I have already described the remains of Roman architecture; I will now

particularize the others, in the supposed order of dates. The porch of

the church of Nôtre Dame de Dom, is said by some antiquaries to be prior

to the church; while others maintain, that the body of the building is

also of the same early date; there is an upright joint in the masonry,

about 15 inches from the main edifice, which appears to me to separate

the erections of two different epochs. It seems quite the general

opinion, but not resting on sufficient authority, that this porch was

part of a Roman temple dedicated to Hercules. It is not in itself a

complete edifice, but forms three sides of a small quadrangular

building, with a Corinthian column at each of the two angles of the

front, and an arch between them. The columns are set on pedestals, but

the pilasters of the arch pass between them to the ground, as is usually

the case in the Roman triumphal arches; so far the whole is correct.

Above the columns there is merely an architrave, whose upper moulding is

very large and solid. It is even finely profiled as a termination, but

would appear rather too massive, if it were surmounted by a frieze and

cornice; I will not assert that this was not the case, though there are

now no vestiges of either: the present termination being a plain gable

end to the roof. Though a little stiff and dry, both the ornaments, and

their disposition, are decidedly Roman. The inner doorway, which is in

the wall of the church tower, is nearly a repetition of the composition

of the entrance to the porch, but instead of a pilaster, there is a

little column under the impost of the arch, which is not brought down so

low as the larger column, and the impost is an entire entablature. The

columns may still be called Corinthian, but the volutes are little more

than curled leaves, and the caulicoles have entirely disappeared.

Instead of the bold and masculine character of the outer architrave, we

find a small detached rectangular block above the capital, supporting a

compressed cornice; and a raking cornice, with two rows of modillions,

forms a very acute pediment. From the porch we enter into the vestibule:

this is square below, octangular above, and is finished, I believe, by a

hemispherical dome, which has eight ribs springing on the faces of the

octagon, and not from the angles. It is in the tower, the whole lower

part of which is likewise attributed to the Romans, but from the

character of the architecture, it appears that the inner doorway, this

vestibule, the nave, and the lantern at the end, are all of the same

date, and though much disturbed by subsequent alterations, they offer

the best specimen I have seen of _cavern-like Gothic_. Here is a new

term for you, but it is also a new style of architecture, and one which

seems nearly peculiar to the south of France. It is principally

characterized by the continued vaulting of the roof, generally pointed,

but without groins, and by the absence of windows in the sides of the

nave, or if any, they were very small. There is no proper transept, but

sometimes there are approaches to one; altogether it has very much the

appearance of a cavern. In the present instance, four semi-circular

arches open under the vaulting of the nave; the fifth division is not

vaulted, but four advancing arches on each side contract it to a square,

which is surmounted by an octagonal lantern with a dome; there have been

eight windows in this drum, but seven are now filled up, and windows

have been opened in the nave. There is also a window on each side below

the lantern, which perhaps existed in the original work. The choir, I

suspect to be somewhat later. In the fourteenth century all the arches

on the south side seem to have been altered to the style of that age,

the semicircular arches having been taken out, and pointed ones

introduced; side chapels of greater extent were also then added, in one

of which is a Gothic tomb of John XXII., of excellent design, but poor

workmanship. Another, called the chapel of the popes, is also attributed

to the fourteenth century, and corresponds in several particulars with

the church of St. Nizier at Lyon, which is of the same period. The bases

are all at the same elevation, but the shafts run up through the

capitals, and are lost among the mouldings of the ribs. The roof of the

earlier part of the building is covered with stone slabs, which I

believe rest on the vaulting without the intervention of any wood-work.

There is a little ridge ornament of intersecting ribs of stone, which

does not seem to be of equal antiquity.

The next subject is the church at Orange. The arch which forms the

western doorway here, is so much like the Roman work of the theatre,

that it might almost be supposed to be of the same age. The church

itself is of very high antiquity, and of a style of architecture very

similar to that of Nôtre Dame de Dom; it is vaulted with a continued

arch, slightly pointed, but without groins; there are no side aisles,

but on each side are four chapels, with semicircular arches; the windows

are small also, with semicircular heads, which enter into the vaulting

of the nave, and are not perhaps as old as the building. At the end of

the church is an apsis. I believe this is a semicircular niche, nearly

as high as the nave, and like that with a pointed arch, but modern

ornaments hide its form; and in the back of it there is a single lancet

window. This I write from memory, as I neglected to note it on the spot;

at any rate I should doubt of its being part of the original

construction; it is rare to find this ancient apsis existing, as it has

usually been pulled down to make room for a more spacious choir.

The nave of the cathedral at Arles, dedicated to St. Trophimus, is said

to have been built by St. Virgil, and consecrated on the 17th May, 626.

I am inclined to believe that we now see the original building. The

vaulting is very obtusely pointed without groins. This church has aisles

and no side chapels, but these aisles are vaulted only in a quarter of a

circle, which forms a counterpoise to the thrust of the great arch of

the nave; the openings into the side aisles are also very obtusely

pointed. The windows are modern, and I suspect that no window was

intended in the nave, except a small circular one over the principal

entrance; how the choir was originally finished, I have not sufficient

evidence to decide, but it is most likely that the building terminated

in an apsis, as in the ancient churches of Rome, with the altar in

front, and an inclosure for the choir before the altar.

Although in all the churches of this style, windows posterior to the

date of the building have been opened into the nave, yet they almost

always feel close, and have a disagreeable smell; this was very strongly

the case at Arles, and perhaps contributed to my illness there. The

bones of St. Trophimus were brought here in 1152, and it is not

improbable that the porch was added on this occasion. It is very

magnificent, consisting of a large and rich semicircular arch, with

multiplied mouldings, supported on slender columns, and the whole

adorned with a profusion of statues. Although of a style which

terminated with the twelfth century, it is evidently an adjunct to the

original building, but one to which it would be I believe, impossible to

find a parallel. It is difficult to explain how it happens, that such a

contradiction to good sense, as supporting a great arch upon little

columns, can produce a pleasing effect, yet I must acknowledge that this

porch is not only singular, but very beautiful. The porch at Tarrascon,

already mentioned, was somewhat similar to this, but greatly inferior,

and it has been much damaged during the Revolution, while that of Arles

remains perfect.

The cathedral at Nismes has a simple nave, with groined and pointed

arches and chapels, with semicircular arches on the sides. The west

front bears evident traces of the Roman style of design; it has a

pediment, and a cornice supported by modillions, with roses in the

intervals, both on the upright face and on the soffite. Under the

cornice is a continued frieze ornamented with a series of figures from

the scripture history. This front has suffered much by repeated

alterations; the part above described is certainly ancient, but lower

down, the original form is become very obscure: it seems to have been a

continued wall, ornamented with very slender shafts supporting small

semicircular arches. The upper part of the western tower, for there is

at present only one, is of the fifteenth century; the lower part is

considerably more ancient. There is a gloomy passage behind the choir,

and a ladies chapel, which is of later date. The church at St. Remi also

partakes of this cavern style, and many of the village churches which I

could not stop to examine seem to exhibit it, and are perhaps of the

same early date.

The church at Valence is a very remarkable example, which must rather be

classed with what is called Norman architecture, than with the edifices

above described. Yet it must be confessed, that if it resemble the

ancient buildings of our own country, in so many particulars as to be

comprehended in the same term, it yet differs in others so much as to

present an appearance by no means exactly similar. The ornaments in

particular are all Roman; the only attempt at novelty in the earlier

buildings of the middle ages, in the south of France, consisting in

placing some of them topsy-turvy. The shape is a Latin cross, of which

the foot is remarkably long, and the head short. The vaulting of the

nave is waggon-headed, that of the side aisles is groined; all the

vaults and arches are semicircular. The capitals are all nearly alike,

and are only a step farther from the Corinthian than those of the inner

archway of the church of Nôtre Dame de Dom. It is amusing to follow the

steps of this degradation of the Roman architecture from one building to

another; and here, though very much altered, there is still much more of

the original form than we find in England, or in the north of France.

The piers consist of four half columns of very slender proportions,

united to a square pillar; and these half columns rise in one height,

without any intermediate bands, from the small plinth on which they

stand, to the underside of the vaulting. The arches of the side aisles

rise nearly to the springing of the vault of the nave. The intersection

of the nave and transept is surmounted with a dome, and the chevet

finishes in a niche-head or semi-dome; it is earlier than any thing I

know in the eleventh century, but the existence of a transept makes me

unwilling to suppose its erection prior to the year 1000. The lower part

of the tower is perhaps older; the upper is certainly more recent than

the body of the church; yet it is still a sort of Norman, but with some

Gothic ornaments, which do not seem to be additions. As the Norman, or

something very like it, appears to have been the architecture of

Charlemagne, it is possible that the cathedral at Valence is of the

eighth century; but I find that I have freed myself from all those

shackles about dates, which I had imbibed in England and strengthened at

Paris; and now ramble through five or six centuries with very little

light to guide me.

The church at Vienne which I have already described, is the last which

retains any trace of this cavern-like style, and that rather in some of

the accessories than in any of the principal parts. There we meet with

something of Norman details, and something of a degraded Roman. The

Norman may perhaps itself be called a degraded Roman, but the

degradation has not always taken place exactly in the same manner. It is

curious enough that in the latter imitations of Roman, they should

frequently have reversed the ornaments, putting the eggs and darts, for

instance, the wrong side uppermost, while at the expiration of the

Gothic in the sixteenth century, we may sometimes find the trefoil

ornament reversed in the same manner.

LETTER XII.

SOUTH OF FRANCE.

_Geneva, 27th August, 1816._

IN my last I ran through the architecture of the middle ages in the

south of France, and have now only a few observations to add of a more

miscellaneous nature. The church of Nôtre Dame de Dom is seated on a

rock which rises immediately from the Rhone, above the rest of the town,

to the height of about 120 feet: all the remainder of the country to the

east of the river, is a plain, bounded at a moderate distance by rugged

hills, and beyond these by Mont Ventou, a bulky mountain, estimated to

rise 6,000 feet above the Mediterranean. On the other side of the river,

rocky hills come down to the water’s edge, crowned in several places

with picturesque ruins. In the middle of the Rhone is a large island

shaded with trees; and extending half way across the nearest branch of

the stream, are the ruins of the ancient bridge of St. Benezet; the

first perhaps of any consequence built by the nations of modern Europe.

It was begun in 1177, during the most flourishing period of Avignon,

when the government of that city was republican. Notwithstanding the

expense of the erection, we are told that in 1179, the magistrates

declared the inhabitants free from all imposts on that account. The

bridge consisted of twenty-two arches, and was 1,200 paces in length;

but like all ancient bridges, very narrow, the road-way not exceeding

nine feet in width. Each arch is composed of four ribs, or series of

vault stones, not bonded together. Like the Pont St. Esprit, it forms an

elbow towards the current. On the first pier of the bridge is a chapel

for the passengers to pay their devotions. This custom was probably

derived from times when there was only a dangerous ferry, and travellers

performed an act of piety, that they might not die unprepared. The old

chapel was entered by a descending flight of steps, but as this was

found inconvenient, a vault was inserted at half the height, and a new

chapel built at the top of the old one; the first has a semicircular

apsis with little columns, much like the Corinthian; the other is

polygonal.

When Louis XIV. visited Avignon, the inhabitants, to do him honour,

spread the whole of the bridge with velvet, and covered it with a canopy

of silk. They did it, perhaps, as sacrifices are performed to evil

deities, in order to avert the mischief they may occasion: but Louis,

struck with this appearance of wealth and prosperity, in a town which

did not belong to him, and not to be propitiated by their hospitality,

destroyed the bridge, surrounded the place with custom-houses, ruined

its trade, and thus drove the manufacturers to other places; and the

city, which once boasted a population of eighty thousand souls, is now

reduced to less than twenty thousand.

Avignon was a republic from 1134 to 1251. The popes came here (Clement

V.) in 1309, and abandoned it in 1376. Two sham popes were here till

1403, from which time Avignon was governed by a vice-legate, deputed by

the popes, till the revolution, when it was finally taken possession of

by the French, and I suppose stands no chance of being restored. Nor is

it desirable that it should, since being inclosed in France, it must

always be in effect, subject to the government of that country. There is

a museum and a public library; and I visited the house of one gentleman

in the place, who has a fine collection of casts, and some pictures; but

I did not find any thing very interesting.

Close by the church of Nôtre Dame de Dom are remains of the palace. It

is said to have existed before the arrival of the popes, but if so, it

was greatly enlarged and embellished by them. It is, or rather it has

been, for great part is now in ruins, an immense, irregular pile of

building, without the least pretension to beauty: one part is now become

the prison of the city; another is converted into barracks; but the

greater part has long ceased to be of any use. Like so many other old

buildings in France, it is deeply stained with blood: the walls of the

hall are still shewn where the antipope Benedict XIII. blew up his

guests, and one of the towers was the scene of a still more horrible

enormity, perpetrated during the bloody era of the revolution, from

which it has received the name of the Tower of Massacre. No less than

sixty-five persons of both sexes, accused of being aristocrats, were

crowded into a little room in the upper part of it, and the ruling party

amused themselves with shooting from the door amongst the prisoners.

When, in this manner, all of them had been more or less disabled, the

ruffians entered the room, and having made a hole in the vaulting which

supported the floor, precipitated the miserable victims one by one to

the bottom of the tower, a height of 80 or 100 feet; for the

intermediate floors, if ever there were any, had all been destroyed. The

cries of the wretched sufferers were still heard, and a quantity of

quick lime was thrown down, at once to stifle them, and to destroy the

bodies. The gratuitous excesses of this period make one shudder for

human nature. History presents nothing to equal them; we find examples

of individuals, indeed, whose highest enjoyment seems to have arisen

from the sufferings of others; but here the mass of the population, a

population professing itself christian, and boasting even of its high

civilization, appear to have had no greater delight than to make their

fellow creatures suffer; and late events shew this most execrable spirit

still to exist in the south of France. The chapel of this place remains

entire; it is a large, and even handsome room, of seven bays with two

windows at each end.

I left Avignon on the evening of the 9th of August for Valence, where

there is a very curious church, which I have already described. Close by

it is a monument, which Millin says would merit an engraving; it did not

strike me as particularly interesting, but the weather was so cold as to

impede my drawing; an inconvenience I certainly did not expect in this

latitude, at this time of year. On the 11th I again resumed my place in

a diligence for Grenoble. The morning was cold, but fine, with clouds

hanging over the distant mountains. The first striking object was

Romans; situated in the valley of the Isere, wild and varied, but

without any mixture of the terrible; in the midst of which the city

occupies a charming situation. Soon after, we approach the mountains,

high, broken, and savage. These and the river were on our right; on the

left were high wooded hills, sometimes rocky, but not rising into

mountains; and our route lay through a delightful valley well wooded,

with vines on high trellises, and corn underneath them, or rather

stubble, for little corn remained on the ground. Where there were no

vines, we found mulberry-trees, and there is very little ground not

shaded in one way or the other. Besides these, the valley produces

abundance of noble walnut trees, and the woods, which are spread over

the hills, contain a considerable quantity of fine timber. As for the

shape of the mountains, those about Settle may give you some notion of

them, only they are I suppose three times as high, and more steep and

abrupt, especially about the entrance of the valley of Grenoble. The

Isere there, makes a sudden bend, and the road turning with it, conducts

us between two magnificent rocky masses, with a rich and fertile valley

of about a mile wide between them. Grenoble stands at the edge of a

plain which looks as if it had been a lake, watered by the Isere and the

Drac. The former is still a considerable river, but thick and muddy. In

walking about Grenoble, wherever the street has length enough in a line

nearly straight to give any opening, one is sure to see a mountain or a

precipice, with clouds hanging about it, or with snow lying in its

hollows. The difference of vegetation, between this neighbourhood and

Provence is very striking; the plants are much more like those of

England, and such as I had left in seed at Nismes are here still in

flower. I find again cherries and strawberries, and young peas; none of

which I had seen since leaving Lyon. No figs; and though there are

green-gages in the market, they are not ripe, while at Avignon they are

almost over.

On the morning of the 13th I set off with a guide to the Grande

Chartreuse, going by the longer and more practicable route, and

proposing to return by the shorter. We passed fine cliffs and deep

ravines, such as you would take a long ride to see in England; but one

of the great charms of the scene arises from the noble chesnut and

walnut trees which shade the sloping parts. Even to the mountain tops

there is plenty of wood, and firs are seen crowning the most elevated

precipices. We crossed what is called in Cumberland a hawse, but instead

of finding barren moors at top, as would be the case there, we meet with

farm-houses, meadows, woods, trees, hedges, and even corn-fields; the

wheat, however, was far from ripe, and the oats were quite green. From

the village of St. Laurent our course lies by a little mountain stream,

called the Gaiers Mort. While the horses rested, I walked forward alone,

coasting the stream, sometimes down on the banks, sometimes two or three

hundred feet above them, and seeming to be rather in a rift in the

mountain than in a valley. This opening is entered by a passage, where

there is just room for the road and the river, between perpendicular

rocks. An arch built across the road, marks the limit of the ancient

domain of the Chartreuse. If you can figure to yourself Helkswood, at

Ingleton, immensely magnified, you will have no bad idea of this pass.

Similar scenery, sometimes with a little more space, sometimes with

less, and varied by precipices more or less tremendously magnificent,

accompanies us till nearly the end of our journey. The road descends

sometimes almost to the bottom; at others, carries us on the edge of

slopes, higher and steeper than the steep part of Boxhill, but always

covered with wood; and sometimes we seem to look down quite

perpendicularly on the noisy torrent below. At one point, a sudden turn

in the road, where we cross the stream by a bridge, and begin to ascend

the opposite side of the valley, presents a particularly fine assemblage

of these objects. At last the scene opens, and we behold meadows, and a

number of men employed in mowing them, and soon after, the Grande

Chartreuse itself, an enormous, ugly pile of building, standing on the

slope of a mountain, a situation unavoidable where there is no level

ground. I walked round the lengthened corridors, and examined the

apartments of the monks; each of which contains a sitting-room and

bed-room, a light closet, places for wood, &c., and a little garden; but

after the neglect of twenty-five years, every thing looks forlorn and

desolate. Five old men are returned, more are expected, but the

establishment is at present very poor; they hope however to receive a

grant of the woods immediately about them, and to obtain some revenue

from the sale of charcoal, and from that of planks, all of which must be

sent on the backs of mules to find a market in the lower country.

I walked up among the woods, which are of fir and beech, but mostly of

the first, to the chapel of St. Bruno, and returned to a supper on

_soupe maigre_, an omelet, and bread and cheese. I had taken the

precaution to provide a substantial meat pie at Grenoble, aware that the

cheer here was not very good, but my guide had lost it, together with

his own great coat, by the way. I then retired to sleep on a bag of

straw between two brown blankets, for all the sheets belonging to the

establishment were dirty; and the whole population being employed about

the hay, there was no possibility of washing them. It appears that the

climate of the Grande Chartreuse has not summer enough to ripen corn.

The convent is every where surrounded by mountains and precipices.

Opposite to it is a steep slope covered with wood to an immense height;

in the immediate neighbourhood are meadows and pastures, rising on hills

which are pretty steep, but not rocky. Indeed the soil must be good, for

the vegetation is vigorous. Behind are steep woods; and above these,

lofty precipices form the summit of the Granson, on which there remained

a small portion of the last winter’s snow.

The next morning I returned to Grenoble, among scenery of the same

character. We are so used to the barrenness of the upper parts of our

own mountains, that an Englishman is astonished to observe so much good

land in such elevated situations. From the vegetable productions I might

very well have imagined myself in Surrey, if the occasional appearance

of _Pyrola secunda_, _Saxifraga rotundifolia_, and a few other Alpine

plants had not disturbed the reverie. On a more extensive view indeed

the number of fir trees, mixed with the beech, gave a different

character to the landscape; and towards the summit the woods were almost

all of fir, with only scrubby beeches interspersed, and patches of snow

were still lying among them. My guide made me observe some cattle near

the summit. Here, as in other parts of France, these always have

attendants to take care that they do not trespass, and to drive them

home at night; even if there were hedges or other inclosures, which

there are not, they could not be left out at night on account of the

wolves. During winter, a dog left at night in any court or open place,

among these mountains, is almost certainly destroyed before morning. The

latter part of the journey I performed on foot, and was highly gratified

by my walk.

The view from the descent into the vale of Grenoble is extremely fine,

extending over the rich and fertile plain beneath; the cultivated hills

rising around it, the woody mountains, occupying a still wider circuit,

and the rocky Alps towering above all, and still retaining, and some of

them always retaining, great beds of snow. It was indeed a magnificent

perspective, yet not without some alloy; for the dense clouds and thick

vapour very much obscured the prospect. I only saw at intervals,

sometimes one, sometimes another part of the scene, and was led to

imagine what the glorious whole would be in more favourable weather. The

plain and the lower hills were always visible, sometimes a black mass of

rocks would rise above the clouds, unconnected with any other earthly

object; sometimes nothing was to be seen of a mountain but an illumined

patch of snow shining through the mist. When I reached the bottom, I

began to feel the weather very hot, and found they had been complaining

much at Grenoble of the heat for the last two days.

Grenoble contains nothing interesting in point of architecture, but the

cathedral claims our attention in another way, by preserving the tomb of

Bayard, the chevalier “_sans peur, et sans reproche_,” a long tasteless

Latin inscription records the fact; it begins,

Hic lapis superbit tumulo non titulo,

Ubi sepultus Heros maximus suo ipsemet

Sepulchro monumentum.

One would have wished something of a very different character.

Letters of an Architect, From France, Italy, and Greece. Volume 1 [of 2] · 第 17 / 47 段