David MacGibbon

THE transition from the architecture of Rome to that of mediÆval times forms one of the most interesting and instructive epochs in our art. The whole history of Roman art is that of a transition from the external trabeated style, with its horizontal entablature, which was common to the early races of Greece and Italy, to the complete development of the internal arched architecture, which was the final outcome of Roman constructional forms.

The leading features of that Italo-Greek architecture contain a reminiscence or survival of the primitive elements of wooden construction, from which they were doubtless traditionally derived, although in the course of time their origin had been lost sight of. Thus the upright pillars with their flutings are idealised descendants of the Egyptian column, which again represents a bundle of reeds tied together. The horizontal entablature is derived from the beams laid across the heads of the pillars, in accordance with the earliest and most natural mode of wooden construction. The pediment is the evident continuation (both in place and time) of the couples and ties of a wooden roof of the simplest and most primitive design; while the side cornice represents the projection of the eaves, and the triglyphs and modillions are the imitative survivals of the ends of the cross beams or ties and the sloping rafters of the wooden roof. For centuries this trabeated principle prevailed in Rome; but together with it there existed a disturbing element, which at first appeared to be small and insignificant, but which nevertheless contained the elements of the greatest revolutions in architecture which the world has yet seen. That little feature was the arch, the distinguishing principle of true stone construction—the seed containing the germ from which, through Roman cultivation, have sprung all the great families of mediÆval architecture, whether Byzantine, Gothic, or Saracenic.

The earlier architecture of the Romans was doubtless chiefly derived from that of the Etruscans, who, like the Greeks, followed the trabeated principle. This origin is distinctly traceable in the plans of the Roman temples, which are never truly peripteral, or surrounded with a detached colonnade, like those of the Greeks, but have a deep portico at one end only, in front of the cella. Of this arrangement we have seen a beautiful example in the Maison CarrÉe at Nimes. But the Central Italians must have early received some impressions from the Hellenic art of Magna Grecia, and the way would thus be opened for the introduction at a later period of the finer developments of Greek architecture which were so universally followed during the Empire. Meanwhile the arch, the antagonistic element to the trabeated principle, was gradually progressing; and from its primitive obscure use in substructures, conduits, and similar engineering situations, it had forced itself into notice above ground, and had gained recognition in the elevations as a proper architectural element. Hence arose the combination, so conspicuous in the architecture of the Romans, of trabeated features, such as pilasters and entablatures, with the arched method of construction which they had adopted from an early period, and of which they ultimately shewed themselves such masters. The amphitheatres and the triumphal arches of the empire well illustrate this mixture of arched construction, as shewn in the round-headed wall openings, combined with trabeated decoration, in the form of horizontal entablatures supported on engaged columns or pilasters. This mixed style long prevailed, and examples of it are to be found in every part of the Roman world. But in later times, when purity of taste had begun to decay, the Romans gradually gave fuller scope to their noble constructive powers, and allowed them to find a worthier expression in their designs. This took place chiefly in their engineering works, such as the Pont du Gard, and in their interior architecture, as, for instance, in the great halls of the Baths of Diocletian and Caracalla, the Basilica of Constantine (or Maxentius) and other similar works, in some of which immense intersecting vaults were successfully executed. The simple barrel or tunnel vault is of very ancient origin, and was adopted by the Romans from the earliest times. They also freely employed round intersecting vaults for covering spaces of all sizes up to the great examples above referred to. But the most astonishing feat of the Romans in connection with vault construction is their adoption and application of the dome. In the Pantheon at Rome we have an example of that species of vault introduced at once in its perfect form in the largest example in the world. The portico of this temple belongs to the age of Augustus, and it is therefore thought by many that the rotunda and dome are of the same date. It is very remarkable that no smaller Roman domes of earlier date are to be found, and that this style should, as it were, be born in perfect manhood without having passed through the stages of infancy and growth. These no doubt existed, although we have as yet been unable to trace them. Possibly, as Professor Baldwin Brown suggests, the dome is of eastern origin, and its enlarged construction may have been worked out in some of the Hellenistic cities, such as Alexandria, where the earlier examples have now perished.

Along with the introduction of the above new and splendid development of vaulting in their interiors, the Romans still adhered in the decoration of their exteriors to the Italo-Grecian portico, with its entablature and pediment. It was not till the time of the Lower Empire that these elements came to be modified and slowly abandoned. The stages by which the trabeated forms were by degrees stripped off can, however, be distinctly traced. The arches and vaults employed in the baths, tombs, &c., no doubt conduced to that result. In these the arch became the important feature internally, and naturally in course of time it assumed a more prominent position externally also. Archivolts, or curved architraves running round the arches, such as were in common use in buildings like the Colosseum, had gradually intruded themselves amongst the Greek pilasters and entablatures of the exterior elevations; while in later edifices, such as the palace of Diocletian at Spalatro, the straight architrave was omitted, and only the arched one retained. The early Christian sarcophagi shew the same important step. In these a common design consists of an arcade containing the figure of an apostle in each arch, and these arches or archivolts spring directly from the caps of the columns, without any straight architrave being employed. Of this a good example has been given above, page 63.

In all transitional styles it is difficult, and indeed scarcely possible, to draw the line where one style terminates and another begins. This is especially difficult in connection with the passage from Roman to mediÆval architecture. The latter was in fact for centuries not a different style but simply a continuation of that of the Empire.

After the adoption of Christianity the purposes to which the Christian buildings were applied was certainly very different from that of their prototypes, but the architecture was the same. The circular domed edifices raised by the Romans as mausoleums were imitated by the Christians in their circular baptisteries; while the style of construction employed in the great basilica or pillared hall lighted by a clerestory, was exactly copied in the nave or large vessel of the Christian Church. The continuity of style is complete; there is no break. The same Corinthian or Ionic pillars, the same entablatures, the same roofs and vault are used in both. So close is the resemblance between the Christian circular baptisteries (several of which we shall meet with in Provence) and Roman circular monuments, that the former are generally regarded as Roman temples converted to Christian uses. The early churches are usually called basilicas, and have hitherto been supposed to be derived from the Roman basilica. But Professor Baldwin Brown, in his recent interesting and learned work “From Schola to Cathedral,” endeavours to prove that this is not the case. The basilica had no doubt the form of a pillared hall with central and side aisles, the former lit by a clerestory, but it had no apse, or if there was one it did not occupy the prominent position of that feature in the early churches. The origin of the apse, which was an essential feature in all churches, containing as it did the seat of the Bishops in the centre and those of the presbyters on either side, is attributed by Professor Baldwin Brown to the memorial cellae erected by Pagans and Christians alike in the cemeteries. These often assumed a domed or apsidal form, and were much resorted to on saints’ natal days, for commemorative festivals and religious ceremonies, held in the cemeteries above the spot where the martyr’s bones reposed in the catacomb below. At a later time, when these relics had been transferred to crypts below the altars of the churches, the apse was a feature naturally introduced to complete the resemblance to the original tomb. As regards the nave, the scholae or halls of meeting of private societies are regarded by Professor Baldwin Brown as the principal model of the early church. Under the emperors the Christians were allowed to form burial guilds, and these, like other guilds, had their scholae. The schola often had an apse containing the seat of the president; and the above author is of opinion that the large churches built after the conversion of Constantine are rather enlarged scholae than copies of basilicas.

However this may be, the type of the early Christian church or basilica presented to view an elongated hall with two or four rows of pillars, dividing it into three or five aisles, with a lofty triumphal arch at the end of the central nave, leading into a wide open space raised some steps higher than the nave, and in which stood the altar. Beyond this was the invariable apse with its semi-domed ceiling adorned with mosaics, and containing, elevated by a few steps above the floor, the throne of the Bishop, and the seats of the Presbyters. The whole building was covered with an open wooden roof.

Some of these early churches have been preserved or restored in Rome—such as San Paolo fuori le Mura, Sta Maria Maggiore and San Clemente.

There is every reason to believe that the above was the usual form of early churches in the West. At Ravenna, which was the principal city in Italy during the Lower Empire, being the seat of the Exarch, the representative of the Emperor in the West, there are fine examples of the various kinds of early Christian religious edifices, dating from the fifth to the seventh century. The great Church or Basilica, used for the assembly of the whole congregation, is represented in St Apollinare Nuovo. It has the usual row of columns on either side of the nave, separating it from the side aisles, and supporting a flat upper wall splendidly decorated with mosaics, the whole being ornamented with Roman details. The upper portion of the wall is pierced with clerestory windows, and at the east end is the great apse.

The Baptistery or Ceremonial Church is as usual octagonal and is domed. Here also the walls are covered with fine mosaics.

Another extremely interesting building at Ravenna is the church of San Vitale. This edifice (whether designed as a monument or as a church is uncertain) is octagonal and domed, very much after the style of the temple of Minerva Medica and similar Roman structures.

San Vitale has a special interest from its having formed the model adopted by Charlemagne for the church which he erected at Aix-la-Chapelle, to serve also as his own mausoleum. It thus constitutes an example of a Roman design reproduced in Ravenna, under the late Empire, as a Christian structure, and again serving as a model for a mediÆval mausoleum as late as the eighth century. This shows distinctly the continuity of Roman design and its direct influence on the art of later times.

The above three edifices at Ravenna present fully developed examples of the three chief buildings required in connection with the church services up to the ninth century, viz., the church, the baptistery, and the mausoleum. As we proceed we shall meet with proofs that the same classes of edifices were in use and were carried out in a similar manner in other parts of the Western Empire. The circular or octagonal baptistery is of frequent occurrence in Southern Gaul. Examples of circular churches are also not awanting, but there is every ground for believing that the basilican form of church, like that of St Apollinare, was the plan most generally adopted in Western Europe.

At Ravenna, an early circular tower or campanile, generally similar to the square ones at Rome and elsewhere, still exists. This is a feature the origin of which has not yet been accurately determined. The prevailing opinion, however, now is that these towers were at first erected as places of observation and defence, being in that respect somewhat similar in their conception to the round towers of Ireland. As in San Vitale, one form of a Roman octagonal-domed building is followed, so at San Lorenzo in Milan another design of a somewhat similar character is carried out, showing that the basilican form, although general, was not universal.

In consequence of the destruction caused by the invasions of the Barbarians, by fire or otherwise, very few edifices now exist in Western Europe of the time between Justinian and Charlemagne. During all that time of disaster in the West, the Eastern Empire still maintained itself in splendour, and gave encouragement to architecture and the fine arts. From an early time the Byzantine architects showed a preference for the dome over the intersecting vault, and it is possible to follow in the still existing edifices, the mode in which the domical form of roof was gradually worked out, until in the great church of Sta. Sophia, erected under Justinian, in the sixth century, the largest and noblest building of the style was successfully completed.

In the details of the style of the Lower Empire, as practised in the East, there is considerable evidence of Greek taste. The sharp thistle-like sculpture of the foliage is designed in a manner not unlike that of the Corinthian capitals of the Choragic Monument of Lysicrates at Athens. The Byzantines also excelled in flat and delicate carving, such as that generally executed in ivory or fine wood, and in ornamental metal work and jewellery. When the West began to revive, this Byzantine art naturally produced some influence on it. A very remarkable example of this occurs in the church of St Mark’s at Venice, erected about A.D. 950, which in every feature—in plan, in distribution of parts, in the use of the dome, and in its mosaic decorations,—is a distinct importation from Constantinople.

But the art of the East was destined to produce, at a later period, a much stronger effect, as we shall afterwards see, in Provence and Aquitaine. Besides the domical structures of Constantinople, another series of Christian buildings which had a great influence on Western architecture exists in the East. A large number of churches have been brought to light in Syria by the work of Count Melchior de VogÜÉ. These correspond in general features with the early churches of the West. They comprise a central nave and side aisles, separated by rows of piers, with nave arches thrown longitudinally between them. The nave is also crossed transversely with arches cast between the piers, and these are abutted by arches thrown over the side aisles. The latter, in order to resist the thrust of the central arch, require to be placed at a considerable height. The side aisles are thus rendered unnecessarily lofty, and are therefore divided into two storys with a floor which forms a gallery. The nave piers and their transverse arches are placed pretty close together in order to carry the great flag stones of which the roof is frequently composed, and which are supported upon them. Although the roof is in some cases flat, the general system of construction of these Syrian churches is very similar to what is found in the oldest churches of Southern Gaul; and which, as already mentioned, was also used in the NymphÆum at Nimes. There can be little doubt but that the Syrian structures were carefully studied by the numerous monks who visited the East in the eleventh century, while Palestine was in the hands of the Crusaders, and that they were thereby helped forward in the enterprise which was then absorbing the attention of the Western architects, viz., how to roof their churches with stone vaults.

Hitherto the Western basilicas had been roofed with timber. A few examples of these early basilicas have escaped the universal destruction, and serve to indicate what the other churches which existed before the eleventh century were like.

The Basse Œuvre at Beauvais is a well known specimen. It has a row of square piers on each side of the nave, separating it from the side aisles and carrying, on round arches, the upper walls containing the windows of the clerestory—the whole being covered in with a wooden roof. It was probably terminated to the east with a semicircular apse, and at the west with a narthex or porch.

These early churches were no doubt all of very simple construction, the only ornaments being the marble columns and carved work which in some localities were available from Roman buildings. Where these existed the style adopted naturally followed the Roman forms, but in districts where they were absent the style gradually passed into the Romanesque, under the influence of the new elements imported by the Northern invaders. We have seen how Charlemagne attempted to follow a Roman structure in his great church at Aix, and that is a distinct indication of the general tendency. The chief object at this period of transition was to produce an effective internal design, the exterior being invariably very simple. In this also the system by which Roman architecture had been developed continued to be carried out.

When the new political conditions of the different divisions of Europe had become somewhat settled, these principles were worked out separately and independently in each country and province, and produced a great variety of styles, all comprehended under the general title of Romanesque. They were in reality all derived from ancient Roman architecture, but by their very variety they indicate the new spirit which was now beginning to express itself.

As above mentioned the great desideratum in the eleventh century was a simple form of stone roof. The earlier wooden roof had been found so liable to destruction by fire, that great efforts were now made to provide a fire-proof covering.

At San Miniato, near Florence, there still stands a very fine basilica of the beginning of the eleventh century, which shews one method in which this was attempted to be done, and which recalls the mode of construction of the Syrian Churches above referred to.

San Miniato is divided into three long bays in its length by circular stone arches, springing from clustered piers, thrown across the nave, each bay being again subdivided by three longitudinal archivolts resting on simple pillars.

The above great transverse arches do not, as in the Syrian examples, carry the roof, which is in this instance of wood, and is thus not quite fireproof; but even if the timbers were destroyed by fire, the three transverse arches would tend to bind the structure all together, and prevent further ruin.

FIG. 33. SAN MINIATO.

In the church of Notre Dame du PrÉ at Le Mans in the north-west of France, there is another example of a similar form of roof, constructed in the middle of the eleventh century.

In Provence the system of vaulting generally adopted was of a more complete character, derived in all probability, as already mentioned, from the Roman system (as used in the NymphÆum at Nimes), and perhaps also aided by the examples of the vaulted churches seen by the Crusaders in Syria. When the revival of the eleventh century took place, the ProvenÇal churches were usually erected on the basilican plan, which doubtless was the traditional one. These churches are small, but they generally embrace a central nave with two side aisles, each terminated to the eastward with an apse. The roof is almost invariably composed of a pointed barrel or tunnel vault, with strengthening transverse ribs springing from the caps of pilasters carried up from the nave piers, as for instance in St Trophime at Arles.

The side aisles are also arched, each with one half of a pointed vault thrown against the upper part of the nave wall, so as to abut the central vault. The roof consists of tiles laid directly on the extrados of the arches, after the Roman manner, so that there is here nothing liable to suffer from fire. There is, however, it will be noticed, one remarkable divergence from the Roman model, in which the vaults and arches are always round. In Provence they are invariably pointed. This form of vault, as mentioned by MÉrimÉe, Fergusson, and others, was adopted, not from choice but as a necessity, or at least a convenience of construction. The pointed form was found to have several advantages over the round. It was easier of construction, a matter of great consequence in those rude times; it exerted less thrust on the side walls, and was therefore more stable; and it fitted better the slope of the tiled roof covering.

It is evident that the roof of the side aisles, in order properly to abut the central vault, had to be carried up to a considerable height. This height being more than was necessary in the aisles, is sometimes divided into two storys, the upper one forming a gallery—an arrangement which was frequently adopted in Lombardy and the Rhineland, and also, as we have seen, in the Syrian churches above referred to. One great objection to the ProvenÇal system of vaulting is that the churches are very dark—a clerestory being obviously impossible consistently with safety. Numerous expedients were adopted to provide more light, such as by introducing windows in the gables, and by heightening the side walls so as to admit of a small clerestory over the roof of the aisles. But the latter was found to be a very unsafe course, and at the best only clerestory windows of very small size could be introduced, so that the long barrel vaults still remained dark and gloomy.

In Aquitaine an entirely different system of vaulting was accidentally introduced, and threatened at one time to spread itself over the whole of Southern Gaul. The story of the importation of this style, and the various modifications arising out of it, is somewhat strange and remarkable. Owing to the pirates who infested the Straits of Gibraltar, the trade from the Levant with the West of France and Britain, was carried on by means of caravans, which conveyed the goods across the country, from the Mediterranean to the Bay of Biscay. The goods landed at Marseilles or Narbonne were thus carried by Limoges to La Rochelle and Nantes, where they were again shipped for the North of France and Britain. The town of Perigueux, situated in the centre of Aquitaine, at that time probably the richest country in Gaul, became the head-quarters of the Venetian merchants, by whom this traffic was chiefly carried on. These Venetians, as they had in the tenth century imported the plan and decorations of St Mark’s at Venice, from the East, so they soon afterwards resolved to carry the same model with them into Aquitaine. At Perigueux they erected a church exactly after the plan of St Mark’s, being in the form of a Greek cross, crowned with one dome over the central crossing, and four domes over the four arms of the cross. The general idea of this church of St Front at Perigueux is undoubtedly borrowed from St Mark’s, but the execution seems to have been entrusted to a native artist; for, although the conception is Eastern, the style of workmanship, is that of the locality. In the original the arches and domes are spherical, while here they are polygonal and pointed, which we have seen was the ProvenÇal system of construction. The pendentives which fill up the angles under the domes are rudely executed in horizontal corbelling, not dressed as portions of a spherical vault, as they would have been by a scientific Eastern architect.

The church of St Front at Perigueux had great influence on the subsequent architecture of Aquitaine and the West of France. The plan of St Mark’s was not followed in other examples, the old traditional basilican plan being preferred and adhered to; but the dome raised upon pendentives, as introduced at St Front, became the common form of vaulting in Aquitaine and the West of France in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. In the churches thus constructed the side aisles are frequently omitted, and the building consists of a single hall, roofed with a series of domes resting on transverse arches, which are abutted with large internal buttresses. We thus find in Aquitaine and the South generally two important derivations from St Front, viz., 1st, the domed system of vaulting, and 2nd, the single or aisleless nave,—the latter being sometimes vaulted with domes and sometimes with groined arches. As late as the thirteenth century the influence of the dome made itself felt in the churches of Aquitaine, Poitou, and Anjou; while the influence of the plan of the single aisleless nave continued to be prominent in the churches of Languedoc long after the dome was abandoned, and even after the Gothic of the North had invaded the Southern provinces.

It thus happens that early churches such as the Cathedrals at Toulouse (Fig. 34) and FrÉjus (see Part VI.) present a mixture of these ideas, being sometimes found designed on the plan of the aisleless hall, but at the same time roofed with groined vaulting. The buttresses in all these single nave churches are frequently internal, and form deep recesses, which are utilised as side chapels.

At a distance from Perigueux as a centre, domes are sometimes used, as is the case, for instance, in Auvergne, but in Provence the dome is generally limited to the space over the crossing.

In the latter locality the Byzantine influence exhibits itself in a different direction, being chiefly confined to details and subordinate features. But here another factor comes into play. The presence of the Roman monuments still existing in Provence has evidently tended to impress a Roman character on the architecture of the district. So strikingly indeed does some of the ProvenÇal architecture resemble Roman work, both in general design and detail, that it has frequently been maintained that it is actually the work of the Lower Empire.

The style of Provence in the twelfth century differs on this account considerably from that of the other Romanesque styles. The revival which took place all over Europe in the eleventh and twelfth centuries occurred in Provence also, but the result there was somewhat peculiar, the effect of the Roman remains being to produce in many of the features of ProvenÇal architecture a closer resemblance to the Romanesque style of Rome and Italy than to that of the Rhineland and the North.

The towers and campaniles of Provence also either correspond in design with those of Italy or are imitated from Roman monuments in the country.

The circular baptisteries, of which a good many examples survive, are like those in Rome, constructed with columns and caps from ancient buildings, or are wrought in imitation of them.

Sculpture also abounds in Provence, being inspired by the abundant remains of ancient work in this favoured province of the Empire. Along with the imitations of Roman work, there is also, as already remarked, a considerable infusion of Byzantine influence. This, according to Viollet-le-Duc, may be observed in the polygonal form of the apses; in the polygonal cupolas supported on a series of corbelled pendentives; in the flat arcades employed to decorate the walls; in the mouldings with small projection and numerous members; in the flat and delicate ornament; and in the sharp and toothed carving of the foliage. Other writers, however, are of opinion that too much weight has been attributed to the influence of Byzantine art, and that almost all the above elements may be accounted for by the Roman traditions of the locality. It is doubtful in how far the Roman buildings which survived in Provence and the imported classic taste of Byzantium were beneficial to the arts in that country. They no doubt gave an impetus and motive which would otherwise have been awanting, and thus assisted the ProvenÇals in making the early start they did in the revival of their architecture. But on the other hand they acted prejudicially to that revival, in impressing on it the stamp of the classic trabeated style, which in their absence it would have escaped, and might probably have been developed in the freer and more natural manner which occurred at a later date in the North.

The early use of the pointed arch in the vaulting of the ProvenÇal churches is another striking feature of the architecture of the district. Much has been written about the origin of the pointed arch and the date of its introduction into Western Europe. In the North of France its first use occurred in the twelfth century, and it was at one time maintained that the ProvenÇal churches, from their having pointed vaults, must necessarily be later than that date. There is now, however, no question as to the greater antiquity of many of the Southern buildings, thus proving that the use of the pointed arch was adopted in the South considerably earlier than in the North.

We have already seen that that form of arch was first used in Provence as a constructional expedient, and not from any preference for the pointed form. The original idea may possibly have been derived from the Moors in Spain, amongst whom the pointed arch was common from early times, and was employed as a decorative feature. In Provence its use was limited to the vaulting, the round arch being preferred for all the ornamental parts of the architecture, and it continued to be so employed till the thirteenth century. It is a striking circumstance, observes MÉrimÉe, that at the moment when the round arch was entirely abandoned in the North the pointed arch experienced the same disgrace in the South. In the North the pointed arch became the decorative form, when in the South the round arch was preferred. The position of the pointed arch is thus completely reversed in the North and in the South. The greater part of the vaulted constructions of the thirteenth century in the South are exclusively round, the advancement in skill, both in execution and in the use of materials, having rendered that form more generally available. Numerous examples of this employment of the round arch will be found in the following pages.

The Roman and Byzantine influences were naturally strongest where the ancient remains and Eastern ornaments were most frequently met with. As we retire from the Mediterranean northwards and westwards the Roman buildings become less numerous and the signs of Byzantine commerce diminish. In those various countries different styles were naturally developed. These are divided by Viollet-le-Duc into the schools of Toulouse, Poitou, Auvergne, Burgundy, &c., all having distinct characteristics in plans, elevations, form of towers, ornament, sculpture, and every detail. Of these various schools the Burgundian was, during the twelfth century, in advance of all the others, not only in the size and magnificence of its buildings, but also as regards progress in design—efforts being there made to free the ornaments from the conventional and stereotyped patterns of classic art.

Viollet-le-Duc endeavours to account for this advancement in Burgundian architecture by the suggestion that it possibly arose from the study of the paintings of Byzantine MSS., which were numerous in the monasteries, and therefore more frequently under the eyes of the monks than the purely architectural forms of buildings. These paintings preserve considerable freedom of treatment both as regards natural expression in the features and dramatic action in the figure, and are much less bound and fixed by traditional and conventional rules than the architectural forms and ornament.

The artist monks of the Burgundian convents were thus led to look to nature as their model in sculpture, and their attention was gradually turned to natural objects as their guide in the representation of foliage, as well as figures. This process, in course of time, opened the way for an entire departure from ancient precedent, and led to the wonderful development of the natural school of the Royal Domain, which took place in the end of the twelfth and beginning of the thirteenth centuries.

At the head of the Burgundian school stood the great Benedictine Abbey of Cluny. (See ante, p. 20). The church of this Abbey was the largest building of its time, although unfortunately not one stone of it now remains upon another. Cluny had numerous dependencies and offshoots which were all animated with the same spirit, and spread a taste for richness and magnificence in architecture, wherever they were planted.

But the period we are now considering was one of awakening and expansion, not only in the direction of architectural art, but also in every department of intellectual and religious development. It is not therefore to be wondered at that all men were not actuated by the same feeling of admiration for splendid buildings and paintings. Many of the religious rather sympathised with the severity of the old ascetics. It appeared to these reformers that all this sumptuous and splendid mode of life was not in accordance with the fundamental principles of their religion, and they longed to return to the simplicity of the primitive church.

Amongst those who raised their voices most strenuously in this behalf, was the great St Bernard, who even went the length of separating from the Clunisians, and devoted his energy to the encouragement of the new order of the Cistertians, which was destined to play an important part in the future history of the Church and its architecture. Of the severe rules of this order, those relating to the erection of buildings, were amongst the most stringent. These were required to be of the simplest form, and to be entirely free from ornament and decoration of every kind. At first this maxim was strictly adhered to in all the buildings of the Cistertians, which are therefore of the baldest possible description, as the numerous examples hereafter illustrated in Provence and elsewhere show. But this very severity of style seems to have had great influence in clearing the way for the introduction of a new and more natural art, by sweeping away the last remains of the ancient traditional forms, and leaving the course clear for the invention of novel ornamentation derived from natural objects. This may be regarded as the second phase of ProvenÇal art. The first comprised all those primitive structures, the style of which was founded on Roman or classic design. But this second phase discarded all such ornament, and retained only the structural elements which had up to this time been developed. These of course included the use of the pointed arch, which is always employed in the vaulting and all the important structural features, while the round form is frequently retained in the minor arches. Of this bare but vigorous style no finer example can be cited than the Abbey of Thoronet (to be afterwards described), but the whole country abounds (as we shall find) with examples, both large and small, of this reformed or second period of ProvenÇal architecture. After a time the Cistertian strictness was gradually relaxed. The more ornate style of the Clunisians was found to be more in accordance with the feelings and taste of the times; and the Cistertians ultimately came to vie with them in the beauty and richness of their edifices. But, as above pointed out, the traditional Roman and Byzantine elements were entirely banished, and a new and natural system of ornament adopted.

Up to the date which we have now reached the progress of the great monastic centres of Burgundy and the cities of the South had been in advance of that of the Royal Domain, and the Northern provinces generally. But from the end of the twelfth century many circumstances combined to reverse that position. The country of the Franks had become settled—the restless spirit of that people, which had found expression in the Crusades, had exhausted itself; the idea of the one great and holy Roman Empire had passed away, and the various countries of modern Europe were gradually consolidating themselves and forming separate nationalities.

The Feudal system, which tended to break up all general authority, was gradually being subjected to the growing power of a central supreme ruler. Trade and commerce were reviving. The towns and corporations which had grown up under the fostering care of the monasteries, or under the shadow of the great castles of the nobility, were now assuming a more prominent and independent position. They perseveringly pressed their claims on their superiors, whether lay or ecclesiastical, and were by slow degrees obtaining charters and liberties. The Bishops whose sees were connected with the towns encouraged the citizens in this course, with the view of strengthening their own power and importance, so as to enable them to keep pace with and if possible overcome the great influence of their rivals the monasteries. This growth of the popular element in the towns naturally led to the employment of laymen in connection with the designing and execution of the works of the cathedral and other ecclesiastical edifices attached to the various sees.

The monks, who had hitherto been the sole possessors of the requisite knowledge and practical skill, had by their schools, and by the guilds of tradesmen which they had encouraged, sown the seeds which were now springing up in a form they had not looked for, and producing a crop of lay artists, who were soon to leave their old masters behind. The monastic system of carrying on everything according to rule had long held architecture in bondage. Under the new impulse all conventional rules were abandoned, and the artists trusted to the inspiration of nature for their guidance. Hence it followed that whether in planning, in construction, or in ormamentation, the forms so long reverently followed by the architects of the monasteries, were speedily dropped by the lay artists of the towns, and a new art sprung up with the most marvellous rapidity. To the new school of artists nothing which would naturally and logically suit their requirements came amiss. The round arch was the traditional form of the ecclesiastics, but, the lay architects of the North finding (as the builders of the South had long previously done) that the pointed arch was more flexible and amenable to their requirements, forthwith adopted it. This enabled them to overcome what had hitherto been the great difficulty with the round arch, viz., to erect intersecting vaults over spaces of any form, whether square or oblong, and at the same time to keep the apex of all the vaults at any desired height. The transverse arches and the wall arches being thus pointed, soon led in the most natural manner to the window arches within the latter being also made of a pointed shape, so as to conform to the outline of the wall arch, and by an easy transition the pointed arch was soon adopted for all the wall openings as the most flexible, and most in accordance with the spirit of the new style.

In like manner the old conventional forms of decoration, derived from Byzantine carvings and MSS. or from Roman remains, were entirely abandoned, and inspiration in decorative design was sought in the natural flowers and plants of the soil.

The intellectual development, no less than the artistic, of this great period of revival was boldly represented in its architecture. The timid forms of traditional construction were soon left behind, and scientific methods were introduced. The clumsy mode of sustaining the central vault by the half vault of the side aisles was superseded by the bold and beautiful form of the flying buttress, loaded with pinnacles where needed to secure stability. This scientific invention enabled the architects to dispense with heavy walls and to bring the whole pressure of the vaults on to points, where they were discharged by the flying buttresses. The side walls were only required as enclosing screens, not as supports, so that there was free scope and every inducement for the expansion of the windows, which rapidly progressed till the whole building became, in striking contrast to the dark and gloomy structures of the monastic regime, an edifice of marvellous lightness and elegance, illuminated from floor to vault with walls of glowing glass.

The rapid and extensive development of the Gothic style of the North is one of the most remarkable facts in the history of architecture. Within the century following the first appearance of the style in the pointed vaulting of the abbey church of St Denis, erected under the AbbÉ Suger in 1144, this style reached its highest point. During that period it found expression in most of the great cathedrals of the North of France, such as Paris, Chartres, Sens, Amiens, Beauvais, &c. This occurred contemporaneously with the long and brilliant reign of Philip Augustus, under whom the royal power became consolidated, and the royal domain extended to an extraordinary degree.

As the royal domain extended, its Gothic architecture extended with it, and even passed beyond it, and produced a striking effect on the provinces, such as Provence, not yet absorbed into the kingdom of France. Of this we shall meet with several remarkable examples, as in the cathedrals of Carcassonne and Narbonne, where the designs are pure Northern Gothic, and were furnished by a northern architect. But these and similar structures always strike one as having the appearance of exotics; they are evidently imported plants, not native to the soil. There are also, as we shall see, many other buildings in the South in which some of the features only of the Gothic style are adopted, and which exhibit various attempts to ingraft its details on the native art. But even this is not successful, the buildings having neither the lightness and elegance of the Gothic, nor the massive grandeur of the native style.

In later times, when Provence and a great part of the Riviera had passed into the kingdom of France, its period of vigour and independence had faded away, and its architecture only presents a picture of the various foreign influences under which it lay. This is seen in the examples of the flamboyant work of the French, and in the Italian Gothic introduced by the Genoese, who were long masters of the Riviera. All other architecture, however, soon yielded to the revival of the classic style, which here, amongst so many Roman relics, found a congenial soil.

The great development of Gothic architecture in the North was not limited to churches and other ecclesiastical structures, but extended to every species of building. For it is one of the leading characteristics of Gothic, that it is available for every variety of architectural requirement. It is a free and natural style, not subject to the arbitrary rules of monastic or academic systems, but ready to apply itself in the simplest and most direct manner to all human wants in the way of building. The Gothic lay architects therefore naturally directed their skill to the proper development of Domestic and Castellated Architecture, as well as Ecclesiastical and Monastic. Of the former, many most interesting examples are to be seen in the Southern towns; and of the castellated architecture, we shall meet with not only such splendid examples as the Pope’s Palace at Avignon, and the great castles of Villeneuve and Beaucaire; but we shall also have an opportunity of examining, at Carcassonne and Aigues Mortes, the towns which possess probably the completest and best preserved specimens, now extant, of the military architecture of the Middle Ages.

That kind of architecture was, as was natural, especially in the South, to a considerable extent founded on that of the Romans. This will be more fully explained and illustrated, when we come to treat of the fortifications of Carcassonne, which are partly Roman or of Roman foundation. In the North the early fortresses consisted of earthen mounds, protected by palisades and ditches. Such were the defences of the native Gauls, which CÆsar found so boldly defended. To these succeeded the strong towers of masonry, of which the Norman keep is the well known type. Stone-built towers of that description gradually superseded the wooden fort set upon the top of an earthen “motte” or mound which formed the central stronghold of the earlier fortresses. Masonry then, step by step, took the place of wood in the defences; first, as we have seen, in the keep, and then in the enclosing walls. As the science of attack improved, the latter were made stronger, and were further fortified by the construction in connection with them of numerous strong towers. These were generally round in the North and square in the South. The means of active defence were chiefly from the parapet. At first the parapets of the walls and towers were armed in time of war with wooden enclosures, called “hoards” or “brÉtÊches,” projected on short wooden beams. These enabled the defenders to overlook and protect the base of the works, which were then the weak points of the fortifications, and were liable to attack by sapping or mining. The assailants carried out this kind of assault by rolling up their sappers to the walls in “cats” or “sows” (small wagons strongly constructed and defended on the top with bags of wool and wet hides), which could only be destroyed by great stones and beams, hurled down from the projecting “hoards” above. The sockets for this wooden armature of the walls still exists unaltered in the thirteenth century fortifications of Carcassonne and Aigues Mortes. By degrees the wooden hoards were abandoned, being found liable to destruction by the fire balls or “Greek fire,” which the crusaders had learned the use of in the East. Parapets of masonry were then substituted for them, projected on bold stone corbels, which left intervals between the parapet and the face of the wall, called” machicolations,” through which the defenders could rain missiles on the assailants. In the fourteenth century these corbelled parapets are amongst the most prominent and picturesque features of the castles and fortifications of the period. In course of time the stone parapets were further improved and heightened into several storys, the lower ones being covered, and the upper forming an open crenellated walk. In the fifteenth century this system reached its height, and produced in the lofty towers and walls, crowned with their numerous boldly overhanging works, some of the most magnificent works of the military architecture of the Middle Ages. We shall have occasion to refer to the various systems of defence adopted in the different castles and towns to be visited, when attention will also be drawn to the differences of the systems adopted in the North and South. We shall also find a remarkable application of castellated features in the churches of the South, where, after the twelfth century, almost every ecclesiastical structure is carefully fortified. This produces in the churches of the South one of their most striking peculiarities, and gives them, instead of the light and gracefully aspiring character of the Northern Gothic structures, a reflection of the grim and stern aspect of the feudal castle. The peculiar church architecture just referred to, no doubt derived its origin from the constant state of alarm and disturbance in which the Southern provinces were kept by the Albigensian wars, and the attacks of the Moors and Corsairs by sea and land. Some place of refuge and defence was required by the harassed inhabitants, who naturally fled to the church and fortified themselves therein. Frequently the cathedrals were comprised within the precincts of the Bishop’s Palace, which was fortified like a feudal castle. The cathedral being the largest building was eagerly seized upon as an important part of the fortifications, and even when the design was in Northern Gothic, had externally at least to adopt many of the defensive features of the South. Of this remarkable illustrations occur at Narbonne, BÉziers, and FrÉjus.

We have now rapidly sketched the various steps by which Roman architecture was gradually transformed, from being in its decorative features an imitation of the classic trabeated style, into an embodiment of the true principles of arcuated or genuine stone construction, as exhibited in the fully developed Gothic of the thirteenth century. We have seen that this was by no means a simple process, and that it was only accomplished by the ordeal of the destructive though purifying dissolution of the Dark Ages, whence the true spirit of Roman construction emerged, cleared to a great extent of the extraneous elements with which it had been so long encrusted. But although the true features of arcuated architecture now slowly began to be developed, they were both aided and retarded by the surviving relics of Roman art which existed in the West, as well as by the influence of the classic taste which continued to prevail, although in a modified and expanded condition, in the East. The country through which we are about to travel is remarkably favourable for the study of the effects of these various influences. We have already seen how rich it is in genuine Roman structures. In our further progress we shall note how these examples served as models for the revival of the architecture; for so closely were the ancient designs frequently followed that the new structures were almost complete resuscitations of the style of the Lower Empire.

We shall also have many opportunities of observing the influence of the modified classic art imported from Byzantium. Thence came the dome which forms one of the most important elements in the mediÆval architecture of Aquitaine and the South, as well as numerous details and ornaments which served as the foundation or motive for much of the architectural decoration of the West, especially in Provence. How strongly these influences produced their impress on the architecture of the region we are to traverse, will be apparent; and it will probably be agreed by all that although the art of Provence was thereby advanced at first, the chief tendency of these classic reminiscences was to encourage an adherence to traditional forms, which prevented such a free growth and development as was afterwards displayed in the Northern districts, where the classic elements were less abundant. But in one respect at least the architecture of Provence deserves our gratitude and admiration, for, amidst all its classic surroundings, it boldly adopted and adhered to the true principle of arcuated construction, and introduced the use of the pointed arch. Although in its earlier stages this important feature was accompanied and encumbered with the revived details of Roman work, still, as we shall see, in its later phase, it entirely and completely discarded them; and in the twelfth century, under the guidance of the Cistertians, Provence produced a simple and natural style of arcuated architecture in which every feature is regulated by strict adherence to the genuine principles of stone construction. Of this simple but strong and impressive style we shall meet with many fine examples.

Up to this time the ProvenÇal architects had led the way, but the period had now arrived when their principles were to be taken up and carried out with the boldness and energy of the Northern kingdom of France, then in its youthful prime. The lay architects of the North, seizing on the ProvenÇal principle of the pointed arch, which they at once perceived to be so flexible and easy of application to every requirement, soon developed from it the magnificent system of the perfected Gothic of the thirteenth century. This was at once felt and acknowledged on all hands to be an immense step in advance of anything hitherto attempted in the West, and was speedily allowed to overshadow, and finally to supersede all other varieties of mediÆval development. Of this result numerous illustrations will occur in the course of our journey; but we shall also observe how tenaciously the original forms of construction and plan were adhered to in the South, even after the Northern Gothic had been accepted as supreme in all minor details.