BOOK III.FRANCE.

CHAPTER I.

CONTENTS.

Division of subject—Pointed arches—Provence—Churches at Avignon, Arles, Alet, Fontifroide, Maguelonne, Vienne—Circular churches—Towers—Cloisters.

CHRONOLOGY.

Tothose who do not look beyond the present, France appears to be one of the most homogeneous of all the countries of Europe—inhabited by a people speaking one language, professing one religion, governed by the same laws, and actuated by the same feelings and aspirations; yet it certainly is not so in reality, and in the Middle Ages the distinctions between the various races and peoples were strongly marked and capable of easy definition. Wars, persecutions, and revolutions, have done much to obliterate these, and the long habit of living under a centralised despotism has produced a superficial uniformity which hides a great deal of actual diversity. The process of fusion commenced apparently about the reign of Louis the Saint (A.D.1226), and has gone on steadily ever since. Before his time France was divided into six or eight great ethnographic provinces which might now be easily mapped out, though their boundaries frequently differed widely from the political division of the land.

No systematic attempt has yet been made to construct an ethnographic map of the country from the architectural remains, though it is easy to see how it might be done. What is wanted is that some competent archæologist should do for the ethnography of France what Sir W. Smith did at the end of the last century for the geology of England. Like that early pioneer of exact knowledge in his peculiar department, he must be content to wander from province to province, from village to village, visiting every church, and examining every architectural remain, comparing one with another, tracing their affinities, and finally classifying and mapping the whole. It is probable that the labour of one man would hardly suffice for this purpose. Monographs would be required to complete the task, but it is one of such singular interest that it is hoped it may soon be undertaken.

One of the great difficulties in attempting anything of the sort at present is the nomenclature. When the science is further advanced, such names as Silurian, Cambrian, &c., will no doubt be invented, but at present we must be content with the political name which seems most nearly to express the ethnographical distribution; though in scarcely a single instance will these be found strictly correct, all in consequence being open to adverse criticism. In France it frequently happened that two or more ethnographic provinces were united under one sceptre—eventually all were merged into one—and during the various changes that took place in the Middle Ages, it was only by accident that the political boundary exactly agreed for any great length of time with the ethnographical.

In Germany, on the contrary, a single race is and was cut up into numerous political divisions, so that it becomes, from the opposite cause alone, equally difficult to apply a nomenclature which shall correctly represent the facts of the case.

In such a work as this it would be manifestly absurd to attempt to adjust all this with anything like minute accuracy, but the principal features are so easily recognised that no great confusion can arise in the application of such names as are usually employed, and it is to be hoped that before long a better system of nomenclature will be invented and applied.

We may rest assured of one thing, at all events, which is that the architectural remains in France are as sufficient for the construction of an ethnographic map of that country as the rocks are for the compilation of a geological survey. If the one opens out to the student an immense expanse of scientific knowledge, the other is hardly of less interest, though in a less extended field. There are few studies more pleasing than that of tracing the history of man through his works, and none bring the former condition of humanity so vividly back to us as those records which have been built into the walls of their templesor their palaces by those who were thus unconsciously recording their feelings for the instruction of their posterity.

543. Diagram of the Architectural Divisions of France.[16]

The first thing that strikes the student in examining architecturally the map of France is the recurrence of the same phenomenon as was remarked in that of Italy, a division into two nearly equal halves bya boundary line running east and west. In both countries, to the southward of this line the land was occupied by a Romanesque people who, though conquered, were never colonised by the Barbarians to such an extent as to alter their blood or consequently the ethnographic relations of the people. North of the line the Goths and Lombards in Italy, and the Franks in Gaul, settled in such numbers as to influence very considerably the status of the races, in some instances almost to the obliteration of their leading characteristics.

In France the boundary line follows the valley of the Loire near its northern edge till it passes behind Tours; it crosses that river between that city and Orleans, follows a somewhat devious course to Lyons, and up the valley of the Rhone to Geneva.

In the Middle Ages the two races were roughly designated as those speaking the Langue d’oc and the Langue d’œil—somewhat more correctly those to the south were called Romance,[18]those to the north Frankish; but the truth is, the distinction is too broad to be now clearly defined, and we must descend much more into detail before any satisfactory conclusion can be arrived at.

On the south of the line, one of the most beautiful as well as the best defined architectural provinces is that I have ventured to designate as Provence or Provençal. Its limits are very nearly coincident with those of Gallia Narbonensis, and “Narbonese” would consequently be a more correct designation, and would be adopted if treating of a classical style of art. It has, however, the defect of including Toulouse, which does not belong to the province, and consequently the name affects an accuracy it does not possess. It may, therefore, be better at present to adopt the vague name of the “Provence”par excellence, especially as Provençal is a word applied by French authors to literary matters much in the sense it is here used to define an architectural division. The whole of the south coast of France from the Alps to the Pyrenees belongs to this province, and it extends up the valley of the Rhone as far as Lyons, and is generally bounded by the hills on either side of that river.

Perhaps the best mode of defining the limits of the Aquitanian province would be to say that it includes all those towns whose names end with the Basque articleac, consequently indicating the presence at some former period of a people speaking that language or something very closely allied to it, or at all events differing fromthose of the rest of France. It is only on the eastward that the line seems difficult to define. There are some towns, such as Barjac, Quissac, Gignac, in the valley of the Rhone, in situations that would seem to belong to Provence, and until their churches are examined it is impossible to say to which they belong. On the south Aquitania is bounded by the Pyrenees, on the west by the sea, and on the North by a line running nearly straight from the mouth of the Garonne to Langeac, near to Le Puy-en-Velay.

The third is designated that of Anjou, or the Angiovine, from its most distinguished province. This includes the lower part of the Loire, and is bounded on the north-east by the Cher. Between it and the sea is a strip of land, including the Angoumois, Saintonge, and Vendée, which it is not easy to know where to place. It may belong, so far as we yet know, to either Aquitania or Anjou, or possibly may deserve a separate title altogether; but in the map it is annexed for the present to Poitou or the Angiovine province.

In Brittany the two styles meet, and are so mixed together that it is impossible to separate them. In that district there is neither pure Romance nor pure Frankish, but a style partaking of the peculiarities of each without belonging to either.

Besides these, there is the small and secluded district of Auvergne, having a style peculiarly its own, which, though certainly belonging to the southern province, is easily distinguished from any of the neighbouring styles, and is one of the most pleasing to be found of an early age in France.

Beyond this to the eastward lies the great Burgundian province, having a well-defined and well-marked style of its own, influenced by or influencing all those around it. Its most marked characteristic is what may be called a mechanical mixture of the classical and mediæval styles without any real fusion. Essentially and constructively the style is Gothic, but it retained the use of Corinthian pilasters and classical details till late in the Middle Ages: Burgundy was also in the Middle Ages the country of monasticismpar excellence—a circumstance which had considerable influence on her forms of art.

Taking, then, a more general view of the southern province, it will be seen that if a line were drawn from Marseilles to Brest, it would pass nearly through the middle of it. At the south-eastern extremity of such a line we should find a style almost purely Romanesque, passing by slow and equal gradations into a Gothic form at its other terminal.

On turning to the Frankish province the case is somewhat different. Paris is here the centre, from which everything radiates: and though the Norman invasion, and other troubles of those times, with the rebuilding mania of the 13th century, have swept away nearly all traces of the early buildings, still it is easy to see how theGothic style arose in the Isle of France, and how it spread from thence to all the neighbouring provinces.

In consequence, however, of the loss of its early buildings, and of its subsequent pre-eminence and supercession of the earlier styles, the description of its features naturally follows that of the subordinate provinces, and concludes the history of the mediæval styles in France.

Not to multiply divisions, we may include in the Northern province many varieties that will afterwards be marked as distinct in maps of French architecture, especially at the south-east, where the Nivernois and Bourbonnois, if not deserving of separate honours, at least consist of such a complete mixture of the Frankish and Burgundian with the Southern styles, that they cannot strictly be said to belong to any one in particular, though they partake of all. The Northern, however, is certainly the predominant element, and with that therefore they should be classed.

To the westward lies the architectural province of Normandy, one of the most vigorous offshoots of the Frankish style: and from the power of the Norman dukes in the 11th and 12th centuries, and the accidental circumstance of its prosperity in those centuries when the rest of France was prostrate from their ravages and torn by internal dissensions, the Romanesque style shows itself here with a vigour and completeness not found elsewhere. It is, however, evidently only the Frankish style based remotely on Roman tradition, but which the Barbarians used with a freedom and boldness which soon converted it into a purely national form. This soon ripened into the complete Gothic style of the 13th century, which was so admired that it soon spread over the whole face of Europe, and became the type of all Gothic architecture.

Alsace is not included in this enumeration, as it certainly belongs architecturally to Germany. Lorraine too is more German than French, and if included at all, must be so as an exceptional transitional province. French Flanders belonged, in the Middle Ages, to the Belgian provinces behind it, and may therefore also be disregarded at present: but even after rejecting all these, enough is still left to render it difficult to remember and follow all the changes in style introduced by these different races, and which marked not only the artistic but the political state of France during the Middle Ages, when the six territorial peers of France, the Counts of Toulouse, Aquitaine, Normandy, Burgundy, Champagne, and Flanders, represented the six principal provinces of the kingdom, under their suzerain, the Count or King of Paris. These very divisions might now be taken to represent the architectural distinctions, were it not that the pre-eminence of these great princes belongs to a later epoch than the architectural divisions which we have pointed out, and which we must now describe somewhat more at length.

Pointed Arches.

Before proceeding to describe these various styles in detail, it may add to the clearness of what follows if the mode in which the pointed arch was first introduced into Christian architecture is previously explained. It has already been shown that the pointed arch with radiating voussoirs was used by the Assyrians as early as the time of Sargon in the 8th centuryB.C., and by the Ethiopians as early as that of Tirhakah. The Etrurians and Pelasgi used the form probably twelve centuries before the Christian era, but constructed it with horizontal courses. To come nearer, however, to our own time, the Saracens certainly adopted it at Cairo in the first century of the Hegira,[19]and employed it generally if not universally, and never apparently used a round arch after the erection of the mosque of Ebn Tulûn,A.D.879.

The Romanesque traditions, however, prevented the Christians from adopting it in Europe till forced to do it from constructive necessities; and the mode of its introduction into the early churches in Provence renders them singularly important in enabling us to arrive at a correct solution of this much mooted question.[20]

It is hardly worth while discussing whether the form was borrowed from the East, where it had been used so long before it was known—or at least before we are aware of its being known—in Europe. It may be that the Pelasgic Greeks left examples of it in Provence, or that persons trading to the Levant from Marseilles became familiar with its uses; or it may be, though very unlikely, that it was really re-invented for the purposes to which it was applied.

In whatever way it was introduced, it at least seems certain that all the churches of Provence, from the age of Charlemagne to that of St. Louis, were vaulted, and have their vaults constructed on the principle of the pointed arch. It has nevertheless long been a received dogma with the antiquaries of France, as well as with those of England, that the pointed arch was first introduced in the 12th century—the first example being assumed to be the work of Abbot Suger at St. Denis (1144-52), the result of which is that all who have written on the subject of Provençal architecture have felt themselves forced toascribe the age of the churches in question, or at least of their roofs, a date subsequent to this period.

The use to which the Provençal architects applied the pointed arch will be evident from the annexed diagram, the left-hand portion of which is a section of the roof of one of the churches at Vaison. The object evidently was to lay the roof or roofing-tiles directly on the vault, as the Romans had done on their domes, and also, so far as we know, on those of their thermæ. Had they used a circular vault for this purpose, it is evident, from the right-hand side of the diagram, that to obtain a straight-lined roof externally, and the necessary watershed, it would have been requisite to load the centre of the vault to a most dangerous extent, as atA; whereas with the pointed arch it only required the small amount of filling up shown atB, and even that might have been avoided by a little contrivance if thought necessary. By adopting the pointed form the weights are so distributed as to ensure stability and to render the vault self-supporting. It has already been observed that the Gothic architects everywhere treated their vaults as mere false ceilings, covering them with a roof of wood—an expedient highly objectionable in itself, and the cause of the destruction, by fire or from neglect, of almost all the churches we now find in ruins all over Europe; whereas, had they adhered either to the Roman or Romance style of roofing, the constant upholding hand of man would not have been required to protect their buildings from decay.

544. Diagram of Vaulting. South of France.

The one obstacle in the way of the general adoption of this mode of roofing was the difficulty of applying it to intersecting vaults. The Romans, it is true, had conquered the difficulty; so had the Byzantine architects, as we have already seen, displaying the ends of the vaults as ornaments; and even at St. Mark’s, Venice, this system is adopted, and with the additional advantage of the pointed arch might have been carried further. Still it must be confessed that it was not easy—that it required more skill in construction and a better class of masonrythan was then available to do this efficiently and well. The consequence is, that all the Romance pointed vaults are simple tunnel-vaults without intersections, and that the Gothic architects, when they adopted the form, slurred over the difficulty by hiding the upper sides of their vaults beneath a temporary wooden roof, which protected them from the injuries of the weather. This certainly was one of the greatest mistakes they made: had they carefully profiled and ornamented the exterior of the stone roofs in the same manner as they ornamented the inside, their buildings would have been not only much more beautiful, but much more permanent, and the style would have been saved from the principal falsity that now deforms it. Even as it is, if we wished intelligently to adapt the Gothic to our purposes, instead of merely copying it, this is one of the points to which we ought first to turn our attention.

545. Fig. 1. Fig. 2. Fig. 3.

Another circumstance which may be alluded to here, when speaking on this subject, which led to the adoption of the pointed arch at an early age in the southern provinces of France, was the use of domes as a roofing expedient. These, it is true, are not found in Provence, but they are common in Aquitaine and Anjou—some of them certainly of the 11th century; and there can be little doubt but that these are not the earliest, though their predecessors have perished or have not yet been brought to light.

There is no one who has studied the subject who is not aware how excellent, as a constructive expedient, the pointed arch is as applied to intersecting vaults, but it is not so generally understood why it was equally necessary in the construction of domes. So long as these rested on drums rising from the ground the circular form sufficed; but when it became necessary to rest them on pendentives in the angles of square or octagonal buildings, the case was widely different. The early Byzantine architects—in Sta. Sophia, for instance—did fit pendentives to circular arches, but it was with extreme difficulty, and required very great skill both in setting out and in execution. But the superiority of the pointed form was perceived at an early date; and the Saracens, who were trammelled by no traditions, adopted it at once as a doming expedient and adhered to it as exclusively as the Gothic architects did in the construction of their vaults—and for the same reason—simply because it was the best mode of construction.

It is easy to explain why this should be so. In the diagram on the preceding page, fig. 1 represents the pendentives of a dome resting on circular arches. AtAthey become evanescent, and for some distance from the centre are so weak that it is only by concealed construction that they can be made to do their work. When the pointed arch is introduced, as in fig. 2, not only is great freedom obtained in spacing, but the whole becomes constructively correct; when, as in fig. 3, an octagonal arrangement is adopted, the whole becomes still more simple and easy, and very little adjustment is required to fit a dome to an octagon: and if the angles are again cut off, so as to form a polygon of 16 sides, all the exigencies of construction are satisfied.

546. Section of Church at Carcassonne, with the outer aisles added in the 14th century. No scale.

At St. Front, Périgueux, at Moissac, and at Loches, we find the pointed arch, introduced evidently for this purpose, and forming a class of roofs more like those of mosques in Cairo than any other buildings in Europe. It is true they now look bare and formal—their decorations having been originally painted on stucco, which has pealed off; but still the variety of form and perspective they afford internally, and the character and truthfulness they give to the roof as seen from without, are such advantages that we cannot but regret that these two expedients of stone external roofs and domes were not adopted in Gothic. Had the great architects of that style in the 13th century carried out these with their characteristic zeal and earnestness, they might have left us a style in every respect infinitely more perfect and more beautiful than the one they invented, and which we are copying so servilely, instead of trying, with our knowledge and means of construction, to repair the errors and omissions of our forefathers, and out of the inheritance they have left us to work out something more beautifuland more worthy of our greater refinement and more advanced civilisation.

The practice of the Greeks in respect to their roofs was a curious contrast to that of the mediæval architects. Their architecture, as before remarked, being essentially external, while that of the Middle Ages was internal, they placed the stone of their roofs on the outside, and took the utmost pains to arrange the covering ornamentally; but they supported all this on a framework of wood, which in every instance has perished. It is difficult to say which was the greater mistake of the two. Both were wrong without doubt. The happy medium seems to be that which the Romance architects aimed at—a complete homogeneous roof, made of the most durable materials and ornamented, both externally and internally; and there can be little doubt but that this is the only legitimate and really artistic mode of effecting this purpose, and the one to which attention should now be turned.[21]

This early mode of employing the pointed arch is so little understood generally that, before leaving this branch of the subject, it may be well to quote one other example with a perfectly authentic date.

The Church of St. Nazaire at Carcassonne was dedicated by Pope Urban II. in 1096. It was not then quite complete, but there seems no doubt but that the nave, as we now find it, was finished by the year 1100. As will be seen from the annexed section, the side aisles and all the openings are constructed with round arches; but the difficulty of vaulting the nave forced on the architects the introduction of the pointed arch. It is here constructed solid with flat ribs over each pillar, and without any attempt to pierce it for the introduction of light; and as the west end is blocked up—fortified in fact—the result is gloomy enough.

This example is also interesting when looked at from another point of view. If we turn back to Woodcuts Nos. 187 and 188, and compare them with this section, we shall be able to gauge exactly the changes which were introduced and the progress that was made, during the 1000 years that elapsed between the erection of these two buildings. In the plan of the temple of Diana at Nîmes, we have the same three-aisled arrangement as at Carcassonne. Their dimensions are not very dissimilar; the nave at Nîmes is 27 ft. wide, the aisles 7½ ft. in the clear. At Carcassonne this becomes 25 ft. and 10 ft. respectively. The aisles are in the early example separated from the nave by screen walls, adorned with pillars which are mere ornaments. In the laterexamples the pillars have become the main support of the roof, the wall being omitted between them.

The roof of the nave in both instances is adorned with flat ribs, one over each pillar; but at Nîmes the rib is rather wider than the space between. At Carcassonne the rib occupies only one-fourth of the width of the bay. One of their most striking differences is, that Nîmes displays all that megalithic grandeur for which the works of the Romans were so remarkable; while at Carcassonne the masonry is little better than rubble. It need hardly be added that the temple displays an elegance of detail which charms the most fastidious taste, while the decoration of the church is rude and fantastic, though no doubt picturesque and appropriate. The last remark must not, however, be understood as a reproach to Gothic art, for the choir of this very church, and the two outer arches shown in the Woodcut No.546, were rebuilt in the year 1331, with an elegance of detail which, in a constructive sense, would shame the best classical examples. The nave is a tentative example of a rude age, when men were inventing, or trying to invent, a new style, and before they quite knew how to set about it. The builders of Carcassonne had this temple at Nîmes standing, probably much more complete than it is now, within 120 miles of them, and they were attempting to copy it as best they could. It is probable, however, they had also other models besides this one, and certain that this was not the first attempt to reproduce them. The differences are considerable; but the similarities are so great that we ought rather to be astonished that ten centuries of experience and effort had not shown more progress than we find.

There are few chapters in the history of mediæval architecture which it would be more desirable to have fully and carefully written than that of the style of Provence from the retirement of the Romans to the accession of the Franks. This country, from various causes, retained more of its former civilisation through the dark ages than any other, at least on this side of the Alps. Such a history, however, is to be desired more in an archæological than in an architectural point of view; for the Provençal churches, compared with the true Gothic, though numerous and elegant, are small, and most of them have undergone such alterations as to prevent us from judging correctly of their original effect.

Among the Provençal churches, one of the most remarkable is Notre Dame de Doms, the cathedral at Avignon (Woodcut No.547). Like all the others, its dimensions are small, as compared with those in the northern province, as it is only 200 ft. in length, and the nave about20 ft. in width. The side aisles have been so altered and rebuilt, that it is difficult to say what their plan and dimensions originally may have been.

547. Porch of Notre Dame de Doms, Avignon. (From Laborde’s ‘Monuments de la France.’)

The most remarkable feature and the least altered is the porch, which is so purely Romanesque that it might almost be said to be copied from such examples as the arches on the bridge of Chamas (Woodcut No. 221). It presents, however, all that attenuation of the horizontal features which is so characteristic of the Lower Empire, and cannot rank higher than the Carlovingian era; though it is not quite so easy to determine how much more modern it may be. The same ornaments are found in the interior, and being integral parts of the ornamentation of the pointed roof, have led to various theories to account for this copying of classical details after the period at which it was assumed that the pointed arch had been introduced. It has been sufficiently explained above, how early this was the case as a vaulting expedient in this quarter; and that difficulty being removed, we may safely ascribe the whole of the essential parts of this church to a period not long, if at all, subsequent to the age of Charlemagne.

Next perhaps in importance to this, is the church of St. Trophime at Arles, the nave of which, with its pointed vault, probably belongs to the same age, though its porch (Woodcut No.548), instead of beingthe earliest part as in the last instance, is here the most modern, having been erected in the 11th century, when the church to which it is attached acquired additional celebrity by the translation of the body of St. Trophime to a final resting-place within its walls. As it is, it forms a curious and interesting pendent to the one last quoted, showing how in the course of two centuries the style had passed from debased Roman to a purely native form, still retaining a strong tradition of its origin, but so used and so ornamented that, were we not able to trace back the steps one by one by which the porch at Avignon led to that of Arles, we might almost be inclined to doubt the succession.

548. Porch of St. Trophime, Arles. (From Chapuy,‘Moyen-Âge Monumental.’)

The porches at Aix, Cuxa, Coustonges, Prades, Valcabre, Tarascon, and elsewhere in this province, form a series of singular interest, and of great beauty of detail mixed with all the rich exuberance of our own Norman doorways, and follow one another by such easy gradations that the relative age of each may easily be determined.

The culminating example is that at St. Gilles, near the mouths of the Rhone, which is by far the most elaborate church of its class, but so classical in many of its details, that it probably is somewhat earlierthan this one at Arles, which it resembles in many respects, though far exceeding it in magnificence. It consists of three such porches placed side by side, and connected together by colonnades—if they may be so called—and sculpture of the richest class, forming altogether a frontal decoration unsurpassed except in the northern churches of the 13th century. Such porches, however, as those of Rheims, Amiens, and Chartres, surpass even these in elaborate richness and in dimensions, though it may be questioned if they are really more beautiful in design.

549. Apse of Church at Alet. (From Taylor and Nodier, ‘Voyages dans l’Ancienne France.’)

There is another church of the Carlovingian era at Orange, and one at Nîmes, probably belonging to the 9th or 10th century; both however very much injured by alterations and repairs. In the now deserted city of Vaison there are two churches, so classical in their style, that we are not surprised at M. Laborde,[22]and the French antiquaries in general, classing them as remains of the classical period. In any other country on this side of the Alps such an inference would be inevitable; but here another code of criticism must be applied to them. The oldest, the chapel of St. Quinide, belongs probably to the 9th or 10th century. It is small but remarkably elegant and classical in thestyle of its architecture. The apse is the most singular as well as the most ancient part of the church, and is formed in a manner of which no other example is found anywhere else, so far as I know. Externally it is two sides of a square, internally a semicircle; at each angle of the exterior and in each face is a pilaster, fairly imitated from the Corinthian order, and supporting an entablature that might very well mislead a Northern antiquary into the error of supposing it was a Pagan temple.

The cathedral, though larger, is more Gothic both in plan and detail, though not without some classical features, and is entirely free from the bold rudeness of style we are so accustomed to associate with the architecture of the 11th century, to which it belongs. Its system of vaulting has already been explained (Woodcut No.544), but neither of these buildings has yet met with the attention they so richly merit from those who are desirous of tracing the progress of art from the decline of the pure Roman to the rise of the true Gothic styles.

550. Internal Angle of Apse at Alet. (From Taylor and Nodier.)

Taking it altogether, perhaps the most elegant specimen of the style is the ruined—now, I fear, nearly destroyed—church of Alet, which, though belonging to the 11th century, was singularly classical in its details, and wonderfully elegant in every part of its design. Of this the apse, as having undergone no subsequent transformation, was by far the most interesting, though not the most beautiful, portion. Externally the upper part was adorned with dwarf Corinthian pilasters, surmounted by a cornice that would not discredit the buildings of Diocletian at Spalato; the lower part was ornamented by forms of more mediæval character, but of scarcely less elegance. In the interior the triumphal arch, as it would be called in a Roman basilica, is adorned by two Corinthian pillars, designed with the bold freedom ofthe age, though retaining the classical forms in a most unexpected degree.

The rest of the church is as elegant as these parts, though far less classical, the necessities of vaulting and construction requiring a different mode of treatment, and a departure from conventional forms, which the architect does not seem to have considered himself at liberty to employ in the apse.

551. Elevation of half one Bay of the Exterior of St. Paul-Trois-Châteaux.

552. Half Bay of Interior of St. Paul-Trois-Châteaux. (From the ‘Archives des Monuments Historiques.’)

Another singularly elegant specimen of this style is the church of St. Paul-Trois-Châteaux, near Avignon (Woodcuts Nos.551,552). Its details are so elegant and so classical that it might almost be mistaken for a building of the Lower Empire anterior to Justinian’s time. Its plan, however, and the details of its construction, prove that it belongs to a much more modern date; Viollet le Duc would even bring it down as low as the 12th century. It hardly seems possible that it should be so modern as this; but the truth is, the whole history of the Romance style in this province has still to be written.[23]It has not yet been examined with the care it deserves by any competent authority, and till it is we must be content with theknowledge that, in the neighbourhood of the Bouches du Rhône, there exists a group of churches which, drawing their inspiration from the classical remains with which the country is studded, exhibit an elegance of design as exquisite as it is in strangecontrast with the rude vigour—almost vulgarity—which characterised the works of the Normans in the opposite corner of the land at the same period.

Passing from the round-arched to the pointed modifications of this style, the church at Fontifroide, near Narbonne, shows it in its completeness, perhaps better than any other example. There, not only the roof is pointed, but all the constructive openings have assumed the same forms. The windows and doorways, it is true, still retain their circular heads, and did retain them as long as the native style flourished—the pointed-headed opening being only introduced by the Franks when they occupied this country in the time of Simon de Montfort.

553. Longitudinal and Cross Section of Fontifroide Church. (From Taylor and Nodier.)

The section across the nave (Woodcut553) shows the form of the central vault, which the longitudinal section shows to be a plain tunnel-vault unbroken by any intersection throughout the whole length of the nave. The side aisles are roofed with half vaults, forming abutments to the central arches—the advantage of this construction being, as before explained, that the tiles or paving-stones of the roof rest directly on the vault without the intervention of any carpentry. Internally also the building displays much elegant simplicity and constructive propriety. Its chief defect is the darkness of the vault from the absence of a clerestory, which though tolerable in the bright sunshine of the South, could not be borne in the more gloomy North. It was to correct this, as we shall afterwards perceive, that in the North the roof of the aisles was first raised to the height of that of the central nave, light being admitted through a gallery. Next the upper roof the aisles was cut away, with the exception of mere strips or ribs left as flying buttresses. Lastly, the central vault was cut up by intersections, so as to obtain space for windows to the very height of the ridge. It was this last expedient that necessitated the adoption of the pointed-headed window. It might never have beenintroduced but for the invention of painted glass, but this requiring larger openings, compelled the architects to bring these windows close up to the lines of the constructive vaulting, and so follow its forms. In the South, however, painted glass never was, at least in the age of which we are now speaking, a favourite mode of decoration, and the windows remained so small as never to approach or interfere in any way with the lines of the vault, and they therefore retained their national and more beautiful circular-headed termination. The modes of introducing light are, however, undoubtedly the most defective part of the arrangements of the Provençal churches, and have given rise to its being called a “cavern-like Gothic”[24]from the gloom of their interiors as compared with the glass walls of their Northern rivals. Still it by no means follows that this was an inherent characteristic of the style, which could not have been remedied by further experience; but it is probable that no ingenuity would ever have enabled this style to display these enormous surfaces of painted glass, the introduction of which was, if not the only, at least the principal motive of all those changes which took place in the Frankish provinces.

554. Doorway in Church at Maguelonne. (From Renouvier, ‘Monuments de Bas Languedoc.’)

It would be tedious to attempt to describe the numerous churches of the 11th and 12th centuries which are found in every considerable town in this province: some of them, however, such as Elne, St. Guillem du Désert, St. Martin de Landres, Vignogoul, Valmagne, Lodève,[25]&c., deserve particular attention, as exemplifying this style, not only in its earlier forms, but after it had passed into a pointed style, though differing very considerably from that of the North. Among these there is no church more interesting than the old fortalice-like church of Maguelonne, which, from its exposed situation, open to the attacks of Saracenic corsairs as well as Christian robbers, looks more like a baronial castle than a peaceful church. One of its doorways shows a curious admixture of classical, Saracenic, andGothic taste, which could only be found here; and as it bears a date (1178), it marks an epoch in the style to which it belongs.

Had it been completed, the church of St. Gilles would perhaps have been the most splendid of the province. Its portal has already been spoken of, and is certainly without a rival; and the lower church, which belongs to the 11th century, is worthy of its magnificence. It was, however, either never finished, or was subsequently ruined along with the upper church, which was commenced in the year 1116 by Raymond IV., Count of St. Gilles. This too was probably never completed, or, if it was, it was ruined in the wars with the Huguenots. Even in its present state, and though wanting the richness of the earlier examples, it perhaps surpasses them all in the excellence of its masonry, and the architectural propriety of all its parts.

Besides these, there is an important church at Valence of the 11th century, which seems to be an almost expiring effort of the “cavern-like” style. In other respects it resembles the Northern styles so much as almost to remove it from the Provençal class. This is even more true of the cathedral at Vienne, which is nevertheless the largest and finest of the churches of Provence, but which approaches, both in style and locality, very closely to the Burgundian churches.

Back to Index Next