THE INTERIOR.--THE NAVE.
It is difficult accurately to state why a sense of disappointment is
so often felt on entering the Cathedral of Paris. The unsatisfactory
impression given by Notre Dame is one experienced by visitors of all
kinds. The architectural critic, who looks upon a Gothic church as
the result of certain clearly defined principles of construction and
decoration, must inevitably find in it much to admire. But while it
satisfies the specialist, and possibly impresses those who have little
pretence to technical information, it lacks the qualities of mystery
and of surprise which distinguish some buildings less ancient and less
stately. Thus we find one writer complaining that it is heavy, another
that it is cold, and a third that it is relatively unpicturesque.
Most of those who have recorded their dissatisfaction with the
interior of Notre Dame have sought to explain the causes thereof.
The splendid promise of the exterior, it is suggested, discounts the
remarkable beauties of the inside. Some feel that the regularity,
the coherence which distinguish the church, produce an _ensemble_ at
once ponderous and monotonous. Others complain of the lack of colour;
while on the other hand not a few protest against the intrusion of
recent polychromatic decorations. It is possible that the secret lies
in certain structural idiosyncrasies. The church is extremely broad
in comparison with its length. The bays are so few as to give to
the interior an air of undue severity. Fergusson, in his history of
architecture, condemns the vaulting ribs as ineffective. The marble
pavement is regarded on all hands as a misfortune: nothing could be
more tedious or inappropriate. It is, however, to be observed that as
one becomes familiar with the interior its shortcomings are forgotten
and the dignity of its proportions and details are apprehended more
fairly.
=Dimensions.=--The length of Notre Dame is 390 ft.; the width at
the transepts, 144 ft.; the length of the nave, 225 ft.; and the width
of the nave (without the aisles), 39 ft. The height of the vaulting is
102 ft. De Breul, in his _Théâtre des Antiquités de Paris_, mentions a
copper tablet which formerly hung against one of the pillars of Notre
Dame and gave the dimensions of the cathedral in the following verses:--
Si tu veux sçavoir comme est ample,
De Notre-Dame le grand temple,
Il y a, dans œuvre, pour le seur,
Dix et sept toises[10] de hauteur,
Sur la largeur de vingt-quatre,
Et soixante-cinq sans rebattre,
A de long aux tours haut montées
Trente-quatre sont comptées;
Le tout fondé sur pilotis,
Aussi vrai que je te le dis.
[Footnote 10: A “toise” is something over six feet.]
The curiosity of these lines excuses the inaccurate statements,
comparatively trifling, conveyed in them. Notre Dame, unlike most
mediæval churches on the Continent, is almost painfully clean. The
gaudy shrines which render some of the most splendid of Italian
churches almost grotesque are absent from Notre Dame. The broom and the
duster have been too freely used: all that is not appropriate has been
too sedulously banished.
In the old floor, amongst a multitude of other interesting memorials of
the dead, the tombstones of the following were to be found: Philippe
(son of Louis VI. and Archdeacon of Paris), _d._ 1161; Prince Geoffrey
of England, _d._ 1186; Queen Isabelle of Hainault, _d._ 1189; the
dauphin, Louis (son of Charles VI.), _d._ 1415; Louise (mother of
François I.), _d._ 1531; and Louis XIII. (his viscera only), 1643.
Amongst the more famous ecclesiastics were the following: Eudes de
Sully (1208); Etienne II. (1279); Cardinal Aymeric de Magnac (1348);
Bishop Pierre d’Orgemont (1409); and Dumoulin, Patriarch of Antioch
(1447). In addition there were three Archbishops of Paris who died
during the seventeenth century, and Renaud, Archbishop of Sens (_d._
1616). The substitution of squares of marble for the tombstones of
these historic personages admits of absolutely no defence.
Let us now consider the =Roof=. Mr. Charles Herbert Moore
thus describes it in his _Development and Character of Gothic
Architecture_:--
“Here is a vast nave (completed except the extreme west end by
about the year 1196), so admirably roofed with stone that the work
has lasted intact for seven hundred years, and will probably, if
not wantonly injured, last for centuries to come. These vaults are
sexpartite.... The diagonal ribs are round-arched, while the transverse
and longitudinal ribs are pointed. The intermediate transverse ribs
are, however, pointed but slightly; and to bring their crowns up to
the level of the intersections of the diagonals they are considerably
stilted. The crowns of the main transverse ribs are a little lower
than those of the diagonals, and those of the longitudinals are lower
still. The vaults have, therefore, a distinctly domical form. These
various adjustments, by greater or less pointing, stilting, and even
by the retention of the round arch where it will serve best, exhibit
the flexibility of the Gothic system in an interesting and instructive
manner.” Mr. Moore, after some further details, continues:--“In the
vaults of Paris, as in all Gothic vaults, the shells consist of
successive courses of masonry which are slightly arched from rib to rib
over each triangular cell. The beds of these successive courses are
not parallel, but are variously inclined according as the mason found
necessary or convenient in developing the concave and winding surfaces
engendered by the forms and positions of the ribs to which they had
to be accommodated. These courses of masonry have here in Paris, as
they have in most Gothic vaults, a considerable inclination near the
springing from the longitudinal rib upward toward the diagonal, and
they become gradually more level as they approach the crown of the
vault, where they are more nearly parallel. But perfectly parallel
they can hardly ever be, since each course forms a portion of a
surface that is concaved in all directions.” Mr. Moore adds that in
the earliest and finest Gothic vaultings this masonry is composed of
small stones perfectly faced and closely jointed; and the vaulting of
Paris, especially that of the choir, is a model of careful and finished
workmanship.
[Illustration: _Photo_] [_Ed. Hautecœur, Paris._
THE NAVE: SOUTH ARCADE.]
The vaulting of the choir differs from that of the nave, but the
difference is one rather of detail than of principle. We have already
said much about the external buttress system by which this splendid
roof is sustained. Internally this vaulting rises from slender
shafts springing from the capitals of the great cylindrical columns
constituting the main arcade of the ground story. The piers at Paris
are ill adjusted to the vaults, a feature which has resulted in an
immense amount of learned discussion. They were obviously intended
for quadripartite vaulting. It seems probable that suddenly, for
a reason which we are not now in a position to appreciate, the
quadripartite form was abandoned in favour of the sexpartite form
actually adopted. Students of this subject are advised to refer to pp.
114-15 of the second edition of Mr. Moore’s book, where the differences
between the vaulting imposts of the nave and choir are discussed and
delineated. They may profitably compare this with M. Viollet-le-Duc’s
_Construction_ (p. 164). M. Viollet-le-Duc, it may be added, suggests
that the necessities of the sexpartite system were provided for by the
monolithic shafts grouped round every other pier in the arcade dividing
the aisles.
[Illustration: CAPITAL IN THE NAVE.
_From Viollet-le-Duc._]
The somewhat heavy character of the great cylindrical piers which
divide the nave from the aisles is largely redeemed by the beautiful
carving with which the capitals are ornamented. The plants which the
sculptors have conventionalised are those commonly found in the fields
adjacent to Paris. These ornate capitals are genuinely Gothic in
feeling, and have nothing in common with those which crown the piers
of our Anglo-Norman (Romanesque) cathedrals. Again, the plinths of the
columns are utterly unlike the simple and massive bases on which the
round columns of our older churches most often rest. We have already
alluded to the ill-adaptation of these piers and their capitals to the
sexpartite form of vaulting employed. In the case of the most westerly
piers of the main arcade an attempt seems to have been made--with no
great success, as it appears to me--to minimise the illogical effect
of the vaulting imposts. The result has been the emphasis of that very
want of congruity which it was sought to remedy. It would be difficult
to find a less satisfactory arrangement than that which obtains in the
pier and capital delineated in our illustration, where four smaller
cylinders are attached to the main one. Here, not merely is the pier
itself rendered unwieldy by its satellites, but the capital loses
all symmetry owing to the interposition of the small capitals which
crown those satellites. It will be noticed that the arches of the main
arcade are by no means uniform. Thus we have a wide arch adjacent to an
extremely narrow one, while the builders of the period did not hesitate
to make use of a round arch where they found that form more convenient.
It is in some measure these peculiarities which have induced not a few
authors to describe Notre Dame as a transitional church.
In no part of Notre Dame do we more perfectly appreciate the grandeur
of the scale of the church than when we stand in the vast double aisles
on either side of the nave. With every step we take the view changes.
We hesitate to leave the spot upon which we stand lest we should lose
its charm, and yet we feel that probably a vista even more beautiful
awaits us a few paces beyond. The lines of vast piers seem as if they
were consciously engaged in surprising us: now they come together and
close the view suddenly, unexpectedly; then they open, revealing a
richly furnished altar in, as it were, a colossal frame of masonry.
Everywhere the lines of the building strike us as vast, massive, almost
elemental, but everywhere there is an ordered, if a somewhat ponderous
symmetry. It is strange that there ever was an age in which the innate
dignity and majesty of these lines were not felt. Yet so barbarous did
the architecture of Notre Dame appear to eighteenth-century eyes, that
a desperate attempt was made to hide it. Vast pictures in gilt frames
were placed from capital to capital of the main arcade on both sides.
In this way the arches were completely hidden, and a square appearance
(supposed to suggest the classical) was given to the lowest story. The
openings of the triforium were spared, as anything placed in front of
them would block the view of the crowds who used to fill the _tribunes_
on state occasions. The nave, however, thus turned into a kind of
picture gallery, was considered very satisfactory (see illustration,
p. 11). Needless to say, no trace of the pictures now remains, and
the great arches are free and open once more. The piers dividing the
aisles are not all of the same construction. Round every other pier
are grouped monolithic shafts, possessing delicately foliated capitals
with moulded abaci. Two shafts, with a single abacus and plinth,
alternate with a single shaft. In all there are twelve shafts round
the pier. These piers, with their cluster of satellites, contrast
finely with the simple cylinders with bold foliated capitals with which
they alternate, and lend variety and interest to the arcades (see
illustration, p. 23).
[Illustration: _Photo_] [_Ed. Hautecœur, Paris._
THE NAVE, NORTH ARCADE.]
The vaulting of the aisles is quadripartite, the ribs being strongly
marked and possessing carved bosses at the point of intersection.
Beyond the outer aisles on each side is a series of chapels, which will
be described presently. The accompanying illustrations give a good idea
of the piers, capitals and vaulting of this part of the church.
=The Triforium=, to which there are four staircases, is of immense
size, owing to the fact that it passes over the double aisles on
both sides of the nave. Its designers no doubt contemplated its use
as a gallery from which the grand ceremonies which took place in the
church could be witnessed by large numbers of people. It is ceiled
with stone--a feature common to most of the greater cathedrals of
France--so that no wooden beams can be seen anywhere in the building.
This obviously increases the massiveness of the whole, though a certain
tendency to heaviness is perhaps emphasised. The masonry is everywhere
very fine, and in the small details a high degree of wise as opposed to
futile finish is maintained throughout. The galleries are excellently
lighted. Above the nave-aisles low pointed arches enclose a foliated
circle, the corners at the base being filled with small trefoils. In
the choir the lights consist of rose or wheel windows, in the tracery
of which there is great variety of pattern. The openings towards
the church take their place admirably in the elevation, being in
character with the main arcade beneath and the clerestory above. They
are almost austerely simple, and possess none of the ornateness which
characterises the triforiums of Westminster, Lincoln, and other English
buildings of slightly later date. A large plain pointed arch encloses
two and in some cases three pointed arches, which are separated from
one another by delicate columns bearing foliated capitals with square
abaci. They have small square bases. These columns are a hundred and
four in number. A low openwork railing of iron fills in the front
of the gallery. The triforium goes round the whole building: that
portion which is at the end of the transepts, however, consists of a
narrow passage which is not open to the church. The banners which were
captured by French armies were exhibited from the triforium so long as
war continued. On the conclusion of peace, they were taken down--a
proceeding which might be followed in other countries with advantage.
The part of the triforium in the choir differs only in detail from
that in the nave. Over the triforium come the vast windows, altered in
the thirteenth century, which comprise the =Clerestory=, of which
more is said on page 72. The stained glass will be fully discussed
hereafter.
[Illustration: THE TRIFORIUM GALLERY, OR “TRIBUNES.”
(_From “Paris à travers les Ages.”_)]
The upper portion of the west end is filled by the great rose window,
which, as we have noticed, is so beautiful a feature of the façade.
The tops of the pipes of the great organ hide the lower part of it
from our view inside. The lovely painted glass, which is ancient, has
representations of the Virgin and Child surrounded by prophets. Amongst
other features are the signs of the Zodiac, the labours of the months,
and the Virtues in triumph with lances in their hands. The gallery on
which the organ is now placed was possibly used for the performance of
miracle plays. As it is at a relatively great height from the pavement,
this is at least doubtful. The =Organ= is a fine instrument of
wonderful power. It was practically rebuilt by Thierry Lesclope in
1730, and enlarged by Cliquot in 1785. In recent years it has been
immensely improved by M. Cavaillé-Coll, who gave it 5266 pipes and 80
stops. It plays a great part in the splendid musical services for which
the Cathedral is famous.
[Illustration: Exterior. Interior.
ELEVATIONS OF THE NAVE.
(_From Viollet-le-Duc._)]
The Nave is almost devoid of monuments; nothing breaks up the vast
lines of the architecture. The most important tomb is that of Jean
Etienne Yver, Canon of Paris and Rouen, who died in February 1467.
It has escaped serious mutilation, and is a realistic performance in
the style prevailing in France at the end of the fifteenth century.
On the base is a gruesome representation of the body of the Canon
being given over to the worms. Above this, two saints are helping him
to rise from the coffin, and directing his attention towards Heaven.
The whole thing is repulsive, but it is interesting as a curiosity.
Many historic memorials perished during the Revolution, but some were
removed to Versailles and still exist there. They include the tombs
of Jean Jouvenel des Ursins (_d._ 1431) and his wife Michelle de
Vitry; the Maréchal Albert de Gondi, Duc de Retz (_d._ 1602); and his
brother Pierre de Gondi, Bishop of Paris (_d._ 1616). Two monuments
have disappeared from the nave which were highly esteemed in their
day. Writing of Notre Dame in his _Crudities_ in 1611, Thomas Coryat
says: “I could see no notable matter in the cathedral church, saving
the statue of Saint Christopher on the right hand at the coming in of
the great gate, which is indeed very exquisitely done, all the rest
being but ordinary.” The statue so delighted the old traveller that
he had eyes for nothing else, for the architecture of Notre Dame is
anything but ordinary. The Chapter of the Cathedral did not share his
view, for they deliberately destroyed it in 1786. It was presented
to the church in 1413 by Antoine des Essarts, whose tomb with his
effigy in armour stood near it. Its destruction is remarkable, for
colossal things were very much to the taste of those who lived at the
end of the seventeenth century. The Revolution is responsible for the
destruction of a famous equestrian statue which stood in the nave
until 1792. It is generally considered to have been that of Philippe
le Bel, clothed in the armour in which he won his victory over the
Flemings at Mons-en-Pucelle in 1304. The identity of the statue has,
however, been the subject of controversy. Viollet-le-Duc tells us that
it represented, not Philippe le Bel, but Philippe VI. (of Valois), who
defeated the Flemings at Cassel in 1328. On his return to Paris he rode
into the cathedral on horseback in state, and vowed his harness to the
Virgin. The Chapter disagree with Viollet-le-Duc, who is, however,
supported in his contention by the Benedictine Père Montfaucon, by
the writers who continued the chronicle of William of Nangis, and
some others. The monument stood close to the last pillar on the right
side of the nave. The =Pulpit= is a modern work, after the design of
Viollet-le-Duc. It is of oak, and its decorations include statues of
six of the apostles and of angelic figures. Suspended from the vaulting
are eight imposing candelabra in bronze-gilt.
=The Chapels of the Nave= contain singularly few features of
historic interest, nor amongst the furniture of their altars are there
many recent works of art of outstanding merit. They introduce us,
however, to the vast scheme of mural painting which has been carried
out from the designs and partly under the direction of Viollet-le-Duc.
There can be no doubt that some scheme of polychromatic decoration was
legitimate: almost every ancient church in France has indisputable
evidence of its employment in the middle ages. The problem which faced
Viollet-le-Duc was one of extreme difficulty. The area to be covered
was enormous: the variations of light were excessive. Some parts were
luminous, even radiant; others were hidden in almost continuous gloom.
The schemes of colour had to be adapted to these varying conditions.
The use of mosaic was considered and discarded. The expense would have
been gigantic, and the material was considered, perhaps rightly,
to be inappropriate to the style of architecture. Wall pictures, as
such, were regarded as destructive to the _ensemble_, fatiguing to the
eyes and mind, and productive of a certain patchy effect. A series of
symbolical patterns of a rigidly conventional type, in which human
figures are very sparingly used, was devised. It may be admitted
at once that the learning and ingenuity displayed in the design of
the scheme were such as might be expected from the most erudite and
accomplished French architectural scholar of our time. The minute
consideration which Viollet-le-Duc devoted to the subject may be judged
from the following passage: “D’abord, la cathédrale de Paris, comme
on sait, est orientée de telle façon que tout un côté du monument se
présente vers le midi et l’autre vers le nord. Un de ces côtés reçoit
donc une lumière plus vive et plus colorée que l’autre. Il a paru
qu’il était nécessaire de profiter de cette disposition pour établir
l’harmonie générale. Au lieu de combattre l’effet de cette orientation,
on a cru devoir l’appuyer. Ainsi, en premier lieu, toutes les fenêtres
des chapelles tournées vers le sud sont garnies de grisailles à tons
nacrés et froids. De là il resulte qu’en entrant dans le monument on
voit un côté de lumière, un côté d’ombre, un côté chaud et brillant
et un côté froid. Il en résulte instinctivement pour l’œil un effet
général tranquille. Rien n’est plus fatigant pour les yeux qu’un
intérieur éclairé par les jours contraires de qualités semblables comme
intensité de lumière, valeur de tons et coloration. La peinture des
chapelles devait concorder naturellement avec le système de répartition
de la lumière. Suivant une règle générale, la tonalité des peintures
du côté nord est plus froide que celle du côté du midi. Cependant,
comme il faut conserver l’unité, de distance en distance, du côté sud,
des tons gris, des tons verts, froids, rappellent l’harmonie générale
du côté nord, et, du côté septentrional, des tons chauds rappellent
l’harmonie générale du côté méridional.”[11]
[Footnote 11: “Peintures Murales des Chapelles de Notre-Dame de Paris.”
Paris: A. Morel. See the preface by Viollet-le-Duc for further details
of his principles of decoration.]
In spite of all these elaborate precautions, in spite of so
much patience and learning, the result as a whole seems to me
unsatisfactory. One wearies of the ingenious geometrical curves, the
crosses, the squares, the lozenges, the coloured stars, the excessively
and laboriously conventionalised foliage, and the rest. The whole
strikes one as dead and mechanical, as mere covering of stone for the
sake of doing so. And the colour, though by no means aggressive, is
unsatisfying. The experiment was heroic, and the result might certainly
have been very much worse, but the stone-work would have been better
untouched.
The Chapels on the north side of the nave (from west to east) are: 1.
The _Chapelle des Fonts Baptismaux_. The bronze carving of the font is
by Brachelet. 2. The _Chapelle Saint-Charles_. There are a statue in
painted stone by M. de Chaume and a good piscina. The wall decorations
are cold and sombre. 3. The _Chapelle de la Sainte-Enfance_. It
contains a group representing Christ caressing a French and a Chinese
child, by M. de Chaume. 4. The _Chapelle Saint-Vincent-de-Paul_.
The decorations of this chapel are somewhat elaborate, and gilding
is freely used. 5. The _Chapelle de Saint-François-Xavier_. There
is a group representing the Saint baptising a Chinese. 6. _Chapelle
de Saint-Landry_, with statue by De Chaume. 7. _Chapelle de
Sainte-Clotilde_, with statue by the same artist.
The following are on the south side (west to east):
1. _Chapelle des Ames du Purgatoire._ Christ rescuing a soul from
Purgatory. A statue by De Chaume in coloured stone. The colour scheme
of the chapel is warm and brilliant. 2. _Chapelle de Sainte-Geneviève._
The decorations, which are somewhat profuse, were given by the
“dames de l’Institut de l’œuvre de Sainte Geneviève.” 3. _Chapelle
Saint-Joseph_, with statue of Joseph with the Child Jesus in his
arms. 4. _Chapelle Saint-Pierre._ Statue in wood of the saint by M.
Corbon. The carved woodwork of the sixteenth century still remains,
and includes panels with representations of the Twelve Apostles, St.
Germain, and Sainte Geneviève. 5. _Chapelle Saint-Anne._ 6. _Chapelle
du Sacré-Cœur._ Statue in coloured stone by M. de Chaume. 7. _Chapelle
de l’Annonciation._ With a statue of the Virgin in wood by M. Corbon.
Paintings by Perrodin, one of the best pupils of Flandrin, of David,
St. Michel, Isaiah, St. Anne, St. Joseph, St. John, St. Luke, St.
Augustine, St. Bernard, St. Dominic, and St. Bonaventure.
Before we turn from the nave to the choir and transepts, let us say
a few words as to the _stained glass_, which was once the glory of
the church. There is probably no Gothic interior in France which has
suffered more terribly from the destruction of its ancient windows than
Notre Dame. The coldness and severity which the mural decorations of
Viollet-le-Duc vainly strive to mitigate were perhaps not felt at all
when the light from every window seemed to be transmitted in glowing
and gleaming shafts of every conceivable colour and tone. Fortunately,
the old glass still remains in the great rose windows. That over the
west door has been described; the others will be noticed in the account
of the transepts. The rest of the glass was deliberately destroyed, not
by an infuriated mob, but by those in authority, in 1741.
The work of destruction was performed by Jean Leviel and his brother,
who cheerfully substituted for the priceless material they removed
great sheets of dull, monotonous _grisaille_, with borders ornamented
with the _fleur-de-lis_. The introduction of _grisaille_ has been
quaintly described by Michelet as _le protestantisme entrant dans
la peinture_. Its use at Notre Dame is nothing short of a disaster.
Efforts have been made in some parts of the building to replace it with
glass of a less sombre character, but these efforts so far have done
little to lessen our regret for the calamity of 1741.
[Illustration: _Photo_] [_Ed. Hautecœur, Paris._
ANGLE OF THE CHOIR AND SOUTH TRANSEPT.]