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
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.