And if we climb higher in the cathedral, without pausing to note a
thousand barbarous acts of every kind, what has become of that delightful
little steeple which rested upon the point of intersection of the
transept, and which, no less fragile and no less daring than its neighbor,
the spire of the Sainte-Chapelle, (also destroyed), rose yet nearer heaven
than the towers, slender, sharp, sonorous, and daintily wrought?
An architect of good taste (1787) amputated it, and thought it quite
enough to cover the wound with that large leaden plaster which looks like
the lid of a stewpan. Thus was the marvelous art of the Middle Ages
treated in almost every land, but particularly in France. We find three
sorts of injury upon its ruins, these three marring it to different
depths; first, Time, which has made insensible breaches here and there,
mildewed and rusted the surface everywhere; then, political and religious
revolutions, which, blind and fierce by nature, fell furiously upon it,
rent its rich array of sculpture and carving, shivered its rose-windows,
shattered its necklaces of arabesques and quaint figures, tore down its
statues--sometimes because of their crown; lastly, changing fashion, even
more grotesque and absurd, from the anarchic and splendid deviations of
the Renaissance down to the necessary decline of architecture.
Fashion did more than revolutions. Fashion cut into the living flesh,
attacked the very skeleton and framework of art; it chopped and hewed,
dismembered, slew the edifice, in its form as well as in its symbolism, in
its logic no less than in its beauty. But fashion restored, a thing which
neither time nor revolution ever pretended to do. Fashion, on the plea of
"good taste," impudently adapted to the wounds of Gothic architecture the
paltry gewgaws of a day,--marble ribbons, metallic plumes, a veritable
leprosy of egg-shaped moldings, of volutes, wreaths, draperies, spirals,
fringes, stone flames, bronze clouds, lusty cupids, and bloated cherubs,
which began to ravage the face of art in the oratory of Catherine de
Medici, and destroyed it, two centuries later, tortured and distorted, in
the Dubarry's boudoir.
There are thus, to sum up the points to which we have alluded, three sorts
of scars now disfiguring Gothic architecture; wrinkles and warts upon the
epidermis--these are the work of time; wounds, brutal injuries, bruises,
and fractures--these are the work of revolution, from Luther to Mirabeau;
mutilations, amputations, dislocations of the frame, "restorations,"--
these are the Greek, Roman barbaric work of professors according to
Vitruvius and Vignole. Academies have murdered the magnificent art which
the Vandals produced. To centuries, to revolutions which at least laid
waste with impartiality and grandeur, are conjoined the host of scholastic
architects, licensed and sworn, degrading all they touch with the
discernment and selection of bad taste, substituting the tinsel of Louis
XV. for Gothic lace-work, for the greater glory of the Parthenon. This is
the donkey's kick at the dying lion. It is the old oak, decaying at the
crown, pierced, bitten and devoured by caterpillars.
How different from the time when Robert Cenalis, comparing Notre Dame at
Paris to the famous temple of Diana at Ephesus; "so loudly boasted by the
ancient pagans," which immortalized Herostratus, held the cathedral of the
Gauls to be "more excellent in length, breadth, height, and structure!"
Notre Dame at Paris is not, however, what can be called a complete,
definite monument, belonging to a class. It is neither a Roman nor a
Gothic church. The edifice is not a typical one. It has not, like the
abbey at Tournus, the sober massive breadth, the round expansive arch, the