And now, in order to preserve something of a chronological order, let me transport you from Rheims to Mantes, where I have since seen a church which is a puzzle for the antiquaries. Whittington says that it was built by Eudes de Montreuil, and I understand him to quote Millin for the assertion; but I cannot find the passage in that writer. On the contrary, Millin tells us that it was built by the same architect who built Royaumont. Now, Royaumont was finished in 1228, sixty-one years before the death of E. de Montreuil, which took place in 1289. The first church which was erected at Mantes is said to have been built in 865, but it was destroyed by William the Conqueror; and we certainly see at present no remains of any edifice of that date, yet Millin seems inclined to consider the northern doorway of the western portal as part of the original construction. Altogether this church has the appearance of a building that has undergone considerable alterations at different periods. In what I take to be the original work, the nave has two stories of aisles, the end of the choir is round, and the windows are without tracery. In the clerestory and in the lower aisles the windows are pointed; in the upper aisles they are entire circles; all have Saxon ornaments externally, and are quite plain within. All these circumstances indicate a style prior to that existing at the beginning of the thirteenth century, which is the date generally assigned to the edifice, under the auspices of Blanche of Castille, mother to Louis the Ninth. Two towers have been added at the west end. The southern, which is said to be the most ancient, is a very strange composition of slender Gothic. The upper story but one is surrounded by a colonnade, if the expression be admissible, of two ranges of columns, one above another, without either arch or architrave between them, but merely connected with the wall by a stone slab on each capital of the lower range. The upper range supports arches, on which rest several unconnected slabs, steeply sloping, wrought into scales, and conducing neither to the beauty, the strength, nor the shelter of the edifice. The north-west tower, built, according to the tradition of the place, three hundred years after the other, is much less light in its construction, and not much more handsome. It would rather appear more ancient than posterior to the first, if there were any difference, but the summit is comparatively modern, and this has probably given birth to the opinion that its date is so much posterior.
Many of the chapels appear to have been built in the thirteenth century, at which time the vaulting of the nave and choirs was perhaps added, and some of the windows of the upper aisle were altered from their original circular form, into that which they now bear. Later still (in 1405) the porch of the southern door of the western entrance was erected. It is very beautiful, and is the only part of the edifice which is so. Besides these, are a great many other incongruities which are probably assignable to different periods. The vaulting is with oblique groins, as at Beauvais. You know, that in oblique groining, the piers are usually alternately larger and smaller. In this church, the direct arch between the greater piers seems to be formed on an equilateral triangle, or nearly so, rising on the capitals of the shafts; but on the smaller piers the perpendicular line is continued considerably above the capital, and the direct arch between them is consequently very obtuse. Perhaps it was this whim which attracted the admiration of Sufflot, who is said to have been lost in astonishment at the hardiesse of the vaulting, although the nave is only 34 feet wide. The boldness of the architect is however sufficiently conspicuous in other respects, for the piers of the chevet are only 1 foot 11 inches in diameter, to support a vaulting which rises 102 feet 6 inches (English measure) from the ground. One of them is consequently crippled, and has been banded and supported on every side with iron. M. Gabriel, one of the companions of Soufflot, in his examination of this church, contends that the six columns of the chevet might all be cut away, and that nevertheless, by the scientific disposition of the stones, the upper part and the vaulting would remain secure: this indeed would be something wonderful. All the arches of the nave and choir are pointed.
So much for Mantes, but I have still to trespass upon your patience before I bring you back to Rheims, with an account of a building, which from its early date, its peculiar architecture, and its great magnificence, I consider the most interesting specimen of the Gothic style in France, or probably in the world. I had conceived, from what Whittington says of it, pp. 54, 55, 57, that I should find a building of the Norman taste, but this is not the case; Chartres is decidedly Gothic, of a peculiar manner indeed, but such as one would suppose posterior to all the three edifices above described. There are some additions to the original building, but these are extremely well marked, and the mass of the edifice is so clearly the result of one design, and the production of one period, and the time of its erection is so well authenticated, that it takes place of all other cathedrals in antiquarian interest, and yields to few in beauty. Let me relate to you what information I have been able to pick up on the spot, it may help you to form some idea of what one has to wade through to arrive at any satisfactory results in the history of French Gothic. I first bought a little book of the history of Chartres, in order to obtain the dates of the different parts, but I learnt from it little of what I wanted to know. The author begins by telling us, that the ancient nations of Gaul were the most religious people in the world, and that the innocence of their lives, and the holiness of their priesthood, made them worthy to participate in the most important revelations, and to have the future incarnation of the Word shewn to them, long before it was accomplished. There were, he says, three classes of people to whom this communication was made, the Magi, the Sybils, and the Druids. The first learnt it by their knowledge of astrology, the second received the gift of prophecy in recompense of their virginity, and the Druids knew by a prophetic spirit rather than by any fortuitous prediction, that a virgin would one day bear a son for the salvation of the world; and they consequently raised altars in several places, inscribed virgini parituræ, (did they write Latin?) and amongst others there was a very celebrated one at Chartres.
When afterwards Christianity was preached in these parts, there were three circumstances of similarity in the Christian and Druidical rites, which greatly facilitated its progress. The worship of the virgin, who, according to their traditions, was to bring forth a son; the offering of bread and wine, usual in their sacrifices; and the adoration of the Tau, that is, of the cross. The Christian service was performed at the ancient altar of the virgin, and crowds thronged from all parts of the universe to present their offerings. The present cathedral is built over the grotto where this altar formerly stood.
The most famous relic here was the shift of the virgin, which was stolen from a Jew widow by some pious patricians of Constantinople. It was taken from them by an emperor, whose piety was, I suppose, of the same sort, and presented to Charlemagne, who brought it to Aix. It was removed thence by Charles the Bald, and given to the cathedral at Chartres. This relic has of course performed abundance of miracles, but most of these are what would be called by many people in England special providences. And, if amongst us, we had no division into sects, would not these special providences soon become to be considered as miracles, and alleged as proofs of the truth of particular doctrines? We have no reason then to pride ourselves on our freedom from such superstitions, as it depends on circumstances over which we have no control, but much cause to be thankful, not that we have this or that form of worship, but that we have the liberty of thinking for ourselves on religious subjects. This book is not an antiquated work: it was printed in 1808, and may serve to prove, that whatever injury the revolution may have done to religion in the minds of the French, it has by no means rooted out superstition.
There is a public library at Chartres, containing between twenty and twenty-five thousand volumes, and I there found a history of the city deserving more attention; although even in this, the author employs 200 pages in telling us what happened before the arrival of the Romans. This folly seems as strong in France as it is said to be among the Welsh; and many of the local histories are prefaced by an account of Samothès, the son of Japhet, who first peopled Gaul, and a long series of princes, who gave successively their names to the Druids and Bards, to the Celts, the Gauls, and even to the Francs. These, instead of being a German nation, were the subjects of Francus, the son of Hector, called Astyanax and Scamander by Homer, who came to France and married the daughter of Rhemus, king of Rheims. It was only a return to the land of his forefathers, for Dardanus, the founder of the Trojan line, was a Frenchman.
But to return to this History of Chartres, which was written by a M. V. Chevard, and printed at Chartres. It assures us that the old cathedral was burnt in 1020; that Fulbert, who was then bishop, began the present edifice almost immediately, but that it was not completed at the time of his death, in 1028, although it appears to have been considerably advanced. We are even told that it was finished before the middle of the eleventh century, but this word is often used very loosely in the accounts of Gothic buildings. Matilda, wife of William the Conqueror, who died in 1083, covered the main body of the edifice with lead. The basnef, the towers, and the west front, were finished in 1145. The south porch was added in 1060, by Jean Cormier, or Jean Le Sourd, physician to Henry I. of France. The famous steeple is one of those of the western front. The place was formerly occupied by a wooden one, but this being burnt in 1507, gave rise to the present, which rose almost immediately from the ruins. I had heard so much of the height of this steeple, that the first view of it disappointed me in this respect, but the great elevation of the body of the building in the French churches, effectually prevents any such extreme impression of height as is produced by the spire of Salisbury Cathedral; or, at least, the elevation must be indeed enormous to occasion it. The vaulting of these edifices is more lofty, and the space between that and the timber roof is much greater than is usual in England; indeed, sometimes in our churches the direct tie-beam is omitted, in order to bring the vaulting absolutely into the roof. The roof itself is also higher. Altogether the ridge of the roof at Chartres must be full 50 feet higher than that at Salisbury, and 50 feet added to the mass of the building, and taken from the spire, will greatly diminish the apparent elevation of the latter. The height of the edifice is very much lost in its bulk. It even forms a base for the lighter part, and in some degree a standard by which to measure it. Afterwards, however, in walking round the town, and seeing the cathedral in different points of view, I gave to the height its full value. The impression was not that of a very high steeple, but of a very lofty church: an effect greatly enhanced by its fine situation, on the summit of a hill, with the town collected at its foot. The whole height of the new spire is 403 English feet. The upper part of the tower and the spire, are of the most light and beautiful work imaginable. The ornaments are executed with the greatest delicacy, and in entire relief, the stems of the vines, and the bunches of grapes which enrich the mouldings being entirely detached, and the work suspended merely by the extremities of the leaves; and all the veins and ribs are shown as if they were to be seen at hand, instead of at an elevation of 300 feet. Even parts, which cannot be seen at all from below, are finished with the same care. The staircase, by which one ascends this spire, forms a little tower of itself, also of open work, quite independent of that which supports the spire. The opposite spire is much more solid and simple in its form, and seems to be part of the edifice of Fulbert; its height is 365 feet, and its appearance is more like that of Norwich than any other English spire I am acquainted with, but the resemblance is not at all continued in the tower which supports it. There are several pinnacles rising above the base of the spire, and the whole composition is more Gothic than at Norwich. As the cathedral was two or three times destroyed by fire, before it was erected in its present form, i. e. before the time of Fulbert, it is possible that some of the lower part of this tower belonged to an earlier edifice; the pointed arch is however exhibited in it. The whole western front is very beautiful. The porch is ornamented with statues and columns, as at Rheims and Amiens, but not in such profusion, nor is it so deep. The execution is also more stiff and rude, and the resemblance is probably much stronger to the western doorway of St. Germain, as it existed before the revolution, than to either of these buildings. Some of the statues are merely stuck to the little columns behind them, under others there is a projection to receive the feet, but very small, and apparently insufficient. Over them are small canopies, which are likewise attached to the shaft of the column. The capitals of these columns, instead of foliage, are formed of little figures, with canopies over them, surmounted by what have the appearance of little models of large buildings. It is remarkable that, although the arches of this doorway are somewhat pointed, yet the architecture represented in the models never is so. In the south portal, on the contrary, which I shall describe by and by, where these models are tenfold more abundant, a considerable number have pointed arches. This circumstance seems very extraordinary if this western doorway was built, as is asserted, eighty-five years after the southern porch. Over the great door is a triple window, the middle division being the largest and highest, the only instance of this disposition in the building. Above this is a magnificent rose window, but of simpler arrangement, and a larger portion of solids than we find in those of a later date. The windows of the nave and choir are also terminated by a rose, but with this singular difference, that in the great roses the exterior is ornamented with mouldings, while the internal faces are plain; in the smaller ones, on the contrary, the internal faces are moulded and the outside is plain.
The southern porch is very curious on many accounts. It was built, as I have already said, in 1060, by Jean Cormier, physician to Henry I. This date is important, because it seems exceedingly well authenticated, and the addition of the porch proves the church, if not finished, yet to have been in a state of great forwardness at that period. There are openings, not arched, but square-headed, combining all the parts of this porch into a sort of open portico. It abounds with detached shafts, of which there are none within the church, with large and small figures, and with models of architecture, in some of which, as I have already remarked, the pointed arch is exhibited. The arches of the porch itself are all pointed. The footstools of the figures are usually themselves grotesque human figures, and many of them with crowns. These statues, and the canopies over them, are much better managed than in the western front. They are rudely finished, but the labour bestowed on the lace of some of the garments shews that this rudeness was the effect, not of negligence, but of want of skill. The foliage of the capital of the columns spreads over the underside of the canopy. Above the porch is a range of five windows, of equal size and height, and over these a rose window. In the transept at Amiens, the angular spaces between a similar range of arches, and a circle above them, are opened, and form additions to the rose window; here they are closed, and no attempt is made to unite them. There is, as usual, a gallery in front of the gable, and at each end of this gallery is a small octangular tower, surmounted by a spire. This seems to have been a common mode of finishing in the early French Gothic; it occurs at a church in Soissons, which bears all the marks of antiquity; and in other places. The general opening of the windows, both in the clerestory and aisles, in this church, is round-headed, but they are divided by a large plain mullion (such as I have never seen elsewhere) into two parts, each of which has a pointed arch, and over them is a rose.
It was, perhaps, part of the original design to have a tower on each side of each end of the transept, and one on each side of the choir, but the parts which are now exhibited of these towers, above the roofing of the church, seem to be of later date; none of them are finished, and what has been performed of the two latter does not correspond with the work of the other four. These are ornamented with numerous little shafts, extremely long and slender, most of which are united to the solid masonry, but those at the angles are detached, in order to give an exaggerated appearance of lightness. I imagine them to be posterior to those of Nôtre Dame, at Paris, but earlier than those at Rheims; but among the various efforts which ultimately completed the first mentioned of these churches, we cannot determine during which the towers were built, and the priority of date is left in great uncertainty, for the style of building is not decisive, or rather, I have not sufficient knowledge to be able to determine it from that character. The northern front of the cathedral at Chartres presents a similar style of ornament, but without the projecting porch, which makes so important and interesting a feature on the south.
Chartres is very rich in painted glass; in this respect it far exceeds any other cathedral I have seen; the colours are deep, without losing their brilliancy, and the light is stronger than at Rheims, although the windows of the aisles, with only one or two exceptions, are painted, as well as those of the clerestory. The glass is said to be half an inch thick; I believe this is not much thicker than some of the old glass in York cathedral. Many of the windows contain escutcheons. This church is 461 feet long internally, and the vaulting is 113 feet high, the piers of the nave are composed alternately of octagonal pillars, with four circular shafts attached to them, and of circular pillars, with as many octagonal shafts attached to them. All the arches and the vaulting are pointed, except perhaps (and of this I am not sure), that the cross vaulting of the nave may be of circular arches. The construction of the roof has been much praised, but it is not good; the timbers are all small, and the trusses are very close together. At the point of the choir there is as usual a maître poutre of immense size, which you are told supports the whole roof, but which in fact supports nothing, being itself suspended by the converging rafters. There is a space of about six feet between the tie-beam and the top of the vaults.