any other cathedral I have seen; the colours are deep, without losing
their brilliancy, and the light is stronger than at Rheims, although the
windows of the aisles, with only one or two exceptions, are painted, as
well as those of the clerestory. The glass is said to be half an inch
thick; I believe this is not much thicker than some of the old glass in
York cathedral. Many of the windows contain escutcheons. This church is
461 feet long internally, and the vaulting is 113 feet high, the piers
of the nave are composed alternately of octagonal pillars, with four
circular shafts attached to them, and of circular pillars, with as many
octagonal shafts attached to them. All the arches and the vaulting are
pointed, except perhaps (and of this I am not sure), that the cross
vaulting of the nave may be of circular arches. The construction of the
roof has been much praised, but it is not good; the timbers are all
small, and the trusses are very close together. At the point of the
choir there is as usual a _maître poutre_ of immense size, which you are
told supports the whole roof, but which in fact supports nothing, being
itself suspended by the converging rafters. There is a space of about
six feet between the tie-beam and the top of the vaults.
[Illustration:
SHRINE-WORK AT CHARTRES.
_London. Published by J & A Arch. Cornhill. March 1^{st}. 1828._]
The single story of side aisles, the polygonal end of the choir, the
piers which support the groins behind it, and the windows of the choir
single, and not disposed by threes, all unite to refer this building to
the second style of French Gothic; which the greater massiveness of the
work, and the presence of some circular arches in the towers, might
otherwise render doubtful. The single story of aisles and the greater
height of the building seem to indicate a later period than Nôtre Dame
at Paris, but on the other hand the smaller windows, surmounted in the
nave by a single rose, the more solid divisions of the great rose
windows, and the style of finishing externally, announce an earlier
stage of the art. If I had to estimate the date from the architecture, I
should be very much puzzled by many peculiarities, either very rare, or
not met with elsewhere; but on the whole, excepting a portion of the
towers, I could not have placed it before 1150.
With good proportions, beautiful parts, and finely coloured windows, you
will conclude that the whole impression produced is sublime; but I wish
I had you here, where you would find some better proof of this, than the
cold conviction of your reason. The people seemed very devout, and were
all day long kissing the pedestals, and various parts of the decorative
architecture, about a figure of the virgin, which is almost black. In
this part of France the virgin is usually represented with a very dark
complexion; and such is, I believe, the case with the most popular
images of her in all Catholic countries. There is a labyrinth in the
pavement which is said to be a league, measured along all its folds; a
countryman applied to me to know if this was true. I told him it was
impossible, and shewed him that the number of turns, multiplied by the
length of the middle one, only gave 1320 feet, but he was determined to
believe as his fathers had believed before him.
I must not quit the cathedral without mentioning the beautiful
shrine-work which surrounds the choir, to see which is alone well worth
a journey to Chartres. It consists of forty-five compartments, forming a
sort of continued gallery, and contains in all about two hundred and
fifty figures, each of three feet high. It is a very curious specimen,
both for the extreme delicacy of the workmanship, and as a model of the
last period of Gothic architecture in France. It is complete point lace
in stone, and some of the threads are not thicker than the blade of a
penknife. The style is rich and beautiful, or at least many parts are
beautiful; but as a whole, it wants simplicity, and is inferior in
design to the architecture of King’s College chapel at Cambridge, and
perhaps even to Henry VII. chapel at Westminster; but the extreme
intricacy of the multiplied ornaments in the last-mentioned building
does not please me. In the work at Chartres the disposition of the
masses is much more simple and intelligible, but the tracery and detail
of the ornaments are even more confused. It is worthy of notice that the
vaulting continues entirely simple, and without any trace of the
palm-tree branching, exhibited in that of King’s College chapel, or of
the still more complicated arrangement of that of Redcliff church at
Bristol. This fine work is in two series, the first of which is said to
have been executed with the surplus of the money raised for erecting the
spire. It is precisely of the same style as that erection, if we make
allowance for its greater delicacy, adapted to the different nature of
the work; but no dates are marked on it: this forms the largest part.
The second series exhibits some traces of the knowledge of Roman
architecture, and has dates from 1523 to 1530. This is ornamented with
arabesques in imitation of the Italian _cinque cento_. I observed two
dates of a later period, T. BOVDIN MIL VI^C XI, and a similar
inscription of 1612, but there is no difference of style to account for
them.
I was led by the accounts of Chartres to suppose I should find some
vestiges of very high antiquity in the crypt under the cathedral, but I
was disappointed; there seems to be nothing but what is coeval with the
building, and the vaults do not extend under the whole edifice, but only
under the chapels and side aisles. The people in this neighbourhood are
more unfavourably disposed towards the Bourbons than those who live to
the east of Paris. A woman observed that I was one of those who had
brought back Louis XVIII. She had nothing to say against them or him,
but the tones of her voice did not promise that she would say any thing
for either. The _conducteur_ of the diligence perhaps was not a
Napoleonite. “Whether God or the devil, Napoleon or Louis XVIII. be on
the throne,” he observed, “the laws should be obeyed. There were
revolutions in France before this, of which they talk so much; for
instance, in the times of Charles V., who drove the English out of
France; and if the French were now as devoted to their country as they
were then, these things could never have happened.” I could not be
displeased with any Frenchman for a feeling of soreness at the
interference of foreigners in the affairs of his country, however
political circumstances may have required it.
The two churches last described, and that of Nôtre Dame at Paris, may be
considered as belonging to a style of Gothic, intermediate between the
first and second of those I have enumerated; and as I wish to give you a
sort of historical series elucidating the progress of architecture, I
shall here introduce some account of the French metropolitan edifice.
This is said to have been originally founded by Childebert, in 522. It
had 30 marble columns, and very large windows, according to the account
left us of it by Fortunatus, a cotemporary poet.[11] This description,
however, has nothing to do with the present building, which was
commenced in 1010 by Robert the Pious. After his death it was neglected,
and little was done till 1165, when Maurice de Sully, a liberal and
munificent prelate, filled the see of Paris, and to him we seem to have
been indebted for the greater part of the edifice. He destroyed the old
church of Childebert, which had existed till this period; and in the
year 1181 the eastern part was so far advanced, that it was consecrated
by Henry, the Pope’s legate, and by the bishop himself, who died the
next year. Odo de Sully succeeded, and prosecuted the work with great
zeal till his death in 1208, so that for forty-three years from the
resumption of the work, it was carried on with spirit, and we must
suppose a large portion of it was completed. Pierre de Nemours, who died
in 1220, is thought to have finished the nave and western front. The
last figure of a king exhibited in its galleries is that of Philip
Augustus, who died in 1223, and this is one reason for supposing it
finished in his reign, but it is not a very strong one. The south
transept was not, however, begun till 1257, as we are informed by a
Gothic inscription on the porch, and an ancient church of St. Stephen
was then destroyed to make room for it. The present rose window was
renewed on the model of the ancient one in 1726. The date of the north
transept is unknown; it probably preceded the south; but its porch and
chapels are assigned by Le Grand to the fourteenth century.
The front is heavy, but not so heavy as usually represented in
engravings; I think this appearance arises in part from the square
solidity of the towers, and in part from the horizontal lines being
marked too strongly, a circumstance which always produces a bad effect
in Gothic architecture. I have not been able to determine whether it was
intended to crown these towers with spires: I am inclined to answer in
the affirmative, but rather from analogy than from direct proof.
According to Landon there were twenty-five statues of kings in the
arches over the western porch, viz. thirteen of the first race, nine of
the second, and seven of the Capetian. They entirely filled one range of
arches and no more. Now there are two ranges of arches above the
doorways in this front, the lower of which, according to the elevation
given by the same author, presents twenty-four niches, and the upper
twenty-six. Query, how many statues were there, and where did they
stand? Felibien, in his plate of the elevation, which is much better
than Landon’s, figures twenty-eight niches in the lower arcade, viz.
nine in the middle, seven on one side, and eight on the other, and four
on the buttresses. The upper arcade is a gallery not intended for
statues, the middle part of which is open on both sides. The arches of
the lower range have trefoil heads, and appear from below to be entirely
composed of models of architecture. The canopies of the portal abound
also with models of architecture, resembling in this, and in the style
of sculpture, the south portal at Chartres. Perhaps the design of these,
though not the execution, may be attributed to the time of Maurice de
Sully, in 1165, but this brings the date a century later than that of
Chartres. I wish very much to discover that the south porch in that
cathedral was of 1160, instead of 1060, but I cannot persuade myself
that the physician of Henry I. lived to build it a hundred years after
his sovereign’s death. The Matilda mentioned as having contributed to
the church, may be the widow of the emperor.
Whittington says, “The eastern end, which is triagonal and very plain,
was probably one of the first Gothic structures in France (1168). This
plainness, from a proper regard to uniformity, was maintained in the
subsequent part of the building, excepting in the chapels, which are of
later date;” this I do not comprehend; the eastern end is semi-circular,
and is richly ornamented externally with slender shafts, and spires of
different heights, which may perhaps have been added at the same time
with the chapels, if these are indeed posterior, but assuredly they do
not make part of them. It seems to me that those parts which remain
without ornament have never been completed, for they exhibit abrupt
terminations, which were not in the taste of the Gothic architects at
any period. All the flying buttresses are exceedingly slender, and
altogether the construction of Nôtre Dame may be considered as among the
boldest, and most successful, existing in Gothic architecture; although
even here we find some traces of the too great operation of the thrust
of the arches of the side aisles.
On entering Nôtre Dame one is struck with the double range of side
aisles and open chapels besides, making an entire width of seven
divisions, instead of five, as at Amiens, or three, as in our churches.
It is generally supposed, that if two dimensions of a building are
great, they will appear of less magnitude if the third be great also.
For instance, in a very large building, great height will diminish the
apparent extent in the plan, great length will diminish the apparent
width, and a narrow room will look higher than a wide one of the same
height and length. Yet certainly the impression of space is much less at
Nôtre Dame, than in the narrower and loftier edifice at Amiens. One of
our travellers has estimated the size of Nôtre Dame as about half that
of Westminster Abbey; and some _non_ architectural friends with whom I
have talked on the subject, thought that he perhaps underrated it, but
that certainly the French building was much smaller than the English.
Nôtre Dame is 416 feet long internally, and 153 wide: the length of the
transept hardly surpassing the width of the nave and side aisles.
Westminster Abbey is 360 feet long and 72 wide. The transept, indeed, is
195 feet long, but the whole internal area of the French building must
be at least twice as much as that of the English. Whence is this very
false estimate of its size? Does it depend merely on the injudicious
arrangement of the parts, or is it in some degree to be attributed to a
patriotic determination to find every thing best in our own country?
Here are two stories of side aisles, and this double range, and the very
slender columns which divide the openings of the upper, are in some
points of view very pleasing. There are three arches over each of the
larger openings below, united into one common arch; but the space
included between the three smaller arches and the larger one is a blank
wall. This has a very bad effect, especially as it is a part in which we
are accustomed to expect ornament; indeed the arrangement of this
gallery is inferior to that before noticed in Nôtre Dame at Chalons. The
vaulting of the nave and choir is with oblique groins, as at Beauvais
and Mantes. The vaulting itself, according to Millin, is only 6 inches
thick.
With the cathedral of Nôtre Dame I conclude what I had in my mind to say
to you of the progress of Gothic architecture, previous to its full
development in the cathedrals of Amiens and Beauvais. Another proud
specimen of architecture of that period is found in the cathedral of
Rheims. It was founded, we are told, in 818, but I have some doubt
whether the early structure thus spoken of was not the church of St.
Remi, and not one occupying the site of the present cathedral. It was
burnt in 1210, together with great part of the city of Rheims. A new
cathedral was immediately begun, but the ancient crypt was left; now we
are not shewn any ancient crypt at the cathedral, but there is one at
St. Remi. The work went on with great rapidity, for the altar was
dedicated on the 18th October, 1215, and the body of the church was
finished in 1241. It appears probable that this finishing does not
include the famous western front, which however was completed before
1295. Thus you see the bulk of the building was erected in thirty-one
years; while at Paris two active bishops could not bring theirs to so
forward a state by forty-three years of persevering exertion, although
the foundations were previously laid, and probably a considerable
quantity of materials prepared, and although the transept was not
included. The size was not much greater, and the expense must have been
decidedly less, on account of the inferior richness of the latter
building. This difference is rather surprising, especially when we take
into consideration, that the Parisian bishops had the support of the
monarch. Of the portal, or west front, the plate in Whittington is the
best I have seen, though it retains many errors of a large but very bad
engraving, published in 1625. It must have been partly copied from this,
or from some other, which may be traced to a common origin, but not
without a reference to the building, because several mistakes are
rectified, and the details are better given, though the drawing is on a
much smaller scale. One important error is not to be attributed to the
old plate; the octagonal turrets placed at each angle of the western
towers, are not closed, but entirely open, consisting merely of the
slender shafts, which are kept in their upright position by numerous
iron ties. The part above the arches supported by these shafts is the
base of an unfinished spire, and the whole summit of the towers is
evidently of a temporary nature; even as a temporary finish, however,
there neither are, nor apparently ever were, any _fleurs-de-lys_.
In the richness and magnificence of the external architecture, Rheims is
superior to any other cathedral I have seen, and probably to any which
has ever been erected. Whittington’s plate above cited will give a
tolerably correct idea of the western front, but none of the effect
produced by the same profusion, extended over the whole surface of a
great building. I do not know whether the view of the back of the choir
is not even more striking than that of the great entrance, the
buttresses all terminating in little spires, all the parts running up
into pinnacles, all subordinate to a spire, 256 feet in height, which
crowns the _rond point_, and is surmounted by an angel of gilt bronze. I
do not know, by the bye, whether this angel be of gilt bronze, but I
know that such a piece of magnificence existed at Chartres, and my
imagination, rather perhaps than my memory, pictures it here. Nothing
but an angel would do in such a place, the situation is far too
dangerous for that of any human being. This spire on the chevet, perhaps
rather hurts than assists the general effect of the church, when seen
from a distance, but after passing near the back of the choir, no one
could wish it away, and if the spires in front, and whatever was
intended in the centre, were completed, it would probably form an
agreeable accessory from every point of view. All these spires and
pinnacles are richly decorated, and what is more, the ornaments are
highly beautiful, both in design and execution; the sort of plume which
finishes some of the pinnacles, is one of the most graceful terminations
I have met with. There are some trifling differences of detail in the
corresponding parts, but the general form is always similar, and the
character is uniformly preserved. None of these differences are
distinguishable without examination.
Passing from the outside to the interior, the first circumstance which
struck me was the obscurity of the nave, contrasted with the light of
the aisles. The coloured glass of the former has been preserved, while
that of the lower windows has very little colour. The opposite
disposition of white glass in the clerestory, and coloured in the nave,
would be preferable, yet this has a better effect than I should have
expected _à priori_, and I conceive would even find advocates. It is
probably owing to this arrangement that the coloured glass at Rheims
seems to have little brilliancy. The whole length of the building is 466
feet, that of the clerestory 386, the width of the latter 47. The nave
is 121 feet in height; the aisles I suppose about 54 feet, or something
less than half: all the parts are well finished, but the interior has by
no means the predominating beauty of the exterior. We may judge of
details by rule, but the only true method of estimating the excellence
of an architectural composition is by the sentiment it produces. I must
acknowledge that this is in some respects, an uncertain criterion, as
the impression produced depends in part upon the temper of the mind at
the moment, and even on the feelings of the body. However, we may make
allowances, and we may repeat the trial under different circumstances.
It is on this ground that I pronounce the inside of the cathedral at
Rheims to be inferior to that of Amiens or of Chartres. The capitals of
the columns of the nave in this cathedral are of very full and deep
relief; the foliage runs round the capital, and is often very gracefully
disposed; this is a step towards the third style of French Gothic, the
first and second having in general only detached leaves or figures. The
construction of the roof is very curious: the architect seems to have
intended to gain double strength by applying a king-post truss on each
side of the timbers of a queen-post truss. The latter rises on the
outside of the walls, the former on the inside, and its principal
rafters meet in a point considerably lower than if they followed the
direction of those of the other truss. The tie-beams are about 12 feet
above the point of the vaulting. All the timbers are said to be of
chesnut, and the proof is, that no spiders are found upon it. Over the
great arches of the intersection are four semicircular arches, evidently
intended to discharge the weight of a central tower or spire, from the
pointed arches of the internal vaulting, and therefore proving the
intention of raising such a tower. From the frequent mention we find of
central towers in the descriptions of the French churches, it is
probable that this intention was coeval with the design of the church.
Of all these described stone central towers or pyramids, however, I have
not had the good fortune to meet with one, and a large proportion of
them seems to have been destroyed.
Besides its Gothic architecture, Rheims has to boast an interesting
relic of Roman times. It is unfortunately built up in the modern wall of
the city, and not easily seen, except in a general view of such parts as
project from the face of the later work. Three columns and an arch are
sufficiently visible, and parts of three other columns; and enough
remains to enable one to make out the plan, and to shew that there were
three nearly equal arches, and eight columns disposed in four pairs; the
larger intercolumns are of course occupied by the arches, the smaller
have niches and medallions; the entablature is entirely gone, but it is
possible to creep into a vault in the thickness of the city wall, where
we see near at hand the soffite of one of the arches, with the ancient
stucco. The design was not very simple, but the execution is good for
its purpose. The flutes of the columns finish square under the capital.
The astragal of the necking has been cut; the capitals are too much
wasted to form any decided opinion from them, but on the whole it
appears to be a monument of a good period.
There is also a vaulted chamber, probably a sepulchre, which was
discovered in 1738. The vault is ornamented with octagonal compartments
and roses, in stucco, and the walls with painting. I did not see it, and
only know it from a little printed description, for which I am indebted
to the kindness of Comte Gregoire.
LETTER V.
RETURN TO PARIS.
_Paris, June, 1816._