Produced by The Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images
generously made available by The Internet Archive)









  BELL’S HANDBOOKS TO
  CONTINENTAL CHURCHES

  NOTRE DAME DE PARIS




  [Illustration: NOTRE DAME AND THE PONT DE L’ARCHEVÊQUE.
                 (_From an etching by C. Méryon._)]




  NOTRE DAME DE PARIS

  A SHORT HISTORY & DESCRIPTION
  OF THE CATHEDRAL, WITH SOME
  ACCOUNT OF THE CHURCHES
  WHICH PRECEDED IT

  BY
  CHARLES HIATT

  AUTHOR OF
  “CHESTER CATHEDRAL,” “BEVERLEY MINSTER,”
  “WESTMINSTER ABBEY,” ETC., ETC.

  WITH FORTY-ONE ILLUSTRATIONS

  LONDON: GEORGE BELL & SONS 1902




PREFACE


The task of writing an account of the cathedral of Notre Dame is
materially lightened by the minute details of its history and
architecture to be found in the various writings of M. Viollet-le-Duc,
of which, unfortunately, the Library of the British Museum does not
contain a complete set. The _Description de Notre Dame_, published
in 1856 by M. de Guilhermy in conjunction with M. Viollet-le-Duc,
contains much useful material, while the splendidly illustrated account
of the church in the first volume of _Paris à travers les Ages_
is full of interesting archæological particulars. As the numerous
other authorities which have been used are quoted in the text, it is
unnecessary to enumerate them here. The writer has found Mr. Charles
Herbert Moore’s _Development of Gothic Architecture_ useful in not a
few difficult matters. He wishes specially to thank Mr. Edward Bell for
valuable suggestions on many important points.

                                                      CHARLES HIATT.

  CHELSEA,
      _October, 1902_.




CONTENTS


  CHAPTER                                             PAGE

    I. A BRIEF HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF THE CATHEDRAL       3

   II. THE PLACE OF NOTRE DAME IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF
       FRENCH GOTHIC                                    19

  III. THE EXTERIOR                                     27

   IV. THE INTERIOR.--THE NAVE                          55

    V. THE TRANSEPTS AND THE CHOIR                      71

   VI. CONCLUSION.--THE SACRISTY, ETC.                  94

  VII. LIST OF THE BISHOPS AND ARCHBISHOPS OF PARIS     98

  INDEX                                                103

  GROUND PLAN                                       AT END




LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS


                                                                  PAGE

  Notre Dame and the Pont de l’Archevêque               _Frontispiece_

  Notre Dame from the South                                          2

  Notre Dame from the Quai St. Bernard                               3

  Queen Marie Antoinette returning Thanks                           11

  The Chevet                                                        18

  Section of Nave and Double Aisle                                  21

  North Aisles of the Nave                                          23

  The West Front                                                    26

  Chimères                                                          27

  String-course on the West Front                                   29

  Carved Foliage, Portail de la Vierge                              30

  Portail de la Sainte-Vierge                                       31

  Figure of St. Marcel                                              33

  Sculpture of the Last Judgement                                   34

  Tympanum of the Porte Sainte Anne                                 35

  Apostles--Central Doorway                                         36

  Figures--Porte Sainte Anne                                        37

  Chimères                                                          38

     ”                                                              39

  Le Stryge, after Méryon                                           41

  The Roof-ridge of Notre Dame, by J. Pennell                       43

  The Original Flèche                                               44

  Clocheton                                                         45

  Windows of the South Aisle                                        46

  Triforium Windows                                                 47

  The North Transept Front                                          49

  Tympanum, North Transept                                          52

  The Interior from the West End                                    54

  The Nave: South Arcade                                            58

  Capital in the Nave                                               59

  The Nave: North Arcade                                            61

  The Triforium Gallery                                             63

  Elevations of the Nave                                            65

  Angle of the Choir and South Transept                             70

  The North Transept                                                73

  View of the Choir at the End of the Thirteenth Century            80

  Grille at Entrance of Choir                                       82

  The Choir, looking West                                           83

  The Choir from the South Transept                                 87

  The Place du Parvis in 1650                                       94

  Notre Dame in the Thirteenth Century, with the Bishop’s Palace    98




  [Illustration: _Photo_]  [_Ed. Hautecœur, Paris._
                 NOTRE DAME FROM THE SOUTH.]




  [Illustration: NOTRE DAME FROM THE QUAI ST. BERNARD.]

NOTRE DAME DE PARIS.

CHAPTER I.

A BRIEF HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF THE CATHEDRAL.


No city of the modern world has seen such amazing changes as the French
metropolis. In the eyes of many persons, from every downfall Paris has
arisen more incontestably splendid. But not to all is the Paris of
Baron Hausmann lovelier than the city which preceded it. For instance,
M. Joris-Karl Huysmans, the author at once modern and mystical of
_A Rebours_ and _La Cathédrale_, bitterly regrets the disappearance
of those ancient and brooding byways which lent to the Paris of his
youth a curious charm which has now almost disappeared. The Paris of
magnificent vistas is at least less fascinating to the artist than the
comparatively provincial city of crooked lanes which has gone to make
way for a series of lofty and pretentious street fronts and spacious
squares.

Strange it is that, where so much has been changed, the cathedral
church of Notre Dame has remained almost unaltered in outline and
general effect. Revolutions have surged round it; monstrous rites have
been perpetrated within it; even the hail of shot and shell have left
this wonderful Gothic creation poorer only in decorative detail. There
is a certain fascination in the grimness of this mysterious building
in _la ville lumière_, and I am disposed to agree with Mr. Richard
Whiteing that it symbolises the underlying sadness, as opposed to
the superficial gaiety of the Parisian. Thousands of French churches
are dedicated to Notre Dame: even in Paris itself we have Notre Dame
de l’Assomption, Notre Dame de l’Abbaye aux Bois, Notre Dame des
Blancs-Manteaux, Notre Dame des Champs, Notre Dame de Lorette, and
Notre Dame des Victoires. But still when we speak of Notre Dame we
allude instinctively to that vast edifice which frowns over the slow
and winding Seine. The cathedral church of Notre Dame is almost as
closely connected with the history of the French people as is the Abbey
of Westminster with that of the English. And indeed the gray-white
building whose foundations are nearly washed by the waters of the Seine
has seen pageants more superb, and tragedies more luridly dramatic,
than our own proud Minster of the West. Although it can boast no such
marvellous continuity of vital historic episodes, Notre Dame is the one
building in the French metropolis which seems to stand as a symbol for
the whole city in all its memorable phases: with it may not be compared
the bragging grandeur of the Arc de Triomphe, the extensive splendour
of the Louvre, nor the rebuilt Hôtel de Ville. We do not forget the
exquisite beauties of La Sainte Chapelle, the strange fascination of
the resting-place of the Great Napoleon, nor the majesty of the once
royal church of Saint Denis. None of these, however, will bear serious
comparison with the great Metropolitan Cathedral of Paris. Notre Dame
has an almost unearthly power of asserting its existence. Neither in
full sunshine, nor in the twilight, nor when night has finally set in,
will it allow its majestic proportions to be overlooked. Mr. Henley
has finely spoken of “the high majesty of Paul’s,” but even our own
metropolitan cathedral, with its overwhelming dome, is scarcely more
predominant than Notre Dame.

The geographical position of the Cathedral of Paris is not unlike that
anciently possessed by Westminster Abbey, and by that crown of the
Fens, Ely Cathedral. We find that Notre Dame dominates an islet of
the Seine. At its east end is that tragical commentary on the life of
modern Paris, The Morgue. The late Mr. Grant Allen, with a cheerfulness
which we are far from sharing, noted that this triumphant example of
the best Gothic in the world has often been restored. We believe that
he was one of many intelligent persons who derive a real satisfaction
from the so-called “restoration” of an ancient work, of which no real
“restoration” is possible, though repair is an obvious duty.

The mediæval churches of western Europe nearly all claim a
pre-Christian origin. It is charming to the mind of a certain type
of antiquary to discover the origin of a Christian cathedral in the
wreck of a Roman temple. For Westminster Abbey and for St. Paul’s
Roman foundations have, with more or less accuracy, been described.
In the case of Notre Dame it is certain that the remains of an altar
of Jupiter were discovered in 1711, which would seem to indicate that
a pagan temple once stood on or near the site in the Gaulish city
of Lutetia Parisiorum. In point of fact, it is a matter of no small
difficulty to make out clearly the origin of Notre Dame, or to describe
with certainty the ecclesiastical buildings which in the dim past
occupied its site. A lady writer who has discussed the church with much
intelligence writes on this matter as follows:[1]

[Footnote 1: _The Churches of Paris_, by S. Sophia Beale: London, W. H.
Allen and Co., 1893.]

“The origin of Notre Dame is enveloped in mystery. Whether its first
bishop, St. Denis, or Dionysius, was the Areopagite converted by St.
Paul’s preaching at Athens, and sent by St. Clement to preach the
Gospel to the Parisians, or whether he was another personage of the
same name who was sent into Gaul in the third century and martyred
during the persecutions under Decius, it is impossible to say, as there
is no evidence of any value. Certain it is, however, that the first
bishop of Paris bore the name of Denis, and that he suffered martyrdom,
with his two companions Rusticus and Eleutherius, on the summit of the
hill now called Montmartre. Tradition went so far as to point out the
spot where they first gathered their followers together--the crypt of
Notre Dame des Champs; also the prison where our Lord appeared to
them and strengthened them with His Holy Body and Blood at St. Denis
de la Chartre; the place, at St. Denis du Pas, where they suffered
their first tortures; and lastly, Montmartre, where they were beheaded.
But, with the exception of the latter, all these holy spots have
disappeared. So, too, have the crosses which marked the route taken by
the Saint, when he carried his head to the place chosen for his burial,
at St. Denis. An ancient church covered the remains of the three saints
until the present splendid building was erected, in the reign of
Dagobert I. Under the Roman dominion, Paris was comprised in the fourth
Lyonnaise division, of which Sens was the metropolis. Hence the bishops
of Paris acknowledged the Archbishop of Sens as their primate until
1622, when, at the request of Louis XIII., Pope Gregory XV. raised
Paris to the see of an archbishopric. The succession has consisted of
one hundred and nine bishops and fifteen archbishops, eight of whom
have been raised to the dignity of Cardinal. Besides St. Denis six have
been venerated as Saints: Marcel, in the fifth century; Germain, in the
sixth century; Ceran, Landry, and Agilbert in the seventh, and Hugues
in the eighth century.”

We must leave this ancient and hazy story of saints and martyrs, and
return to the thorny question of the origin of the cathedral. From the
brief account of Notre Dame by Mr. A. J. C. Hare in his entertaining
volume on Paris, we glean that about the year 375 a church, dedicated
to St. Stephen (St. Etienne), was built on the islet under Prudentius,
eighth bishop of Paris. “In 528,” says Mr. Hare, “through the gratitude
of Childebert--‘_le nouveau Melchisedech_’--for his recovery from a
sickness by St. Germain, another far more rich and beautiful edifice
(dedicated to Sainte Marie--) arose by the side of the first church,
and was destined to become _ecclesia parisiaca_, the cathedral of
Paris. Childebert endowed it with three estates--at Chelles-en-Brie,
at La Celle near Monterau, and at La Celle near Fréjus--which last
supplied the oil for its sacred ordinances. The new church had not long
been finished when La Cité, in which the monks of S. Germain had taken
refuge with their treasures, was besieged by the Normans; but it was
successfully defended by Bishop Gozlin, who died during the siege. It
is believed that the substructions of this church were found during
recent excavations in the Parvis Notre Dame,[2] and architectural
fragments then discovered are now preserved at the Palais des Thermes.”
It may be taken for granted that Childebert’s church took the form of
a Roman basilica, and it is probable that Roman materials were used in
its construction. In 1847 further Roman remains were discovered on the
site which doubtless formed part of Childebert’s building. Some of them
are preserved at the Hôtel-Cluny.

[Footnote 2: The space to the west of the church was called _Parvis
paradisus_, the earthly paradise leading by the celestial Jerusalem.]

I am, however, inclined to agree with M. de Guilhermy and M.
Viollet-le-Duc,[3] that the story of the cathedral previous to the
episcopacy of Bishop Maurice de Sully (1160-96) is, if not absolutely
fictitious, at least merely conjectural.

[Footnote 3: See _Description de Notre-Dame, Cathédrale] de Paris_:
Paris, 1856. The main points of Viollet-le-Duc’s inventory of the
cathedral will be found in Queyron’s _Histoire et Description de
l’Eglise de Notre Dame_, Paris: E. Plon, Nourrit et C^{ie}.]

This prelate--generally counted as the sixty-second occupant of the
see--seems at first to have united the adjacent churches of St. Stephen
and St^{e} Marie on the Ile de la Cité, and then (without immediately
and totally destroying them) to have commenced a new one on the same
site, of which Pope Alexander III. laid the foundation-stone in 1163.
Rapid progress must have been made with the work, for it is certain
that in 1185 Heraclitus, patriarch of Jerusalem, officiated at the
altar, in front of which, in the year following, Geoffrey, Count of
Brittany, son of Henry II. of England, was buried. Maurice de Sully
provided for the continuation of the work after his death, which took
place in 1196. By his will he left five thousand _livres_ in order
that the choir might be roofed with lead. At this time, according to
Viollet-le-Duc, considerable progress must have been made with the
nave. Maurice de Sully was succeeded by Eudes de Sully (1197-1208), on
whose death the see was occupied, until 1219, by Pierre de Nemours.
Towards 1223 the west front was completed to the base of the great
gallery, and by 1235 the towers were left much as we see them to-day.
The spires, which it is generally admitted they were intended to carry,
were never added.

Between the years 1235 and 1240, a fire seems to have broken out at
Notre Dame. On this subject history is silent, but that it did serious
damage is maintained by Viollet-le-Duc on what appear to be sufficient
grounds. According to him, repair was made in haste, so that rose
windows, flying buttresses and other structural details were ruthlessly
sacrificed. The west front seems to have escaped mutilation. Up to 1245
the cathedral, vast as was its area, possessed either no chapels at
all, or chapels of inconsiderable dimensions. In that year, however,
the addition of new chapels was proceeded with. It would appear that,
shortly after, the plainness of the transept fronts in comparison with
the splendidly decorated west façade was acutely felt. In 1257, Jean
de Chelles was engaged on reconstructing the southern doorway. At this
time St. Louis was King of France, and Renaud de Corbeil bishop of
Paris. The northern door and the chapels next the transepts on either
side were altered immediately after the southern entrance. In 1351,
Jean Ravy and Jean de Bouteiller were engaged about the cathedral as
sculptors.

During the next three centuries Notre Dame escaped anything in the
nature of important change, destruction or addition; but in 1699 an
era of reckless mutilation began. Between the last-named date and 1753
the Cloister, the stalls of the sixteenth century, the old high altar,
many sepulchral monuments, and a vast quantity of stained glass were
destroyed. The work done in the names of “repair” and “beautification”
deprived the cathedral of mouldings, foliated capitals, gargoyles
and pinnacles. The damage inflicted by the architect Soufflot (who
designed the Panthéon) will be noticed later. Towards the end of Louis
XV.’s reign the church was refloored with squares of marble. The new
pavement involved the tearing up of a number of curious tombstones,
some of which covered the dust of men greatly distinguished in French
history. Between 1773 and 1787 minor alterations in the taste of the
time were made in various parts of the building, but further additions
were brought to an end by the outbreak of the Revolution. That any
sculpture of a religious or royal character was spared at Notre Dame
during that terrific upheaval seems to have been due to the eloquence
of Citoyen Chaumette and the influence of Citoyen Dupuis. Of the great
work of repair and addition performed by the architects Viollet-le-Duc
and Lassus, their assistants and successors, much will be said when we
consider the cathedral in detail.

We have already discussed the early story of Notre Dame, and noted the
vicissitudes through which the fabric has passed. I propose, before
concluding this introductory chapter, to state in the briefest possible
way the great historical events with which the cathedral is connected,
from the death, in 1196, of Maurice de Sully to the present time.

From the tenth century up to the end of the fifteenth century the
extraordinary _Fête des Fous_ was celebrated in Notre Dame. One of
the cathedral employés was elected _Evêque des Fous_, and, wearing
the actual vestments used in religious services, was honoured with
a great banquet accompanied with grotesque dances and songs. This
orgy took place in the church itself, and was so popular that it
flourished in spite of the most determined efforts to suppress it. A
similar custom was observed in La Sainte Chapelle. During the early
years of the thirteenth century the Dominican order was established.
St. Dominic himself preached once at least in Notre Dame. During his
prayer before the sermon, the Virgin is said to have appeared to him
in a cloud of light and to have given to him a book containing the
subject-matter of his discourse. Raymond VII., Count of Toulouse,
underwent the discipline of the lash for heresy before the door of the
cathedral in 1229. This spot was for centuries occupied by a pillory.
From 1220 onwards a series of disputes took place between the officials
of the church and the university. During the long reign of St. Louis,
which ended in 1271, the power of the bishop and chapter of Paris
had increased enormously, and a host of vassals did homage to Bishop
Etienne II. for their lands. The body of St. Louis was laid in state
in Notre Dame previous to its burial at St. Denis. This custom was
followed in the case of many other French monarchs and princes of the
blood.

On April 10th, 1302, Philippe-le-Bel held the first meeting of the
States-general in the cathedral. In the month of June, 1389, Isabeau
de Bavière made a solemn entry into Paris. Froissart tells us that:
“Devant ladite église de Notre-Dame, en la place, l’évêque de Paris
étoit revêtu des armes de Notre-Seigneur et tout le collège. Aussi on
moult avoit grand clergé et la descendit la royne et la mirent hors de
sa litière les quatre ducs qui là estoyent, Berry, Bourgogne, Touraine
et Bourbon.... La royne de France fut adestrée et menée parmy l’église
et le chœur jusqu’au grand autel et la se mit à genoux et fit ses
oraisons ainsi que bon lui sembla, et bailla et offrit à la trésorerie
de Notre-Dame quatre draps d’or et la belle couronne que les anges lui
avoient posée sur la porte de Paris.”

A great thanksgiving service was held when Charles VI. had been saved
from burning. The King, it may be recalled, was dressed as a satyr at
a palace fête with five companions. The Duke of Orleans was curious as
to the identity of the disguised, and approached them with a torch,
which accidentally set their clothing alight. The King was saved by
the Duchess de Berri, who threw a cloak over him, but four of his
companions were burned to death.

We must now turn to the time of Henry V. of England, who, after
Agincourt, became Regent of France with the right of succession to
the throne. After his marriage with Catherine, daughter of Charles
VI., in 1420, he paid a solemn state visit to Notre Dame. On Henry’s
death his son, afterwards Henry VI., was crowned King of France in the
cathedral. When the English were driven from Rouen, a great service of
thanksgiving was held to celebrate the entry of Charles VII. into the
Norman capital.

  [Illustration: QUEEN MARIE ANTOINETTE RETURNING THANKS FOR
                 THE BIRTH OF A DAUPHIN, JANUARY 21ST, 1782.
                 (_From “Paris à travers les Ages.”_)]

“In the annals of Notre Dame,” says Mr. W. F. Lonergan in his _Historic
Churches of Paris_, “from the days of Louis XI., the rebellious dauphin
who succeeded his father, Charles VII., to the reign of the fourteenth
Louis, there is chiefly a long record of _Te Deums_ after the victories
of the French army. Historic Rheims, where Clovis had been baptized
by S. Remi in 496, was the favoured city of the Merovingians, who
had accorded it great privileges.” Amongst these was the right of
crowning and consecrating the Kings of France. Save Henri Quatre and
Louis XVIII., all of them were crowned at Rheims; but it was the
custom of the newly made sovereigns to go in state to Notre Dame at
Paris to return thanks for their advent to the throne. Amongst the
most interesting of the historic events which took place in, or were
magnificently celebrated at Notre Dame, were the following: the French
victory over the Venetians at Agnadel or, as the Italians call it,
Vaila, in 1509; the marriage of Louis XII. with Mary, sister of Henry
VIII. of England; the victories of Francis I.; and the marriage of
Mary Stuart with the Dauphin. The marriage of Henri, King of Navarre,
with Marguerite de Valois, took place at the entrance to the cathedral,
as the King was a Protestant. In 1590 the Catholic nobles swore at
the altar of Notre Dame to fight this same Henri to the bitter end.
In 1593, however, he became a Catholic, and attended mass at the
cathedral on the occasion of his accession to the throne as the first
monarch of the Bourbon line. The metropolitan see was raised to the
dignity of an archbishopric by Pope Gregory XV. in 1622. In 1682, under
Louis XIV., the great bell or _bourdon_ of the church was christened
Emmanuel Louis Thérèse, the King and Queen being the sponsors. Later
on, in 1699, the great changes in the church, undertaken in fulfilment
of the vow of Louis XIII., were begun. The first stone of the new
altar was laid by the Archbishop with the utmost pomp. The foundation
slab was inscribed: “Louis the Great--son of Louis the Just--after
he had suppressed heresy, established the true faith in his kingdom,
terminated gloriously wars by land and sea, wishing to accomplish the
vow of his father, built this altar in the cathedral church of Paris,
dedicating it to the God of Arms, Master of Peace and Victory, under
the invocation of the Virgin, patron and protector of his State,
A.D. 1699.” During the reign of the “Grand Monarque,” _Te
Deums_ were even more frequent than before.

We come at length to the part played by the cathedral during the
Revolution. We need say nothing of the fate of the fabric itself,
for that has already been alluded to. Its escape is little short of
marvellous. The result of the sack of the treasuries of the churches
of Paris is best told in Carlyle’s vivid translation of Mercier:
“This, accordingly, is what the streets of Paris saw: Most of these
persons were still drunk, with the brandy they had swallowed out of
chalices;--eating mackerel on the patenas! Mounted on Asses, which were
housed with Priests’ cloaks, they reined them with Priests’ stoles;
they held clutched with the same hand communion-cup and sacred wafer.
They stopped at the doors of Dramshops; held out ciboriums: and the
landlord, stoup in hand, had to fill them thrice. Next came Mules
high laden with crosses, chandeliers, censers, holy-water vessels,
hyssops;--recalling to mind the Priests of Cybele, whose panniers,
filled with the instruments of their worship, served at once as
storehouse, sacristy and temple.” On November 10th, 1793, the Cult of
Reason was decreed by the Convention, and Notre Dame converted into
the temple of the new religion. To quote Carlyle again: “For the same
day, while this brave Carmagnole-dance has hardly jigged itself out,
there arrive Procureur Chaumette and Municipals and Departmentals,
and with them the strangest freightage: a New Religion! Demoiselle
Candeille, of the Opera; a woman fair to look upon, when well rouged;
she borne on palanquin shoulder high; with red woollen nightcap; in
azure mantle; garlanded with oak; holding in her hand the Pike of
the Jupiter-_Peuple_, sails in: heralded by white young women girt
in tricolor. Let the world consider it! This, O National Convention,
wonder of the universe, is our New Divinity; _Goddess of Reason_,
worthy, and alone worthy of revering. Her henceforth we adore. Nay,
were it too much of an august National Representation that it also
went with us to the _ci-devant_ Cathedral called of Notre Dame, and
executed a few strophes in worship of her?... And now after due pause
and flourishes of oratory, the Convention, gathering its limbs, does
get under way in the required procession towards Notre Dame;--Reason,
again in her litter, sitting in the van of them, borne, as one judges,
by men in the Roman costume; escorted by wind-music, red nightcaps, and
the madness of the world. And so, straightway, Reason taking seat on
the high-altar of Notre Dame, the requisite worship or quasi-worship
is, say the Newspapers, _executed_; National Convention chanting ‘the
_Hymn to Liberty_, words by Chénier, music by Gossec.’ It is the
first of the _Feasts of Reason_; first communion-service of the New
Religion of Chaumette.” The real heroine of this orgy was probably an
opera dancer called Maillard. ‘Demoiselle Candeille’ was an actress
and writer of some repute, who strenuously denied that she ever had
anything to do with the Feast of Reason. An imitation “mountain” was
erected in the nave for the “fête,” on which was built a Gothic temple
inscribed _A la Philosophie_. Around were busts of famous philosophers,
and below an altar surmounted with the so-called Torch of Truth. The
goddess sat on the hill, hymns were sung in her honour and vows of
fidelity to her were taken. In 1794 the church was used as a bonded
store for the wine seized in the cellars of guillotined or outlawed
Royalists. The month of May in the same year saw the “Temple of Reason”
turned into that of the “Supreme Being,” for Robespierre persuaded the
Convention to sign a decree recognising “the consoling principle of
the Immortality of the Soul.” In 1795 Christian worship was once more
restored at Notre Dame. Nothing of great importance happened to the
church until the star of Napoleon rose--until, indeed, the first Consul
had become Emperor.

Of all the magnificent ceremonies of which Notre Dame has been the
scene, the most splendid was the joint coronation of Napoleon and
Josephine in the winter of 1804. A full account of it will be found
in the _Mémoires de la Duchesse d’Abrantès_, of which I quote a part,
purposely leaving it in the original French, as any translation would
be comparatively colourless and unpicturesque: “Le pape arriva le
premier. Au moment où il entra dans la basilique, le clergé entonna
_Tu es Petrus_, etc.; et ce chant grave et religieux fit une profonde
impression sur les assistants. Pie VII. avançait du fond de cette
église, avec un air à la fois majestueux et humble.... L’instant qui
réunit peut-être le plus de regards sur les marches de l’autel, fut
celui où Joséphine reçut de l’empereur la couronne et fut sacrée
solennellement impératrice des Français. Lorsqu’il fut temps pour elle
de paraître activement dans le grand drame, l’impératrice descendit
du trône et s’avança vers l’autel, où l’attendait l’empereur, suivie
de ses dames du palais et de tout son service d’honneur, et ayant
son manteau porté par la princesse Caroline, la princesse Julie,
la princesse Elisa et la princesse Louis.... Je vis tout ce que je
viens de dire dans les yeux de Napoléon. Il jouissait en regardant
l’impératrice s’avancer vers lui; et lorsqu’elle s’agenouilla ...
lorsque les larmes qu’elle ne pouvait retenir, roulèrent sur ses mains
jointes qu’elle élevait bien plus vers lui que vers Dieu, dans ce
moment où Napoléon, ou plutôt _Bonaparte_, était pour elle sa véritable
providence, alors il y eut entre ces deux êtres une de ces minutes
fugitives, unique dans toute une vie, et qui comblent le vide de bien
des années. L’empereur mit une grâce parfaite à la moindre des actions
qu’il devait faire pour accomplir la cérémonie. Mais ce fut surtout
lorsqu’il s’agit de couronner l’impératrice. Cette action devait être
accompli par l’empereur, qui, après avoir reçu la petite couronne
fermée et surmontée de la croix, qu’il fallait placer sur la tête de
Joséphine, devait la poser sur sa propre tête, puis la mettre sur celle
de l’impératrice. Il mit à ces deux mouvements une lenteur gracieuse
qui était remarquable. Mais lorsqu’il en fut au moment de couronner
enfin celle qui était pour lui, selon un préjugé, son _étoile heureuse_
il fut _coquet_ pour elle, si je puis dire le mot. Il arrangeait cette
petite couronne qui surmontait la diadème, en diamant, la plaçait, la
déplaçait, la remettait encore, il semblait qu’il voulût lui promettre
que cette couronne lui serait douce et légère.”

Napoleon, on this occasion, hastily took his crown from the Pope’s
hands and placed it haughtily on his own head--a proceeding which
doubtless startled his Holiness. In May 1814 Louis XVIII. and his
family attended mass at Notre Dame after their entry into Paris. A
great service was held there in 1840, to celebrate the restoration of
the remains of Napoleon I. to French soil, while Archbishops Affre,
Sibour and Darboy, who died violent deaths, were commemorated with
fitting solemnities.

The marriage of Napoleon III. to Eugénie de Montijo, Comtesse de
Teba, on January 29th, 1853, was the occasion of a great display of
gorgeous pageantry at Notre Dame, as was the baptism of the ill-fated
Prince Imperial in 1857. The Terrorists of 1871 robbed the treasury of
the cathedral of many valuable relics, but their intention to injure
the fabric itself was prevented by the timely arrival of troops. The
most notable ceremonies during the existence of the present Republic
have been the funeral service, in June 1894, for President Carnot,
assassinated in that year at Lyons, and the splendid State funeral of
Louis Pasteur in October 1895.

The great festivals of the Church are celebrated at Notre Dame on
a scale of almost unrivalled magnificence. On Assumption Day, in
particular, splendid music, wedded to the most ornate ritual, produces
an effect never to be forgotten. The pulpit of the metropolitan
cathedral has been occupied by a succession of great preachers, amongst
them Bossuet and Bourdaloue, and the services and conferences are noted
throughout the Roman Catholic world. The Dominican Lacordaire began in
1835 a series of majestic and picturesque discourses, which earned for
him the title _le Romantique de la Chaire_, and he has been described
as filling as a preacher the place occupied in literature by Victor
Hugo and in painting by Delacroix, H. Vernet, and Delaroche. In recent
times among the most popular pulpit orators have been the fiery Jesuit
Père Ravignan, Monseigneur d’Hulst, Père Monsabré, and M. Hyacinthe
Loyson, better known to fame as Père Hyacinthe.

Needless to say, this is the merest outline of the wonderful history
of the Cathedral Church of Paris. If the columns of Notre Dame could
speak, they would--to adapt a phrase of Viollet-le-Duc--be able to
recount the history of France from the time of Philip Augustus to our
own day. It is therefore natural that the whole French nation has for
Notre Dame a feeling of veneration and affection similar to that which
is called forth in English hearts by the Abbey Church of Westminster.




  [Illustration: _Photo_]  [_Ed. Hautecœur, Paris._
                 THE CHEVET.]

CHAPTER II.

THE PLACE OF NOTRE DAME IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF FRENCH GOTHIC.


The place of the Cathedral of Paris in the evolution of French
Gothic[4] is so important that I propose to devote a brief chapter to
it. The subject is essentially technical, but I will endeavour to make
it as easy of comprehension as possible. The reader will doubtless
ask himself what is the difference between Gothic and the style which
preceded it. The reply, unfortunately, cannot consist of a dogmatic
statement. The subject is a great one, and only a few sentences of this
handbook may be devoted to it. I shall rely for the most part on the
materials for a definition of Gothic given by M. Viollet-le-Duc in his
_Dictionnaire Raisonné de l’Architecture Française_. The question is
one of essential structural peculiarity as opposed to mere decorative
idiosyncrasy. I am aware that many English writers whose opinions are
entitled to respect hold views in conflict with those here maintained.
The style which immediately preceded Gothic is known generically as
Romanesque. In Romanesque the system may be described as one of inert
stability: in Gothic the system is one of scientifically calculated
thrusts and counter-thrusts. It was the affair of art to inform what
one may call the mechanics of the building with interest and beauty.
There have been many attempts to compromise the two systems, so that
we often find Romanesque features in obviously Gothic buildings. Much
will be said in subsequent pages of the vaulting of Notre Dame. I
would willingly have left this vexed question alone, but were I so to
do, this handbook would be little more than a descriptive catalogue
of objects of interest together with some historical reminiscences.
For the vaulting is of the essence of the whole matter: compared
with it the consideration of mouldings and of ornament is relatively
unimportant. To put the matter plainly, the very existence of a Gothic
church depends upon the proper arrangement of what we may call its
mechanism--_i.e._ its vaulting, piers, buttresses and so forth. The
mechanics being duly devised, art steps in, and renders the essential
beautiful.[5]

[Footnote 4: French Gothic is here generally intended to convey the
Gothic of the Ile-de-France. The contemporary architecture of Normandy
has a character of its own, probably not less valuable than that of the
Ile-de-France. But it is different, and its differences have been dealt
with in other handbooks of this series.]

[Footnote 5: The difficulty of attributing mediæval work in any
countries to particular designers is generally recognised. I do not
wish to imply, in the passage to which this note has reference,
that the mechanic and the artist were of necessity separate people.
Most often the plan was arranged by a master-builder who himself
superintended the scheme of decoration.]

It is not at Paris that we can trace the first attempt to break away
from the principles of Romanesque: the first step in the distinctly
Gothic development of French architecture, according to some recent
authorities, is to be found in the apse of the church of Morienval.
Morienval is a Romanesque church, but it has ribbed vaulting, of which
there is no earlier instance in France. At St. Germer-de-Fly we find
the first truly Gothic apse on a large scale ever constructed. It
belongs to the second quarter of the twelfth century. The same church
possesses a vaulted triforium which may fairly be considered the
forerunner of the far grander one at Paris. Again, the now suburban
church of St. Denis has double aisles, which clearly foreshadow the
noble arrangement which exists at Paris, Amiens, and elsewhere. Many
writers are agreed in regarding St. Denis as the starting-point of
French Gothic.

  [Illustration: SECTION OF NAVE AND DOUBLE AISLE, AND A PLAN
                 OF ONE BAY.
                 SCALE 1 INCH = 29 FEET.
                 (_From Viollet-le-Duc._)]

Notre Dame was the first of the greater French cathedrals in which
Gothic principles of construction were logically carried out. The
choir was begun, according to M. V. Mortet in his _Etude Historique
et Archéologique sur la Cathédrale de Paris_, in the year 1163.[6]
The nave (with the exception of the extreme west end) was completed
about the year 1195. The west façade was built in the early part of
the thirteenth century. Notre Dame is thus older than the cathedral
of Amiens, with which one naturally compares it. Amiens was built
between the years 1220 and 1288, except the lower stages of the west
front, which were only completed towards the end of the fourteenth
century. The towers are a “debased” addition. In England the work being
done while the older parts of Notre Dame were in course of erection was
transitional; the new style had by no means been fully understood and
put into practice. Perhaps we do not overstate the case when we say
that the _science_ (as well as the art) of Gothic found its first real
expression on a large scale in the Cathedral of Paris.

[Footnote 6: I give the dates assumed by M. V. Mortet and later writers
as well as those affixed by M. Viollet-le-Duc. It will be noticed that
the differences between them are not material.]

A glance at the ground-plan of Notre Dame shows us how widely it
differs from that of our own great churches. First of all we notice
that not merely the nave, but the choir, possesses double aisles--a
feature which is lacking in English churches[7] on so vast a scale
as Canterbury, York, Ely or Peterborough. The magnificence which the
system of double aisles lends to a great church need hardly be insisted
upon. For a French church the nave of Paris is long, consisting of ten
bays. The smaller Norman nave of Norwich possesses, however, no less
than fourteen bays. At Paris one is struck by the slight projection
of the transepts. In nearly all the greater churches of England the
transepts are of large proportions, and frequently (as at Canterbury
and Lincoln) we find two pairs of transepts. The transepts at Notre
Dame are without aisles, and are so shallow that the church is only
just cruciform. Speaking of these transepts Professor Roger Smith
observes: “They do not project beyond the line of the side walls, so
that, although fairly well marked in the exterior and interior of the
building, they add nothing to its floor-space.”

[Footnote 7: Chichester, which is an early church, has double aisles;
it is, however, comparatively small, and can in no sense be compared
with so immense a building as Notre Dame.]

  [Illustration: _Photo_]  [_Ed. Hautecœur, Paris._
                 NORTH AISLES OF THE NAVE.]

The east end of Notre Dame takes the form of a magnificent semicircular
apse,--a form assuredly the most appropriate to a Gothic church. The
square eastern termination, so common in England, is rare amongst the
larger churches of the best period of French Gothic. “A more beautiful
eastern termination than the Gothic apse,” says Mr. Charles Herbert
Moore,[8] “could hardly be conceived. No part of the edifice does more
honour to the Gothic builders. The low Romanesque apse, covered with
the primitive semi-dome, and enclosed with its simple wall, presented
no constructive difficulties, and produced no imposing effect. But
the soaring French _chevet_, with its many-celled vault, its arcaded
stories, its circling aisles and its radial chapels, taxed the utmost
inventive power, and entranced the eye of the beholder.” It seems to
me that throughout his study of Gothic Mr. Moore is a little less than
fair to the Romanesque builders. The Gothic apse, which he so justly
admires, is, after all, evolved from the Romanesque apse, which he
holds in such light esteem. While we may admit the superiority of the
Gothic apse, it is going too far to assert that the Romanesque apse
“produces no imposing effect.” The apse of Norwich or Peterborough,
or of St. Bartholomew’s (London) is assuredly imposing in a very high
degree.

[Footnote 8: _Development and Character of Gothic Architecture._ Second
edition. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1899.]

In a subsequent chapter the structural and decorative details will be
fully discussed. It may, however, be noted in passing that, although
the Cathedral of Paris is in all essentials a Gothic building, the
influence of the Romanesque style is so marked in some of its details
that it is frequently described as a transitional structure. As we
have seen, the greater part of Notre Dame belongs to the twelfth
century; and De Caumont, who in his _Abécédaire_ attempted for French
architecture a work of scientific division similar to that which
Rickman essayed for English architecture, describes French work of the
twelfth century as _Architecture Romane-Tertiaire ou de Transition_.
The _Abécédaire_, however, is now considered ingenious rather than
authoritative.

With a few words about the west front this brief chapter must be
concluded. The great façade of Notre Dame was begun in 1202. It
bears a general structural resemblance to that of the cathedral of
Senlis, which dates from the second half of the twelfth century,
especially in the matter of its triple portals and the towers at the
termination of the aisles. At Senlis we have unmistakable evidence
of the Gothic spirit, but in its main plan this front is similar to
the Romanesque Abbaye-aux-Hommes at Caen. The builders of the west
front of Notre Dame thus owe something to the designers of Senlis and
the Abbaye-aux-Hommes, but they have achieved a variety and symmetry
of which their forerunners probably did not dream. In construction,
as well as in the organic significance of its wealth of sculptured
decoration, the façade of Notre Dame is genuinely Gothic as opposed to
Romanesque.




  [Illustration: _Photo_]  [_Ed. Hautecœur, Paris._
                 THE WEST FRONT.]

CHAPTER III.

THE EXTERIOR.


  [Illustration: _Photo_]  [_Ed. Hautecœur, Paris._
                 CHIMÈRES.]

I have already said enough in reference to the commanding position
occupied by Notre Dame among the monuments of Paris. The great
cathedral seen at a distance looks ancient indeed, but a closer
inspection proves to us that the hands of modern men have been at
work on it. Indeed, one writer goes so far as to regret that it has
been scraped and patched without, and bedizened and bedaubed within.
In the first edition of Victor Hugo’s famous novel, _Notre Dame_,
he tells us that if we examine one by one the traces of destruction
imprinted on this ancient church, the work of time would be found to
form the lesser portion--the worst destruction has been perpetrated
by men--especially by men of art. Since Hugo wrote this much more
“restoration” has been carried out at the metropolitan church of Paris.
But though I regret so-called “restoration” on principle, I cannot help
feeling that the work executed by M. Viollet-le-Duc and M. Lassus is
far less objectionable than it might have been. Fortunately, unlike so
many great Continental churches, Notre Dame stands free and clear,
and may be examined on all sides without difficulty. Indeed, it is now
perhaps somewhat too isolated at the west end. Of course it does not
possess one of those venerable closes, with a supplement of ancient
ecclesiastical buildings, which is the glory of the great churches of
our own land.

=The Façade.=--The west fronts of the greater Gothic churches of
France are as a rule the most majestic features of their exteriors. One
might write much to prove that the west front of Amiens or of Chartres
is superior to that of Notre Dame, but this, after all, is an arguable
question. When we stand in front of the church by the Seine we are
struck by the reticence, by the obvious disdain of the easily obtained
picturesque, which seem to have animated its designers. The thing is
symmetrical with a fine symmetry rare among buildings of the time.
Before we discuss the façade in detail, let us quote a translation of
Victor Hugo’s detailed description, in the romance already alluded to:

“Assuredly there are few finer pages of architecture than this façade,
in which, successively and at once, the three receding pointed portals;
the decorated and lace-like band of twenty-eight royal niches; the
vast central rose window flanked by the two lateral ones, like the
priest by the deacon and sub-deacon; the lofty yet slender gallery of
trefoiled arcading, which supports a heavy platform upon its light
and delicate columns; and lastly the two dark and massive towers with
their eaves of slate,[9]--harmonious parts of an entirely magnificent
whole,--rising one above another in five gigantic stories,--unfolding
themselves to the eye combined and unconfused, with innumerable details
of statuary and sculpture which powerfully emphasise the grandeur
of the _ensemble_: a vast symphony in stone, if one may say so--the
colossal work of a man and of a nation ... on each stone of which one
sees, in a hundred varieties, the fancy of the craftsman disciplined
by the artist: a kind of human creation, mighty and prolific as the
Divine Creation itself of which it seems to have caught the double
characteristics--variety, eternity.” In the last few phrases Victor
Hugo has, perhaps, been guilty of the licence readily granted to so
great a master of rhetoric; but the west front of Notre Dame was a
monument certain to appeal to a writer to whom none deny the gift
of eloquence. Even a specialist who scrupulously avoids rhapsody is
compelled to use superlatives in his description of this façade: “This
vast and superb design is not only the most elaborate that had been
produced up to its time, but in point of architectural grandeur it has
hardly ever been equalled.” Mr. C. H. Moore, in the book alluded to in
a former chapter, rightly insists that the component elements of the
front are so treated as to manifest the Gothic spirit not merely in the
portals, the arcades, and the apertures, but even in so comparatively
small a matter as the profiles of the mouldings.

[Footnote 9: These have been removed.]

  [Illustration: STRING-COURSE ON THE WEST FRONT.
                 [_From Viollet-le-Duc._]]

The late P. G. Hamerton has well expressed a feeling of vague
disappointment which many persons who are not experts in Gothic
construction and decoration feel on seeing the west front: “May I
confess frankly,” says Mr. Hamerton, “that until I had carefully
studied it under the guidance of Viollet-le-Duc, the front of Notre
Dame never produced upon me the same effect as the west fronts of some
other French cathedrals of equal rank? I believe the reason to be that
Notre Dame is not so picturesque as some others, and does not so much
excite the imagination as they do. It is well ordered, and a perfectly
_sane_ piece of work (which Gothic architecture is not always), but it
has not the imaginative intricacy of Rouen, nor the rich exuberance of
Amiens and Reims, nor the fortress-like grandeur of Bourges, nor the
elegant variety of Chartres.... The truth is that the virtues of the
west front of Notre Dame are classic rather than romantic. Everything
in it seems the result of perfect knowledge and consummate calculation.
There are none of those mistakes which generally occur in a work of
wilder genius.”

  [Illustration: CARVED FOLIAGE FROM THE PORTAIL DE LA VIERGE.
                 [_From Viollet-le-Duc._]]

  [Illustration: _Photo_]  [_Ed. Hautecœur, Paris._
                 PORTAIL DE LA SAINTE VIERGE.]

The sculptured decoration of the three great portals exceeds, if
not in actual ornateness, at all events in real beauty, that of any
cathedral in the west of Europe. Much of it has suffered at the hands
of the iconoclast, but, looking to the vicissitudes through which Notre
Dame has passed, it is wonderful that so much of the original sculpture
has been preserved. The recent restoration has been carried out with
a skill which is simply marvellous, and the uninformed observer may
easily be betrayed into the belief that he is looking at an unaltered
ancient work. Whether this is a gain or a loss each of us must decide
for himself. Some able writers have urged that the success with which
ancient work has been imitated shows that modern artists are capable
of the triumphs of the middle ages. Others dismiss the new work as an
unpardonable forgery. It is outside the scope of this book to attempt
to describe in detail the wealth of statuary and carving which the
thirteenth-century craftsmen and those of modern times have lavished on
these portals. For such a description we must refer the reader to the
voluminous accounts of Viollet-le-Duc and other writers. The sculptures
of the north door, called the _Portail de la Saint Vierge_, have been
described as constituting a complete poem in stone. Viollet-le-Duc
considered the portal as the masterpiece of French carving of the
early thirteenth century. I adapt the following description of the
chief sculptures from Mr. Lonergan: On the pedestal of the central
pier are bas reliefs representing the Creation of Eve, the Temptation
in the Garden of Eden, and the Ejection from Paradise. Above is the
Virgin crowned, and over her a small gabled construction referring to
the Ark of the Covenant. On the upper part of the arch in the lower
division are three prophets and three kings. In the second angels hold
the winding-sheet in which Mary’s body lies, near a coffin-shaped
tomb. Over this stands Christ with eight apostles. In the third
division we see Mary glorified. In the _voussure_ are sixty figures of
angels, patriarchs, kings and prophets as witnesses of the Virgin’s
glorification. Under the large statues are medallions referring to
incidents in the lives of those represented. Thirty-seven bas reliefs
ornament the sides and pillars, amongst them being the signs of the
zodiac and symbolic representations of the months of the year. The
ironwork of the doors of this and of the adjoining portals is of a
splendidly elaborate character, due, according to a quaint tradition,
to the skill and energy of the devil.

  [Illustration: _Photo_]  [_Ed. Hautecœur, Paris._
                 FIGURE OF ST. MARCEL, PORTE SAINTE ANNE.]

  [Illustration: _Photo_]  [_Ed. Hautecœur, Paris._
                 THE LAST JUDGEMENT.
                 (From the central doorway.)]

  [Illustration: _Photo_]  [_Ed. Hautecœur, Paris._
                 TYMPANUM OF THE PORTE SAINTE ANNE.]

The _Central portal_ has suffered more from mutilation than those which
are on either side of it. In the eighteenth century the architect
Soufflot--a man who was nothing if not “classic”--removed the dividing
pier and cut away the lower division of the tympanum in order to
facilitate the passage of processions on high ceremonial occasions.
All traces of his vandalism have been removed, and the dividing pillar
bears a modern statue of Christ by Geoffroy Dechaume. The pedestal
is a pentagon, and has seven bas-relief medallions. At the sides are
the apostles, while in the medallions are represented the virtues
and vices. Traces of mutilation are apparent in much of this work.
The tympanum itself is devoted to the Last Judgment. “First we have
figures of the dead rising at the blast of the trumpet. Men and women
of all conditions and ranks wearily shake off the sleep of death.”
Also there is the Archangel, with representations on the right of “the
elect joyfully glancing heavenwards, while on the left the grinning
demons haul a row of chained souls to hell. Crowning all is seen the
Redeemer, showing the wounds in His hands. Near Him are two angels,
and behind the Virgin and St. John the Evangelist interceding on their
knees for fallen humanity. As a setting to this magnificent composition
are six rows of sculptured forms, making a _voussure_ or set of curves,
with figures of prophets, doctors, martyrs, devils, toads, damned
souls, and a hideous ape with crooked toes and fingernails. Some of
the ornamentation of the six ranges of arch curves is gruesome and
terrible. It relates either to the celestial or infernal results of
the last judgment.” In its original state this great doorway must have
been a work of unrivalled dignity. Nowhere else do we find carving more
expressive, nor more perfectly subordinated to the architectural scheme.

  [Illustration: _Photo_]  [_Ed. Hautecœur, Paris._
                 APOSTLES.
                 (From the central doorway.)]

  [Illustration: _Photo_]  [_Ed. Hautecœur, Paris._
                 THE PORTE SAINTE ANNE.
                 (Figures from the Old Testament)]

The doorway on the south is variously described as the _Portal of St.
Anne_ or _St. Marcel_. According to some writers it is the most ancient
of the three, and contains fragments of “the sculpture which formerly
adorned the old church of St. Stephen (St. Etienne). These, it is said,
were executed at the expense of Etienne de Garlande, who died in 1142.
The dividing pier or _trumeau_ bears the statue of St. Marcel (see p.
33). The tympanum is adorned with the “History of Joachim and Anna,”
the “Marriage of the Virgin,” and the “Budding of Joseph’s Staff.” Each
side is occupied with four statues of saints of the Old Testament. The
four main buttresses which divide the façade perpendicularly into three
parts are pierced with niches containing statues on a level with the
vaulting of the portals. These statues represent Religion, Faith, St.
Denis, and St. Stephen.

  [Illustration: _Photo_]  [_Ed. Hautecœur, Paris._
                 “CHIMÈRES.”]

The second story of the façade is occupied by a noble arcade which
shelters twenty-eight colossal statues. This is known as _La Galerie
des Rois_, and stretches across the entire width of the front. The
statues were formerly believed to be conventional representations
of the ancient kings of France, but they are doubtless intended for
the kings of Judah as ancestors of the Virgin. A similar feature
will be found as part of the façade of Amiens. There, however, the
statues are at a greater height from the ground, and are twenty-two
in number. Above the _Galerie des Rois_ at Paris there is a graceful
open arcade of slender arches and columns. The five large statues
here date only from the year 1854. The third main division has in
the centre a vast wheel window with open tracery, while in each of
the lateral bays we have pointed arches with twin pointed openings
and small circular panels in the tympanum. The vacant space in the
spandrels of each division is occupied by a trefoil panel. At Amiens
once more we meet with a main division similarly composed. At Notre
Dame, immediately over the division containing the wheel window, is an
open arcaded screen of gigantic proportions, surmounted by a parapet
or pierced cornice behind which rise the two towers. So dexterously
has this arcade been planned, so graceful are its lines, so delicate
its details, that the impression which it leaves on the mind--in
spite of the solidity of its construction and the vastness of its
scale--is almost that of some such unsubstantial material as lace. To
the platform supported by this screen everybody should ascend, if only
to make the acquaintance of the famous _Chimères_ or “_Devils of Notre
Dame_.” This collection of specimens of fantastic sculptured zoology is
without parallel in Europe. These weird beasts which scowl from their
point of vantage upon the French metropolis fascinated the great etcher
Méryon, and more recently they have formed the subject of a series of
admirable drawings by Mr. Joseph Pennell, the value of which has been
enhanced by an essay, partly descriptive, partly philosophical, from
the pen of the late R. A. M. Stevenson. The _chimères_ are not merely
curious examples of the extravagantly grotesque. Their horror lies, not
in their departure from natural forms, but in the fact that, while the
features of various beasts or monsters are retained, they are impressed
with characteristics of ferocity and cunning which are essentially
diabolical or suggestive of the lowest depths of human depravity. They
have nothing in common with the crude and impossible gargoyles so
frequently found in buildings erected when the pointed style was in
its decadence. Speaking roughly, their anatomy is possible: it is
conceivable that they should breathe and live.

  [Illustration: _Photo_]  [_Ed. Hautecœur, Paris._
                 “CHIMÈRES.”]

Readers of Hugo’s _Notre Dame_ will remember his description of the
Archdeacon as he clung to the lead gutter of the tower: “Meanwhile he
felt himself going bit by bit; his fingers slipped upon the gutter;
he felt more and more the increasing weakness of his arms and the
weight of his body; the piece of lead which supported him inclined
more and more downwards. He saw beneath him, frightful to contemplate,
the pointed roof of St. Jean-le-Rond, small as a card bent double.
He looked, one after another, at the imperturbable sculptures of the
tower--like him suspended over the precipice--but without terror for
themselves or pity for him. All around him was stone,--before his eyes
the gaping monsters; in the Parvis below, the pavement; above his
head, Quasimodo weeping.”

  [Illustration: “LE STRYGE,” ONE OF THE CHIMÈRAS OF NOTRE
                 DAME, WITH THE TOWER OF ST. JACQUES.
                 (After Méryon’s Etching.
                 _Insatiable vampire l’éternelle luxure,
                 Sur la grande cité convoite sa pâture._)]

The =Towers=, though not of precisely the same size, appear to
be so. The summit of the north tower is reached by an ascent of two
hundred and ninety-seven steps. Each of the towers is pierced with
coupled pointed openings and profusely enriched with mouldings and
gargoyles. Both of them terminate with open parapets, the staircases
ending in small turrets. The panorama of Paris from the top is
magnificent, while the view of Notre Dame itself reveals to the full
its structural beauty. Few sights are more impressive than that of the
great roof ridge of the church, broken by the graceful modern _flèche_,
and ending in the circular _chevet_. From this high place, likewise,
one is able fully to appreciate the grand arrangement of flying
buttresses, the forest of pinnacles, the host of gargoyles, statues,
and other sculptured ornaments which adorn the structure. Of the famous
peal of thirteen ancient _bells_ which formerly occupied the belfries
of the two towers, only one--_le bourdon de Notre Dame_--still remains.
It has announced to Paris most of the great victories of the French
army, and it still gives the signal to other bells to usher in the
great festivals of the Church. Of the other bells existing here, the
most interesting is one of Russian workmanship, which was brought from
Sebastopol.

  [Illustration: THE ROOF-RIDGE OF NOTRE DAME.
                 (_From a drawing by Joseph Pennell, by
                 permission of the “Pall Mall Magazine.”_)]

The =Flèche=, over the crossing, was built in 1859-60, the ancient one
being destroyed in 1787 and replaced by a bulb-like structure which
was irreverently compared to a pepper box. To this circumstance Victor
Hugo alludes scornfully: “Un architecte de bon goût l’a amputé, et
a cru qu’il suffisait de masquer la plaie avec ce large emplâtre de
plomb, qui ressemble au couvercle d’une marmite.” In removing this
atrocity Viollet-le-Duc was assuredly performing a necessary service.
His elaborate though slender steeple is of oak covered with lead, and
weighs 750,000 kilos. It is ornamented with numberless crockets and
pierced with well-contrived openings. The base is led up to by tiers
of statues placed on brackets in the angles formed by the junction of
the roofs of the nave, transepts and choir. The ball below the cross
encloses reputed fragments of the cross and the crown of thorns. There
can be little doubt that Viollet-le-Duc, speaking generally, has
constructed a flèche which would have commended itself to mediæval
designers. It is interesting to note the slender character of the
structures which in France rise above the crossings, as compared with
the huge towers which occupy a like position in the English cathedrals
of Lincoln, Canterbury and York, or with the comparatively substantial
spires to be found at Salisbury, Norwich and Lichfield.

  [Illustration: THE ORIGINAL FLÈCHE.
                 (_From “Paris à travers les Ages.”_)]

  [Illustration: _Photo_]      [_Ed. Hautecœur, Paris._
                 CLOCHETON OR TURRET--APSIDAL CHAPELS.]

=The Buttress System.=--The buttress system of Notre Dame has
been the subject of careful study and explanation by Mr. Moore. “In
the external system,” he remarks, “the flying buttresses were, as
at first constructed, magnificently developed, and were double in a
twofold sense. That is, the piers which divide the double aisles were
formerly carried up through the roof so as to form buttresses to the
vaulted triforium gallery, and, rising above the roof of this gallery,
they received the heads of the double flying buttresses over the outer
aisle, and gave foothold to another pair of arches over the triforium
gallery. The lower arch of the outer pair was above the aisle roof,
while the lower arch of the inner pair was beneath the roof of the
triforium. The principle of equilibrium maintained by opposing thrusts
was here completely developed; the inert principle no longer governs
the construction, though a survival of the former method of building is
found in the walls of the aisles and clerestory, which are no longer
necessary to the strength of the edifice.” The flying buttresses, as
we now see them, are (according to Viollet-le-Duc) alterations dating
from the early part of the thirteenth century. They consist of huge
arches clearing both aisles with a single span. The flying buttresses
of the upper tier are wonderfully light and elegant, looking always to
the large span which they have to clear. They join the space between
the windows of the clerestory to lofty upright buttresses terminating
in fine crocketed pinnacles and ornamented with an amazing wealth of
sculpture. The flying buttresses of the lower tier are thicker, and
most frequently spring from elaborate _clochetons_, one of which is
illustrated here.

  [Illustration: _Photo_]      [_Ed. Hautecœur, Paris._
                 WINDOWS ON THE SOUTH SIDE.]

=The Windows= of Notre Dame are on the vast scale which is usual
in the greater Gothic churches of the Ile-de-France, and present a very
remarkable contrast to the small and simple windows which were deemed
sufficient by the builders of our own early cathedrals in the pointed
style. At Notre Dame the area of solid wall is slight in relation to
the area filled in with glass. It is not so much a case of windows in
walls, as of walls connecting windows. The external buttress system
and the internal vaulting system at Notre Dame comprise the essentials
of the structure, so that the walls are of the nature of enclosures
rather than necessary structural parts. We have travelled far from the
Romanesque principle, in which the walls were primarily weight-bearers.
The windows of the aisles and of the ambulatory are of great size and
display many differences of detail, but they nevertheless maintain a
general similarity, the designers, while appreciating the value of
uniformity, being too richly endowed with the prevailing fertility of
invention in matters of decorative detail exactly to repeat even the
most successful arrangement. Each is divided into two main pointed
lights, above which a large circle, quatrefoil or similar device,
occupies the head of the window, the arches also being cusped or foiled
in varying patterns. The main lights are again subdivided into two,
with trefoils or quatrefoils in the heads.

  [Illustration: _Photo_]      [_Ed. Hautecœur, Paris._
                 TRIFORIUM WINDOWS.]

Above these noble windows are gabled heads whose sides are enriched
with crockets or cusps, their centres being occupied with circular
decorative panels, and their angles having small richly carved
bosses. Sometimes the canopies consist of beautiful open-work.
Everywhere grotesque gargoyles project between them, and the mouldings
terminate in corbels in the shape of small, highly wrought human
heads. This series of windows emphasises the prodigality with which
sculpture in human forms or in the forms of naturalistic or fantastic
animals is to be found in nearly all parts of Notre Dame. It is this
prodigality, wisely distributed, which places this cathedral in such
acute contrast--speaking from the standpoint of the uninitiated
observer--to our own early pointed structures. The upper aisle-wall
between the lower tier of flying buttresses is in some parts of the
building occupied by wheel windows of varied pattern, most elaborately
ornamented. But at the east end the triforium lights show another
device: two small arches have in the angle between them quatrefoiled
openings. It is notable that this dignified and beautiful device is
foreshadowed by some of the windows in the Byzantine church in Athens,
and even in the sixth-century church of Qualb Louzeh, in Central Syria.

The clerestory lights occupy the full width of the space between the
piers of the upper flying buttresses. Finally, at the base of the roof
runs an open-work parapet. As we have already observed, many of the
windows were hastily rebuilt after the fire of which we have previously
spoken.

  [Illustration: _Photo_]      [_Ed. Hautecœur, Paris._
                 NORTH TRANSEPT FRONT.]

=North and South Transept Fronts.=--These, as we have seen, are
comparatively late work, but though subordinate to the great façade,
they are of intricate design and great ornateness. They fail of effect,
however, when they are compared with the monumental and inevitable
grandeur of the west front. The south façade, of the date 1257, is
undoubtedly the work of Jean de Chelles. An inscription tells us very
exactly that it was begun on the second day of the Ides of February,
in honour of the mother of Christ. There are writers who would have
us believe that to the work of de Chelles we should apply, if not the
word “debased,” at least the word “flamboyant.” For this there seems
to be no good reason, unless, indeed, we are prepared to allow that
systems of architectural classification are more important than the
buildings which are their subject-matter. It will be at once recognised
that the lateral fronts of Notre Dame--while they lack the elementary
grandeur so conspicuous in the works of the pioneers of Gothic in the
Ile-de-France--have nothing in common with the later Perpendicular
buildings of England, wherein decoration runs riot and construction
sometimes degenerates into trickery. The great feature of each of
these minor fronts is a vast rose window. It is difficult to repress
the feeling that these fronts have been deliberately constructed with
a view to lend emphasis to these lovely circular insertions, rich as
they are in appropriate tracery. Whether or not we are to limit the
work of Jean de Chelles to the southern front (or the lower portion
of it), or whether we are to attribute to him the opposite front and
the arrangement of chapels adjacent to and east of the transepts, is a
nice question. The documentary evidence, to which access is difficult,
would, indeed, appear narrowly to limit the work of Jean de Chelles to
that fragment with which he has been immemorially associated. But it
were unwise to rely too closely on ancient documents in which definite
statements of fact are not to be found. It is possible that, even if
Jean de Chelles did not personally superintend the erection of the
southern front, he designed the opposite front and the chapels in
question. He may, indeed, have left pupils fully acquainted with his
methods and nearly tied to him by bonds of sentiment, who in their own
productions perpetuated, not merely the main features of the style of
their master, but used exactly the same material as he employed. Once
more, the sculptor is prominent; once more, the structural parts are
adorned with beautiful statuary. The great point is that (using the
word as widely as it may fairly be used) uniformity is achieved. Of
Notre Dame we may say--what we cannot say of buildings possibly more
interesting to the architect and the antiquary--that from east to west,
from north to south, it strikes the observer as the splendid outcome
of a single imagination, or of a number of imaginations dominated by
the same impulse, rather than the haphazard result of peculiar and
fortuitous circumstances.

  [Illustration: _Photo_]      [_Ed. Hautecœur, Paris._
                 TYMPANUM OF THE NORTH TRANSEPT DOORWAY.]

The sculpture of the portal of the North Transept is devoted to the
history of the Virgin--of whom the dividing pier between the doors
bears a beautiful statue. The carving in the lowest division of the
tympanum deals with the Birth of Christ, the Visit of the Magi, the
Presentation in the Temple, and the Flight into Egypt. The carving of
the other divisions refers to the history of Theophilus, a mythical
monk who signed a contract with the Devil, like Faust, but was saved by
the interference of the Virgin. On each side of the portal are three
empty niches. These, as well as the portal, possess canopies. An arcade
of lights is the chief feature, between the entrance and the great
rose window previously alluded to. The portal of the South Transept
has figures of Christ, St. Martin, St. Stephen, St. John the Baptist,
Moses, St. Denis, St. Thomas, St. Peter, St. Bartholomew, David,
and Aaron. The tympanum has a representation of the Martyrdom of St.
Stephen. This portal is seldom used. Again we have the arcade of lights
leading to the great rose. The gable end is in its turn pierced by
another smaller circular window of remarkable beauty. It will be seen
that while there are great differences between the fronts of the two
transepts, structurally they resemble one another.

Returning to the north side of the church, beneath one of the windows
belonging to a choir chapel is the well-known _Porte Rouge_, a delicate
masterpiece which we may probably attribute to the early part of the
fourteenth century. In its tympanum is represented the Coronation
of the Virgin, while in its vaulting we have scenes in the life
of St. Marcel. The door gained its name from the fact that it was
originally painted red. It seems always to have held a high place in
the affections of the Parisians. Victor Hugo appears specially to have
delighted in it, for he writes: “La petite Porte-Rouge atteint presque
les limites des délicatesses gothiques du quinzième siècle.” Near
the _Porte Rouge_, under the windows of the Choir chapels, are seven
bas-reliefs representing scenes from the Virgin’s life. They date from
the sixteenth century.

He must be insensible indeed to the grandeur of Gothic building who
fails to be impressed when he stands at the east end of Notre Dame.
There, in the great main circular sweep, we can appreciate the tiers of
buttresses, the spear-like forest of pinnacles, each one constructively
necessary, each duly subordinated to an ordered scheme, each wisely
and appropriately decorated. Standing here, we are indeed under the
spell of the august _ecclesia parisiaca_, the ancient silent witness of
changes so immense and so fruitful of result, of victories in the arts
alike of peace and war which have been of such profound consequence not
merely to Paris, and to France, but to mankind in general.




  [Illustration: _Photo_]      [_Ed. Hautecœur, Paris._
                 THE INTERIOR FROM THE WEST END.]

CHAPTER IV.

THE INTERIOR.--THE NAVE.


It is difficult accurately to state why a sense of disappointment is
so often felt on entering the Cathedral of Paris. The unsatisfactory
impression given by Notre Dame is one experienced by visitors of all
kinds. The architectural critic, who looks upon a Gothic church as
the result of certain clearly defined principles of construction and
decoration, must inevitably find in it much to admire. But while it
satisfies the specialist, and possibly impresses those who have little
pretence to technical information, it lacks the qualities of mystery
and of surprise which distinguish some buildings less ancient and less
stately. Thus we find one writer complaining that it is heavy, another
that it is cold, and a third that it is relatively unpicturesque.
Most of those who have recorded their dissatisfaction with the
interior of Notre Dame have sought to explain the causes thereof.
The splendid promise of the exterior, it is suggested, discounts the
remarkable beauties of the inside. Some feel that the regularity,
the coherence which distinguish the church, produce an _ensemble_ at
once ponderous and monotonous. Others complain of the lack of colour;
while on the other hand not a few protest against the intrusion of
recent polychromatic decorations. It is possible that the secret lies
in certain structural idiosyncrasies. The church is extremely broad
in comparison with its length. The bays are so few as to give to
the interior an air of undue severity. Fergusson, in his history of
architecture, condemns the vaulting ribs as ineffective. The marble
pavement is regarded on all hands as a misfortune: nothing could be
more tedious or inappropriate. It is, however, to be observed that as
one becomes familiar with the interior its shortcomings are forgotten
and the dignity of its proportions and details are apprehended more
fairly.

=Dimensions.=--The length of Notre Dame is 390 ft.; the width at
the transepts, 144 ft.; the length of the nave, 225 ft.; and the width
of the nave (without the aisles), 39 ft. The height of the vaulting is
102 ft. De Breul, in his _Théâtre des Antiquités de Paris_, mentions a
copper tablet which formerly hung against one of the pillars of Notre
Dame and gave the dimensions of the cathedral in the following verses:--

    Si tu veux sçavoir comme est ample,
    De Notre-Dame le grand temple,
    Il y a, dans œuvre, pour le seur,
    Dix et sept toises[10] de hauteur,
    Sur la largeur de vingt-quatre,
    Et soixante-cinq sans rebattre,
    A de long aux tours haut montées
    Trente-quatre sont comptées;
    Le tout fondé sur pilotis,
    Aussi vrai que je te le dis.

[Footnote 10: A “toise” is something over six feet.]

The curiosity of these lines excuses the inaccurate statements,
comparatively trifling, conveyed in them. Notre Dame, unlike most
mediæval churches on the Continent, is almost painfully clean. The
gaudy shrines which render some of the most splendid of Italian
churches almost grotesque are absent from Notre Dame. The broom and the
duster have been too freely used: all that is not appropriate has been
too sedulously banished.

In the old floor, amongst a multitude of other interesting memorials of
the dead, the tombstones of the following were to be found: Philippe
(son of Louis VI. and Archdeacon of Paris), _d._ 1161; Prince Geoffrey
of England, _d._ 1186; Queen Isabelle of Hainault, _d._ 1189; the
dauphin, Louis (son of Charles VI.), _d._ 1415; Louise (mother of
François I.), _d._ 1531; and Louis XIII. (his viscera only), 1643.
Amongst the more famous ecclesiastics were the following: Eudes de
Sully (1208); Etienne II. (1279); Cardinal Aymeric de Magnac (1348);
Bishop Pierre d’Orgemont (1409); and Dumoulin, Patriarch of Antioch
(1447). In addition there were three Archbishops of Paris who died
during the seventeenth century, and Renaud, Archbishop of Sens (_d._
1616). The substitution of squares of marble for the tombstones of
these historic personages admits of absolutely no defence.

Let us now consider the =Roof=. Mr. Charles Herbert Moore
thus describes it in his _Development and Character of Gothic
Architecture_:--

“Here is a vast nave (completed except the extreme west end by
about the year 1196), so admirably roofed with stone that the work
has lasted intact for seven hundred years, and will probably, if
not wantonly injured, last for centuries to come. These vaults are
sexpartite.... The diagonal ribs are round-arched, while the transverse
and longitudinal ribs are pointed. The intermediate transverse ribs
are, however, pointed but slightly; and to bring their crowns up to
the level of the intersections of the diagonals they are considerably
stilted. The crowns of the main transverse ribs are a little lower
than those of the diagonals, and those of the longitudinals are lower
still. The vaults have, therefore, a distinctly domical form. These
various adjustments, by greater or less pointing, stilting, and even
by the retention of the round arch where it will serve best, exhibit
the flexibility of the Gothic system in an interesting and instructive
manner.” Mr. Moore, after some further details, continues:--“In the
vaults of Paris, as in all Gothic vaults, the shells consist of
successive courses of masonry which are slightly arched from rib to rib
over each triangular cell. The beds of these successive courses are
not parallel, but are variously inclined according as the mason found
necessary or convenient in developing the concave and winding surfaces
engendered by the forms and positions of the ribs to which they had
to be accommodated. These courses of masonry have here in Paris, as
they have in most Gothic vaults, a considerable inclination near the
springing from the longitudinal rib upward toward the diagonal, and
they become gradually more level as they approach the crown of the
vault, where they are more nearly parallel. But perfectly parallel
they can hardly ever be, since each course forms a portion of a
surface that is concaved in all directions.” Mr. Moore adds that in
the earliest and finest Gothic vaultings this masonry is composed of
small stones perfectly faced and closely jointed; and the vaulting of
Paris, especially that of the choir, is a model of careful and finished
workmanship.

  [Illustration: _Photo_]      [_Ed. Hautecœur, Paris._
                 THE NAVE: SOUTH ARCADE.]

The vaulting of the choir differs from that of the nave, but the
difference is one rather of detail than of principle. We have already
said much about the external buttress system by which this splendid
roof is sustained. Internally this vaulting rises from slender
shafts springing from the capitals of the great cylindrical columns
constituting the main arcade of the ground story. The piers at Paris
are ill adjusted to the vaults, a feature which has resulted in an
immense amount of learned discussion. They were obviously intended
for quadripartite vaulting. It seems probable that suddenly, for
a reason which we are not now in a position to appreciate, the
quadripartite form was abandoned in favour of the sexpartite form
actually adopted. Students of this subject are advised to refer to pp.
114-15 of the second edition of Mr. Moore’s book, where the differences
between the vaulting imposts of the nave and choir are discussed and
delineated. They may profitably compare this with M. Viollet-le-Duc’s
_Construction_ (p. 164). M. Viollet-le-Duc, it may be added, suggests
that the necessities of the sexpartite system were provided for by the
monolithic shafts grouped round every other pier in the arcade dividing
the aisles.

  [Illustration: CAPITAL IN THE NAVE.
                 _From Viollet-le-Duc._]

The somewhat heavy character of the great cylindrical piers which
divide the nave from the aisles is largely redeemed by the beautiful
carving with which the capitals are ornamented. The plants which the
sculptors have conventionalised are those commonly found in the fields
adjacent to Paris. These ornate capitals are genuinely Gothic in
feeling, and have nothing in common with those which crown the piers
of our Anglo-Norman (Romanesque) cathedrals. Again, the plinths of the
columns are utterly unlike the simple and massive bases on which the
round columns of our older churches most often rest. We have already
alluded to the ill-adaptation of these piers and their capitals to the
sexpartite form of vaulting employed. In the case of the most westerly
piers of the main arcade an attempt seems to have been made--with no
great success, as it appears to me--to minimise the illogical effect
of the vaulting imposts. The result has been the emphasis of that very
want of congruity which it was sought to remedy. It would be difficult
to find a less satisfactory arrangement than that which obtains in the
pier and capital delineated in our illustration, where four smaller
cylinders are attached to the main one. Here, not merely is the pier
itself rendered unwieldy by its satellites, but the capital loses
all symmetry owing to the interposition of the small capitals which
crown those satellites. It will be noticed that the arches of the main
arcade are by no means uniform. Thus we have a wide arch adjacent to an
extremely narrow one, while the builders of the period did not hesitate
to make use of a round arch where they found that form more convenient.
It is in some measure these peculiarities which have induced not a few
authors to describe Notre Dame as a transitional church.

In no part of Notre Dame do we more perfectly appreciate the grandeur
of the scale of the church than when we stand in the vast double aisles
on either side of the nave. With every step we take the view changes.
We hesitate to leave the spot upon which we stand lest we should lose
its charm, and yet we feel that probably a vista even more beautiful
awaits us a few paces beyond. The lines of vast piers seem as if they
were consciously engaged in surprising us: now they come together and
close the view suddenly, unexpectedly; then they open, revealing a
richly furnished altar in, as it were, a colossal frame of masonry.
Everywhere the lines of the building strike us as vast, massive, almost
elemental, but everywhere there is an ordered, if a somewhat ponderous
symmetry. It is strange that there ever was an age in which the innate
dignity and majesty of these lines were not felt. Yet so barbarous did
the architecture of Notre Dame appear to eighteenth-century eyes, that
a desperate attempt was made to hide it. Vast pictures in gilt frames
were placed from capital to capital of the main arcade on both sides.
In this way the arches were completely hidden, and a square appearance
(supposed to suggest the classical) was given to the lowest story. The
openings of the triforium were spared, as anything placed in front of
them would block the view of the crowds who used to fill the _tribunes_
on state occasions. The nave, however, thus turned into a kind of
picture gallery, was considered very satisfactory (see illustration,
p. 11). Needless to say, no trace of the pictures now remains, and
the great arches are free and open once more. The piers dividing the
aisles are not all of the same construction. Round every other pier
are grouped monolithic shafts, possessing delicately foliated capitals
with moulded abaci. Two shafts, with a single abacus and plinth,
alternate with a single shaft. In all there are twelve shafts round
the pier. These piers, with their cluster of satellites, contrast
finely with the simple cylinders with bold foliated capitals with which
they alternate, and lend variety and interest to the arcades (see
illustration, p. 23).

  [Illustration: _Photo_]      [_Ed. Hautecœur, Paris._
                 THE NAVE, NORTH ARCADE.]

The vaulting of the aisles is quadripartite, the ribs being strongly
marked and possessing carved bosses at the point of intersection.
Beyond the outer aisles on each side is a series of chapels, which will
be described presently. The accompanying illustrations give a good idea
of the piers, capitals and vaulting of this part of the church.

=The Triforium=, to which there are four staircases, is of immense
size, owing to the fact that it passes over the double aisles on
both sides of the nave. Its designers no doubt contemplated its use
as a gallery from which the grand ceremonies which took place in the
church could be witnessed by large numbers of people. It is ceiled
with stone--a feature common to most of the greater cathedrals of
France--so that no wooden beams can be seen anywhere in the building.
This obviously increases the massiveness of the whole, though a certain
tendency to heaviness is perhaps emphasised. The masonry is everywhere
very fine, and in the small details a high degree of wise as opposed to
futile finish is maintained throughout. The galleries are excellently
lighted. Above the nave-aisles low pointed arches enclose a foliated
circle, the corners at the base being filled with small trefoils. In
the choir the lights consist of rose or wheel windows, in the tracery
of which there is great variety of pattern. The openings towards
the church take their place admirably in the elevation, being in
character with the main arcade beneath and the clerestory above. They
are almost austerely simple, and possess none of the ornateness which
characterises the triforiums of Westminster, Lincoln, and other English
buildings of slightly later date. A large plain pointed arch encloses
two and in some cases three pointed arches, which are separated from
one another by delicate columns bearing foliated capitals with square
abaci. They have small square bases. These columns are a hundred and
four in number. A low openwork railing of iron fills in the front
of the gallery. The triforium goes round the whole building: that
portion which is at the end of the transepts, however, consists of a
narrow passage which is not open to the church. The banners which were
captured by French armies were exhibited from the triforium so long as
war continued. On the conclusion of peace, they were taken down--a
proceeding which might be followed in other countries with advantage.
The part of the triforium in the choir differs only in detail from
that in the nave. Over the triforium come the vast windows, altered in
the thirteenth century, which comprise the =Clerestory=, of which
more is said on page 72. The stained glass will be fully discussed
hereafter.

  [Illustration: THE TRIFORIUM GALLERY, OR “TRIBUNES.”
                 (_From “Paris à travers les Ages.”_)]

The upper portion of the west end is filled by the great rose window,
which, as we have noticed, is so beautiful a feature of the façade.
The tops of the pipes of the great organ hide the lower part of it
from our view inside. The lovely painted glass, which is ancient, has
representations of the Virgin and Child surrounded by prophets. Amongst
other features are the signs of the Zodiac, the labours of the months,
and the Virtues in triumph with lances in their hands. The gallery on
which the organ is now placed was possibly used for the performance of
miracle plays. As it is at a relatively great height from the pavement,
this is at least doubtful. The =Organ= is a fine instrument of
wonderful power. It was practically rebuilt by Thierry Lesclope in
1730, and enlarged by Cliquot in 1785. In recent years it has been
immensely improved by M. Cavaillé-Coll, who gave it 5266 pipes and 80
stops. It plays a great part in the splendid musical services for which
the Cathedral is famous.

  [Illustration: Exterior.      Interior.
                 ELEVATIONS OF THE NAVE.
                 (_From Viollet-le-Duc._)]

The Nave is almost devoid of monuments; nothing breaks up the vast
lines of the architecture. The most important tomb is that of Jean
Etienne Yver, Canon of Paris and Rouen, who died in February 1467.
It has escaped serious mutilation, and is a realistic performance in
the style prevailing in France at the end of the fifteenth century.
On the base is a gruesome representation of the body of the Canon
being given over to the worms. Above this, two saints are helping him
to rise from the coffin, and directing his attention towards Heaven.
The whole thing is repulsive, but it is interesting as a curiosity.
Many historic memorials perished during the Revolution, but some were
removed to Versailles and still exist there. They include the tombs
of Jean Jouvenel des Ursins (_d._ 1431) and his wife Michelle de
Vitry; the Maréchal Albert de Gondi, Duc de Retz (_d._ 1602); and his
brother Pierre de Gondi, Bishop of Paris (_d._ 1616). Two monuments
have disappeared from the nave which were highly esteemed in their
day. Writing of Notre Dame in his _Crudities_ in 1611, Thomas Coryat
says: “I could see no notable matter in the cathedral church, saving
the statue of Saint Christopher on the right hand at the coming in of
the great gate, which is indeed very exquisitely done, all the rest
being but ordinary.” The statue so delighted the old traveller that
he had eyes for nothing else, for the architecture of Notre Dame is
anything but ordinary. The Chapter of the Cathedral did not share his
view, for they deliberately destroyed it in 1786. It was presented
to the church in 1413 by Antoine des Essarts, whose tomb with his
effigy in armour stood near it. Its destruction is remarkable, for
colossal things were very much to the taste of those who lived at the
end of the seventeenth century. The Revolution is responsible for the
destruction of a famous equestrian statue which stood in the nave
until 1792. It is generally considered to have been that of Philippe
le Bel, clothed in the armour in which he won his victory over the
Flemings at Mons-en-Pucelle in 1304. The identity of the statue has,
however, been the subject of controversy. Viollet-le-Duc tells us that
it represented, not Philippe le Bel, but Philippe VI. (of Valois), who
defeated the Flemings at Cassel in 1328. On his return to Paris he rode
into the cathedral on horseback in state, and vowed his harness to the
Virgin. The Chapter disagree with Viollet-le-Duc, who is, however,
supported in his contention by the Benedictine Père Montfaucon, by
the writers who continued the chronicle of William of Nangis, and
some others. The monument stood close to the last pillar on the right
side of the nave. The =Pulpit= is a modern work, after the design of
Viollet-le-Duc. It is of oak, and its decorations include statues of
six of the apostles and of angelic figures. Suspended from the vaulting
are eight imposing candelabra in bronze-gilt.

=The Chapels of the Nave= contain singularly few features of
historic interest, nor amongst the furniture of their altars are there
many recent works of art of outstanding merit. They introduce us,
however, to the vast scheme of mural painting which has been carried
out from the designs and partly under the direction of Viollet-le-Duc.
There can be no doubt that some scheme of polychromatic decoration was
legitimate: almost every ancient church in France has indisputable
evidence of its employment in the middle ages. The problem which faced
Viollet-le-Duc was one of extreme difficulty. The area to be covered
was enormous: the variations of light were excessive. Some parts were
luminous, even radiant; others were hidden in almost continuous gloom.
The schemes of colour had to be adapted to these varying conditions.
The use of mosaic was considered and discarded. The expense would have
been gigantic, and the material was considered, perhaps rightly,
to be inappropriate to the style of architecture. Wall pictures, as
such, were regarded as destructive to the _ensemble_, fatiguing to the
eyes and mind, and productive of a certain patchy effect. A series of
symbolical patterns of a rigidly conventional type, in which human
figures are very sparingly used, was devised. It may be admitted
at once that the learning and ingenuity displayed in the design of
the scheme were such as might be expected from the most erudite and
accomplished French architectural scholar of our time. The minute
consideration which Viollet-le-Duc devoted to the subject may be judged
from the following passage: “D’abord, la cathédrale de Paris, comme
on sait, est orientée de telle façon que tout un côté du monument se
présente vers le midi et l’autre vers le nord. Un de ces côtés reçoit
donc une lumière plus vive et plus colorée que l’autre. Il a paru
qu’il était nécessaire de profiter de cette disposition pour établir
l’harmonie générale. Au lieu de combattre l’effet de cette orientation,
on a cru devoir l’appuyer. Ainsi, en premier lieu, toutes les fenêtres
des chapelles tournées vers le sud sont garnies de grisailles à tons
nacrés et froids. De là il resulte qu’en entrant dans le monument on
voit un côté de lumière, un côté d’ombre, un côté chaud et brillant
et un côté froid. Il en résulte instinctivement pour l’œil un effet
général tranquille. Rien n’est plus fatigant pour les yeux qu’un
intérieur éclairé par les jours contraires de qualités semblables comme
intensité de lumière, valeur de tons et coloration. La peinture des
chapelles devait concorder naturellement avec le système de répartition
de la lumière. Suivant une règle générale, la tonalité des peintures
du côté nord est plus froide que celle du côté du midi. Cependant,
comme il faut conserver l’unité, de distance en distance, du côté sud,
des tons gris, des tons verts, froids, rappellent l’harmonie générale
du côté nord, et, du côté septentrional, des tons chauds rappellent
l’harmonie générale du côté méridional.”[11]

[Footnote 11: “Peintures Murales des Chapelles de Notre-Dame de Paris.”
Paris: A. Morel. See the preface by Viollet-le-Duc for further details
of his principles of decoration.]

In spite of all these elaborate precautions, in spite of so
much patience and learning, the result as a whole seems to me
unsatisfactory. One wearies of the ingenious geometrical curves, the
crosses, the squares, the lozenges, the coloured stars, the excessively
and laboriously conventionalised foliage, and the rest. The whole
strikes one as dead and mechanical, as mere covering of stone for the
sake of doing so. And the colour, though by no means aggressive, is
unsatisfying. The experiment was heroic, and the result might certainly
have been very much worse, but the stone-work would have been better
untouched.

The Chapels on the north side of the nave (from west to east) are: 1.
The _Chapelle des Fonts Baptismaux_. The bronze carving of the font is
by Brachelet. 2. The _Chapelle Saint-Charles_. There are a statue in
painted stone by M. de Chaume and a good piscina. The wall decorations
are cold and sombre. 3. The _Chapelle de la Sainte-Enfance_. It
contains a group representing Christ caressing a French and a Chinese
child, by M. de Chaume. 4. The _Chapelle Saint-Vincent-de-Paul_.
The decorations of this chapel are somewhat elaborate, and gilding
is freely used. 5. The _Chapelle de Saint-François-Xavier_. There
is a group representing the Saint baptising a Chinese. 6. _Chapelle
de Saint-Landry_, with statue by De Chaume. 7. _Chapelle de
Sainte-Clotilde_, with statue by the same artist.

The following are on the south side (west to east):

1. _Chapelle des Ames du Purgatoire._ Christ rescuing a soul from
Purgatory. A statue by De Chaume in coloured stone. The colour scheme
of the chapel is warm and brilliant. 2. _Chapelle de Sainte-Geneviève._
The decorations, which are somewhat profuse, were given by the
“dames de l’Institut de l’œuvre de Sainte Geneviève.” 3. _Chapelle
Saint-Joseph_, with statue of Joseph with the Child Jesus in his
arms. 4. _Chapelle Saint-Pierre._ Statue in wood of the saint by M.
Corbon. The carved woodwork of the sixteenth century still remains,
and includes panels with representations of the Twelve Apostles, St.
Germain, and Sainte Geneviève. 5. _Chapelle Saint-Anne._ 6. _Chapelle
du Sacré-Cœur._ Statue in coloured stone by M. de Chaume. 7. _Chapelle
de l’Annonciation._ With a statue of the Virgin in wood by M. Corbon.
Paintings by Perrodin, one of the best pupils of Flandrin, of David,
St. Michel, Isaiah, St. Anne, St. Joseph, St. John, St. Luke, St.
Augustine, St. Bernard, St. Dominic, and St. Bonaventure.

Before we turn from the nave to the choir and transepts, let us say
a few words as to the _stained glass_, which was once the glory of
the church. There is probably no Gothic interior in France which has
suffered more terribly from the destruction of its ancient windows than
Notre Dame. The coldness and severity which the mural decorations of
Viollet-le-Duc vainly strive to mitigate were perhaps not felt at all
when the light from every window seemed to be transmitted in glowing
and gleaming shafts of every conceivable colour and tone. Fortunately,
the old glass still remains in the great rose windows. That over the
west door has been described; the others will be noticed in the account
of the transepts. The rest of the glass was deliberately destroyed, not
by an infuriated mob, but by those in authority, in 1741.

The work of destruction was performed by Jean Leviel and his brother,
who cheerfully substituted for the priceless material they removed
great sheets of dull, monotonous _grisaille_, with borders ornamented
with the _fleur-de-lis_. The introduction of _grisaille_ has been
quaintly described by Michelet as _le protestantisme entrant dans
la peinture_. Its use at Notre Dame is nothing short of a disaster.
Efforts have been made in some parts of the building to replace it with
glass of a less sombre character, but these efforts so far have done
little to lessen our regret for the calamity of 1741.




  [Illustration: _Photo_]      [_Ed. Hautecœur, Paris._
                 ANGLE OF THE CHOIR AND SOUTH TRANSEPT.]

CHAPTER V.

THE TRANSEPTS AND THE CHOIR.


The austere character of the nave emphasises the splendid decorations
of the eastern parts. No massive screen prevents our seeing the church
from the great entrance to the apse. The fact that the choir is open
possibly lessens our sense of mystery and of awe, but we are more than
compensated by the splendid view of the building from end to end.

The irritating custom of railing off the eastern limb of the church
and demanding a fee for admission happily does not obtain at Notre
Dame. It is all but universal in England, and renders an intelligent
appreciation of the architectural history of our great churches a
matter of some difficulty. At Paris one may wander where one will,
so long as one does not interrupt the offices. That pompous and
irresponsible chatterer the cathedral verger does not impose himself
upon us, and disturb our study and diminish our pleasure, as he does in
churches on this side the Channel. Only the Sacristy need be visited in
the company of an official.

The transepts of French cathedrals are rarely such important features
as they are in those of this country. The vast church of Bourges has no
transepts at all. At Noyon, as at Paris, the transepts have no aisles.
Of the crossing and transepts at Paris Viollet-le-Duc and Guilhermy
write as follows:

“At the four angles of the crossing, massive piers, some covered with
combined pilasters, others with clustered columns, rise without a break
from the ground to the vaulting. The two transepts at the outset were
only of two bays similar to those of the nave. They were lengthened
by a shallower bay when the façades were rebuilt. The later bays are
easily distinguished from the four older ones. Thin round vaulting-ribs
cross at a crown deeper and more pronounced than those of the older
parts. The north and south doors are set in a rich arcading, of which
the divisions and the tympanums can be compared to nothing more fitly
than a large window with mullions. In the south transept, statues more
or less mutilated, representing Christ and the saints, remain at the
points of the gables. In describing the exterior of the façades we
pointed out the open gallery which extends the whole breadth of each
transept, and the great rose window a little above it. The exterior
arcading of the gallery is repeated by a similar arcading inside.
There is a passage between the two rows of little columns, and there
is another above this. The effect of the rose windows in the interior,
with glowing stained glass in all their compartments, recalls the
marvellous descriptions that Dante has given us of the circles of
Paradise. The incomparable splendour alternately astonishes and
enchants us. To decorate the side walls of his bays, Jean de Chelles
continued the arcading and the mullioned windows.”

The vaulting and the rose of the south transept were repaired between
the years 1725 and 1728 by Boffrand, the king’s architect, at the
expense of Cardinal de Noailles. The pair of arches leading to the
choir aisles with their elaborate crocketed canopies are somewhat
feebly contrived in both transepts. The clustered shafts are clumsily
arranged. The details on the north side differ from those on the south.
On the east and west sides of both transepts there are two narrow bays
of the triforium. The clerestory consists of short pointed windows
with wheel windows beneath them. This is due to Viollet-le-Duc, and
is intended to show us the arrangement which obtained throughout the
church previous to the alterations which resulted from the fire in the
thirteenth century.[12]

[Footnote 12: In his “Paris” (London, Edward Arnold, 1900), Mr. Hilaire
Belloc thus refers to the fire of 1218: “In 1218 a happy accident gave
us the incomparable unity which the Cathedral alone possesses among
mediæval monuments; for in that year, on the eve of the Assumption,
four inspired thieves climbed into the roof-tree and warily let down
ropes with slip-knots to lasso the silver candlesticks on the altar.
These they snared, but as they pulled them up the lights set fire to
the hangings that were stretched for the feasts, and the fire spread to
the whole choir.” The writer gives no authority for this story.]

  [Illustration: _Photo_]      [_Ed. Hautecœur, Paris._
                 THE NORTH TRANSEPT.]

At the angle of the south transept in front of the great south-east
pier of the crossing is the famous statue of the =Virgin and
Child=, which, in Notre Dame, occupies a place not unlike the far
more famous and more venerable statue of S. Peter in the vast basilica
which at Rome is dedicated to him. Mr. Belloc has used a photograph of
it as the frontispiece to the volume quoted in the footnote, and he
writes of it as follows: “But of all the additions to the interior of
Notre Dame which popular fancy or the traditions of some crisis give
it, none is more worthy of being known than that which alone survives
of them, and which I have made the frontispiece of this book. It is not
that the statue has--as so much of the fourteenth century can boast--a
peculiar beauty; it is indeed (when seen from below, as it was meant
to be) full of a delicacy that the time was adding to the severity of
the thirteenth century; it has from that standpoint a very graceful
gesture; the exaggeration of the forehead disappears, the features
show the delicate and elusive smile that the fourteenth century always
gave to its Madonnas, and there appears also in its general attitude
the gentle inclination of courtesy and attention that was also a
peculiar mark of a statuary which was just escaping the rigidity of
Early Gothic. But its beauty, slight and ill-defined, is not, I repeat,
the interest of the statue. It is because this image dates from the
awakening of the capital to its position in France, because it is the
symbol of Paris, that it rises up alone, as you may see it now, where
the southern transept comes into the nave,[13] all lit with candles
and standing out against the blue and the lilies. It is a kind of core
and centre to the city, and is, as it were, the genius catching up the
spirit of the wars, and giving the generation of the last siege and
reconstruction, as it will give on in the future to others in newer
trials, a figure in which all the personality of the place is stored
up and remembered. It was made just at the outbreak of the Hundred
Years’ War, it received the devotion of Etienne Marcel, it heard the
outcry that followed the defeat of Poictiers and the captivity of the
king.” Mr. Belloc concludes: “It has been for these five hundred years
and more the middle thing, carrying with full meaning the name ‘Our
Lady of Paris,’ which seems to spread out from it to the Church, and
to overhang like an influence the whole city, so that one might wonder
sometimes as one looked at it whether it was not the figure of Paris
itself one saw.”

[Footnote 13: See p. 70.]

In front of the statue is an iron grille terminating in spikes for
candles. After Poitiers, the citizens of Paris annually offered a
gigantic candle to be burned in front of this statue in order that the
ills which afflicted France might cease. It was of the exact length of
the walls of the capital itself, and was of course coiled up ropewise.
The first presentation was made on August 14th, 1437. The candle
necessarily grew with every increase in the area of the city. By the
beginning of the seventeenth century it was felt that the limits of
vastness had been reached, and in 1605 a silver lamp, which was always
to burn before the statue, was presented instead of the candle. This
was destroyed by the Revolutionists. On the pillar below the statue is
a sculpture said to represent Eve with the serpent’s tail. The identity
of the existing statue with the original one so eloquently described
by Mr. Belloc has been doubted, but the grounds for doubt appear to be
small. In this transept are two marble slabs in memory of seventy-five
victims of the Commune.

The place on the north side, corresponding with the statue of
Notre-Dame de Paris on the south, is filled by a statue of St. Denis,
a fairly good work by Nicolas Coustou.[14] The splendid glass of the
great rose window in the south transept has in the main divisions of
its four circles the twelve apostles, and a host of bishops and saints
with symbols and palms, to whom angels bear golden crowns of glory. In
one of the small compartments St. Denis is represented carrying his
head, and in others are scenes from what is known as “les Combats des
Apôtres,” amongst them being the arrival of St. Matthew in the presence
of the King of Egypt, and the baptism of the King after his conversion
by the Apostle. The great rose window of the opposite transept is
devoted to scenes from the life of the Virgin. She is represented with
Christ in her arms, and is surrounded with an army of patriarchs,
judges, prophets, priests and kings, all of whom are related to the
Saviour by ties of blood or as His spiritual forerunners. The glass
includes curious representations of the Antichrist, decapitating
Enoch; and of the destruction of the Antichrist by the Almighty, who
appears in a cloud. The small rose or wheel windows in the sides of
the transepts have been filled with glass from designs by Steinheil.
The pavement of the transepts is of squares of black Bourbon
marble alternating with Dinan stone. Great attention was given by
Viollet-le-Duc to the polychromatic decoration of the transepts,

[Footnote 14: See p. 89.] but it cannot be said that he has been more
successful in these parts of the church than elsewhere. The effect
aimed at appears to have been that of tapestry with simple patterns;
indeed, of the whole it is said, “cette décoration forme, jusque sous
les roses, une sort de brillante tapisserie.” Some of the canopies are
of the most intricate patterns, but they would be better suited to
wood or metal work than to painting. The scheme includes a series of
paintings by Perrodin of persons distinguished in the history of the
diocese of Paris. The figures have elaborate decorative borders.

The removal of statues and memorials from the nave, which we have
already deplored, had just the shadow of a justification from the
purely æsthetic standpoint. Many of the monuments were incongruous,
some were positively grotesque. In Westminster Abbey we have an example
of the shocking effect of inappropriate statuary in a Gothic building;
we know, only too well, how terribly one of the most beautiful
interiors in the world suffers from a crowd of tombs which are out
of keeping with the very spirit of the place. By the removal of the
memorials at Notre Dame, the church has doubtless regained the aspect
intended by its designers.

The nave leads uninterruptedly to the choir, which ends in the high
altar; and the high altar, with the adjacent shrine of St. Marcel, was
the primary reason of the existence of the cathedral. We have seen that
in its earlier form little or no provision was made for chapels and
consequently for side altars. Everything was arranged to concentrate
the eye on the chief altar, and to lend dignity to its position. Its
sacred character was respected even in the far-off days in which the
body of the church was used for commercial purposes, or for festivals
the reverse of religious.

The great eastern limb of the church is raised above the transepts
by three steps. Once we have passed into the =Ambulatory=, or
_pourtour_, of the choir, we are in the most interesting part of the
building; for here our story is of historical monuments and decorative
objects still happily existing, and not an account of things which have
long since ceased to be. When we step into the ambulatory, we pass from
newer to older work, but we experience no violent transition from one
style to another. The style of the choir is, speaking generally, the
style of the whole church. The differences, interesting as they are
to the minute student of architectural development, are such as would
remain unnoticed by those who do not pretend to special knowledge.
This unity reminds one of an Italian Romanesque basilica rather than
a Gothic cathedral. Viollet-le-Duc has noted that the capitals in the
triforium of the choir seem to be earlier in date than those of the
main arcade beneath it; that if nothing were left save the capitals
of the two parts, one would conclude that those of the triforium were
earlier. This is manifestly impossible, but it shows that not the
smallest deviation of style was allowed in constructing the upper story.

Among the capitals of the columns in the choir there are a few
representations of animal life amongst the conventional foliage,
while the capitals in the nave represent foliage alone. The choir is
throughout a shade nearer Romanesque than the nave, but the difference
is so slight that only close examination reveals it. Already we have
remarked on the superiority of an apsidal termination to any other form
in a Gothic church. The ordered grandeur of Notre Dame is nowhere more
impressive than in the beautiful sweep of the apse with its spacious
ambulatory. It must have been even more imposing in its simplicity
before the construction of the side chapels was undertaken, although
we are far from regretting an addition which, though it may have
reduced the original dignity of the church, has added variety to it and
rendered it more interesting.

Let us begin our detailed examination of the choir and its chapels with
the famous =Screen= of sculptures by Jehan Ravy and his nephew
Jehan le Bouteiller, which we must study from the ambulatory. In his
_History of Sculpture_, Professor Wilhelm Lübke devotes considerable
space to this series in the chapter devoted to “Northern Sculpture
in the Late Gothic Epoch” (1300 to 1450). After stating that France
exhausted herself during the golden age of Gothic sculpture, and that
the period under discussion was so stormy as to be unfavourable to the
production of works of art, he writes of the screen as follows:

“One of the most important works of the epoch [the end of the
thirteenth and the beginning of the fourteenth centuries] are the
extensive reliefs which cover the choir screen in the interior of the
Cathedral of Paris. These are only the remains of the formerly far
richer plastic ornament which, in a great measure, fell a sacrifice
under Louis XIV. to a vain love of ostentation. The earlier series
on the north side contains a crowded representation in an unbroken
line of the History of Christ; from the Annunciation to the Prayer
at Gethsemane. These representations are vividly conceived, and the
style in which they are executed breathes the spirit of the thirteenth
century. Perhaps they belong to the end of that century or to the
beginning of the next. The reliefs on the south side are different in
many points. They continue the History of Christ; and, indeed, the
whole was so arranged that the cycle which began at the east passed
along the north side to the west end of the choir, and was continued
on the lectern,[15] where the Passion, Crucifixion and Resurrection
were depicted in front of the congregation, concluding at the south
side in a scene moving from west to east. Of the latter scenes, the
only ones now in existence are those which extend from the Meeting
of Christ as the Gardener with Mary Magdalen to the Farewell to the
Disciples after the Resurrection. The artist of these later scenes left
his name, in an inscription that has now disappeared,[16] as Jehan
Ravy, who for twenty-six years conducted the building of Notre Dame,
at the end of which time it was completed under his nephew Master
Jehan de Bouteiller, in 1351. Master Ravy evidently thought that he
could improve upon his predecessor’s work on the north side; for
while the latter had combined the scenes into one unbroken series, he
divided his into separate compartments by arcades, so that these later
representations, which are still in existence, are separated from each
other by small columns. In so doing he followed the general taste of
the century, which was inclined to exchange a picturesque character
for the calm epic relief of the former period. While, however, his
somewhat short figures are certainly superior in correctness to the
figures of the north side, owing to his understanding of the physical
structure and to the neatness of execution, there is in the figures
of the north side a fresher tone of feeling and more grace of action,
compared with which the far more constrained attitudes of the later
works form an unpleasing contrast, and even occasionally degenerate
into commonplaceness. Thus in these works, in spite of all expenditure
of artistic care, there is an unmistakable decline of creative power.”

[Footnote 15: The Rood-loft.]

[Footnote 16: This has been restored, and reads: “C’est maistre
Jehan Ravy maçon de Notre Dame par l’espace XXV ans qui commença
ces nouvelles histoires, et Jehan le Bouteiller son nepveu qui les
aparfaites en MCCCLI.”]

The series on the north side should be visited first. The scenes are
fourteen in number, and have reference to the Visitation:

    The Shepherds and the Star of Bethlehem;
    The Nativity;
    The Visit of the Magi;
    The Slaughter of the Innocents;
    The Flight into Egypt;
    The Presentation in the Temple;
    Christ among the Doctors;
    His Baptism;
    The Marriage-Feast at Cana;
    The Entry into Jerusalem;
    The Last Supper;
    Christ Washing the Feet of St. Peter;
    The scene in the Garden of Olives.

The later works on the south side, in which Professor Lübke traces a
decline of creative force, represent:

    The Meeting of Christ as the Gardener with Mary Magdalen;
    The Holy Women (the Three Maries) Kissing the Saviour’s Feet;
    Jesus appearing to the Apostles (who are represented in a
        turreted building);
    The Disciples of Emmaus, with Christ among them;
    The Breaking of the Bread;
    Another version of Christ Appearing to the Apostles;
    The Doubt and the Conversion of St. Thomas;
    The Miraculous Draught of Fishes;
    Christ’s Message to the Apostles to Preach the Gospel to
        all Nations.

It is extremely fortunate that these very interesting sculptures have
been left to us, for they constitute incomparably the most important
of the internal decorations at Notre Dame, which, as we have seen,
is relatively poor in the mediæval tombs which are the glory of
Westminster Abbey. While we are thankful for what is left, we cannot
help feeling a grudge against Cardinal de Noailles, who caused some of
the scenes to be removed, and thus left the series incomplete. That the
modern restoration of the painting of the sculpture was wise can hardly
be maintained.[17]

[Footnote 17: The fine collection of casts at the Crystal Palace
includes most of this series. It is a pity that they cannot be placed
in some more appropriate and convenient place.]

  [Illustration: VIEW OF THE CHOIR AT THE END OF THE XIII. CENTURY,
                 SHOWING THE CARVED ROOD-SCREEN AND THE SHRINE OF
                 ST. MARCEL.
                 (_From Viollet-le-Duc._)]

For the moment we will leave the ambulatory, and consider the
=Choir and Sanctuary=. It will be interesting, before we examine
the present state of these parts, to sketch briefly their aspect in the
fourteenth century. Corrozet and De Breul have left us descriptions
which have been illustrated and elucidated by the indefatigable
Viollet-le-Duc. The entrance to the choir at the crossing was filled
by a magnificent screen of stone richly adorned with carving. This
was about eighteen feet high. The top formed the rood-loft, which was
approached by two circular staircases placed at either end of the
screen. In the centre was, of course, the entrance to the choir. When
the doors were open the high altar could be seen from the end of the
nave. Over this door was a decorated gable terminating in a great
crucifix. According to De Breul this crucifix was a masterpiece of
sculpture, as were the other statues which composed the group. The loft
was broad, and had on both sides an open stone parapet, on which were
placed carved lecterns. The west front of the screen had sculptured
scenes of the Passion, which formed part of the series by Jehan Ravy
and Jehan de Bouteiller lately described. On either side of the
doorway, beneath the sculptures, were small altars. The choir-stalls
of carved wood occupied much the same place as do those which we see
to-day. Between the rows of stalls were low tombs with recumbent
figures. The Sanctuary, approached by steps, was railed off, and filled
the apse. The space between the columns was filled by a screen with
carved scenes, which rose almost to the level of the bases of the
capitals. The altar was low, and of stone, and possessed a re-table on
which was placed a cross. Enclosing it on all sides, save that towards
the church, was a screen with hangings of tapestry. At the four corners
of this screen were tall figures of angels. Immediately behind the
altar, and towering over it, was the shrine of St. Marcel, a lofty open
structure of brass and other metals in two stages, ending in a gable at
the apex of which rose a crucifix.

On the first stage, so that it could be seen from all parts of the
choir, was the feretrum or reliquary of St. Marcel. This chief shrine
had on its side shrines of less importance, while, in the background
to the north, was the small altar of the Trinity, on which was placed
the reliquary of Notre Dame, containing portions of the dress and other
relics of the mother of Christ. A few fine tombs were also in the
sanctuary, and not far away was a bronze statue of Eudes de Sully. An
illustration, partly conjectural, of the choir and sanctuary in the
condition which I have attempted to describe from Viollet-le-Duc’s
_Dictionnaire_, is reproduced here. It will be seen that while the
furniture and ornament of this part of the church is sufficiently
splendid, it is nevertheless simple. There would be ample space for the
due performance of the great ceremonials which constantly took place.
Such was the appearance of the choir and sanctuary until Louis XIV., in
fulfilment of the vow of Louis XIII., who had dedicated himself and his
kingdom to the Virgin, began his transformation.

  [Illustration: _Photo_]      [_Ed. Hautecœur, Paris._
                 GRILLE AT ENTRANCE OF CHOIR.]

The =Choir= is raised above the body of the church by three steps,
and on the right and left hand is enclosed by a low _grille_ in
wrought iron with gilding. This rests on a stone foundation, and is
terminated towards the centre by two massive columns, on which
are hung the gates, which are of very beautiful design, representing
conventionalised foliage and flowers. At the top of the gate, in the
centre, is a foliated cross. The two bays on the south side of the
choir nearest the entrance have the same arrangement of a small pointed
window with a rose window beneath it, as exists in the side of the
transept immediately adjacent. The remaining windows are in the altered
and enlarged form, and the triforium of the choir is similar to, though
of earlier date than, that which runs round the nave.

  [Illustration: _Photo_]      [_Ed. Hautecœur, Paris._
                 THE CHOIR, LOOKING WEST.]

The =Stalls= occupy three bays on either side of the choir. The
erection of these stalls is part of the work undertaken by order of
Louis XIV. in accomplishment of his father’s vow, and it follows that
they are not in character with the architecture of the choir. It was
once proposed that for this reason new stalls of “Gothic” design should
take their place. There is little likelihood of this being done now.
Incongruity among things beautiful in themselves is by no means a
calamity, and we may fairly question alike the taste and the learning
of those who crave for uniformity at all cost. One is glad to think
that Viollet-le-Duc never for a moment contemplated the banishment of
these stalls, which are a particularly fine example of the best work
of which the craftsmen of the time were capable. The stalls have been
rearranged since they were first placed in the choir, and their number
has diminished. Originally there were one hundred and fourteen stalls;
now there are ten less. They are divided on each side into upper and
lower tiers, each tier having twenty-six seats. The carvings are the
work of Jean Nel and Louis Marteau, the designs being supplied by Jean
de Goulon. The designer and the executants have combined to produce a
really admirable piece of work, of which a full account is given in a
very careful monograph, published by Chouvet in Paris in 1855, entitled
_Album des Boiseries sculptées du Chœur de Notre Dame de Paris_. In
this volume the carvings are dealt with one by one, and their merits
intelligently discussed. At the back of the upper row of stalls are
eight large carved panels, which represent scenes in the life of the
Virgin. At the west end of the stalls are placed, opposite to one
another, the throne of the archbishop and a similar throne for the
dean of the chapter. These thrones or seats have elaborately-carved
canopies. The relief on the back of the chair or throne on the right
represents the cure of Childebert I. by St. Germain, Bishop of Paris.
On the opposite chair is represented in similar style the martyrdom of
St. Denis. Throughout the entire cathedral, in sculpture, in stained
glass, in carving, the Virgin is glorified, and next to her in honour
comes St. Denis. The stalls are lighted by lamps in metal brackets,
and the choir itself is illuminated by handsome candelabra similar to
those in the nave. In the second bay on the north side of the choir is
a small organ used in the daily offices.

Close by this organ the stones of the pavement are movable, and cover
the entrance of a small crypt. This is the principal subterranean
chamber of the cathedral, and it was constructed so recently as the
eighteenth century. It was set apart as the burial place of the
Archbishops of Paris, and is little more than a vault. Over the coffins
of those of the Archbishops who have been Cardinals are suspended their
red hats and tassels. The excavations for this little crypt led to a
discovery which was of great interest to archæologists. Amongst other
Roman remains was a small altar to Jupiter, which is now preserved in
the Cluny Museum. In _Paris à travers les Ages_ we read of a small
crypt below the Chapelle S. Anne, on the south side of the nave. Used
now as a coal cellar, it was formerly a burial place, as is attested
by the following inscription: “Cave pour les cercueils de plomb; cave
pour la sépulture des chanoines; caves pour la sépulture des musiciens,
enfants de Chœurs et officiers clercs.”

The pavement of the choir is of pieces of marble of various colours,
which together form a geometrical pattern. As one looks at it, one
laments the magnificent tombs with bronze effigies which were formerly
the glory of this part of the church.

  [Illustration: _Photo_]      [_Ed. Hautecœur, Paris._
                 THE CHOIR FROM THE SOUTH TRANSEPT.]

The =Sanctuary= is approached by four steps of Languedoc marble, and
three additional steps of the same material lead to the high altar.
The =High Altar= still retains most of the leading features of the
arrangement of Louis XIV. It was begun in 1699, and finished in 1714.
The pseudo-classical architecture by means of which the great pillars
of the apse were hidden has of course been swept away. The principal
group of sculpture, representing the Descent from the Cross, is
by Nicolas Coustou, who was born at Lyons in 1658. He was a pupil of
Coysevox, his uncle, who at that time was director of the Academy of
Painting and Sculpture at Paris. He obtained the _grand prix_, and went
to study at Rome, where he was profoundly influenced by the work of
Michael Angelo. Coustou’s output on his return to France was enormous.
The “Descent from the Cross,” at Notre Dame was doubtless inspired by
the famous group by Michael Angelo in St. Peter’s at Rome. It cannot
be said that Coustou has approached the greatest of the Italians in
the profundity of his pathos or in tragic solemnity, but the group at
Notre Dame is not without decided merit, although it leans towards the
melodramatic and artificial.

On one side of the altar is a kneeling statue of Louis XIII. by
Guillaume Coustou, and on the other a similar statue of Louis XIV.
by Antoine Coysevox. Guillaume Coustou was the younger brother of
Nicolas, and like him studied at Rome. He represents Louis XIII.
offering his crown and sceptre, which he holds in his hands, to the
Virgin. The statue of Louis XIV. suggests the accomplishment of his
father’s vow. Coysevox, from whose chisel it came, was the leading
French sculptor of his time. He was born at Lyons in 1640, and died
in 1720. The statues of angels bearing the instruments of the Passion
are by various sculptors. The angel with the crown of thorns and that
carrying the reed are by Corneille Van Clève. The angel with the nails
is by Claude Poirier; that with the sponge by Simon Hurtrelle; that
with the scroll by Laurent Magnier; and that with the lance by Anselme
Flamen. The bas-relief in bronze-gilt in front of the altar represents
the Entombment, and is by Van Clève. The cross and candelabra formerly
belonged to the cathedral of Arras. The lectern of sculptured bronze
is dated 1755, and has on its base the name of Duplessis, founder to
the King. A superb example of Gobelins tapestry, the gift of Napoleon
I., is used on great festivals to cover the floor of the sanctuary. The
pavement is partly in mosaic, and has a representation of the arms of
France.

The comparatively new stained glass of the choir and apse is not so bad
as one might expect. It is by Maréchal of Metz. The central window of
the apse is devoted to the Visitation. To the right are Eudes de Sully
and St. Marcel; St. Augustine and St. Jerome; St. Luke and St. John;
Daniel and Jeremiah; David and Abraham; St. George and St. Martin;
Charlemagne and Pope Leo. III.; and St. Hilaire and St. Irénée. To the
right the subjects are St. Denis and Maurice de Sully; St. Gregory and
St. Ambrose; St. Mark and St. Matthew; Ezekiel and Isaiah; Aaron and
Melchisedec; St. Stephen and St. Laurent, St. Louis and St. Gregory
VII., and St. Remi and St. Martin. The small rose windows of the
choir, like those of the transept, are filled with glass by Steinheil.
The choir, more perhaps than any other part of the cathedral, has
suffered from the wholesale destruction of glass which has already
been described. Visitors to the cathedral of Chartres can estimate the
value of mediæval glass in a Gothic cathedral. It is unfortunate that
the great windows of the clerestory at Paris were filled up before
the notable revival in the art of stained glass, which commenced in
England, and has now extended to France.

We must now return to the Ambulatory and the adjacent chapels. It is
in this part of the church that Viollet-le-Duc’s decorations are most
profuse, and it is not possible to consider them successful. It is
quite probable that no such scheme of decoration could be open to fewer
objections than that of Viollet-le-Duc. The truth is that the colour
confuses our appreciation of the fine lines of the architecture, and it
is frequently restless and irritating where it should be most reposeful.

=The Chapels of the Choir.= On the south side are the following
chapels:--

_Chapelle Saint-Denis._ The chief object of interest here is a statue,
by Auguste de Bay, of Archbishop Affre, who is represented at the
moment when he made his heroic appearance on the barricade of the
Faubourg Saint Antoine with an olive branch. This was on June 25th,
1848, during the Commune. The Archbishop was struck by a ball and
killed.

_Chapelle Sainte-Madeleine._ This chapel contains the grave of
the Papal nuncio Garibaldi, Archbishop of Myra, who died in 1853.
Archbishop Sibour, who was murdered in the church of St. Etienne du
Mont on Jan. 8th, 1857, by a priest, is commemorated by a kneeling
statue in marble by Dubois.

_Chapelle Saint-Guillaume._ The statue of the Virgin seated, with
the Child Jesus in her arms, is attributed to Bernini, who came from
Rome to Paris during the reign of Louis XIV. to make alterations and
additions to the Louvre. The Mausoleum of Henri-Charles d’Harcourt,
Lieutenant-general of the armies of the King, who died in 1769, is a
pretentious and theatrical work which was once highly esteemed. It is
by the sculptor Pigalle, and is of white marble. The widow who kneels
by the tomb and appears to be calling her husband is warned away by a
figure of Death. The genius of War is represented lamenting, and the
whole is completed by trophies of arms.

_Chapelle Saint-Georges._ Amongst the elaborate mural decorations of
this chapel is a picture by Steinheil of St. George and the Dragon.
The statue of Archbishop Darboy is by Bonnassieux. The prelate is
represented falling amidst the bullets of the Communists, whom he
blesses as he dies. This tragic incident took place in the prison
of La Roquette, on May 27th, 1871. Close by is a kneeling statue of
Archbishop Morlot (_d._ 1862) by Lescorné. The chapel also contains a
statue of St. George by the same artist.

The following are the chapels on the _north_ side of the choir:--

_La Chapelle de Notre Dame des Sept Douleurs_, or _La Chapelle du Petit
Chœur_. The bas-reliefs over the altar represent the angel appearing
to the Virgin Mary, the Descent from the Cross, and the Entombment.
The statue in wood of Notre Dame des Sept Douleurs is by Corbon. The
compositions, in six panels, by Perrodin, represent: Jesus bearing the
Cross; Christ on Calvary; the Descent from the Cross; the Communion of
the Virgin; and the Death of the Virgin. The nine carved wood stalls
are of the same period as those of the choir. They were possibly
part of the original series, which, as we have seen, was reduced in
number. At all events, the details indicate that the same designer
and craftsmen were employed on them. This chapel contains the only
important fragment of the original polychromatic decoration with which
the walls of the cathedral were anciently embellished. It consists of
a mural painting dating from the fourteenth century. In the centre is
represented the Virgin enthroned with the Child. To the right is St.
Denis, and on the left Bishop Simon Matiffas de Buci, who built the
three chapels on the left of the apse. Beneath the picture was formerly
the Bishop’s tomb. Below the representation of the Virgin and Child is
a curious design representing angels bearing away a human soul. This
painting was unfortunately restored by M. Maillot the elder, and has
consequently lost much of its antiquarian interest.

_Chapelle Saint-Marcel._ Pierre Deseine’s enormous monument to
Cardinal de Belloy fills a large part of this chapel. The cardinal is
represented giving alms to two orphan girls. St. Denis looks on, and
records the cardinal’s name on a list of the bishops of Paris noted
for their charity. Close by is the tomb, with reclining figure, of
Monseigneur de Quelen, by De Chaume. Amongst the mural decorations of
this chapel the chief is a large painting by Maillot the younger. The
subject is the “Translation of the relics of St. Marcel from the old
Church of St. Marie to the Church of Notre Dame by Bishop Eudes de
Sully.” The personages represented are portraits of the officials of
the diocese, and include Archbishop Darboy and the Abbé la Place. In
the vaulting is a design representing the Coronation of St. Marcel.

_Chapelle Saint-Louis._ This chapel has six statues in wood by Corbon,
representing Christ, the Virgin, St. John, St. Denis, St. Rustiguex,
and St. Eleutherius. The kneeling statue of Archbishop Louis-Antoine de
Noailles, who died in 1729, is by De Chaume.

_Chapelle Saint-Germain._ Tomb of Archbishop Leclerc de Juigné
(died 1811), a kneeling figure in relief. The tomb was repaired by
Viollet-le-Duc, who modified its original design.

_Chapelle Saint-Ferdinand._ Monument of Archbishop de Beaumont (died
1781), from designs by Viollet-le-Duc.

_Chapelle Saint-Martin._ Monument of Jean-Baptiste de Vardes, Comte
de Guébriant, Marshal of France, who died in 1643, and of his wife
Renée du Bec Crespin. A splendid service was celebrated in Notre Dame
on the Marshal’s death. His wife was sent to Poland as ambassadress
extraordinary, and died there in 1643, without being able to erect a
monument to her husband. The Marquis de Vardes erected the tomb, which
was practically destroyed during the Revolution. It was renewed from
designs by Viollet-le-Duc.

Behind the Sanctuary is the tomb with a jewelled effigy of Archbishop
Matiffas de Buci, who died in 1304. It was removed from La Chapelle
de Notre Dame des Sept Douleurs. In the arcading below the bas-reliefs
of Jehan Revy and Jean le Bouteiller are placed little brasses with
the names, arms, and date of the death of the persons whose remains
are buried at Notre Dame. A list of the most interesting of these has
already been given.




  [Illustration: THE PLACE DU PARVIS IN 1650.
                 (_From an engraving by Van Merlen._)]

CHAPTER VI.

CONCLUSION. THE SACRISTY, ETC.


Notre Dame was within comparatively recent times surrounded with
streets so narrow that vehicular traffic was impossible. Amongst the
most characteristic were the Rue de Glatigny and the Rue de Marmousets,
which, as late as 1865, preserved the dimensions, and something of
the aspect, of a side street in the middle ages. The _quartier_ thus
intersected literally teemed with churches of which nothing remains.
Amongst them perhaps the most important were those dedicated to
Saint-Landry, Sainte-Geneviève des Ardents, Saint-Pierre aux Bœufs,
Saint-Aguan, Saint-Marine, Saint-Luc, Saint-Jean le Rond, Saint-Denis
au Pays and Saint-Christophe. None of them appear to have been large,
and of some the origin and history remain obscure.

On the south side of the Cathedral stood the _Palais Episcopal_, which
was constructed by Maurice de Sully and added to by Matiffas de Bucy
and other prelates. On Feb. 14th, 1831, it was attacked by the mob, and
five hours sufficed for its complete destruction. The contents included
a library of 20,000 volumes, a collection of 1,500 manuscripts,
those of the ancient archives of the church, which escaped the
Revolutionists, a fine collection of pictures, and priceless works of
art of an ecclesiastical character. These were thrown into the Seine,
burned, or stolen.

The =Cloître= or Cloister of Notre Dame was on the north side and
at the east end of the church. It is difficult to say what was its
early aspect, but in the sixteenth century and afterwards it in
no way resembled the cloister of a monastery, but consisted of an
agglomeration of separate houses. It was in the nature of a College
of Secular Canons. It was similar to the Temple in London in that it
possessed gates of its own, which shut it off from the rest of the
city. The Cloister contained thirty-seven houses for the canons of the
Cathedral, who were allowed to have living with them their near female
relatives. No other women, lay or religious, were allowed to sleep in
the cloister. The tedious Rue du Cloître Notre-Dame occupies a portion
of the space on which the Cloister stood.

=The Sacristy= was formerly a part of the Palais Episcopal. It had
been rebuilt by Soufflot, whose work was partially destroyed in 1831. A
new sacristy has been constructed by Viollet-le-Duc in the style of the
thirteenth century. The exterior is richly ornamented with statues and
pinnacles. It communicates with the south ambulatory of the choir by
means of two covered passages, one of which leads into the _Sacristie
du Chapitre_, which contains a large hall, the room of the Chapter
above, which is the cathedral treasury, and a vestry for the canons.
The great hall has stained glass windows in which bishops of Paris are
represented.

It contains a crucifix and two statuettes by Corbon, a fine _armoire_
decorated with paintings of scenes in the life of St. Denis. There are
pictures in various parts of the building by Vaulos, Salvator Rosa,
Lebrun, Louis Testelin, Charles Poerson and others, but none of them
are of much note. A picturesque little cloister, with a fountain in the
middle surmounted by a crucifix, is one of the agreeable features of
the building. Its eastern arcade is glazed, the windows representing
scenes in the life of Ste. Geneviève.

=The Treasury=, once endowed with enormous riches, was despoiled at the
Revolution of all but a few objects of value. There still remains the
reputed Crown of Thorns (supposed to have been given to St. Louis),
brought hither from La Sainte Chapelle. The so-called Nail of the True
Cross formerly belonged to the royal abbey of St. Denis. These relics
are only exposed on Fridays in Lent. The reliquaries are for the most
part imitations of those which were formerly in La Sainte Chapelle.
Perhaps the most interesting of the objects exhibited is a gold cross,
probably of twelfth-century workmanship. It belonged to the Emperor
Manuel Comnenus, and was bequeathed by the Princess Anne de Gonzague to
the church of St. Germain des Prés in 1863. In addition there are the
relic of the True Cross sent to Bishop Galon in 1109, from the Church
of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem; the “discipline” of St. Louis; the
crozier in copper and wood of Bishop Eudes de Sully; the crucifix used
by St. Vincent-de-Paul at the death-bed of Louis XIII.; the pastoral
cross of Archbishop Affre; a silver image of the Virgin and Child
presented in 1821 by Charles X.; the _ostensoir_ given by Napoleon I.,
and services of plate presented by the same monarch and by Napoleon
III. The vestments are very magnificent, and include the coronation
mantle of Napoleon I. and the chasuble worn by Pope Pius VI. when he
crowned him. The _soutanes_ worn by Archbishops Affre, Sibour, and
Darboy in their last moments, marked by the instruments which produced
their violent deaths, have a tragic interest.

The somewhat obtrusively picturesque modern building to the west of the
Sacristy is known as the _Presbytère_. It has been often ridiculed,
and at times rather fiercely denounced, but if any building was to
be erected on the site, it seems difficult to imagine anything less
offensive. It is pleasing and unpretentious, and contrasts only too
favourably with the dull houses of the Rue du Cloître Notre-Dame, which
are as undistinguished as they well can be.

The space at the back of the Cathedral is laid out as a garden. This
is modern and somewhat formal, but it affords a fine view of the east
end, and constitutes a welcome oasis of trees and grass in a grey waste
of commonplace buildings. In the centre is a fountain with a statue
of the Virgin and Child, and fragments of sculpture and carving taken
from the church at different times lie about. The reader who wishes to
understand at a glance the various changes which have taken place in
that part of the French metropolis which lies in the very shadow of
the cathedral should refer to the second volume of the magnificent work
_Paris à travers les Ages_, in which a plan of the district in 1881 is
compared with conjectural plans of the same in the years 1150, 1550,
and 1750.

The huge open space west of the cathedral is the Place du Parvis
Notre-Dame. This oblong _place_ far exceeds the church itself in area,
and gives to the west front a somewhat dwarfed appearance. On the
left-hand side (looking east) is the vast Hotel Dieu, the modern name
of the hospital, known as the Maison Dieu, which for centuries has been
associated with Notre Dame. The present building was only completed
in 1877. It is from the designs of M. Diet, and is by no means of an
ornamental character, although the total cost was 36,400,000 francs.
On the west side of the Place du Parvis are the barracks of the Garde
Republicaine. Close to them is one of those open-air flower markets
which are so charming and characteristic a feature of the Paris of
to-day.




  [Illustration: NOTRE DAME IN THE XIII CENTURY, SHOWING THE BISHOP’S
                 PALACE (L’ÉVÊCHÉ) ON THE LEFT.
                 (_From “Paris à travers les Ages.”_)]

CHAPTER VII.

LIST OF THE BISHOPS AND ARCHBISHOPS OF PARIS.

(I have adopted the spelling and dates generally given by French
Catholic writers in compiling this list).


St. Denis, who is counted as the first bishop by Roman Catholic
writers, is said to have been succeeded by the following, of whom
little or nothing is known: Mallo or Mallon; Massus; Marcus; Adventus;
Ventorien; Paul; Prudence; St. Marcel (died about 436); Vivien; Felix;
Flavien; Ursicien; Apedemius; Heraclitus (? 490-525); Probat; Amelius;

Saffarac (545-552).

Eusèbe I. (552-555).

St. Germain (555-576).

Raguemond (576-591).

Eusèbe II. (592-594).

Faramode (?); Simplicius (?); Saint Céran (606-621); Leudebert (?);
Aubert.

St. Landry (650-656).

Chrodobert (656-663).

Sigobrand (663-664).

Importun (?).

St. Agilbert (666-680).

Sigefroid (?); Tournsaede (?); Adolphe (?); Bernechaire, (?).

St. Hugues (722-730).

Marséide.

Fédole (?); Raguecapt (?); Madalbert (?); Desdefroid (?); Escheurade
(?).

Ermenfroi (?)

Inchalde (809-831).

Ercheurade (831-857).

Enée (857-883).

Ingelvin (?).

Gozlin (883-886).

Anschéric (886-911).

Théodulphe or Gendulphe (911-922). This bishop is believed to have
been succeeded by Falrade; Adelhelme; Gauthier I.; Albéric; Constante;
Garin; Rainaud I.; Elisiard, and Giselbert.

Renault II., de Vendome (992-1019).

Azelin or Albert (?).

Francon (1020-1030).

Imbert Hesselin (1030-1060).

Godefroi de Boulogne (1061-1093).

Guillaume I. de Montfort (1095-1102).

Foulques I. (1102-1104).

Galon (1105-1116).

Giselbert or Gilbert (1116-1124).

Etienne I. de Senlis (1124-1142).

Thiébault (1143-1157).

Pierre Lombard (1158-1159).

Maurice de Sully (1160-1196).

Eudes de Sully (1197-1208).

Pierre II. de Nemours (1208-1219).

Guillaume de Seiguelay (1220-1223).

Barthélémy (1223-1227).

(The see is believed to have been vacant for a year)

Guillaume d’Auvergne (also called Guillaume de Paris) (1228-1249).

Gauthier II. de Chateau-Thierry (1249-1250).

Renault III. de Corbeil (1250-1268).

Etienne II. (1268-1279).

Ranulfe ou Raoul d’Homblières (1279-1288).

Simon Matiffas de Bucy (1290-1304).

Guillaume IV. de Baufet (1304-1319).

Etienne de Bourret (1320-1325).

Hugues II. (1326-1332).

Guillaume V. de Chanac (1332-1342).

Foulques II. (1342-1349).

Audoin Aubert (?).

Pierre III. de la Forêt (1350-1352).

Jean I. de Meulan (1352-1363).

Etienne IV. de Paris (1363-1368).

Aimeric de Maignac (1368-1384).

Pierre IV. d’Orgement (1384-1409).

Gérard de Montaigu (1409-1420).

Jean II. de Courte-Cuisse (1421-1422).

Jean III. de la Roche-Taillé (1422-1423).

Jean IV. de Nant (1423-1427).

Jacques de Chastelier (1427-1439).

Denis II. du Moulin (1439-1447).

Guillaume VI. Chartier (1447-1472).

Louis de Beaumont (1473-1492).

Gerard Gobaille (1494).

Jean V., Simon de Champigny (1494-1502).

Etienne V., Poncher (1503-1519).

François de Poncher (1519-1532).

Jean VI. de Bellay (1532-1551).

Eustache de Bellay (1551-1564).

Guillaume Viole (1564-1568).

Cardinal Pierre V. de Gondi (1568-1598).

Cardinal Henri de Gondi de Retz (1598-1622).


ARCHBISHOPS.

Paris was raised to the rank of an archbishopric on the demand of Louis
XIII. to Pope Gregory XV. (The Bull is dated Oct. 20th, 1622.)

1. Jean-François de Gondi (1622-1654). First Archbishop of Paris.
Buried in Notre Dame.

2. Jean-François-Paul de Gondi (Cardinal de Retz). Buried in
Saint-Denis (1654-1679).

3. Pierre VI. de Marca (_d._ 1662). Buried in Notre Dame.

4. Hardouin de Péréfix de Beaumont (_d._ 1671). Buried in Notre Dame.

5. François de Harlay de Champvallon (_d._ 1695). Buried in Notre Dame.

6. Louis-Antoine de Noailles. Cardinal (_d._ 1729). Buried in Notre
Dame.

7. Charles-Gaspard-Guillaume de Vintimille du Luc (_d._ 1746). Buried
in Notre Dame.

8. Jacques-Bonnet-Gigault de Bellefonds (_d._ 1746). Buried in Notre
Dame.

9. Christophe de Beaumont du Repaire (_d._ 1781). Buried in Notre Dame.

10. Antoine-Eléonore-Léon Le Clerc de Juigné de Neuchelle (_d._ 1811).
Buried in Notre Dame.

11. Jean-Baptiste de Belloy. Cardinal. Died, aged ninety-eight years
and eight months, in 1808, and buried in Notre Dame.

12. Alexandre-Angélique de Tallyrand-Perigord. Born 1736. Archbishop of
Reims 1776. Cardinal 1817; Died 1821.

13. Hyacinthe-Louis de Quélen. Born 1778. Bishop of Samosate 1817;
Archbishop of Paris 1821. Died 1839.

14. Denis III., Auguste Affre. Born 1793. Archbishop of Paris 1840.
Struck by a ball at the barricades in the Faubourg Saint-Antoine on
June 25th, 1848, and died two days later.

15. Marie-Dominique-Auguste Sibour. Born 1792. Bishop of Digue 1839;
Archbishop of Paris 1848. Was assassinated on Jan. 3rd, 1857, in the
church of Saint-Etienne du Mont by a priest. He had as auxiliary bishop
Léon-François Sibour.

16. François III., Nicolas-Madeleine Morlot. Born 1795. Bishop of
Orléans 1839; Archbishop of Tours 1842; Cardinal 1853; Archbishop of
Paris 1857. Died 1862.

17. Georges Darboy. Born 1813. Bishop of Nancy 1850; Archbishop of
Paris 1863. Arrested as a hostage by the Commune on April 4th, 1871,
and shot on May 27th.

18. Joseph-Hippolyte Guibert. Born 1802. Archbishop of Tours 1857;
Archbishop of Paris 1871; Cardinal 1873. Died 1886.

19. François-Marie-Benjamin Richard. Born 1819. Bishop of Belley
1871; Coadjutor of Archbishop Guibert 1875; Archbishop of Paris 1886.
Cardinal 1889.




INDEX


    Aisles, double, 22, 60

    Altar, high, 86

    Ambulatory, 76

    Apse, 22

    Archbishops, list of, 100-102


    Bells, 42

    Bishops, list of, 98-100

    Bishop’s Palace, 94, 98

    Buttress system, 44


    Chapels added, 8

       ”    of the choir, 90-93;
            of the nave, 66-69

    “Chimères,” 40

    Choir, 82; in the thirteenth century, 81

    Clerestory: nave, 64;
      transepts, 72

    Cloister, or Cloître, 8, 95

    Crypt, 86


    Darboy, Archbishop, statue of, 91

    Decoration, coloured mural, 66-68, 75

    “Devils of Notre Dame,” 20

    Dimensions of the cathedral, 56

    Doorways: west, 30-38;
      transepts, 48-53


    Flèche, 42


    Galerie des Rois, 39

    Garden, 96

    Glass, stained, 69, 89

    Gothic construction, 20

    Grille of choir, 82


    Historical events, 9-16

    Hospital (Hotel Dieu), 97

    Hugo, Victor, on Notre Dame (_see_ Notre Dame)


    Maurice de Sully, Bishop, first builder of the present church, 7

    Monuments in the nave, 64


    Napoleon I., coronation of, 14

    Notre Dame: early history of the church, 5-7;
      historical events in, 9-16;
      its place in French Gothic, 19;
      Victor Hugo on, 27-29, 40, 42

    “Notre Dame de Paris,” statue of, 72-75


    Organ, 64


    Parvis, Place du, 94, 97

    Piers of the nave, 58, 60

    Portail de la Ste. Vierge, 30

       ”    central, 34

       ”    Ste. Anne or St. Marcel, 33, 38

    Porte Rouge, 53

    Presbytère, 96


    Relics, 95, 96

    Revolution, the, 12

    Roman remains, 5, 86

    Roof, 42, 57

    Rose windows of transepts, 75


    Sacristy, 95

    St. Denis, 5; statue of, 75;
      chapel of, 90

    St. Marcel, statue of, 33, 38;
      shrine of, 76, 81;
      chapel of, 92

    Sanctuary, 81, 86

    Screen, sculptured, in choir, 77

    Stalls, choir, 85

    “Stryge, le,” 41


    Tombstones in the nave, 56

    Towers, 42

    Transepts, 22, 48, 72

    Treasury, 95

    Triforium, 62


    Vaulting, 57, 62


    West front, 7, 24, 28-42

    Windows, 46




  CHISWICK PRESS: PRINTED BY CHARLES WHITTINGHAM AND CO.
  TOOKS COURT, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON.




INTERNAL DIMENSIONS.


    Length (total)               390 feet.
      ”    of nave               225   ”
      ”    of transepts          144   ”
    Width of nave vault           39   ”
    Height of  ”   “             102   ”
       ”   ”  towers             204   ”
    Area                    54,050 sq. feet.




  [Illustration: PLAN OF THE CATHEDRAL OF NOTRE DAME, PARIS

   ENTRANCE TO THE TOWERS.

   1 2 3 4 5 6 7

   14 13 12 11 10 9 8

   50 40 30 20 10 0 50 100

   SCALE OF FEET.

     1. Chapelle des Fonts Baptismaux.
     2. Chapelle Saint-Charles.
     3.    ”     de la Sainte-Enfance.
     4.    ”     Saint-Vincent-de-Paul.
     5. Chapelle de Saint-François-Xavier.
     6. Chapelle de Saint-Landry.
     7.    ”     de Sainte-Clotilde.
     8. Chapelle de l’Annonciation.
     9.    ”     du Sacré Cœur.
    10.    ”     Sainte-Anne.
    11.    ”     Saint-Pierre.
    12.    ”     Saint-Joseph.
    13.    ”     Sainte-Geneviève.
    14.    ”     des Ames du Purgatoire.
    15. Statue of Notre Dame de Paris.

    A. Chapelle Saint-Martin.
    B.    ”     Saint-Ferdinand.
    C.    ”     Saint-Germain.
    D.    ”     Saint-Louis.
    E.    ”     Saint-Marcel.
    F.    ”     de N. D. des Sept Douleurs,
         _or_ du Petit Chœur.
    G. Chapelle Saint-Georges.
    H.    ”     Saint-Guillaume.
    I.    ”     Sainte-Madelaine.
    J.    ”     Saint-Denis.

   A.K.M^{o}RGAN. del:]




  [Illustration: _H. N. King, photo._]
                 WESTMINSTER. WALL ARCADE AND FRESCOES IN THE
                 CHAPTER-HOUSE]




BELL’S CATHEDRAL SERIES

_Post 8vo. Profusely Illustrated, 1s. 6d. net each_

    “This excellent series of Cathedral handbooks which have
    thoroughly established their reputation as guides to the
    archaeological, architectural, historical, and religious
    stories of our cathedrals.”--_Saturday Review._

Volumes on London Cathedrals & Churches


    =ST. PAUL’S CATHEDRAL.= An Account of the Old and New
      Buildings, with a short Historical Sketch. By the Rev.
      ARTHUR DIMOCK, M.A. Fourth Edition, Revised. With 38
      Illustrations and a Plan.

      “One of the richest volumes of Messrs. Bell’s ‘Cathedral
      Series.’ The study of the fabric is painstaking, and the
      details as to monuments will be found very helpful to a
      visitor.... The whole history is brought down to the present
      day.”--_London Quarterly Review._

      “The work is cleverly compiled, and the illustrations add not
      a little to its value as a souvenir to be treasured by those
      who visit the cathedral, not because it is one of the sights
      of London, but for the reason that they take an intelligent
      and reverential interest in that great monument of Wren’s
      genius.”--_City Press._


    =WESTMINSTER ABBEY.= By CHARLES HIATT. Third
      Edition. With 45 Illustrations and 2 Plans.

      “It has been compiled with great care from the best
      authorities, and is especially full on the monuments. Visitors
      could not have a better guide to the most famous of English
      minsters.”--_London Quarterly Review._

      “This excellent work is likely to become the most popular guide
      to Westminster Abbey. It supplies the need both of the student
      of architecture and the visitor to London, giving a capital
      _résumé_ of the history of the Abbey, with a well-written
      description of the building itself. The book is profusely
      illustrated.”--_Liverpool Mercury._


    =ST. SAVIOUR’S, SOUTHWARK.= By GEORGE WORLEY. With
      36 Illustrations and a Plan.

      “Mr. Worley’s painstaking description of the cathedral is the
      most complete that we have seen, and its value is increased by
      many good illustrations and a plan.”--_Manchester Guardian._

      “Those who wish to visit this Metropolitan Cathedral
      intelligently, and with personal profit, will do well to
      possess themselves with this reliable and interesting little
      handbook.”--_Builder._

      “An admirable example of careful work.”--_Gentleman’s Magazine._


    =ST. BARTHOLOMEW-THE-GREAT, SMITHFIELD.= A short History of the
      Foundation, and a Description of the Fabric, and also of the
       Church of St. Bartholomew-the-Less. By GEORGE WORLEY. With 42
      Illustrations and a Plan.

      “The author has made a conscientious study of the venerable
      Smithfield church, and has succeeded in presenting a thoroughly
      interesting account of this remarkable relic of the twelfth
      century.”--_Builder’s Journal._

      “Mr. Worley has treated his subject with skill, and produced a
      most readable volume.”--_Church Times._


    =THE TEMPLE CHURCH.= A Description of the Fabric and its Contents,
      with a short History of the Order. By GEORGE WORLEY. Second
      Edition, Revised. With 31 Illustrations and a Plan.

      “A short and excellent account of the church of the Knights
      Templars in London, prefaced by a brief history of the Order.
      Nothing has been forgotten that the curious might reasonably
      want to know.... To any one interested, such an excellent
      handbook as this, with its lucid explanations, plans,
      photographs, and technical information of the very best, is
      indispensable.”--_Spectator._

  [Illustration: _Photo._]      [_Photochrom Co._
                 SOUTHWARK CATHEDRAL FROM THE EAST]

  BELL’S CATHEDRAL SERIES—_continued_
  _1s. 6d. net each_

    BANGOR. By P. B. IRONSIDE BAX.

    BRISTOL. By H. J. L. J. MASSÉ, M.A. 2nd Edition.

    CANTERBURY. By HARTLEY WITHERS. 6th Edition.

    CARLISLE. By C. K. ELEY. 2nd Edition.

    CHESTER. By CHARLES HIATT. 4th Edition.

    CHICHESTER. By H. C. CORLETTE, A.R.I.B.A. 3rd Edition.

    DURHAM. By J. E. BYGATE, A.R.C.A. 4th Edition.

    ELY. By REV. W. D. SWEETING, M.A. 3rd Edition.

    EXETER. By PERCY ADDLESHAW, B.A. 4th Edition, revised.

    GLOUCESTER. By H. J. L. J. MASSÉ, M.A. 5th Edition.

    HEREFORD. By A. HUGH FISHER, A.R.E. 2nd Edition,
      revised.

    LICHFIELD. By A. B. CLIFTON. 3rd Edition, revised.

    LINCOLN. By A. F. KENDRICK, B.A. 5th Edition.

    LLANDAFF. By E. C. MORGAN WILLMOTT, A.R.I.B.A.

    MANCHESTER. By the REV. T. PERKINS, M.A.

    NORWICH. By C. H. B. QUENNELL. 2nd Edition, revised.

    OXFORD. By the REV. PERCY DEARMER, M.A. 2nd Edition,
      revised.

    PETERBOROUGH. By the REV. W. D. SWEETING, M.A. 4th
      Edition.

    RIPON. By CECIL HALLETT, B.A. 2nd Edition.

    ROCHESTER. By G. H. PALMER, B.A. 2nd Edition, revised.

    ST. ALBANS. By the REV. T. PERKINS, M.A.

    ST. ASAPH. By P. B. IRONSIDE BAX.

    ST. DAVID’S. By PHILIP A. ROBSON, A.R.I.B.A. 2nd
      Edition.

    ST. PATRICK’S, DUBLIN. By the VERY REV. J. H. BERNARD,
      M.A., D.D. 2nd Edition.

    SALISBURY. By GLEESON WHITE. 5th Edition.

    SOUTHWELL. By the REV. ARTHUR DIMOCK, M.A. 2nd
      Edition, revised.

    WELLS. By the REV. PERCY DEARMER, M.A. 5th Edition.

    WINCHESTER. By P. W. SERGEANT. 4th Edition, revised.

    WORCESTER. By E. F. STRANGE. 3rd Edition.

    YORK. By A. CLUTTON BROCK. 5th Edition.

    AN ITINERARY OF ENGLISH CATHEDRALS FOR THE USE OF TRAVELLERS.
      By JAMES G. GILCHRIST, A.M., M.D., and the REV. T.
      PERKINS, M.A., F.R.A.S. 2nd Edition, revised.


_Uniform with above Series, 1s. 6d. net each_

    BATH ABBEY, MALMESBURY ABBEY, AND BRADFORD-ON-AVON CHURCH. By
      the REV. T. PERKINS, M.A.

    BEVERLEY MINSTER. By CHARLES HIATT. 3rd Edition.

    ST. MARTIN’S CHURCH, CANTERBURY. By the REV. CANON C. F.
      ROUTLEDGE. 2nd Edition.

    ROMSEY ABBEY. By the REV. T. PERKINS, M.A.

    STRATFORD-ON-AVON CHURCH. By HAROLD BAKER. 2nd Edition.

    TEWKESBURY ABBEY. By H. J. L. J. MASSÉ, M.A. 4th
      Edition.

    WIMBORNE MINSTER and CHRISTCHURCH PRIORY. By the REV. T.
      PERKINS, M.A. 2nd Edition.

    THE CHURCHES OF COVENTRY. By FREDERICK W. WOODHOUSE.

    MALVERN PRIORY. By the REV. ANTHONY C. DEANE.
                                              [_In preparation._

  LONDON: G. BELL AND SONS, LTD.
  YORK HOUSE, PORTUGAL STREET, KINGSWAY, W.C.




Transcriber’s Note:

Punctuation has been standardised; hyphenation retained as it appears
in the original publication.

Changes have been made as follows:

    Page 4
      that our own proud Minster _changed to_
      than our own proud Minster

    Page 7
      Description de Notre-Dame, Cathédral de Paris _changed to_
      Description de Notre-Dame, Cathédrale de Paris

    Page 10
      se mit A genoux et fit _changed to_
      se mit à genoux et fit

    Page 13
      music by Gossee _changed to_
      music by Gossec

    Page 14
      parfaite à la moinde des actions _changed to_
      parfaite à la moindre des actions

    Page 15
      apres avoir reçu _changed to_
      après avoir reçu

      douce et legère _changed to_
      douce et légère

    Page 19
      mere decorative idiosyncracy _changed to_
      mere decorative idiosyncrasy

    Page 20
      Ths choir was begun _changed to_
      The choir was begun

    Page 40
      _Chimères or “Devils of Notre Dame_.” _changed to_
      _Chimères_ or “_Devils of Notre Dame_.”

      was in its decadance _changed to_
      was in its decadence

    Page 41
      ONE OF THE CHIMAERAS OF NOTRE DAME _changed to_
      ONE OF THE CHIMÈRAS OF NOTRE DAME

    Page 42
      which was irrevently compared _changed to_
      which was irreverently compared

    Page 52
      TYMPANIUM OF THE NORTH TRANSEPT DOORWAY _changed to_
      TYMPANUM OF THE NORTH TRANSEPT DOORWAY

    Page 53
      Near the _Port Rouge_ _changed to_
      Near the _Porte Rouge_

    Page 65
      in the cathedrall church _changed to_
      in the cathedral church

    Page 67
      Il en résultei nstinctivement pour _changed to_
      Il en résulte instinctivement pour

    Page 78
      Notre Dame par Vespace XXV _changed to_
      Notre Dame par l’espace XXV

    Page 89
      by Antoine Coyevox _changed to_
      by Antoine Coysevox

    Page 90
      Archbishop Sibor, who was murdered _changed to_
      Archbishop Sibour, who was murdered

    Page 92
      Archbishop Leclercq de Juigné _changed to_
      Archbishop Leclerc de Juigné

    Page 95
      The =Cloîture= or Cloister of Notre Dame was on
      The =Cloître= or Cloister of Notre Dame was on

    Page 96
      church of St. Germain des Près _changed to_
      church of St. Germain des Prés

      dull houses of the Rue du Cloîture Notre-Dame _changed to_
      dull houses of the Rue du Cloître Notre-Dame

    Page 99
      Barthélemy (1223-1227) _changed to_
      Barthélémy (1223-1227)

    Page 105
      Cloister, or Cloiture _changed to_
      Cloister, or Cloître