DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.29899#0086
66
FRENCH ARCHITECTURE.
Pabt II.
magnificence to which the church of St. Front can lay no claim. The
five cupolas are of nearly the same size, ancl are similarly placed, in both
churches ; ancl the general similarity of arrangement points certainly
to an identity of origin. Both too would seem to be of about the same
age, ancl there is now some reason to cloubt the data on which M. Félix
de Vemeilh 1 arrived at the conclusion that the church we now see
was erected in the very beginning of the llth century. There is,
however, one striking difference—that all the constructive arches in
St. Front are pointed, while those of St. Mai-k’s are rounch The form
too of the cupolas differs ; ancl in St. Front the piers that support the
domes, having been found too weak, have been cased to strengthen
them, which gives them an awkward appearance, from which St. Mark’s
is free. The difference that would strike a traveller most is, that St.
Mark’s retains its frescoes and decorations, while St. Front, like alrnost
all the churches of its age, presents nothing now but naked bare walls,
though there cannot be a doubt that it was originally painted. This
indeed was the legitimate ancl appropriate mocle of decoration of all
the churches of this age, till it was in a great measure superseded by
the invention of painted glass.
The cupolas are at the present day covered with a wooden roof ;
but their original appearance is represented with tolerable correctness
in the woodcut No. 563, which, though not so graceful as Eastern
domes usually are, are still a far more picturesque and permanent
finishing for a roof than the wooden structures of the more FTorthern
races. Its present internal appearance, from the causes above men-
tioned, is singularly bare and gloomy, and no cloubt utterly unworthy
of its pristine splendour.
The tower stands at the intersection between the old and new
1 M. Verneilh, in his work “ Archi-
tecture Byzantine en France,” 4to, Paris,
1851, based his arguments chiefly on the
supposition that it was copied from St.
Mark’s, Venice. The discoveries to which
we have already referred (p. 530, vol. I.)
prove that the latter was not built till
1063-71, so that it follows that a rnuch
later date must be given to St. Front, un-
less the latter be, like St. Mark’s, a copy
of the church of the Apostles at Constan-
tinople. Against this supposition there
remains the fact that the churches
of St. Mark, Venice, and St. Front,
Pe'rigueux, are identical iu tlieir dimen-
sions if we replace Italian feet by French
fect. There is also a record quoted by
Mr. Gailhabaud that the original church
of St. Front was destroyed by fire in
1120 ; but the existing church is entirely
built in incombustible material, and there-
fore it would seem to be more probable
that a much later date, viz. 1120-1140,
must be given to it. It should however
be taken into account that St. Front is
generally accepted as the protot.ype of
all the domed churches in France, so
that if any of its successors could be
proved to have an earlier date our
argument would fall to the ground. So
far as the architeetural details of the
church are concerned they have rnore the
character of the 12th than of the llth
century, and the introduction of the
pointed arch at so early a date seems
improbable, except so far as the pointed
barrel vault is concerned, the necessity
for wliich was poinled out on page 46.
FRENCH ARCHITECTURE.
Pabt II.
magnificence to which the church of St. Front can lay no claim. The
five cupolas are of nearly the same size, ancl are similarly placed, in both
churches ; ancl the general similarity of arrangement points certainly
to an identity of origin. Both too would seem to be of about the same
age, ancl there is now some reason to cloubt the data on which M. Félix
de Vemeilh 1 arrived at the conclusion that the church we now see
was erected in the very beginning of the llth century. There is,
however, one striking difference—that all the constructive arches in
St. Front are pointed, while those of St. Mai-k’s are rounch The form
too of the cupolas differs ; ancl in St. Front the piers that support the
domes, having been found too weak, have been cased to strengthen
them, which gives them an awkward appearance, from which St. Mark’s
is free. The difference that would strike a traveller most is, that St.
Mark’s retains its frescoes and decorations, while St. Front, like alrnost
all the churches of its age, presents nothing now but naked bare walls,
though there cannot be a doubt that it was originally painted. This
indeed was the legitimate ancl appropriate mocle of decoration of all
the churches of this age, till it was in a great measure superseded by
the invention of painted glass.
The cupolas are at the present day covered with a wooden roof ;
but their original appearance is represented with tolerable correctness
in the woodcut No. 563, which, though not so graceful as Eastern
domes usually are, are still a far more picturesque and permanent
finishing for a roof than the wooden structures of the more FTorthern
races. Its present internal appearance, from the causes above men-
tioned, is singularly bare and gloomy, and no cloubt utterly unworthy
of its pristine splendour.
The tower stands at the intersection between the old and new
1 M. Verneilh, in his work “ Archi-
tecture Byzantine en France,” 4to, Paris,
1851, based his arguments chiefly on the
supposition that it was copied from St.
Mark’s, Venice. The discoveries to which
we have already referred (p. 530, vol. I.)
prove that the latter was not built till
1063-71, so that it follows that a rnuch
later date must be given to St. Front, un-
less the latter be, like St. Mark’s, a copy
of the church of the Apostles at Constan-
tinople. Against this supposition there
remains the fact that the churches
of St. Mark, Venice, and St. Front,
Pe'rigueux, are identical iu tlieir dimen-
sions if we replace Italian feet by French
fect. There is also a record quoted by
Mr. Gailhabaud that the original church
of St. Front was destroyed by fire in
1120 ; but the existing church is entirely
built in incombustible material, and there-
fore it would seem to be more probable
that a much later date, viz. 1120-1140,
must be given to it. It should however
be taken into account that St. Front is
generally accepted as the protot.ype of
all the domed churches in France, so
that if any of its successors could be
proved to have an earlier date our
argument would fall to the ground. So
far as the architeetural details of the
church are concerned they have rnore the
character of the 12th than of the llth
century, and the introduction of the
pointed arch at so early a date seems
improbable, except so far as the pointed
barrel vault is concerned, the necessity
for wliich was poinled out on page 46.