Neither generates usable results, but cross-checking provides guidance. I have to admit that hasn’t stopped me from paraphrasing when the spirit moved me.
I don’t know if that makes any sense. But if anyone is interested, I have a Microsoft Word document that has the Towle text with my revisions overlaid by way of Word’s revision tracking system. I’ve attached an image of two of the pages as a sample.
On Jul 24, 2025 at 3:42 PM -0400, 'mken...@aol.com' via Jules Verne Forum <jules-ve...@googlegroups.com>, wrote:
Good idea, I had even suggested you do so in another message that …, so it could not reach you. I had included the URL of the contact page of the St. Michael foundation, maybe that was the reason? You can normally write in English because learning English is standard in German schools. But with technical questions maybe it’s not a bad idea to include a German translation. I’d recommend DeepL or Google Gemini, but maybe Reverso is just as good.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jules Verne Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to jules-verne-fo...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jules-verne-forum/c9c3805e-1761-4ac7-9919-ec23c3e53d64n%40googlegroups.com.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
mken...@aol.com
Jul 24, 2025, 5:04:10 PMJul 24
to Jules Verne Forum
You are right,
it’s not good enough (yet) to translate Verne. But I was only talking
about translating your question about St. Michael into German. It’s
mostly good enough for tasks like that, I think.
If
you have questions about French, you can also try Mistral AI.
mken...@aol.com
Jul 24, 2025, 5:54:05 PMJul 24
to Jules Verne Forum
Volker told me about a prospectus about the church that Verne had:
"During his 1861 journey, Verne brought back an English-language prospectus of the "Old St. Michaelis Church," which contains various technical details about the church. … That must surely have been one of his sources."
The prospectus was published in BSJV No. 190, Dec. 2015, p. 16.
Tad Davis
Jul 24, 2025, 6:45:49 PMJul 24
to jules-ve...@googlegroups.com
Wonderful! Unfortunately I don’t currently have access to the Bulletin. Could someone with access to that issue share the relevant details about the clock tower — the height, the location of the observation platform?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jules Verne Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to jules-verne-fo...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jules-verne-forum/d1882db7-e7a5-4358-86f1-c95782526616n%40googlegroups.com.
William Butcher
Jul 24, 2025, 7:41:24 PMJul 24
to jules-ve...@googlegroups.com
Thought-provoking stuff! I was specially interested to see you changed after having lighted to
after lighting and lighted to lit.
Bill
From: jules-ve...@googlegroups.com <jules-ve...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Tad Davis <tad.dav...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2025 4:46 AM
To: jules-ve...@googlegroups.com <jules-ve...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [JVF] Doctor Ox and St Michael’s, Hamburg
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2025 4:46 AM
To: jules-ve...@googlegroups.com <jules-ve...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [JVF] Doctor Ox and St Michael’s, Hamburg
I have a DeepL account. I used it pretty heavily as a reference when I was working my way through
Doctor Ox.
AI is in such bad repute, for good reasons, that I feel I should add that I have only used tools like this to check my understanding of the literal meaning of the French, not as a substitute for composing the English. That may
still constitute cheating in some minds, but I’ve been clear about my procedures in a preface, and at any rate I’m not plugging the French into a machine and passing the results off as my own work. I’ve been working on this since October of last year.
My process has been to start with the George M Towle translation, revise a chapter for style, and then scan the French to see if anything is missing. If something seems “off,” or I can’t piece out what the French is saying, or
I want to make sure I haven’t introduced new errors, I’ve turned to DeepL and Reverso. Neither generates usable results, but cross-checking provides guidance. I have to admit that hasn’t stopped me from paraphrasing when the spirit moved me.
I don’t know if that makes any sense. But if anyone is interested, I have a Microsoft Word document that has the Towle text with my revisions overlaid by way of Word’s revision tracking system. I’ve attached an image of two of
the pages as a sample.
On Jul 24, 2025 at 3:42 PM -0400, 'mken...@[aol.com]aol.com' via Jules Verne Forum <jules-ve...@googlegroups.com>, wrote:
Good idea, I had even suggested you do so in another message that …, so it could not reach you. I had included the URL of the contact page of the St. Michael foundation, maybe that was the reason? You can normally write in English because learning English is standard in German schools. But with technical questions maybe it’s not a bad idea to include a German translation. I’d recommend DeepL or Google Gemini, but maybe Reverso is just as good.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jules Verne Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to jules-verne-fo...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jules-verne-forum/c9c3805e-1761-4ac7-9919-ec23c3e53d64n%40googlegroups.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jules Verne Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to jules-verne-fo...@googlegroups.com.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jules Verne Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to jules-verne-fo...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jules-verne-forum/02b596bc-d7ce-40fb-a5bd-cb1864c36bca%40Spark.
Tad Davis
Jul 24, 2025, 8:07:42 PMJul 24
to jules-ve...@googlegroups.com
I made a solemn promise to my mother that I would never use the word “lighted.”
Tad Davis
Jul 25, 2025, 3:01:31 PMJul 25
to jules-ve...@googlegroups.com
I have the answer (I think). The misunderstanding on my part was thinking I knew what people meant when they talked about how high the observation deck of St Michael’s clock tower is.
The platform is 82 meters high. I have this definitively from the church itself. The “106 meters” number that appears all over the internet seems to refer to the whole unit, including the roof. (I actually, risking making a pest of myself, have a followup query to the church about this.) To me, it seems an odd way of saying “you can see the whole city from the tower’s 106-meter-high observation deck” when you’re actually only 82 meters up. But I guess it depends on usage and expectations. Clearly Verne is referring to the platform itself, and given his different definition of foot (2 centimeters longer than current US definition), his math works.
I am so grateful to everyone who lent a hand on my Doctor Ox queries. The project is near an end.
On Jul 24, 2025 at 7:41 PM -0400, William Butcher <wbutch...@gmail.com>, wrote:
Alex Kirstukas
Jul 25, 2025, 3:10:14 PMJul 25
to jules-ve...@googlegroups.com
Bravo all, especially Tad for such intricate and fruitful detective work!
I just have to add my favorite anecdote about the old French foot: it led directly to the English-speaking world's misconception that Napoleon was unusually short. He was 5'2" in old French feet, but that's almost 5'7" in English feet - about average for a 19th-century Corsican man. English-speaking journalists saw the French figure, misunderstood it, and the caricaturists ran wild with it.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jules-verne-forum/cb04b732-c0f1-46f9-a0d2-7bee8e353091%40Spark.
Tad Davis
Jul 28, 2025, 9:42:20 AMJul 28
to jules-ve...@googlegroups.com
The absolutely definitive response, directly from the kind people at St Michael’s in Hamburg.
"The platform is 82 meters above the ground, but St. Michael’s is near the river Elbe and the platform is 106 meters above the Elbe."
Tad
"The platform is 82 meters above the ground, but St. Michael’s is near the river Elbe and the platform is 106 meters above the Elbe."
Tad
quentin skrabec
Jul 28, 2025, 11:00:25 AMJul 28
to Jules Verne Forum
thank you for that reference on Mistal AI French - i will use it - Also just finished your audio Mysterious Island - truly enjoyed Quent
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages