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.
FIG. 7. TRIUMPHAL ARCH, ORANGE\.
Many are the theories and disputations to which these words and ornaments have given rise, but nothing positive has been made out with regard either to the date or origin of the Arch. It has been ascribed to Tiberius, and its date fixed A.D. 21. But its style and ornament forbid this conclusion.
Mérimée thinks that the great analogy of style between the various Triumphal Arches of Provence, viz., those at Orange, St Remy, and Carpentras (to be afterwards referred to), renders probable the hypothesis which supposes them to have been erected at the same epoch and for the celebration of the same event, viz., the victories of Marcus Aurelius in Germany. The profusion of the ornament, the form of the arms, and the incorrect and pretentious character of these monuments agree well with the architecture of the second century. Mérimée also draws attention to the maritime trophies at Orange, and points out how picturesquely the rostra of the ships, the masts, oars, &c., are grouped. He believes these probably refer to naval conflicts on the Danube.
Mr Ruskin also points to the execution of the sculpture of this arch as a good example of sketching in sculpture; the shields and other arms and ornaments being surrounded with a deeply cut line, which defines their outline clearly as an artist would do with his pencil in sketching them. He considers such objects as unworthy of any more elaborate treatment.