Chapter VI: Description of Mediæval Buildings (2)

Another remarkable phenomenon, which was both an indication of the new life and religions awakening of the epoch, and had also a very powerful effect in increasing these movements, was the Crusades. The same enthusiasm which prompted thousands to devote their lives to a holy and useful existence in the cloister, stirred up in others through the eloquence of Peter the Hermit and St Bernard, a resolve to sacrifice everything to the righteous endeavour to rescue the places sanctified by the great events in our Saviour’s Life from the hands of the Infidels. Amongst the innumerable multitudes who joined in the Crusades, and visited the East, there must have been many who were able to appreciate the splendid architecture and decoration of Santa Sophia and the other great churches and buildings of the Levant; and these travellers would bring back with them fresh ideas which they would endeavour to import into the structures of the West. Besides, the eyes of all were opened and their minds enlarged by contact with the culture and refinement of the Eastern empire, where the ancient Greek and Roman civilisation had continued uninterruptedly during the centuries of darkness and barbarism which had well nigh obliterated them in the West. They also saw at Constantinople the great mart where the commerce between the East and West was concentrated, and became acquainted with the rich fabrics and beautiful art of Persia and India.

The transport of men and materials to the East, for the prosecution of the war, likewise gave a great impulse to navigation and maritime enterprise, while contact with the Saracens (then an enlightened and scientific people) taught valuable lessons to the soldiers of the cross. They especially acquired from them many improvements in the art of the attack and defence of fortifications, and in the construction of military engines, the results of which the Western nobles were not slow to avail themselves of in the great castles which they erected on their return from the Holy Land. The buildings of the Holy places themselves were naturally adopted as models, and the circular churches of the West are probably mostly imitations (although sometimes remote ones) of the church of the Holy Sepulchre (which was itself rebuilt by the Crusaders). It will be further pointed out in dealing with the history of the Architecture how the ancient Greco-Roman art had been preserved in Syria, and the direct influence it had on the Architecture of the West.

Such being the general condition of affairs, and their bearing on the art of the West of Europe up to the twelfth century, let us now look a little more closely at the progress of events in the province with which we are specially concerned.

III.

A rapid glance at the political history of the country will further show the extraordinary condition of fluctuation and uncertainty which existed during the dismal period which followed the overthrow of the Roman rule, as well as the gradual growth of the new state of things under which the great revival of the twelfth century occurred. We shall also observe how the early renewal of civilisation in the South, aided as it was by the preservation of some relics of old Roman culture, ultimately yielded to the more vigorous life and growth of the new political system of the North.

We have seen that Aquitaine was occupied by the Visigoths in the fourth century, while Provence was still held by the Burgundians and Gallo-Romans.

In 425 Aetius made a final stand for the Roman cause, but was defeated by Theodoric, King of the Visigoths, and the last vestige of the Empire was swept away. These two powers of the South afterwards united their forces against Attila, their common foe, and drove back the Huns in 451. In 480 Arles was captured by Euric for the Visigoths, who thus became masters of Provence. In the sixth century the Franks extended their arms southwards, and under Clovis, and Gundibald, King of the Burgundians, defeated the Visigoths at Bouglé in 507.

In 511 Theodoric, King of the Ostrogoths in North Italy, defeated the army of Clovis while engaged in the siege of Arles, and thus preserved the Mediterranean coast to Italy. But Provence was resigned in 536 by his successor Witiges to Theodoric, King of the Franks, who had overthrown the Burgundian Kingdom.

At the death of Clothair I. in 561, Provence was divided between his sons, Sigebert, King of Austrasia obtaining Marseilles, and Gontran of Burgundy, Arles. Under subsequent kings Provence was again reunited and again divided.

In 719 the Saracens crossed the Pyrenees and took possession of Languedoc. They subsequently united with Maurontis, the Byzantine governor of Marseilles, for the purpose of driving out the Franks, but were defeated by Charles Martel, who thus united Aquitaine and Provence to the Frank kingdom.

These Southern provinces, which, as already mentioned, were governed by municipal and ecclesiastical organisations, were too weak either to resist the inroads of the Saracens, or to defend themselves against the more vigorous discipline of the North.

At the division of the Carlovingian empire, after the death of Charlemagne in 843, Provence fell to Lothaire, along with Burgundy. In 863 it was seized by Charles the Bald, and in 879 his brother-in-law Boson, governor of Vienne, was elected King by the synod of Montale, and Provence was thus converted into a separate monarchy.

In 932 Hugo obtained the Italian kingdom, and ceded Provence to Rudolph II., who united the two Burgundies under the name of the Kingdom of Arles. This kingdom existed as a name till 1032; but Provence had in the meantime been governed by Princes whose power continually increased, till, from being appointed Governors, they became hereditary holders of the fief. Of these Princes there were several in the tenth century, who reigned under the titles of Boson I. and II., William I. (who drove out the Moorish pirates from the Fraxinet in 968) (as will be referred to in the sequel), Rothbold, William II., &c.

In 1112 Raymond Béranger, Count of Barcelona, of the house of Aragon, married the heiress of Provence, and obtained possession of the country. But Raymond of St Gilles, Count of Toulouse, one of the great leaders of the first crusade in 1096, claimed a part; and in 1130 possession of Provence was disputed between his son and Raymond des Baux, of whose family we shall hear more by-and-bye. In 1181 Raymond Béranger, who had been invested in Provence by his brother Alphonso I. of Aragon, died, and the fief reverted to Alphonso I. and II. till 1196.

In 1209 an attempt was made by Raymond Béranger, fourth Count of Provence, to destroy the independence of the cities. These had all along preserved their municipal freedom and Roman form of self-government. The governing body was elected by the citizens, the chief magistrate being originally nominated by the Byzantine Emperor, but latterly the office became vested in certain families, or was held by the bishop. In the twelfth century reforms were attempted in this as in everything else, and the citizens followed in their reforms the example of the Italian Republics, and chose a chief magistrate for life with the title of Podestà. To this officer was entrusted the command of the troops, and his chief duty was to maintain order in the town amongst the different factions which were incessantly at war with one another. The power of the Podestàs was thus considerable, and the Count found much difficulty in subduing them. The Albigenses of Avignon capitulated in 1226; and Nice, Grasse, Toulon, and Marseilles were also subsequently overcome.

The strength of the free towns had been shaken shortly before this by the terrible crusade against the Albigenses of Aquitaine. The tenets of the Christian Church in this province had always differed somewhat from those of Rome, and the jealousy of the ecclesiastics had been excited by the freedom of the life and language of this comparatively enlightened region. The Pope having now completely established the principle of the supremacy of the See of Rome, could not endure the idea of any want of conformity to his rule; and he accordingly encouraged the Romanists of the North to make war on these rebellious heretics. The enthusiasm of the Crusaders against the Holy Land had now worn off; but a crusade against the Heretics of Aquitaine had the charm of novelty, combined with the advantages of easiness of access, and the probability of abundance of booty. The crusades against the Albigenses were led by Count Simon de Montfort, who attacked and, after encountering in most cases a gallant and determined defence, destroyed the towns, and massacred the inhabitants. At Béziers alone, which fell after a protracted siege, the Abbot of Citeaux, in reporting to Innocent III., expressed regret that he had only been able to slay 20,000 heretics; but it is believed that no less than 60,000 were destroyed in that indiscriminate massacre.

The horrors of war were followed by the tortures of the Inquisition, and in the holy hands of St Dominic and his order all dissent was either exterminated or driven into other lands, there to sow the seeds which should some day spring up as a crop, which no Papal sickle could cut down.

Raymond VII., Count of Toulouse, having espoused the cause of his people, suffered with them and was compelled to do penance and to surrender, by a definite treaty with Queen Blanche in 1229, all his possessions in the Kingdom of France to her husband Louis VIII., and all in the Kingdom of Arles to the Pope’s Legate. Only a small portion was allowed him for life, and he was required to do penance by service in the Holy Land. The Pope, however, declined to accept of the Kingdom of Arles on account of its burdensomeness owing to famines. He therefore handed it over to Queen Blanche, who entrusted the administration of it to the Seneschal of the castle of Beaucaire. It was afterwards formed into the Principality of Orange and the Countship of the Venaissin.

In 1243 Raymond VII. of Toulouse was finally obliged to yield up everything to King Louis IX. The suzerainty of ancient Aquitaine was thus acquired by the Crown of France, but Provence, east of the Rhone, still retained its independence.

In 1245 the latter passed into the family of Anjou by the marriage of 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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

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

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.

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.

At ST REMY (which is easily accessible by railway from Tarascon) there are also the ruins of a triumphal arch, together with a well-preserved and most interesting mausoleum (Fig. 8).

These monuments are the sole surviving remains of the Gallo-Roman town of Glanum Livii, a flourishing colony under the Romans, surrounded with walls and adorned with temples, aqueducts, and public buildings, of which some faint traces only now exist. The chief employment of the inhabitants was to supply stones from quarries in the neighbourhood for the buildings in Arles and elsewhere. The town was destroyed by the Goths in 480.

The triumphal arch has only one opening, which is rather low in proportion, and is flanked by fluted pillars of which the caps are gone. On each side of the arch are well sculptured bas-reliefs representing captives in chains accompanied by women. The flanks have niches, but no statues remain.

Mérimée admires the archivolt of the archway, which he calls a garland of fruit and flowers sculptured with the same perfection of imitation, with the same taste and

variety of details, as is observed in the Gothic period. The arch is about 40 feet long by 18½ feet wide and 25 feet to the under side of the vault.

The mausoleum stands a few yards from the arch. The main part is square, the lower portion forming a pedestal set upon a base, which measures about 22 feet each way, and the upper portion being an open story with four Corinthian engaged columns at the angles. The whole is crowned with a circular top composed of ten Corinthian pillars, the entablature of which supports a cupola originally covered with palm leaf scales. The height of the monument is about 60 feet. The podium is ornamented with fine bas-reliefs, which Mérimée describes as representing--(South) a hunt; (East) a Battle of Amazons; (West) the death of Patrocles; (North) a Cavalry engagement. The figures of the upper storys are also richly carved. Under the dome stand two draped statues. The following inscription is engraved on the architrave of the north side:

SEX. L.M. IVLIEI. C.F. PARENTIBUS. SVEIS.

Sextus, Lucius, Marcus, Julii, Curaverunt fieri parentibus suis--(Sextus, Lucius, Marcus, of the Julii, have caused this monument to be constructed to the memory of their relatives).

Various dates are assigned by different authors to these monuments; but probably Mérimée is right in considering the arch at least of about the same date as that of Orange.

This mausoleum and similar monuments, as will be hereafter noticed, have evidently had a considerable influence on the forms of the early Mediæval church steeples of Provence.

ARLES.--We have now arrived at the capital of Roman Gaul--the famous city of Arelate or Arles. It is supposed to have been founded by the Greeks from Massilia as a trading centre, and had become an important town before the time of Cæsar. The situation occupied was a very advantageous one, being at the point of the Delta of the Rhone, where the bifurcation of the river commences. The town is also supposed to have been in communication with an interior navigable Lagoon in the time of the Romans, so that commodities could be conveyed by water with great facility in all directions. Arles thus formed a valuable mercantile centre. The population is believed to have reached 100,000. Here Cæsar had the galleys constructed which he required for the siege of Massilia. After taking that town he sent Tiberius to establish a colony at Arles. With Constantine Arles was a favourite city, and he made it the capital of Gaul. The town was at that time divided by the river into two sections, a part being on each side. These Constantine united by a bridge of boats. An abundant water supply was brought by aqueducts from the mountains, and conducted across the river by means of syphon pipes of lead, several of which have been found with the name of the maker stamped upon them, and are now to be seen in the Museum.

Ausonius calls Arles the “Gallula Roma Arelas,” and praises its hospitable ports, which received the riches of the Roman world, and spread them in turn to the cities of Gaul and Aquitania. So important a city could not escape the successive attacks of the Goths, Franks, and Saracens. By these invaders her splendid edifices were all nearly destroyed, as was entirely the fate of those at Avenio and Massilia. But Arles was not quite so unfortunate as the last named cities, and still possesses some imposing though sadly ruined remnants of her former greatness.

Of the existing remains by far the most important is the Amphitheatre. The walls forming the complete circuit and a large part of the seats of the interior are still preserved. The exterior (Fig. 9), according to the usual design of this class of erections, consists of two arcades superimposed on one another--the arches being separated by attached columns.

In this instance the arches are sixty in number on each story. The attached columns of the lower arcade are square pilasters with Doric capitals, and those of the upper range are round and of the Corinthian order.

The design may possibly have originally included an attic story; but this, if it ever existed, which seems to be doubtful, as not a single stone of it has been found, has entirely disappeared.

Mérimée points out that the mouldings and enrichments of the remainder are all carefully finished, which would not likely have been the case had the building not been carried up to its full height, as the Romans were in the habit of executing all that class of carved work after their buildings were completed--the stones for the ornament being only roughly blocked out at first. We shall meet with a quantity of this preparatory work in the Amphitheatre of Nimes, where it has been left unfinished.

The Amphitheatre of Arles, as was to be expected in the capital, is the largest building of its class in Gaul. It is built after the Roman manner, with enormous blocks of carefully cut stone set without cement, and the staircases, passages, &c., are strongly vaulted.

The plan, as is usual in Roman Amphitheatres, is that of an ellipse, its longitudinal axis measuring 459 feet, and its transverse axis 341 feet. The seats, which were arranged in forty-three rows (Fig. 10), provided accommodation for 26,000 spectators. There are four principal entrances, at the North, South, East, and West, and eight other smaller doorways.

Originally this amphitheatre was probably built by Caligula or Hadrian. In the Middle Ages it was transformed into a fortress, and became the stronghold of some chief, or the citadel of the inhabitants. Four towers were at that time erected on the top of the building--three of which still remain.

The amphitheatre is said to have been restored by Charles Martel after his victories over the Saracens; and some ancient stones have certainly been used to repair the podium or barrier between the arena and the auditorium (as may still be seen).

Mérimée discusses the question, how were the spectators in this and similar buildings protected from the wild beasts which fought with one another or with gladiators by a podium such as this, not exceeding 8 or 10 feet in height?

Had the podium been high enough to afford safety, it would have prevented a large part of the audience, especially in the back rows, from seeing what passed on their side of the arena; an inconvenience which would certainly never have been endured; and his idea is, that lions or similar animals which could spring must have been confined with chains or in cages, and that only animals which do not leap, such as wild boars, might be freely baited in the open arena.

The “Château des Arenes,” as the amphitheatre was called, was almost entirely invaded and choked up with the houses of the poorer inhabitants till 1825, when it was resolved to clear out the building,--a work which required six years for its accomplishment. The structure is now in course of “Restoration.”

Besides the amphitheatre Arles also possesses some remains of its Roman Theatre. These are, however, extremely scanty, consisting chiefly of the north and south entrance doorways, and two lofty marble pillars with Corinthian caps (Fig. 11). The latter formed part of the ornamentation of the scena, and, when considered along with the great wall of the scena at Orange, may help to give some idea of the generally gorgeous aspect of that feature of the Roman Theatre when perfect. The plan of the orchestra, and a few rows of ruined seats, can still be discerned.

A large number of marble fragments, composed of portions of columns, capitals, entablatures, &c., have been collected in the precincts of the theatre, and impress the spectator with a sense both of the great magnificence of the building when complete, and of the terrible and long continued series of disasters to which it has owed a demolition so complete. It should, however, not be omitted to mention that it was first dismantled by the Bishops, who carried off its marbles to decorate their churches.

The remains of three parallel walls, with a space between them, under the level of the proscenium, have given rise to various theories as to their use. The most likely view seems to be that the apertures were used for lowering the curtain into before the performances began, as was then the custom, instead of raising it, as is done in modern times. The theatre is supposed to have been seated for 16,000 spectators. Several fine sculptures, now in the museum of Arles or the Louvre, have been dug out of the ruins of this structure.

Arles possesses the only ancient Obelisk in Gaul. It stands in the “place,” opposite the entrance to the cathedral, and is set on the backs of four lions, raised upon a pedestal. It was elevated to this eminence in 1676, after having lain for long in the bed of the river. The shaft is of grey granite, 47 feet high, but it is not of an elegant form, and tapers too rapidly towards the summit. It originally formed the spina of a Roman circus, where it was found in 1389.

In the front wall of the Hôtel du Nord (in the Place d’hommes) are inserted the fragments of two Roman granite columns with Corinthian caps, and part of a pediment (Fig. 12). But unfortunately the traveller, while enjoying the hospitality of the patron of the “Nord,” and sleeping with his head perhaps within a few feet of these remains, cannot have the satisfaction of imagining himself a dweller in a real Roman edifice, as it is evident that they are not in their original position, but have been brought from a distance at some remote time and set up here.

There are a few remnants, close to the river, of a building said to be the Palace of Constantine, including a brick tower called “La tour de la Trouille.” This is a palace which has had many and varied occupants--passing from its Roman masters down to the Kings of the Ostrogoths and Visigoths, the Kings of the Franks, and the Kings of Arles, the “Holy Roman Emperors” (when they came here to be crowned Kings of Arles), and the Counts of Provence.

In Roman times there was a space to the east of the town used as a cemetery, and called the Elysii Campi, or Champs Elysées, now the “Alyscamps.” This necropolis was by tradition supposed to have been specially consecrated by our Saviour himself, and consequently became a very favourite place of burial. Princes and dignitaries of Church and State desired to rest here. Bodies committed to the river (along with the suitable burial fees) were sure to reach the Alyscamps. It was celebrated by the poets Dante and Ariosto, and became of world-wide fame. Chapels and churches were erected in the vicinity, there being no less than nineteen at one time. But the translation of the body of St Trophime, A.D. 1152, from the Alyscamps to the cathedral of Arles, seemed to take away the prestige of the former, and from that time it gradually decayed.

During its palmy days in the early centuries, this cemetery had become greatly enriched with splendid monuments and sarcophagi, partly heathen and partly Christian, but all designed and executed after the Roman or Grecian manner. At the Renaissance these ancient classic monuments were specially prized and admired, and many of them were removed. Sarcophagi were distributed as specimens of early Christian art to Rome, Lyons, and other towns; the place was gradually deserted and destroyed, and the monuments were finally turned to common and ignominious uses such as cattle troughs and bridges over the ditches in the fields. Now the few remaining tombs have been collected and placed on each side of the road leading to the chapel of St Honorat (Fig. 13), where they produce from their position and their classic forms a striking resemblance to the burial places of the Romans, which lined the wayside at the entrances to their cities, such as the Appian way at Rome, and the approach to Pompeii.

A large number of the finest sarcophagi have fortunately been preserved in the Arles museum. Some of them certainly belong to Pagan times, but most of them are of later date. Many are adorned with bas-reliefs, representing the hunt of the Stag or Wild Boar, Apollo and the Muses, and other classic and allegorical subjects.

A museum has been established in the disused Gothic Church of St Anne, in which some fine examples of classic sculpture are preserved. Besides the Pagan sarcophagi above referred to it contains some Roman or rather Greek sculptures of considerable purity and beauty; the Grecian descent and culture of the country being distinctly observable in these monuments--just as the same Greek feeling prevails in the paintings and sculpture of Pompeii. The fragment of a statue of a female dancer (Fig. 14) is particularly graceful in pose and in the execution of the drapery. The sarcophagus (Fig. 15), with an inscription and two well carved festoons, is called the Tomb of Cornelia. Fig. 16 shews a finely carved oak wreath and vase on the monument to the “good Goddess,” and a beautifully sculptured though mutilated bust of the Empress Livia. Fig. 17 represents a fragment of very spirited carving of foliage said to be from the frieze of the Arc de Triomph, an amphora and a Corinthian capital.

The Museum also includes a large number of early

Christian monuments. That in Fig. 18, representing scenes from the life of our Saviour, exhibits figures carved in the Roman manner, and wearing the Roman costume, but degraded in style,--evidently the work of the Low Empire. Christ occupies the central compartment, and four wide arches contain figure subjects,--those on the extreme right and left representing the Magdalene and Pilate, while the two central compartments contain saints bearing palm branches.

The arcade on this sarcophagus is supported on pillars with composite caps and bases, and shafts ornamented with flutings and twists, similar in character to the shafts of the early mediæval cloisters. The archivolt is a veritable architrave with leaf enrichment carried round the arch, and filled in with a scallop shell. It thus forms a distinct and instructive example of the manner in which the late Romans dispensed with the straight architrave, and adopted the arch springing directly from the caps of the columns, as will be more fully explained further on. It will then be shewn how this monument illustrates the transition from the leading features of the Greek trabeated style to those of fully developed Roman Architecture, and also the mode in which Roman art was continued into Christian times.

Most of the early Christian sarcophagi are carved with Biblical subjects symbolical of the new birth, the great Sacrifice, the Resurrection, the Last Judgment, &c., such as the creation of Adam and Eve, Moses striking the rock or raising the serpent, Jonah and the whale, Daniel and the lions, the parables and miracles of our Lord, &c. These form as interesting a series of early Christian sculptures, combined with late Roman features, as is anywhere to be found.

On the east side of the town are the remains of some parts of the Roman walls, built in their usual massive manner. These consist of portions of the gate of the town, by which the Aurelian way entered, flanked by ruined round towers.

NIMES (Nemausus). Situated at no great distance from Arles, and at the base of the hills which bound the plain of the Rhone, Nimes formed the capital of the Volces Arecomiques (or inhabitants of the flat country). In B.C. 121 it submitted voluntarily to Rome, and a few years B.C. Augustus planted a colony there. Being enriched with baths, &c., by Agrippa, Nimes soon became an important town surrounded with walls and towers, and provided with all the usual public buildings. It had reached the height of prosperity when it was ravaged by the Vandals in 407. In 472 it fell under the power of the Visigoths, who established themselves in the town, and made the amphitheatre their fortress. After suffering the usual course of sieges and destruction by the Saracens and Franks, Nimes early declared itself a Republic. In 1185 it came under the suzerainty of the Count of Toulouse, in which condition it continued to flourish till it finally passed to France under Louis VIII., along with the other domains of the Count of Toulouse after the Albigensian wars.