transept, a disposition not at all pleasing. Parts of these towers seem
to be of the same date with those of Nôtre Dame, but they have been
altered and added to in the seventeenth century, at which time the
present vaulting, the two spires, and the whole of the west front, were
erected by the Cardinal de Noailles. The body of the edifice appears to
belong to the thirteenth century. Its nave has four ranges of windows:
those of the clerestory; those of the galleries or triforia, great part
of which are opened into windows; of the aisles; and of the side
chapels. The last form no part of the original design; they are very
low, and it would be an improvement to take them away. The slender
spires which surmount the old towers, are perforated in all directions;
and though they cannot be much praised, have something of a light and
elegant effect. There is a considerable quantity of good stained glass
in Nôtre Dame, and some likewise in the cathedral, but not so much; and
the great rose window at the west end of the latter is entirely without
it. I was in the church in the evening when the setting sun shone full
into the building, and produced a painful glare, instead of the rich
mellow splendor of painted glass in similar circumstances.
Chalons was the first place where I observed in common use the
semicircular tiles, which are usually shown to us in Italian landscapes,
but they were small and ill laid, and had a crowded effect.
We left Chalons early on the morning of the 30th of April, and for the
first six leagues saw nothing but a boundless common field. The
diligence does not change horses, but stops to rest them for an hour or
two in the middle of the journey. The harness was partly rope, and
partly leather, and some of the traces were chains. The rope traces are
rather apt to break, because no one thinks of putting new ones, as long
as there is any chance that the old ones will hold out the stage, but
the chain traces are worse. They are originally slight, but when a link
gives way its place is supplied by a bit of leather; this seldom lasts
long, and it is not uncommon for it to give way a second time in the
same stage, but with the most heroic perseverance the postillions apply
another piece of leather. I have not yet met with the phenomenon of an
iron chain entirely of leather, but I hope to see some considerable
approach to it. The latter half of the ride presented to our view a
range of hills, about two miles distant on the left, not very high, but
steep and broken, the upper part mostly covered with wood, and the lower
with vineyards. These hills form the edge of the materials occupying the
Paris basin, which every where exhibit a strong contrast to the rounded
swells of the chalk country. There were also some little hills on the
right, but these were naked, except a few groups of trees at the base.
This, though not a beautiful landscape, was a considerable improvement
on the shelterless plain of the morning. There was something at least to
amuse the imagination, but it did not last long, and we returned long
before reaching Rheims to the usual expanse of common field.
LETTER IV.
GOTHIC ARCHITECTURE.
_Paris, May, 1816._
HAVING conducted you to Rheims, I now proceed to give you an account of
what I saw there, and if it should contain a few digressions as long as
those in my last, I hope you will forgive me, for this Gothic
Architecture offers continual temptations to lead me out of the direct
road. I shall begin, not with the cathedral, but with a much more
ancient building, which is supposed to have served as a cathedral before
the present edifice was erected. The church of St. Remi is said by
Whittington to have been dedicated in 1049. I know not whether he mean
the nave or the choir, but they are certainly of different periods. The
_Recueil des Abbayes, &c._ says it was built in the time of Charlemagne,
and consecrated by Leo IX., who was pope from 1048 to 1054; the nave,
except the vaulting, is much in the style of St. Germain des Prés, at
Paris, but the pillars are of various shapes, and do not seem the result
of one design. There are two stories of aisles to the nave, and to the
straight part of the choir, and above these are the principal windows of
the clerestory, with semicircular heads, and over them a range of
circular openings, which I do not recollect to have seen elsewhere. The
buttresses, externally, are alternately semicylindrical with a small
projection, and rectangular with a very considerable one; the first are
parts of the original structure, and evidently denote the roof to have
been of timber, and not vaulted; indeed all the vaulting appears to be
posterior to the walls and piers; the latter were probably added at the
same time with the vaulting which rendered them necessary. The middle of
the western front is a restoration, in which many old parts have been
re-used, and the fragments of marble and granite render it probable that
the spoils of some Roman building were employed in the ancient edifice.
The two old towers remain, the southern doorway, and the window over it
are beautiful specimens of what I have denominated in a former letter,
the third style of Gothic; and are probably of the fourteenth century.
The choir is of the first style, very much resembling that of Nôtre Dame
at Chalons, and though this church is certainly inferior in general
effect to the one just mentioned, yet some of the partial views it
presents are, I think, superior to any thing there. The flying
buttresses of the choir are supported, on their first separation from
the building, by a little column; and a narrow gallery, which surrounds
the clerestory, passes between these columns and the body of the church.
The same disposition prevails at Nôtre Dame at Chalons, at Amiens, and
at the cathedral at Rheims. There are some granite shafts of columns in
the church, which have perhaps belonged to an ancient temple.
Under this church is a crypt, where we are shewn the tombs of Clothaire
the First, and of Sigismond, king of Burgundy. The former died in 561,
probably at Soissons; the latter was thrown with his wife and family
into a well at Orleans, and we should not certainly expect to find him
in the same chapel with one of his principal enemies at Rheims. A simple
vault, or succession of vaults of small dimensions, can give us no
internal evidence of the time of its construction.
And now, in order to preserve something of a chronological order, let me
transport you from Rheims to Mantes, where I have since seen a church
which is a puzzle for the antiquaries. Whittington says that it was
built by Eudes de Montreuil, and I understand him to quote Millin for
the assertion; but I cannot find the passage in that writer. On the
contrary, Millin tells us that it was built by the same architect who
built Royaumont. Now, Royaumont was finished in 1228, sixty-one years
before the death of E. de Montreuil, which took place in 1289. The first
church which was erected at Mantes is said to have been built in 865,
but it was destroyed by William the Conqueror; and we certainly see at
present no remains of any edifice of that date, yet Millin seems
inclined to consider the northern doorway of the western portal as part
of the original construction. Altogether this church has the appearance
of a building that has undergone considerable alterations at different
periods. In what I take to be the original work, the nave has two
stories of aisles, the end of the choir is round, and the windows are
without tracery. In the clerestory and in the lower aisles the windows
are pointed; in the upper aisles they are entire circles; all have Saxon
ornaments externally, and are quite plain within. All these
circumstances indicate a style prior to that existing at the beginning
of the thirteenth century, which is the date generally assigned to the
edifice, under the auspices of Blanche of Castille, mother to Louis the
Ninth. Two towers have been added at the west end. The southern, which
is said to be the most ancient, is a very strange composition of slender
Gothic. The upper story but one is surrounded by a colonnade, if the
expression be admissible, of two ranges of columns, one above another,
without either arch or architrave between them, but merely connected
with the wall by a stone slab on each capital of the lower range. The
upper range supports arches, on which rest several unconnected slabs,
steeply sloping, wrought into scales, and conducing neither to the
beauty, the strength, nor the shelter of the edifice. The north-west
tower, built, according to the tradition of the place, three hundred
years after the other, is much less light in its construction, and not
much more handsome. It would rather appear more ancient than posterior
to the first, if there were any difference, but the summit is
comparatively modern, and this has probably given birth to the opinion
that its date is so much posterior.
Many of the chapels appear to have been built in the thirteenth century,
at which time the vaulting of the nave and choirs was perhaps added, and
some of the windows of the upper aisle were altered from their original
circular form, into that which they now bear. Later still (in 1405) the
porch of the southern door of the western entrance was erected. It is
very beautiful, and is the only part of the edifice which is so. Besides
these, are a great many other incongruities which are probably
assignable to different periods. The vaulting is with oblique groins, as
at Beauvais. You know, that in oblique groining, the piers are usually
alternately larger and smaller. In this church, the direct arch between
the greater piers seems to be formed on an equilateral triangle, or
nearly so, rising on the capitals of the shafts; but on the smaller
piers the perpendicular line is continued considerably above the
capital, and the direct arch between them is consequently very obtuse.
Perhaps it was this whim which attracted the admiration of Sufflot, who
is said to have been lost in astonishment at the _hardiesse_ of the
vaulting, although the nave is only 34 feet wide. The boldness of the
architect is however sufficiently conspicuous in other respects, for the
piers of the chevet are only 1 foot 11 inches in diameter, to support a
vaulting which rises 102 feet 6 inches (English measure) from the
ground. One of them is consequently crippled, and has been banded and
supported on every side with iron. M. Gabriel, one of the companions of
Soufflot, in his examination of this church, contends that the six
columns of the chevet might all be cut away, and that nevertheless, by
the scientific disposition of the stones, the upper part and the
vaulting would remain secure: this indeed would be something wonderful.
All the arches of the nave and choir are pointed.
So much for Mantes, but I have still to trespass upon your patience
before I bring you back to Rheims, with an account of a building, which
from its early date, its peculiar architecture, and its great
magnificence, I consider the most interesting specimen of the Gothic
style in France, or probably in the world. I had conceived, from what
Whittington says of it, pp. 54, 55, 57, that I should find a building of
the Norman taste, but this is not the case; Chartres is decidedly
Gothic, of a peculiar manner indeed, but such as one would suppose
posterior to all the three edifices above described. There are some
additions to the original building, but these are extremely well marked,
and the mass of the edifice is so clearly the result of one design, and
the production of one period, and the time of its erection is so well
authenticated, that it takes place of all other cathedrals in
antiquarian interest, and yields to few in beauty. Let me relate to you
what information I have been able to pick up on the spot, it may help
you to form some idea of what one has to wade through to arrive at any
satisfactory results in the history of French Gothic. I first bought a
little book of the history of Chartres, in order to obtain the dates of
the different parts, but I learnt from it little of what I wanted to
know. The author begins by telling us, that the ancient nations of Gaul
were the most religious people in the world, and that the innocence of
their lives, and the holiness of their priesthood, made them worthy to
participate in the most important revelations, and to have the future
incarnation of the Word shewn to them, long before it was accomplished.
There were, he says, three classes of people to whom this communication
was made, the Magi, the Sybils, and the Druids. The first learnt it by
their knowledge of astrology, the second received the gift of prophecy
in recompense of their virginity, and the Druids knew by a prophetic
spirit rather than by any fortuitous prediction, that a virgin would one
day bear a son for the salvation of the world; and they consequently
raised altars in several places, inscribed _virgini parituræ_, (did they
write Latin?) and amongst others there was a very celebrated one at
Chartres.
When afterwards Christianity was preached in these parts, there were
three circumstances of similarity in the Christian and Druidical rites,
which greatly facilitated its progress. The worship of the virgin, who,
according to their traditions, was to bring forth a son; the offering of
bread and wine, usual in their sacrifices; and the adoration of the Tau,
that is, of the cross. The Christian service was performed at the
ancient altar of the virgin, and crowds thronged from all parts of the
universe to present their offerings. The present cathedral is built over
the grotto where this altar formerly stood.
The most famous relic here was the shift of the virgin, which was stolen
from a Jew widow by some pious patricians of Constantinople. It was
taken from them by an emperor, whose piety was, I suppose, of the same
sort, and presented to Charlemagne, who brought it to Aix. It was
removed thence by Charles the Bald, and given to the cathedral at
Chartres. This relic has of course performed abundance of miracles, but
most of these are what would be called by many people in England special
providences. And, if amongst us, we had no division into sects, would
not these special providences soon become to be considered as miracles,
and alleged as proofs of the truth of particular doctrines? We have no
reason then to pride ourselves on our freedom from such superstitions,
as it depends on circumstances over which we have no control, but much
cause to be thankful, not that we have this or that form of worship, but
that we have the liberty of thinking for ourselves on religious
subjects. This book is not an antiquated work: it was printed in 1808,
and may serve to prove, that whatever injury the revolution may have
done to religion in the minds of the French, it has by no means rooted
out superstition.
There is a public library at Chartres, containing between twenty and
twenty-five thousand volumes, and I there found a history of the city
deserving more attention; although even in this, the author employs 200
pages in telling us what happened before the arrival of the Romans. This
folly seems as strong in France as it is said to be among the Welsh; and
many of the local histories are prefaced by an account of Samothès, the
son of Japhet, who first peopled Gaul, and a long series of princes, who
gave successively their names to the Druids and Bards, to the Celts, the
Gauls, and even to the Francs. These, instead of being a German nation,
were the subjects of Francus, the son of Hector, called Astyanax and
Scamander by Homer, who came to France and married the daughter of
Rhemus, king of Rheims. It was only a return to the land of his
forefathers, for Dardanus, the founder of the Trojan line, was a
Frenchman.
But to return to this History of Chartres, which was written by a M. V.
Chevard, and printed at Chartres. It assures us that the old cathedral
was burnt in 1020; that Fulbert, who was then bishop, began the present
edifice almost immediately, but that it was not completed at the time of
his death, in 1028, although it appears to have been considerably
advanced. We are even told that it was _finished_ before the middle of
the eleventh century, but this word is often used very loosely in the
accounts of Gothic buildings. Matilda, wife of William the Conqueror,
who died in 1083, covered the main body of the edifice with lead. The
_basnef_, the towers, and the west front, were finished in 1145. The
south porch was added in 1060, by Jean Cormier, or Jean Le Sourd,
physician to Henry I. of France. The famous steeple is one of those of
the western front. The place was formerly occupied by a wooden one, but
this being burnt in 1507, gave rise to the present, which rose almost
immediately from the ruins. I had heard so much of the height of this
steeple, that the first view of it disappointed me in this respect, but
the great elevation of the body of the building in the French churches,
effectually prevents any such extreme impression of height as is
produced by the spire of Salisbury Cathedral; or, at least, the
elevation must be indeed enormous to occasion it. The vaulting of these
edifices is more lofty, and the space between that and the timber roof
is much greater than is usual in England; indeed, sometimes in our
churches the direct tie-beam is omitted, in order to bring the vaulting
absolutely into the roof. The roof itself is also higher. Altogether the
ridge of the roof at Chartres must be full 50 feet higher than that at
Salisbury, and 50 feet added to the mass of the building, and taken from
the spire, will greatly diminish the apparent elevation of the latter.
The height of the edifice is very much lost in its bulk. It even forms a
base for the lighter part, and in some degree a standard by which to
measure it. Afterwards, however, in walking round the town, and seeing
the cathedral in different points of view, I gave to the height its full
value. The impression was not that of a very high steeple, but of a very
lofty church: an effect greatly enhanced by its fine situation, on the
summit of a hill, with the town collected at its foot. The whole height
of the new spire is 403 English feet. The upper part of the tower and
the spire, are of the most light and beautiful work imaginable. The
ornaments are executed with the greatest delicacy, and in entire relief,
the stems of the vines, and the bunches of grapes which enrich the
mouldings being entirely detached, and the work suspended merely by the
extremities of the leaves; and all the veins and ribs are shown as if
they were to be seen at hand, instead of at an elevation of 300 feet.
Even parts, which cannot be seen at all from below, are finished with
the same care. The staircase, by which one ascends this spire, forms a
little tower of itself, also of open work, quite independent of that
which supports the spire. The opposite spire is much more solid and
simple in its form, and seems to be part of the edifice of Fulbert; its
height is 365 feet, and its appearance is more like that of Norwich than
any other English spire I am acquainted with, but the resemblance is not
at all continued in the tower which supports it. There are several
pinnacles rising above the base of the spire, and the whole composition
is more Gothic than at Norwich. As the cathedral was two or three times
destroyed by fire, before it was erected in its present form, _i. e._
before the time of Fulbert, it is possible that some of the lower part
of this tower belonged to an earlier edifice; the pointed arch is
however exhibited in it. The whole western front is very beautiful. The
porch is ornamented with statues and columns, as at Rheims and Amiens,
but not in such profusion, nor is it so deep. The execution is also more
stiff and rude, and the resemblance is probably much stronger to the
western doorway of St. Germain, as it existed before the revolution,
than to either of these buildings. Some of the statues are merely stuck
to the little columns behind them, under others there is a projection to
receive the feet, but very small, and apparently insufficient. Over them
are small canopies, which are likewise attached to the shaft of the
column. The capitals of these columns, instead of foliage, are formed of
little figures, with canopies over them, surmounted by what have the
appearance of little models of large buildings. It is remarkable that,
although the arches of this doorway are somewhat pointed, yet the
architecture represented in the models never is so. In the south portal,
on the contrary, which I shall describe by and by, where these models
are tenfold more abundant, a considerable number have pointed arches.
This circumstance seems very extraordinary if this western doorway was
built, as is asserted, eighty-five years after the southern porch. Over
the great door is a triple window, the middle division being the largest
and highest, the only instance of this disposition in the building.
Above this is a magnificent rose window, but of simpler arrangement, and
a larger portion of solids than we find in those of a later date. The
windows of the nave and choir are also terminated by a rose, but with
this singular difference, that in the great roses the exterior is
ornamented with mouldings, while the internal faces are plain; in the
smaller ones, on the contrary, the internal faces are moulded and the
outside is plain.
The southern porch is very curious on many accounts. It was built, as I
have already said, in 1060, by Jean Cormier, physician to Henry I. This
date is important, because it seems exceedingly well authenticated, and
the addition of the porch proves the church, if not finished, yet to
have been in a state of great forwardness at that period. There are
openings, not arched, but square-headed, combining all the parts of this
porch into a sort of open portico. It abounds with detached shafts, of
which there are none within the church, with large and small figures,
and with models of architecture, in some of which, as I have already
remarked, the pointed arch is exhibited. The arches of the porch itself
are all pointed. The footstools of the figures are usually themselves
grotesque human figures, and many of them with crowns. These statues,
and the canopies over them, are much better managed than in the western
front. They are rudely finished, but the labour bestowed on the lace of
some of the garments shews that this rudeness was the effect, not of
negligence, but of want of skill. The foliage of the capital of the
columns spreads over the underside of the canopy. Above the porch is a
range of five windows, of equal size and height, and over these a rose
window. In the transept at Amiens, the angular spaces between a similar
range of arches, and a circle above them, are opened, and form additions
to the rose window; here they are closed, and no attempt is made to
unite them. There is, as usual, a gallery in front of the gable, and at
each end of this gallery is a small octangular tower, surmounted by a
spire. This seems to have been a common mode of finishing in the early
French Gothic; it occurs at a church in Soissons, which bears all the
marks of antiquity; and in other places. The general opening of the
windows, both in the clerestory and aisles, in this church, is
round-headed, but they are divided by a large plain mullion (such as I
have never seen elsewhere) into two parts, each of which has a pointed
arch, and over them is a rose.
It was, perhaps, part of the original design to have a tower on each
side of each end of the transept, and one on each side of the choir, but
the parts which are now exhibited of these towers, above the roofing of
the church, seem to be of later date; none of them are finished, and
what has been performed of the two latter does not correspond with the
work of the other four. These are ornamented with numerous little
shafts, extremely long and slender, most of which are united to the
solid masonry, but those at the angles are detached, in order to give an
exaggerated appearance of lightness. I imagine them to be posterior to
those of Nôtre Dame, at Paris, but earlier than those at Rheims; but
among the various efforts which ultimately completed the first mentioned
of these churches, we cannot determine during which the towers were
built, and the priority of date is left in great uncertainty, for the
style of building is not decisive, or rather, I have not sufficient
knowledge to be able to determine it from that character. The northern
front of the cathedral at Chartres presents a similar style of ornament,
but without the projecting porch, which makes so important and
interesting a feature on the south.