Charles of Anjou, brother of St Louis, with Beatrice, heiress of
Provence. The towns thought this a favourable opportunity for making an
effort to recover their freedom, and accordingly Arles, Avignon, and
Marseilles joined in a league against Charles. Arles and Avignon
submitted on his return from the East in 1251; but Marseilles, which had
resisted Raymond Béranger, resolved to maintain its Republican freedom.
Four years later, however, it was compelled to submit, when its
fortifications were razed. In 1262 the town again rebelled, but was
blockaded and reduced by famine. The ancient liberties of Marseilles
were preserved, but Charles substituted in this and the other towns an
officer of his own instead of the electoral Podestà. He afterwards
acquired Ventimiglia and the Maritime Alps. Charles next carried his
arms into Italy, and in 1266 he drove out Manfred, and took possession
of the two Sicilies. He died in 1285, and left Anjou, Provence and
Naples to Charles II., whose son Robert (in 1309) left a troubled
heritage to his grand-daughter Joan of Naples. In 1343 Joan’s husband,
Andrew of Naples, having been murdered, and Joan being suspected of
complicity in the deed, her husband’s brother, Louis of Hungary,
attacked and took Naples in 1347. Joan fled to Provence, and being
desirous to raise money in order to recover Naples, and also wishing to
be acquitted of all connection with the crime of her husband’s murder,
she sold Avignon, where the Popes were then resident, to Clement VI.,
and obtained his acquittal.
Provence had long enjoyed a popular government with representatives in
the three houses of the Clergy, Nobles, and Commons, who had control
over the national purse. Queen Joan attempted to cut down these powers,
and appointed an Italian as Grand Seneschal. But the nation revolted
against this interference with its ancient constitution, and Louis of
Anjou pressing his claim on the province, supported by an army, Joan, in
order to escape from her difficulties, had to adopt him as her heir. He
succeeded to the Countship in 1382, but he and his son Louis II. (1384),
and grandson Louis III. (1417) were all unsuccessful in their claims on
Naples. Louis III. was succeeded in 1434 by his brother René, the well
known poet and painter King, who had also claims on the throne of
Aragon. He died in 1480, leaving one daughter, Margaret, married to
Henry VI. of England.
René bequeathed Provence to his nephew, Charles III. of Maine, who soon
after died, making Louis XI. of France his heir.
In 1486 Charles VIII. declared the country united to France.
Provence thus became at length part of the kingdom of France. But the
Emperor of Germany still continued his claim of suzerainty upon it, in
which he was supported by the Constable, Charles of Bourbon. In
pursuance of that claim, Charles V. of Spain invaded Provence in 1536,
but without success. The country continued to be frequently attacked in
the subsequent wars between France and Spain, but has remained part of
France since the days of Louis XI.
The boundary of the province on the east remained from that time till
our own day, the river Var. It was a frontier badly fortified, and ever
open to attack; and we shall see what efforts were made by Francis I. to
render it secure against the attempts of his enemy of Spain. In 1861 the
boundary between France and Italy was extended eastwards, as far as a
ravine spanned by the “Pont St Louis,” a short way beyond Mentone, thus
including Nice and Mentone, formerly part of Savoy, within the French
territory.
In treating of the architecture of this part of the country, we shall
find that it bears in its architecture unmistakable signs of its former
Italian allegiance.
[Illustration]
[Illustration] IV.
The foregoing Sketch of the history of this region shews that its
architecture must belong to two entirely distinct epochs--the Roman
period and the Mediæval period. It is proposed in the following
description of the various edifices to treat of these two periods
separately,--taking up first the buildings of the Roman period in
regular sequence as they are met with in descending the Rhone from
Lyons, and in the various localities along the Riviera, both west and
east of Marseilles. Having thus exhausted the Roman monuments in the
province, we shall return to Lyons, and repeat the journey southwards to
Marseilles, and thence westwards and eastwards along the coast, taking
note of the more important of the many remarkable Mediæval structures in
which these localities abound.
This method will, we believe, be found to be much more satisfactory than
any attempt to deal with the architecture in chronological order. That
plan would be very confusing, the reader having under it to be
constantly transferring himself from one region to another. By the
system adopted he will at least always know where he is, and the
situation of the buildings will thus be fixed in the mind. The
disadvantage of this method admittedly is that structures of all the
Mediæval periods are described together as they occur in each locality;
but it is hoped that this disadvantage will be to some extent overcome
by the introduction to the Mediæval period, in which the historic
sequence and development of the architecture of the country in the
Middle Ages is considered.
Following the above arrangement we shall now proceed with the
description of the buildings, commencing with
THE ROMAN PERIOD.
In the North of France there are few remains of Roman buildings. This
probably arises from two causes:--_1st_, Because before the fifth
century Roman civilisation had not advanced so far in Northern as in
Southern Gaul, and consequently the towns were not adorned with the same
profusion of magnificent edifices;--and, _2nd_, Because the Northern
division suffered far more destruction than the Southern, from the
invasions of the Barbarians.
At Paris some Roman vaults, parts of a Palace or Baths, are still
preserved in the grounds of the Musée Cluny.
AUTUN is celebrated for its two fine Roman gateways, one of which (the
Porte d’Arroux) is decorated with Corinthian, and the other (the Porte
St André) with Ionic pilasters, features which afterwards produced a
strong influence on the Mediæval Architecture of the province of
Burgundy.
Autun also possesses remains of two buildings called Roman Temples, a
splendid pavement of mosaic, a fine collection of statuettes, bronzes
and inscriptions,--all bearing testimony to the importance of the town
in Roman times. But we must pass these by without further notice, as our
district lies south of Lyons.
In exploring the remains of Roman Architecture in Southern Gaul, one
cannot help being struck with the extraordinary and capricious manner in
which they have been preserved,--small towns like Orange and Nimes
being full of Roman work, and important Roman cities like Marseilles and
Narbonne having nothing left but the fragments collected in their
Museums.
Avignon, the ancient Avenio, was, before the Roman occupation, one of
the most important cities of the tribe of the Cavares; and under
Imperial rule was no doubt adorned with splendid Temples, Amphitheatre,
Theatres, and other public buildings like those of which the remains are
still to be seen at Arles and Nimes. But of all such structures there is
practically not a fragment now left at Avignon.
A large number of Roman antiquities from that town and vicinity have,
however, been collected in the Musée Calvet, so called after the
physician who founded it by bequeathing in 1810 his fine private
collection to the city. The museum contains some good Greek sculpture,
and a large number of coins, medals, and bronzes.
At LYONS there are a few subterranean remains of aqueducts, but no Roman
Architecture.
Some time after leaving Lyons, the railway, which follows the course of
the Rhone, enters a narrow pass amongst the mountains, where there is
little room for more than the river and the road between the precipitous
and rocky banks. The scenery is very grand, and the prospect is
especially fine at a bend of the river where the ancient town of VIENNE,
rising high upon a bold promontory surmounted by its ruined castle,
bursts upon the view.
The town itself is most interesting. Vienne was the ancient city and
capital of the Alobroges before the time of Cæsar. Under the Romans it
attained great splendour. Cæsar embellished and fortified it, and
Augustus and Tiberius bestowed favours on it. It was also the seat of a
Prætor, and had a Senate and Council, five legions, and a celebrated
school. The city increased to such an extent that it became necessary
to extend it on the other side of the Rhone. Vienne was divided into
three towns:--Vienne the strong, containing the citadel; Vienne the
rich, the town proper; and Vienne the beautiful, on the right side of
the Rhone (now called St Colombe), where many fine works of art have
been found. During the later Empire Vienne continued to be a place of
great importance, not unfrequently the residence of the Emperors, and
played a prominent part in the numerous revolutions of the times.
It was also the cradle of Christianity in the West, which, as tradition
relates, was there founded by St Paul on his way into Spain. The
Archbishops of Vienne became for a time Primates of Gaul.
But it was soon to encounter the usual series of disasters which
overtook the Roman towns of Southern Gaul, being conquered by the
Burgundians in 438, ravaged by the Lombards in 558, and destroyed by the
Saracens in 737.
Boson, King of the new Kingdom of Burgundy and Provence, made Vienne his
capital. But the second Kingdom of Burgundy perished in anarchy, and
Vienne became the capital of a feudal province ruled by a suzerain
called the Dauphin of the Viennois.
The town stands on the western slope of a hill facing the river, with
two steep heights above it, viz., that of Salonica, crowned with the
ruins of a Mediæval Castle, and the Mont Pipet, whose summit is
surrounded with an enclosing wall and towers, which occupy the position
of, and may have formed the citadel for, the Roman garrison, but the
buildings have been altered in later times.
Vienne possesses several interesting Roman relics, the most important of
which is the temple dedicated to Augustus and Livia (Fig. 1).
This building has in its time been dreadfully abused.
[Illustration: FIG. 1. TEMPLE OF AUGUSTUS AND LIVIA, VIENNE.]
It was formerly converted into a church, and shockingly disfigured. The
columns surrounding the cella were blocked up with common masonry, and,
as if this was not Barbarism enough, the fluting of the columns was
scraped off to make them flush with the line of the enclosing wall. The
edifice has now been carefully and judiciously restored; and as a
complete specimen of a temple of the Romans in Gaul is only surpassed by
the “Maison Carrée” at Nimes. It is about 80 feet long by 50 feet wide.
In front are six Corinthian columns, crowned with entablature and
pediment, and on each side six detached columns with two pilasters in
rear attached to the cella. The whole is placed on a stylobate, to which
twelve steps ascend in front. The temple stood in a Forum, some of the
pavement of which has been recently uncovered, and the foundations of
the colonnade which surrounded it laid bare.
[Illustration: FIG. 2. ROMAN FORUM, VIENNE.]
A large number of antique relics are here collected--amongst others,
portions of shafts, and bases of columns of gigantic size, which must
have belonged to a building of immense proportions. The admirably
preserved and well known group of two children struggling for the
possession of a bird is one of the finest objects in the collection,
which also includes many interesting fragments of sculpture and
architecture. Vienne possessed at least one ancient theatre, some relics
of which still exist in the ranges of steps forming the seats of the
auditorium.
Remains of underground aqueducts and Roman ways are also to be seen in
the neighbourhood. Of the arcade of the ancient Forum there now only
remain two arches and part of a vault (Fig. 2). The Corinthian columns
are half buried in the soil, and the entablature has been heightened
with a mediæval upper storey, but the colossal proportions of the
original building are still very striking. Near this are some massive
sub-structures and a portion of an immense staircase, the stones of
which still fit as well as the day they were built.
[Illustration: FIG. 3. THE PYRAMID, VIENNE.]
A little way south of the town, and on the level ground near the river,
stands a remarkable though unfinished monument called the “needle” or
“pyramid” (Fig. 3). The upper part consists of a tall and partly hollow
square pyramid. The base is pierced with four arches, each flanked with
two engaged columns, the capitals of which are only roughly blocked out.
The Romans were in the habit of building thus, and executing the
sculpture afterwards. The masonry is beautifully jointed and put
together without cement; but the blocks have been cramped with iron, and
the holes made for the purpose of extracting these cramps are
unfortunately only too apparent here, as in so many other Roman
edifices. There is no inscription or other indication of the purpose for
which this monument was erected, but it has most probably been
commemorative, and the name of Alexander Severus has been generally
connected with it. Prosper Mérimée is of this opinion, and adds that
“the interruption of the work might be explained by one of the
revolutions so frequent in the Empire, which made men forget or denounce
the memory of the person to whom divine honours had previously been
paid.”
[Illustration: FIG. 4. VIENNE RESTORED.]
The existing remains show that Vienne must have been a town of great
importance and splendour in Roman times. An attempt has been made by an
architect of the district to exhibit in a drawing an illustration of
what Vienne was like in the days of its glory, of which a reproduction
is given in Fig. 4. This restoration, although to a great extent
imaginary, at least serves to give some idea of the splendour of a Roman
city.
The next Roman edifices of importance in descending the Rhone are found
at ORANGE, the ancient Arausio, the capital of the Cavares. It was taken
by Cæsar, and became an important Roman colony. On approaching the town
by the railway, one is struck by the appearance of an immense pile of
building which rears itself high above all the other structures of the
place, but is at too great a distance to allow its features to be
distinguished. On closer inspection this turns out to be the proscenium
wall of the famous Theatre of Orange. Everyone is acquainted with the
general outline of the Roman amphitheatre, but the form of the theatre
is probably not generally so well known. The seats were arranged in a
similar manner to those of the amphitheatre, and were almost invariably
cut out of the side of a hill, but they extended only round a
semicircle. These constituted the auditorium, the diameter of the
semicircle opposite them being occupied with a high wall which enclosed
the theatre and formed the scena, in front of which was the stage where
the actors appeared. This wall or scena was generally elaborately
adorned with architectural features, including a profusion of marble
columns with their entablatures, niches with statues, &c. Dressing-rooms
and other apartments for the actors were either within the scena, or in
spaces at the ends.
The theatre of Orange corresponds with this description. The seats,
rising in tiers, are hollowed out of a hill side, and where natural
support was awanting, at either end, it was supplied by building walls
and vaults in continuation of the rock-cut seats. The proscenium wall
(Fig. 5) is of great size, and is a splendid specimen of Roman
construction, being 335 feet long by about 112 feet high, and is built
with large carefully fitted blocks without cement. This example is
valuable, as the proscenium portions of
[Illustration: FIG. 5. ROMAN THEATRE, ORANGE.--_Exterior._]
ancient theatres are generally destroyed and the materials removed.
Externally the wall of the scena presents a very simple appearance, but
has an imposing effect from its size. The ground floor is designed with
a series of arches having pilasters between them. There is a large
central entrance, and two smaller side doors arranged symmetrically, and
all square-headed. These probably corresponded with the internal
entrances, the central one being known as the Royal doorway, because the
principal actor, called the king, entered by it. The first floor is
quite plain; the next floor has an arcade surmounted with an
entablature, above which is a row of large corbels, the use of which is
doubtful. Above these is a great gutter, then another row of corbels,
and the summit is crowned with a projecting cornice. The six corbels at
each end of the upper row are pierced, as if to form sockets to receive
the feet of poles from which a velarium or great awning might be
stretched over the theatre (as was the case at the Colosseum in Rome and
other similar structures), but if so intended they could never have been
used for that purpose, owing to the projection of the upper cornice.
Prosper Mérimée thinks that the highest portion of the wall above the
level of the upper corbel course has been an addition or early
restoration, which has rendered the lower range of corbels useless, as
well as the upper ones, owing to a change of plan and the introduction
of a wooden roof, instead of a velarium, for the protection of the
actors. At either end of the proscenium great blocks of buildings
contained staircases, halls, dressing-rooms for the actors, places for
the machinery, &c.
The interior of the scena (Fig. 6) was decorated with three storeys of
columns of polished granite and white marble, now entirely broken down,
but of which a large quantity of fragments is still visible, along with
various carvings
[Illustration: FIG. 6. ROMAN THEATRE, ORANGE.--_Interior._]
and other works. These are collected in the proscenium, and form an
interesting exhibition, giving some idea of the former richness of the
decoration. The upper part of the scena carried the roof above referred
to. The beams were embedded in the solid masonry, and projected over the
proscenium, the apertures formed in the walls to receive them being
distinctly visible. This roof has evidently been one source of the
destruction of the building, as the calcined and blackened appearance of
the upper part of the walls shews that it has suffered from a great
fire, the materials for which could only have been furnished by a wooden
roof over the proscenium.
The sketch (Fig. 6) shews some of the ranges of seats cut out of the
rock,--those at the bottom being in a fair state of preservation; and
also some of the built portion of one of the wings which united the
great proscenium to the part of the auditorium cut out of the hill
behind.
In the Middle Ages this theatre, as often happened with the massive
buildings of the Romans, was converted into a fortification, and formed
an outwork of the castle erected by the Duke of Orange on the summit of
the hill above. But so solid is its construction, being composed after
the Roman manner of building, of great blocks carefully fitted together
without cement, that it has been able to endure for at least 1500 years,
almost without change, all the destructive influences both of man and
the elements.
Immediately adjoining the theatre on the west was a hippodrome, the
outline of which is quite discernible from the high ground above. It
seems to have run nearly the whole length of the present town, and
remains of it may be traced at intervals among the houses. The length
and comparative narrowness of the structure shew that it was intended
for horse and chariot races, and not for gladiatorial combats and
similar spectacles. Of this immense building almost the only
architectural features now remaining are a large arch across one of the
streets, locally, but erroneously, called a triumphal gate, and some
portions of an arcade incorporated with the modern houses.
Almost everywhere in Orange antique fragments are to be found, and
several statues and mosaics have been discovered.
But by far the finest relic in an artistic point of view is the well
known Triumphal Arch (Fig. 7). It stands at the northern entrance to the
town, and, considering the hard usage it has received, it is in a
wonderfully good state of preservation. The arch is about 70 feet long
and 70 feet in height. Such a massive building was too tempting as a
fortress to be passed over in the Middle Ages, and we accordingly find
it used for that purpose by Raymond des Baux, who played an important
part in this country in the thirteenth century. The northern façade is
best preserved. The structure, as was usual in large monuments of this
nature, is pierced with a principal central arch and two smaller side
arches, and is adorned with four attached Corinthian columns between the
arches supporting an entablature with a central pediment. The east flank
has also four similar columns placed very close together. The archivolts
and frieze are enriched with sculptured figures, and the spaces over the
side arches contain trophies of arms. The upper panel over the central
arch is filled with a large bas-relief full of figures, but it is hard
to say what scene is represented. The shields are ornamented with
crescent-like forms, and on one of them the name of “Mario” can still be
read, while diverse names were formerly legible on others.
[Illustration: FIG. 7. TRIUMPHAL ARCH, ORANGE.]
Many are the theories and disputations to which these words and
ornaments have given rise, but nothing positive has been made out with
regard either to the date or origin of the Arch. It has been ascribed to
Tiberius, and its date fixed A.D. 21. But its style and ornament forbid
this conclusion.
Mérimée thinks that the great analogy of style between the various
Triumphal Arches of Provence, viz., those at Orange, St Remy, and
Carpentras (to be afterwards referred to), renders probable the
hypothesis which supposes them to have been erected at the same epoch
and for the celebration of the same event, viz., the victories of Marcus
Aurelius in Germany. The profusion of the ornament, the form of the
arms, and the incorrect and pretentious character of these monuments
agree well with the architecture of the second century. Mérimée also
draws attention to the maritime trophies at Orange, and points out how
picturesquely the rostra of the ships, the masts, oars, &c., are
grouped. He believes these probably refer to naval conflicts on the
Danube.
Mr Ruskin also points to the execution of the sculpture of this arch as
a good example of _sketching_ in sculpture; the shields and other arms
and ornaments being surrounded with a deeply cut line, which defines
their outline clearly as an artist would do with his pencil in sketching
them. He considers such objects as unworthy of any more elaborate
treatment.
The work of restoration has been executed with great care and success.
The west side has been almost rebuilt, but with plain stone, applied
merely for the purpose of preserving the rest. No attempt has been made
to imitate the old work, and what remains of the ancient structure is
not scraped and polished up, as so often happens in French restorations,
whereby the value of the monument as an example of ancient art is
entirely destroyed.
Not very far from Orange, as above mentioned, another Triumphal Arch is
found at CARPENTRAS. It is much simpler in design than that at Orange,
having only one arch supported by fluted pilasters with composite caps.
The whole of the upper parts above the arch are destroyed. Some
sculptures still survive on the ends, representing captives chained to
trophies. The very bold projection of the bas-reliefs is remarkable, and
also the fact that in the sculpture distant objects are marked with a
sunk line round them. This style of emphasising shadows and outlines,
and also the method of doing so by means of holes drilled round objects
is common in the sculpture of the lower Empire.
Part of another single arch, apparently also an arch of triumph, has
been preserved at CAVAILLON, but it is very sadly mutilated, and has
been restored at an ancient period, when stones carved with ornaments,
mouldings, and enrichments have been all mixed up in the masonry.