QLD BRIDGES OF FRANCE GETTY RESEARCH INSTITUTE AN NNUAL 3 3125 01047 7863 OLD BRIDGES OF FRANCE Let us respect our old bridges : some of them have been ruined by being widened. It is an evil deed to destroy a monument, the fruit of the labors of our fathers. It belittles us. We should respect those monuments thal have endured through the ages, especially in our own land. Let us be faithful to the Past, which is the foun- dation of the Present and the guarantee of the Future. Let us protect from the vandals our old bridges, our old churches, all of our old France. Preeteriti fides spes futuri. (P. SksourRNE) One thousand numbered copies of this book have been made Printed in France WILLIAM EMERSON AND GEORGES GROMORT OLD BRIDGE OF FRANCE PREFACE BY M. VICTOR LALOUX MEMBRE DE L’INSTITUT A SERIES OF HISTORICAL EXAMPLES FROM ROMAN TIMES TO THE END OF THE XVIII"? CENTURY. WITH AN EXPLANATORY AND DESCRIPTIVE TEXT, 24 REPRODUCTIONS IN COLOR FROM THE ORIGINAL WATERCOLORS BY PIERRE VIGNAL, 35 BLACK AND WHITE DRAWINGS BY LOUIS C. ROSENBERG & SAMUEL CHAMBERLAIN, 44, MEASURED DRAWINGS, PHOTOGRAPHS, DIAGRAMS AND MAPS. PUBLISHED BY THE PRESS OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS 950 West 57™ STREET, NEwW-YoRK MCMXXV } Iq1y LY Fara a0 FHL PREFACE Mes CHers Amis, Vous ne sauriez évidemment mettre en doute le plaisir que je puis avoir a présenter au public un ouvrage dt a la collaboration de deux de mes anciens éléves. Vous ne doutez pas davantage, je suppose, que ce plaisir soit dune qualité particuliére si l'ouvrage dont il s'agit aborde une question vraiment intéressante, et si la facon dont il est présenté et traité limpose d’emblée 4 notre attention. Il semble bien que l’abondant recueil de relevés, de notes, d’aquarelles et de dessins que vous consacrez aujourd'hui aux vieux ponts de la France possede en plus une qualité fort appreciable : celle de combler une lacune, assez surprenante en vérité mais trés réelle, puisque les architectes, qui nous ont donné tant de monographies remarquables, se sont un peu désintéressés des ponts; il n’est pas mauvais que deux de nos confréres se soient plu a réunir pour nous une si riche collection de documents et 4 nous rappeler ainsi combien la noblesse des lignes de quelques-uns des grands ouvrages qu'ils nous présentent peut ajouter de dignité a certaines perspectives, comme celle de la pointe du Vert-Galant, ou de réelle beauté a un paysage comme celui de la vallée du Gard, quand on la voit barrée, au-dessus de Remoulins, par la masse formidable du vieil aqueduc romain. Ce n’est pas, on le concoit sans peine, qu'on manque d’ouvrages purement techniques sur la question. Des traités extrémement complets sur la construction des ponts ont été publiés par des ingénieurs distingués. On retrouve constam- ment, au cours de votre texte, les noms de MM. Morandiére et Séjourné — et plus souvent encore celui de M. de Dartein, dont le recueil si complet sur les ponts en pierre fait incontestablement autorité. Mais bien que cet ouvrage ait été concu avec une belle largeur d’esprit, bien que l’auteur se soit volontai- rement limité a l'étude des ponts “remarquables par leur décoration”, il s'agit cependant, la encore, d'un livre qui vise plus 4 compléter l'éducation des ingénieurs, a éveiller chez eux la notion du sentiment esthétique, — qu’a intéresser les architectes et les simples amateurs en leur montrant, sous une forme attrayante, des compositions ot ils seront surpris de rencontrer parfois un tel souci et une telle impression de beauté la ou, peut-étre, au premier abord, ils n’imaginaient trouver que la solution toute séche d'un probléme de résistance des matériaux. Il n'y a pas la, si nous voulons y songer, de quoi nous surprendre gran- dement. Ce qui, de prés ou de loin, se rattache a l’architecture n’en est-il pas toujours un peu 1a? Est-il un seul probleme constructif que le talent de l’artiste ne puisse 4 un moment donné, élargir et embellir au point de nous émouvoir profondément? On ne saurait sen convaincre mieux qu’en feuilletant cette série d’aquarelles charmantes qui donnent une telle saveur 4 votre recueil et ot le talent d'un Vignal a fixé si plaisamment des aspects si divers de notre pays, ou quen examinant avec lintérét quils méritent ces prodigieux crayons de M. Rosenberg et de M. Chamberlain, spirituels et expressifs jusqu’a la derniére hachure, ot l’architecture s’affirme et se précise avec une si incroyable simplicité de moyens. Le texte et les géométraux, qui constituent la substance de louvrage et qui sont votre part a vous, me paraissent constituer un ensemble de rensei- gnements amplement suffisant pour documenter tous ceux qui sont susceptibles de sintéresser aux ponts, sans vouloir aborder pour cela l'étude de la stabilité des votites et le cété purement technique de leur construction. Les notes historiques et descriptives nous apprennent ce que nous désirons savoir, sans que le point qui nous intéresse y disparaisse (comme il arrive si souvent) sous une accumulation de données fastidieuses : écrit par deux architectes, votre livre s'adresse d'abord a nos confréres; mais on y sent aussi la préoccu- pation constante de dévoiler aux amateurs, et sans doute aussi aux touristes étrangers et francais, des beautés quils ne saviseraient peut-étre pas de découvrir dans des villes de second ordre, situées a l’écart des grands chemins. Si votre ouvrage peut engager quelques artistes 4 visiter des villes telles que Cahors ou qu’Albi, ou a parcourir les régions du Languedoc et de la Provence ou vous signalez tant de ponts intéressants, sans doute n’aurez-vous perdu déja ni votre temps ni votre peine et l'un des buts que vous pouviez vous proposer se trouvera-t-il pleinement atteint. ee es Il vous est permis d’ailleurs d’espérer mieux. Car, imposants ou modestes, la plupart des monuments dont vous nous entretenez ont pour nous la valeur d'un enseignement précieux : la conscience, le talent et le gout dont un homme comme le bourguignon Gauthey a su témoigner dans l’exécution de simples ponceaux (ceux par exemple que vous nous signalez dans la banlieue d’Auxerre et de Chalon) montrent, mieux que tous les raisonnements théoriques, que le caractére purement utilitaire d'un programme n'iimpose nullement au cons- tructeur l’indifférence ou la vulgarité. C’est 1a une vérité que vous et moi, mes chers amis, nous ne sommes pas les seuls 4 connaitre — fort heureusement — mais qu'il n’est pas mauvais de mettre en évidence de temps a autre par des publications comme celle-ci, A une époque aussi hésitante que la ndétre ou trop constamment le vrai et utile, du fait des nécessités matérielles, semblent prendre le pas sur le Beau. “) V. LALOUX. Paris, 1° décembre 1924. (1) My dear Friends, You certainly can have no doubt of the pleasure that I take in presenting to the public a work which it owes to the collaboration of two of my former pupils. Neither can you doubt that this pleasure is the greater since the work in question treats a subject of genuine interest, presented and handled in such a manner as to at once arrest one’s attention. It seems indeed that the abundant accumulation of extracts, of notes, of watercolors and of sketches that you devote to the old bridges of France possesses besides a very particular quality, namely that of filling a gap, — a rather surprising, but very real one. Inasmuch as the architects, who have given us so many remarkable monographs, have taken no special interest in bridges, it is well that two of our confréres have been pleased to gather for us so rich a collection of documents, and to remind us in this way how the noble lines of some of the great works which they present add to the dignity of certain views, such as the point of the Vert-Galant, or to the beauty of certain landscapes such as that of the Valley of the Gard seen from above Remoulins, crossed by the formidable mass of the old Roman aqueduct. Technical works on the subject of bridges are of course not lacking ; in fact, extremely complete treatises on their construction have been published by distinguished engineers. In the course of your text the names of Messrs. Morandiére and Sejourné constantly appear, and still oftener that of Mr. de Dartein whose conscientious study of stone bridges is positively authoritative. But though this work has been conceived in a fine, broad spirit, and though the author has chosen to limit himself to the study of bridges ‘ remarkable for their decoration ”, we have in your book one which may serve to complete the education of engineers, to arouse in them the idea of aesthetic feeling even more than to inspire architects, or to interest mere amateurs by showing them, under an attractive form, compositions in which they will be surprised to find the expression of beauty when perhaps, at first sight, they had expected only the dry solution of the problems of resistance of materials. Perhaps is there nothing surprising in this : for does not the very essence of architecture, whether we are intimately or only generally acquainted with it, lie in this haunting quality of beauty ? Is there a single constructive problem that the talent of the designer cannot, at a given moment, develop and embellish to the point of pro- foundly moying us? No more conyincing evidence of this could be found than in turning the leaves of this series of charming watercolors which impart such zest to your collection, where the talent of a Vignal has so pleasingly recorded the many aspects of our country; or in examining with the interest they merit the amazing sketches of Mr. Rosenberg and Mr. Chamberlain, sensitive and expressive to the last stroke of the archi- tecture which they interpret in such an astonishingly simple manner. ree The text and the geometrical drawings which constitute the substance of the work, and which are your special contribution, appear to me an amply sufficient assemblage of information to direct those who are alive to the interest of bridges, but who do not care to enter upon a study of the stability of vaults or of the purely technical side of their construction. The historical and descriptive notes tell us what we desire to know, without allowing the point which interests us to be lost (as so often happens) under an accumulation of tiresome details. Written as it is by two architects, your book appeals at once to our confréres; but one feels also its constant intention to reveal to the amateur and, doubtless, also to the traveler, whether foreign or French, beauties which, being hidden in the smaller towns far from the more trayelled roads, would otherwise escape him. If your work does no more than persuade some artists to visit towns like Cahors or Albi, or to roam through the regions of Languedoc and Provence, where you note so many bridges of interest, you will doubtless feel that neither your time nor trouble was wasted, and that at least one of the objects you may have had in mind is fully attained. You may allow yourselves a still further hope, for the greater part of the monuments, whether imposing or modest, which you describe, has for us architects the value of a precious instruction. The conscience, talent and taste which a man like the Burgundian Gauthey has brought to the solution of the most elementary bridge- problems such, for example, as those you mention in the suburbs of Auxerre and of Chalon, show better than any mere theorizings that the purely utilitarian character of a programme imposes upon the constructor neither indifference nor vulgarity. This is a truth that you and I, my dear friends, are most fortunately not the only ones to recognize, but which it is well to bring to light from time to time by such a publication as this, particu- larly at so uncertain a time as ours, when all too frequently hard facts and mere utility, owing to the pressure of material needs, seem to take precedence of pure beauty. Welln : ae <_< errs a Pe Ee OF I Cail Nt ola 2 ae ~ = a THE BRIDGE AT SOSPEL INTRODUCTION A just appreciation of these old bridges of France depends upon a reco- gnition of the personality or individuality of each structure, aside from the particular character that each builder gave to his design. Just as the faces of those whom we love have been affected by the experiences through which they have passed, so have the history, surroundings, materials and the very nature of the rivers that they span, combined to express in the battered piers, well worn road-beds, and much repaired arches of these bridges, the same qualities that one learns to read in the lines and features of well known faces. These bridges remain one of the great, if little known, glories of a country which is already famous for its wealth of other architectural material. Modern traffic requirements, both as to quantity and quality, have combined with the staggering burdens that the Great War imposed on the national government, to make the maintenance of these old masterpieces a serious problem from the point of view of practicability as well as from that of art. That they should be perpetuated at least in drawings is the purpose of the authors, believing them to be of sufficient interest to appeal to many who are without the professional training of architects or engineers, to whom the following comments are particularly addressed. The bridge, as a problem in design, would seem at first glance to offer little opportunity for either great variety or great originality. Even a cursory investigation, however, shows us that few subjects with such simple elements offer so wide a variety of solutions, or so fine an opportunity to study compo- sition at a truly monumental scale. The masonry bridge is essentially an architectural problem. More is the pity, therefore, that so few architects take an active interest in what constitutes so tempting an opportunity. But if, alas, they are not designing bridges, they can at least appreciate the graceful curve and vigorous silhouette of these soaring arches, which seem, in many instances, to be the very spirit of the towns in which they dwell. They can also recognize that bridge and river alike combine with the town to emphasize its importance, and add to its ZG beauty. What would Venice be without its Canale and its Rialto, or Florence without the turbid Arno, the Ponte Vecchio and the handsome Ammanati bridge? Rome, indeed, would not be Rome without the venerable Tiber spanned by its fine old bridges. France makes no claim to bridges of such singular renown, but she may justly take pride in a considerable number that are of unusual interest. These show great diversity in both style and design ; they are the product of twenty centuries of history, and among them are some that may be considered the very finest of their kind. For instance, while Italy has a wealth of fine old aqueducts, she has nothing that compares, in our opinion, with the glorious arches of the Pont du Gard. The fortified bridge at Verona, impressive though it is in mass and color, must yield to the really classic charm and rare simplicity of the bridge at Cahors. The French Renaissance produced somewhat less remarkable structures; in fact, it was not until nearly two hundred years later that anything comparable with the progress shown in the bridge of the Trinity at Florence appeared in France. Nevertheless, a series of bridges was built in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries that perfectly expressed the characteristic architectural features of this brilliant period; and there can be no doubt that the bridges of Gauthey and Perronet in this period would have been worthy of high praise at any time in the history of art. In fact these two great builders belonged to that group of scientists that later produced Léonce Reynaud, and in our own time M. de Dartein, men whose familiarity with mathematics seems to have only enhanced their appreciation of beauty, and who personified to a high degree that nice balance of qualities so charac- teristic of the French scientist. These qualities are expressed in one instance by a work, of particular interest in these days of reinforced concrete, devoted to those bridges “that are distinguished by their decoration;” and, in the other, by a treatise on architecture which, in spite of changing fashions, remains one of the best that has yet been written. Practical necessities, aside from any consideration of beauty, are even more exacting in bridge building than in other architectural problems. Indeed, it is often in the satisfying of these tyrannical requirements that we find the very essence of our problem: in truly meeting the pratical we thus discover the beautiful. We recognise that, as civilization became more complex, the bridge gradually ceased to be merely a means of carrying a road from bank to bank. It became rather the means by which two traffic currents should cross one another, one by the roadway above, the other by the river beneath. It is the total opening for the latter, the free-way, that remains in most instances the controlling element of the problem, the element to which all others are subsidiary. If this free-way is inadequate the bridge becomes an obstruction : at the first flood the waters, finding insufficient exit, overflow the banks; the current will at the same time become so rapid that navigation is dangerous. If, on the other hand, the free-way is excessive, other incon- THE BRIDGE AT SOSP FROM THE SKETCH BY LOUIS C. ROSENBERG. veniences result : arches of wider span are both difficult and expensive to build; and an excessive free-way means a sluggish current which, in turn, results in a shallower river-bed because of the resulting deposits”. From this angle, our quondam simple problem begins to look compli- cated. But an exact knowledge of the maximum volume of water at flood, together with a correct gauge of the swiftness of the current, will enable us to determine the required free-way, and thus decide the number of piers and arches that should compose the bridge. Judged from the point of view of navigation alone, the fewer piers the better, but, as stated above, both cost and difficulty of execution enter into the question; for the fewer the piers, the larger the arches, and correspondingly the higher the roadway of the bridge above the level of the river. This latter question is again affected by (1) The reader is referred to Léonce Raynaud. (Traité d’Archilecture, 24 Vol., 34 Part.). — i} the height of the banks. As extreme examples of alternative possibilities, compare the bridge at Céret, its road-way 30 meters above the stream, with that at Airvault where it is only six. This same question of the free-way is one of the determining conside- rations in the choice of the curve for the arches. We may well agree that in most instances the semicircular arch gives us not only the simplest but also the most agreeable solution. Indeed, even though the arches of the bridge of Ammanati, to which we have already referred, are very much flattened, and though there are undoubtedly many other handsome structures where either the pointed or the three-centered arch is employed to advantage, still those that utilize the semicircle thereby attain with the least effort a monumental quality that the others achieve only with difficulty. The semicircle has the obvious disadvantage of reducing the free-way as the level of the water rises, — the reverse of the ideal — a disadvantage that is appreciably lessened, though not entirely eliminated, in the three-centered arch. Segmental arches, such as those of the Ponte Vecchio at Florence, or the Pont de la Concorde at Paris, are ideal from the standpoint of the free-way, but their relation to the vertical lines of the piers is so abrupt as to be almost brutal, and detracts from the charm of these structures. The designs of Perronet, the author of the Pont de la Concorde, are so carefully computed that there can be no anxiety as to their solidity, but it might be generally noted that where the arches are so lowered as to be little more than flat vaults, thus giving a practically constant free-way, no matter what the level of the stream, there is a real risk both as to the satisfactory execution and the apparent stability of the bridge. The difficulties resulting from the use of flattened arches have been the subject of much study. The funnel shaped corne de vache, with a greater span but the same rise as the main arch, is one of the expedients resorted to to overcome this defect. Perronet is perhaps the most forthstanding exponent of the flattened, or segmental, arch in bridge construction, as seen in the bridge at Neuilly on the Seine. A still further application of this idea, as seen in a bridge at St. Dié on the Meurthe"’, is probably the most complete expression of this conception. It gives the impression, at least, of a road-way supported on an absolutely flat vault between vertical piers. Among many methods that were used in an effort to overcome the difficulties resulting from the use of flattened arches, was the employment of two-centered or pointed arches. This had one good result even when the segments used were very flat, in that the arch stones, where the curves met, were at a more marked angle with the keystone than, say, in a three-centered arch, and the (1) This bridge, designed by Lecreux in 1785, was not built until during the Empire. See diagram p. 17. =24(9. 5 homogeneity of the arch was correspondingly improved. The bridge of the Trinity at Florence best expresses this method. At different periods during the 2000 years covered by our bridges, interest was centered on different features of the building problem. The problem of the free-way, in its relation to the type and span of the arches, was apparently not studied with scientific thouroughness until the XVIII century. In the Roman period, no hesitation whatever was shown to put in as many arches and piers as seemed best, even on a river like the Tiber, whose sudden floods call for such special precautions ; as in their architecture so in their bridges, the semicircular arch prevails. A recognition of its obvious disadvantages, as indicated above, appears in the bridge of Fabricius on the Tiber, where additional openings appear in the abutments and in the central pier. This device, which only inadequately provided additional outlet for flood waters, nevertheless brought about the use of such features both as arches“ and as oval or circular openings”) in many bridges that were built later. In the Middle Ages, as in the Roman period, the river-way was frequently crowded with a quantity of piers; in place of the semicircular arch, we find the builders largely using a two-centered or pointed arch. This form of the arch necessitates a relatively slight span and therefore many piers, unless it is permissible to raise the road-way to a considerable height. So at this period, as well as in the earlier one, navigation not having become an important consideration, solidity of construction, rather than an accurate computation of the necessary free-way, was counted on to resist the force of high floods. The Renaissance brought little progress of note; only in Florence, as we have seen, was an effective effort made at the time, in the Ponte Vecchio and the bridge of Ammanati, to correct the defects of the older types of construction by the use of three-centered and segmental arches ©, Gauthey frequently used semicircular arches in his bridges in Burgundy, so that it was not until Perronet undertook a full and final study of the whole subject that anything in the nature of recognition of the modern needs of free-way in relation to navigation was forthcoming. As late as 1832, in fact, the central arch of the Pont de la Concorde was referred to as the most daring construction created up to that time’. So thorough and exhaustive were Perronet’s studies that there seemed nothing left to say or do in masonry bridges. Just at this moment a new toy appeared — the iron bridge. Although for a time it seemed as if iron would entirely replace stone, yet with the passing (1) See the bridges of Sommiéres, Montauban, Avignon. (2) See the bridge of Echavannes, Chalon-sur-Sadne. (3) To be exact, the curves of the work of Ammanati are formed at their extrados of pointed arches that is very flat two centered arches. (4) Prony. Notice on Perronet read at the Institute. = 10 = of the years and a recognition of the amazing possibilities of reinforced concrete, the pendulum is swinging back, and there seems little likelihood that iron will ever be used to the exclusion of stone. The process of selecting the most typical or interesting bridges, from the mass of material at our disposal, resulted in the discovery that those chosen were readily grouped both chronologically and geographically. This is rather Fn SAK, ea Neal Rare phn th THE BRIDG AIRVAULT IL SKETCH BY LOUIS C. ROSENBERG. FROM THE curious, for bridges were built almost everywhere, and it is somewhat difficult to explain why the results should be so much more striking in some places than in others. Chronologically, the first period is that of the Romans, beginning with the early years of Christianity. There were many bridges built at this time, and some of them still exist in a sufficiently perfect condition to give us a real conception of their beauty. Such a one, for example, as that at Sommiéres, == sil == THE BRIDGE AT THOUARS FROM THE PENCIL SKETCH BY LOUIS C. ROSENBERG. still affords passage to both horse and foot. Others, that have suffered with the passing of the centuries, such as the great aqueduct of Remoulins, better known as the Pont du Gard, still fill us with admiration both because of their superlative construction and their imposing proportions. The second period includes the thirteenth century and some twenty-five years on each side of it. We have of course included some that are older, such as those at Espalion and Albi, but the greater number of the best bridges built in the Middle Ages fell within the above limits. The bridges at Avignon and at Carcassonne belong to the earlier years — 1177 and 1184; Orthez dates from 1250; while those at Cahors, Céret, and Montauban are of the early years of the fourteenth century. The third division includes the years from 1540 to 1620. Within this, in the earlier portion, are the bridges at Toulouse and Chatellerault, while in the latter we find the Pont-Neuf and the Pont Marie. These may be said to belong to the Renaissance period, for it is not until sixty years later that our fourth, or last, period begins, with the Pont Royal at Paris, and runs through the eighteenth century, including at the beginning the bridges at Blois and Juvisy, and later those by Gauthey in Burgundy, and those of Perronet in the Seine valley and near Paris. If we now consider the geographical distribution of the bridges that have been selected, we find that it can be divided roughly into five districts, just as we arrived at a chronological division into four periods. The five divisions are as follows : Satu (1) The neighborhood of the Pyrénées in the southwest of France, including the bridges of Toulouse and those on the Tarn, Lot, Aude, and their affluents : in general the basin of the Garonne. (2) The country including Languedoc in the southeast of France, with the lower valley of the Rhone. (8) Burgundy. (4) The Vendée. (5) Paris and the Valley of the Seine. This division, which is admittedly arbitrary, has resulted from the selection of bridges that we have made. A glance at the map will reveal what may not seem apparent in reading our list, that these five districts really cover only a relatively small portion of France. Our first two districts might be included in one; but even a more comprehensive list of bridges than that to which we have limited ourselves would scarcely have enlarged the field covered in the districts above. We of course know that there are fine bridges outside of these self-imposed limits, but such a classification is useful, in our opinion, if only as a point of departure. Our first district is particularly rich in Mediaeval bridges. Here, we find the bridges of Cahors (Valentré), of Espalion and of Villeneuve-sur-Lot, also those of Orthez and Sauveterre. On the Tarn are the bridges of Albi and Montauban, and on the Aude that of Carcassonne (). But the district also includes some fine modern bridges, such as those on the Garonne at Toulouse, at Libourne, Carbonne, and at Bordeaux; also eighteenth century bridges on the Aude, on the Douctoire, and on the Hers @). The district to the southeast, including the valley of the Rhone, has some fine bridges of the Middle Ages, as well as the first district. Such are the bridges of Avignon and St. Esprit, credited to the order of the Fréres Hospi- taliers Pontifes ©). There are also fine modern bridges at Gignac and at Villeneuve-les-Maguelonne. But it is rich, above all, in Roman bridges, even though it may contain none as famous as the bridges of St. Chamas and of Sommieres, or the Pont du Gard (). Our third district, in Burgundy, is given over to modern bridges, such as those of Gauthey, at or near Chalon-sur-Sa6ne and outside of Auxerre. (1) Don't let us forget the bridges of Entraygues on the Lot, of Burlats on the Agout, or of St. Affrique, and of Céret. Just outside of this region we might well mention the bridges of Bourdeilles on the Dronne, of La Voite-Chilhac on the Allier, and of Mende. (2) The Hers, which flows into the Ariége, is spanned by the bridges of Mazéres and of Mirepoix. Between Mirepoix and Pamiers is the bridge of Rieucros on the Douctoire. Mention should also be made of the bridge of Homps on the Aude. (3) There is much diversity of opinion as to the origin and purpose of this order, concerning which we refer our interested readers to the American Historical Review, october 1923 : “ Altopascio, a forgotten Order” (Ephraim Emerton). (4) Among them are the bridges of Gallargues, of Olargues and of St. Thibery, of Vaison and the “Julian” bridge near Apt. oe es THE BRIDGE AT THOUARS FROM THE PENCIL SKETCH BY LOUIS C. ROSENBERG. still affords passage to both horse and foot. Others, that have suffered with the passing of the centuries, such as the great aqueduct of Remoulins, better known as the Pont du Gard, still fill us with admiration both because of their superlative construction and their imposing proportions. The second period includes the thirteenth century and some twenty-five years on each side of it. We have of course included some that are older, such as those at Espalion and Albi, but the greater number of the best bridges built in the Middle Ages fell within the above limits. The bridges at Avignon and at Carcassonne belong to the earlier years — 1177 and 1184; Orthez dates from 1250; while those at Cahors, Céret, and Montauban are of the early years of the fourteenth century. The third division includes the years from 1540 to 1620. Within this, in the earlier portion, are the bridges at Toulouse and Chatellerault, while in the latter we find the Pont-Neuf and the Pont Marie. These may be said to belong to the Renaissance period, for it is not until sixty years later that our fourth, or last, period begins, with the Pont Royal at Paris, and runs through the eighteenth century, including at the beginning the bridges at Blois and Juvisy, and later those by Gauthey in Burgundy, and those of Perronet in the Seine valley and near Paris. If we now consider the geographical distribution of the bridges that have been selected, we find that it can be divided roughly into five districts, just as we arrived at a chronological division into four periods. The five divisions are as follows : ae Blois and Tours, and of course there are the bridges of Paris; but the wonder is that there are so few of them and so relatively uninteresting. The bridges that span the Lot and the Tarn are admittedly notable exceptions; but compare with the above the wealth of material that we find on those little streams that flow into the Gulf of Lion, such as the Tech, the Aude, the Orb, Mosson, Vidourle, and the Touloubre, not to mention the mountainous torrents of Pau and Oloron with the bridges of Sauveterre and Orthez.... Here let us pause, to offer the reason — it may seem to us alone a justifi- cation, — for producing this book. It was an anxiety lest the needs of the automobile, combined with the cost of repairs, might result in the disappea- rance of these bridges that prompted the authors to present in a less technical and perhaps more available form than has hitherto appeared, the following selection from the wealth of material at their disposal. We made the selection that is shown for differing reasons : one bridge because of its unusual construc- tion, another because of its unique location or possibly great age, while still another may be chosen for its striking size; in the hope that thus a wider public may share with us the pleasure of a closer acquaintance with these most lovable historians of the past. We give herewith a list of all those bridges that seem to us of sufficient interest, either from a monumental or even from a purely picturesque point of view, to justify their inclusion in the list we propose to study. Having of necessity to limit our choice, where a complete list would have run far beyond the limits of our volume, we have preferred to select a few handsome examples of the most striking types, and thus draw the attention of architects as well as of others to a series of monuments that have been rather neglected than otherwise, but which nevertheless add much to the beauty of many a view, and to the dignity of certain cities. Whether it has been our task to reassemble existing documents, to take measurements on the site, or simply to make drawings and sketches, we have been vastly aided by the kindness and good will of everyone. We recall with pleasure the easy access which was accorded us to the vast documentation of the Bibliothéque de l'Ecole des Ponts et Chaussées and that of the Commission des Monuments Historiques, due to the courtesy of M. Pradel and M. Lacroix for the former and the kindness of M. Roussel for the latter. Our good friends, M. Daures of Albi and M. Bonamy of Toulouse, have given great assistance in clearing up certain questions; and it is but just to express a tribute to the valued work of a few draughtsmen, such as M. Cuvillier, M. Bernard or M. Urban, who have spared neither trouble nor time to permit us to offer to the public, today, a documentation which, possessed of other merits or not, lacks neither abun- dance nor variety. — 13 — In our fourth, including the Vendée and the department of the Deux- Sévres, the majority of the bridges belong to the Middle Ages or the early Renaissance, such as those at Airvault, at Thouars, and St. Généroux, including Chatellerault and Montmorillon. The fifth district, covering Paris and the valley of the Seine, contains almost exclusively modern bridges, as the works of Perronet, if we except the old bridges of Paris, such as the Pont Neuf, Pont Marie and Pont Royal, which belong to the later Renaissance. Let us make here a comment that seems significant, namely, that with only occasional exceptions the most interesting bridges are not found on the most important rivers, nor even on their largest branches, but on rivers of entirely secondary importance, some being nothing more than small streams. We have spoken of three bridges across the Garonne, two across the Loire at THE PONT-DU-GARD DIAGRAM AT A UNIFORM SCALE l A ——————— NA a = aaa I NS BLOIS 280% fODODOODOO0 00006000000 0000000000000A7 MT Sa Se Ne TD NECN NN NY TAIRA AAACN AVIGNON 1537 SHOWING COMPARATIVE SIZES AND PROFILES LOCATION FRENCH RIVER 2 OF THE BRIDGE avon eee | DATE AUTHORS (wHEN KNowN) 5 meters | meters | meters | meters ATRVAULT Deux-Sévres Thouet XI Cent 1 94.50| 5.02) 6.05 ALBI Tarn Tarn 1035 7|2 list 7.95] 11 wo 14 Apr (Julian Bridge) Vaucluse Coulon Roman 3 44.40) 5.45) 10.15. AVIGNON Vaucluse Rhone |1177-1185| Hospitaliers Pontifes 4 157.10] 4.72| 12.70 AUXERRE (near) | Yonne Ra des Baulches |1781-1789| Gauthey 2| | 22.72/14.03) 4.76 Buots | Loir-et-Cher | Loire |1716-1724| J. Gabriel }11] [280 14.95) 15 Canons (Valentré Br.) Lot | Lot 1308-1355 6 | 2 |167.80| 5 90) 16.54 CéRET Pyrénées-Orient. Tech 1321-1339] 1 92.85] 4 | 25.80 |45.45 Cuaron (St-Laurent Br.)| Sadne-et-Loire | Sadne 1776 | Gauthey 4] 1] 85.27/10 | 12.20 Cxaton (Chavannes Br.) = | 1782-1790) = — 7 112.17] 9.82] 8.06 CHALon (near) - Thalie 1766-1770} | 2 16.40] 6.90} 4.33 CHATELLERAULT Vienne Vienne 1564-1611] Ch. Androuet 9 135.35|21.77] 10.15 Ciarx Isere Drac | 1611 1 47.60| 5.30/21 |45.65 EsPALION Aveyron Lot 1060? 4 62.10) 4.95) 9.65 GvEvGNoN Sadne-et-Loire Arroux _|1783-1786] Gauthey 5 60.87] 7.90), 2-20 Juvisy(Belles-Fontaines)/ Seine-et-Oise Orge |1727-1728| J. Gabriel? 1 14.04/19.39) 15.12 Lavaur Tarn Agout 1773-1786] Saget Brothers il 116 |19.50] 29.74 |48.75 Mineporx | Ariége Hers 1773-1793] Garépuy 7 201 | 8.76) 7.50 | Monraupan \frenmtenceron Tarn fromi3ii} FHenne of Ferriéres 1 7 | 499.40] 7.85] 17.90 Nyons Drome | Eygues 1 e ssilie: eosal| Ps eel 40258 ORNAISONS Aude Orbieu 1745-1752) de Carney 1 | 4 |142.40] 8.78/about 20 ORTHEZ | Basses-Pyrénées Gave-de-Pau | XIII Cent 45.20) 4.87] 13 Panis (Concorde Br.) | Seine Seine 1787-1791] Perronet 5 154.38/15..60| 12.32 — (Pont Marie) | - - 1614-1635] Christ. Marie 5 92.25/23 60) 12.12 — (Pont Neuf) = = 1578-1607| Marchand & B. Androuet| 5 &7 |,3t°$!21 .80|anout 12 — (Pont Royal) = — 1685-1687] Mansart, J. Gabriel 5 129.70|16.90| 14.10 Pont-SAINTE-MAXENCE Oise Oise 1774-1786] Perronet 3| | 78.96|12.54 10.44 REMOULINS Gard Gardon | Roman 6| 261 | 6 | 47.40 Satnt-AFFRIQUE Ayeyron Sorgue Inet, 1368 3 | 5} 10.68 SarnT-CHAMAS Bouch.-du-Rhéne| — Touloubre Roman 1| | 7.44 12.17 Sarnt-Dié | Vosges Meurthe 1804-1821) Lecreux & Vigor 3 | 2 4.75 Saint-Gi | Deux-Sevres Thouet XIII Cent 3 | 2 | 58.30] 3.90] 7.13 SoMMIERES Gard Vidourle Roman 7 about 90} 6.60} 7.32 SosPEL Alpes-Maritimes Béyera | 1784 2 28.10] 5.60) 6.80 THOUARS Deux-Sévres Thouet XIII Cent 4}41 TovLousE Haute-Garonne | Canal du Midi |1762-1764| Saget (senior) 1 TOULOUSE = Garonne 1543-1626 Niche Bachelier and his 5 Sorel fotoe retest VIENNE Isére Gére a G. Bouchet Joins 2i| armel tense 31.80 erence cates Herault Mosson 1768-1778] Giral 2) l119 | 8.27] 19.41 FLo Italy Arno 1567 Ammanati 3 | RIMINI — Marecchia Roman 5 Rome (Quattro Capi) | — Tiber 2 (S. Angelo) | - - 32 101 |13.70] 12 All the measures are given here in meters. We may remind that the french meter stands for 3 feet 3 inches 3; ‘The value of the foot is exactly 0, 304794 meter. and 10 meters for 32 feet 9 inches 3/8. THE S. PETER BRIDGE, BAR-LE-DUC FROM THE PENCIL SKETCH BY SAMUEL CHAMBERLAIN DIAGRAM AT A UNIFORM SCALE me fy thy YY YN PARIS. Pi 13 | iy wy ai SEA A SD as CHALON Y/SAONE PONT DES ECHAVANNES: VILLENEVVE LES MAGVELONNE RET CHALON YSAONE PONT S'LAVRENT Mee og ise ees a a SSS PARIS PONT MARIE PONT S” MAXENCE 78% 929 a £ Teinrrerur,. | ererTNbIOTT Ty! SN ZN VERONE PONTE, DEGLI SCALIGERI 430m roommonrsueeal / | | os fo Z foi ROME PONTE S'ANGELO 41D a : _f L | ee Sie GST Cae AIPA FLORENCE PONTE S*TRINITA 5S? GENEROVX 403 32 ROME PONT FABRICIVS PONT JVLIEN FresD'APT a RIMINI ye n> = (LN29 1.1) “LOT HHL NO Tara (NOWATAY) NOITVds 7 == Bh) == flat band 60 centimeters wide, flush with the face of the wall. It is surmounted by a rectangular member, 50 centimeters high with a projection of 15 centi- meters, which is in turn crowned by a further projection of 50 centimeters, adjusted to the first in the form of a quarter round. A study of the section shows that this last projecting member has been utilized to set the face of the parapet wall beyond the face of the bridge below. This condition is probably the result of some alteration intended to widen the roadway, which seems the more probable since the stonework above this moulding is not in any way bonded in with that of the piers, as is the case with the arch stones in the flat band below ‘. The way in which the moulding above follows the curve of the arches at Espalion and then returns horizontally against the piers is again similar in handling to that of the beak-like moulding in a similar position on the bridge of Valentré. It seems our sad duty to comment on the utter neglect shown in the present condition of the stonework. The joints in particular seem to have suffered : only those that come in contact with the water having been pointed. Considering the fact that it is one of the oldest bridges of France, and because of character and location so well worth preservation, it certainly seems as if it might have been better treated. Placed as it is in a town lacking anything notable architecturally, and where the general tone of the buildings is the harmonious gray that the kindly hand of time and circumstance has achieved, the vigorous lines and good proportions of this bridge would in themselves bring a note of refreshing interest, which is only enhanced by the glowing color of its red sandstone in contrast with its rather drab surroundings. (1) Comment of Monsieur de Dartein. AN OLD BRIDGE AT CHALONS-SUR-MARNE FROM THE WATERCOLOR BY S. CHAMBERLAIN ANNOSSVOUVD AO ALIO SHL GNY dddTua AHL PONT ST. BENEZET ON THE RHONE AT AVIGNON (Vaucruse) What a pity that we should not be able to see this truly great bridge in its completed form! Even ruined, as it stands today, its four remaining arches still add a note of tragic interest to the view from the Rock of the Doms looking toward the Valley of the Rhone. Authorities seem to agree that the bridge was started in 1177 and took ten years to build. Its construction was carried out by the religious order of the Fréres Hospitaliers Pontifes®, an association founded at Maupas in 1164, with the purpose of aiding in every possible way those who were interested in the navigation of the rivers as well as those who dwelt upon their banks. According to the legend, a shepherd boy of thirteen named Little Benoit, or “Bénézet”, was inspired by heaven to start and direct the construction of this bridge. At any rate it is clear that after having worked at Maupas®, the brotherhood, of which St. Bénézet became the effective head, undertook and carried to completion the building of this bridge in so thoroughly competent a manner that it might well have resisted until today the devastating effects of time and flood, had it not suffered still more from man’s negligence and destructiveness. Viollet-le-Duc calls attention to the fact that this bridge was the only permanent means of access between the papal possessions at Avignon and the French possessions in Languedoc. The site for such a bridge was therefore (1) The origin and activities of this order haye aroused much and very conflicting comment in relation to which we refer our reader to the American Historical Review of Oct. 1923: Allopascio, a forgotten Order, by Ephraim Emerton. (2) Maupas is near Cayaillon (Yaucluse). See : Recherches Historiques de ! Abbé Grégoire. important, and was chosen at a point where the Rhone, as it passes through Avignon, flows in two branches around the Island of Barthelasse. These branches reunite about two kilometers down-stream from the Rock of the Doms, before the Durance joins the Rhone. Bridges were first built, if we accept Gauthey’s statement, connecting the east and west shores with the island, these bridges being approxim- ately perpendicular to the direction of the current. Later, a connecting link of eight arches was built between the two branches so that the road-way might be raised above flood water. from shore to shore. These three sections were not in line with one another. Between them they gave a total length of 900 meters from shore to shore. The position of the bridge in its relation to the direction of the current is worth close study. Where it crossed the wider branch (on the side away from The Pont St-Bénézet, after ViouEt-Le-Duc. the town) it is obviously not at right angles to the river. Furthermore, the change in the direction of the bridge occurs, not where we might expect it, on the island, but in mid-stream, about a third of the way across if we measure on the inside of the curve. A similar disposition marks the great bridge of Pont-Saint-Esprit™. Viollet-le-Duc believes that this was done deliberately in both cases in order that the obtuse angle thus formed might the better resist the force of the current. When we realize that floods raising the river level 5 meters above normal are of frequent occurrence in this region, such an explanation does not seem at all improbable. The story of the events that reduced the bridge to its present state is one of vandalism and neglect. Two hundred years after its completion, in 1385, Boniface IX destroyed one of the arches in order to ensure his own safety. Only twenty-five years later the inhabitants, disliking the Spanish garrison maintained by Benoit XIII, blew up the tower at the bridge head. In 1418, having decided to repair the damage, the arch was replaced, but the work being badly done, it collapsed in 1602. Unbalanced without the missing arch, three adjacent arches shortly gave way, followed by two more in 1633. Further damage resulted in 1670, when the river having frozen over, the melting ice produced more destruction, resulting ultimately in the noble remnant that we see today. (1) This bridge is located about 40 kilometers up-stream from Avignon, a little below the junction of the river Ardéche. NONDIAV LY LaZHNda LNOd dL — 43 — It seems probable that when the bridge was first built it contained no defensive features, having been intended by its builders merely as a means to facilitate passage from one side of the river to the other. Indeed at this time it did not cross any disputed frontier, for the kings of France on the right and the counts of Provence on the left lived in perfect understanding as to the ownership of the shores and islands. This condition underwent a complete change in 1290 when Philippe le Bel, at the time of the marriage of his cousin with the daughter of the king of Sicily, agreed to turn over his sovereign rights to Avignon to the House of Naples. In order to mark more clearly his control of the right bank and the islands, he erected in 1307 the tower at Villeneuve-lez-Avignon. This was nothing less than a fortress, and absolutely controlled access to the bridge. A little later, when Avignon became the property of the Popes, Clement VI in his turn took a similar step, and built a second tower on the left bank. Thus the worthy purpose of the original builders was entirely lost sight of, and access from side to side could only be had with the greatest difficulty. While we have spoken earlier of the bridge having been originally designed without any defensive features, it is only fair to call attention to a characteristic that may have been effective for defensive purposes even if not built with this in mind. The bridge is only 4.07 meters wide between parapet walls, having been intended for foot and horse traffic rather than vehicles. Even this limited width is reduced to a mere 1.50 meters before the little chapel dedicated to St. Nicholas, the patron of those who travel by water. Was this excessive narrowness merely the result of conditions, or was it, as Mr. A. Choisy @) believes, deliberately done to prevent a charge of horsemen or to slow down rapidly marching troops ? Certain bridges in Corsica, which _ have a sudden break or change of direction in plan, were et also, according to Mr. Choisy, designed for such a purpose. We appear to be justified in believing that the portion of the bridge remai- ning is a true indication of what previously existed; in other words, that the alternation in the design of successive bays was characteristic of the entire structure. Thus while the arches, which are three-centered and slightly stilted, are approximately uniform with an opening of from 31 to 34.80 meters, and a rise of from 10.75 to 12 meters, the piers show two alternative arrangements. These piers are about 7.70 meters thick and 30 meters long, terminating both up and down-stream in triangular break-waters. Above these break-waters, in one instance we find a single arched opening to aid the passage of flood waters, while in the other we find three, as well as the curiously contrived cut-off (1) Histoire de l'Architecture, vol. Il, p. 564. angles (trompes) which have come down to us in perfect condition, beside the picturesque little chapel, with its corbelled stairway leading from the roadway to a level 4.50 meters lower. It remains only to call our reader’s attention to the construction of the arches, which, we find, have a striking characteristic in common with the Roman aqueduct of the Pont du Gard, only 20 kilometers away. Each arch is made up of four independent ( rings, the space between being merely filled in flush with the face of the intrados. The bridge of Pont-Saint-Esprit, to which we have (1) We have used the word independent advyisedly for M. Morandiére (See his : Traité de la construction des ponts et viaducs) has found no bond whatsoever between the first two arches, only one between the second and third, and a few between the third and fourth. TILA HLV Id u already referred, has this same characteristic, and although built in 1265 under the direction of the Abbé of Tensanges by the Fréres Hospitaliers Pontifes, its 22 arches remain standing today, and ensure passage from side to side of the Rhone over a structure which has a total length of 1.000 meters. £. te ap Elevation of two arches of the bridge at Pont-Saint-Esprit Even mutilated as it stands, the bridge of St. Bénezet makes an unmistakable appeal to the appreciative traveller. There is a soaring grace in the lines of its arches which, together with the beauty of the little chapel, give a charm to this sturdy remnant of the past that is irresistible. oon LZapyi pl TWO VIEWS OF THE BRIDGE AT THOUARS FROM THE PENCIL SKETCHES OF L. C. ROSENBERG & S. CHAMBERLAIN XI ALWTd BRIDGES IN THE VALLEY OF THE THOUET THOUARS, AIRVAULT, ST-GENEROUX, PARTHENAY The little river Thouet, which is about 120 kilometers in length, crosses the department of the Deua-Sévres before entering that of the Maine-et-Loire; and after following for some time an easterly course through Parthenay, turns to the north, keeping this general direction until it empties into the Loire not far from Saumur, below St. Florent. The country through which it flows is not mountainous, but it would be a mistake to suppose that it is monotonous. On the contrary, it abounds in picturesque sites, and no less than four interesting examples of architecture are to be found in the central part of its course lying between Thouars and Parthenay. If we except the bridge of Vernay, there are, it is true, no structures of any considerable importance, nor any that, taken singly, bear a distinctly decorative character, but they are admirably situated, and the landscape, or the constructions of which they form a part, give them a peculiarly fine setting. Let us ascend this sinuous little stream, starting from Thouars. We must stop twice on the way before reaching Parthenay, first at St. Généroux, then near Airvault where the old bridge of Vernay stands. The little town of Thouars is an important place in the department of Deux-Sévres. It climbs up the slopes and onto the summit of a fairly high hill whose base is washed by the Thouet. After a sweeping curve, this enter- prising stream passes through a narrow gorge, and then resumes a quieter course towards the north. Thouars is an ancient feudal town, from the X century the seat of a viscount dependent upon the Comté of Poitou. It is for this reason that in the course of the following centuries it belonged successively to French and to English; but is was the latter who finally established themselves there and made it one of the most strongly fortified places of that region, up to the time when it was retaken by Du Guesclin. Almost directly afterwards it was made into a duchy for the La Trémoille family, who built a castle there. 48 — Our drawings show the vigorous simplicity of the bridge which crosses the Thouet here. It consists indeed of little more than solid points of support between the pointed arches, but the mass is on the whole harmonious, and lacks neither character nor breadth. A treatment that is common to this and St-Généroux, by L. C. Rosenberg to many other mediaeval works is the abrupt removal of the floor of the bridge between two ot its piers, and replacing it by a light foot-bridge, easily destroyed in case of unexpected attacks. The resultant effect seen with an old mill on one side and the ruins of the entrance-gate on the other, is agreeably picturesque. X ALVId \ g —— \ i 4 ecu — i = . ar j et Bio et * ose <4 4 No less agreeable is the aspect of the bridge of St. Généroux, connecting the two parts of a modest village built on both sides of the river. The bridge consists of three semicircular arches flanked by two pointed arches. According to tradition it dates from the XIII century. As in so many other mediaeval bridges, the piers consist of triangular cut-waters, on the up-stream side, which become only slight rectangular projections down-stream. At the level of the narrow road-way, the extra width given ‘by the piers is used to facilitate passing, and one of them is partly occupied by a very simple cross, which is shown in detail in our drawing. Jf any of our readers should be tempted to visit this old bridge, and indulge themselves by yielding to the temptation, they will be well repaid. Its dimensions fare not imposing, nor has it any particular claim to architectural merit, but in the subtle relation between its gently curving arches and its sturdy piers, lies the magic of a charm that is AMT RE. ees ea Airvault — 50 — only enhanced by the tree-grown banks, and the constant passing of gentle peasant folk with their mixed herds of sheep, goats, cattle and dogs. As to the bridge of Vernay, which owes its name to the Chateau de Vernay opposite the village, on the left bank of the Thouet, to which it gives access, it is a historical monument of respectable age, since it is a Romanesque work of the XII century, and perhaps even of the end of the XI'*. It shows homo- geneous construction with its eleven semicircular arches, each one strengthened by three projecting ribs. Its relatively slight elevation above the level of the water, the unusual use of these ribs, the rather heavy outline of its cutwaters, combine to give it a special character easily recognizable in the drawings. It is probable that the construction of the Vernay bridge is due in part, if not wholly, to the Augustine monks of Airvault (Aurea Vallis), the church of the district, which is situated a few hundred yards from the river, being in fact the old abbey. At the time of the wars of the Revolution, the stronghold of Thouars having been occupied by the Vendéens, two of the arches of the Airvault bridge were destroyed and subsequently replaced by a wooden foot-bridge. Almost a century later it was thought worth while to restore this monument to its original condition; the two arches were rebuilt, but, through negligence or incapacity on the part of the architect who had charge of the work, the restoration gave rise to much grave criticism, traces of which are to be found in the reports of the sessions of the Conseil Général des Deux-Sévres, 1886-1888. The cornice of the bridge had been changed, and the slope altered in such a way as to create a difference of level amounting to an abrupt sill in the IX ALV Id (WvauLS-dA) HOUvY NV 40 TIVLIG (wvauis-NMod) HOWV NY JO TIVL3d Be ih y\\ J | an an 1 CEs ee a S ADR ~/NG SNS +] a / gy 1 AMALNGD 5 IX LHAOHL 2HL No TOCIUG SIUAIS - LAID DTAVAUIV — dt — middle of the road-bed, which interfered materially with the traffic. The architect was dismissed. The injury, at present remedied, does not prevent us from getting a good impression of this important monument, — a type of mediaeval construction which is far from usual, and which for that reason commands our attention. At Parthenay, quite a distance farther up-stream, it is only the picturesque that we can hope to find. But from this point of view we should find much to satisfy our expectations. The ancient capital of Gatine, it has preserved traces of its past, notably perhaps, in its XII and XIII" century ramparts, although its situation presents many attractive features. On the north and west the Thouet flows around the low hill on which the town stands. It must have gradually worn its way through the comparatively deep ravines before passing, at the entrance to one of them, between the two spurs of land, on one of which stands the citadel, and on the other the old chateau. At this point the river is spanned by a bridge of some age, which is nothing remarkable in itself, but which composes most picturesquely with the Gate of St. Jacques and its crenellated towers. The last arch towards the town was replaced by a drawbridge, which has since disappeared. The general setting of this little bridge is so appealing that we might well do worse than to finish at Parthenay the wanderings we have been tempted to make in this beguiling region, for there is much besides these bridges to interest the sympathetic traveler in Poitou. The bridge at Parthenay THE BRIDC BY L. C. ROSENBERG \aeae vig ZHHLYO LY ADdTud AHL BRIDGE AT ORTHEZ (Basses-Pyrinées) ON THE GAVE DE PAU The bridge which connects Orthez with its suburb on the other side of the Gave de Pau is one of those interesting old fortified bridges so perfectly typified by the bridge of Valentré at Cahors. The present aspect of this bridge has much charm, even though lacking some of the picturesque elements that marked its primitive state. Originally there was one major arch of 15 meters or so in span, between two piers of about equal size, on each of which was a defensive tower. On the right bank, or side toward the city, were two other arches of about half the size of the main arch, whose piers rested on a rocky ledge appreciably above the level of the river. These were useful in augmenting the free-way in time of flood. Perhaps there was even a third arch on this side, as there are evidences of the arch stones; but on the left bank, or side toward the suburb, the stone work was finished off definitely, the passageway being assured by a little wooden bridge which could easily be destroyed in case of attack. As at Cahors, the exterior walls of the bridge-heads, forming the parapets, were raised to a considerable height above the road-way, thus affording protection so that it was possible to circulate without being seen. On the axis of the main arch a little window was cut, which has now disappeared, but from which, in 1560, the Protestant soldiers of Montgomery hurled into the river the priests whom they had captured during the siege of the town. It is more than likely that even before this date the tower on the left bank had disappeared; at least it does not figure in a representation of the bridge referred to by Mr. Adrien Planté which is said to date from 1589. The wooden (1) Published in 1892 at Pau on the occasion of a meeting of the Association francaise pour l'avancement des sciences. It refers to an old embroidery of which there is a reproduction in Mr. de Dartein’s book. — 54 — bridge does not appear either, and seems to have been replaced by a masonry slab, which in our days sl BAYONNE Ps?) ~ LF, has been succeeded by a small arch in the character Rea of the others, but only 2.70 meters wide. The high parapet walls, however, appear in the eX a document mentioned above. They very likely were / Hoss SSA in existence as late as February, 1814. At this time, in the struggle between the soldiers of Marshal Soult and the English (fifty of the former defended the bridge and tower throughout a day), while an attempt to undermine the bridge failed, the parapets were destroyed and had to be rebuilt. Since then, the road-way has been widened with the help of projecting brackets. This fine old bridge, which is very similar to that of Sauveterre in the same region, dates well back into early French history. While it has not been possible to establish its exact date, it would seem to belong to the thirteenth century, and very probably replaced an even older bridge. IX ALVTd a THE PONT VALENTRE AT CAHORS THE FORTIFIED BRIDGE AT CAHORS, ON THE LOT No more perfect example of a fortified bridge exists within the limits of France than the Pont Valentré as we see it today, practically intact, and telling so strikingly the graphic story of the early years of the fourteenth century when it was built. It expresses unmistakably the wide divergence between our modern idea of a bridge as a means of facilitating circulation, and the Mediaeval conception of it as a mere outlet so devised as to preclude access when desired. Certainly, at a time when artillery hardly existed, the task of entering Cahors was made all but impossible (for unwelcome visitors). Yet the structure that so skilfully served this purpose is a thing of rare beauty as well, and shows that the Gothic builder had as complete a mastery of military as of religious architecture. So nearly completely does the river Lot, a tributary of the Garonne, envelope the town of Cahors, that it is only from the north that the town can be approached without crossing the river. But, as_, fe > Cece important lines of communication lead to the south, from Limoges, towards Agen, Montauban or Albi, as well as to the east and west, practically everyone entering or leaving the town found himself forced to cross the Lot. Two bridges, very similar in character and both connected with the town walls, dominated from their commanding position upon the main east and west roads, both the river and the surrounding country. It is the one to the east of the town that alone remains, restored with judgment and taste, and named, not as has been supposed after the presumed architect, but because of its position — val-enirée — at the entrance to the valley. As we look down-stream the bridge forms the center of interest between the low-lying roofs of the town to the right and the steep hills rising abruptly from the river to the left. On the axis of this picture rises the central tower of the bridge to a height of more than 40 meters above the river, flanked on (1) It was built between the years 1308 and 1355 at the order of Raymond Panchelli, who was bishop of Cahors during the first twelve years of the XIV" century. — 56 — either side by three major and one smaller arch, which carry the roadway some 16 meters above the Lot. At either end of the bridge is another tower, separated from the shore in each case by the smaller arch referred to above. The entrances to the bridge were further protected on both sides by other structures which have since disappeared, but of which sufficient evidence remains to permit the presentation shown in our drawings, from material gathered in the library of the Monuments Hisloriques. So carefully was the bridge built that hardly any eccentricities exist that call for comment. With one variation of 10 centimeters the main arches are all 16.50 meters wide; their rise varies from 13.70 to 14.15 meters, and all are two-centered or pointed in form. On the inner surface of these arches, at about the impost, are five beam holes for carrying the centering. On the up- stream side the piers are protected by triangular cut-waters with a projection of six meters, while down-stream they have a rectangular projection of only 85 centimeters. These dimensions, together with an over-all width for the bridge of 5.90 meters, give a total length of 12.75 meters for the piers. These piers have one peculiarity that is noteworthy. At 80 centimeters from the up-stream face of the bridge, there has been built in each pier a passageway 1.20 meters wide, which runs parallel to the bridge, completely through the pier. Three beam holes, in connection with these openings on the face of the piers, indicate that with the help of wooden platforms from pier to pier, a means of communication was thus maintained during the construction of the bridge. With a variation in width of from 5.50 to 6.25 meters, the piers rise vertically to the level of the roadway, where their area is utilized to give passing room. Each face is provided with crenelations above the parapets. On the central pier, as we have noted, is a lofty tower, whose masonry walls rise almost 19 meters above the level of the roadway. Judging from the lack of defensive features it was intended primarily as a watch tower, and had three stories. The two other towers, which are practically identical, have various points of interest. They are four storied and, as was the case with the central tower, are reached by outside staircases, in one case contrived as part of the parapet on the up-stream side, and in the other carried on a flying buttress, but in both cases protected by crenelations that follow the rise of the steps. The first floor rests upon the vaulting over the passageway across the bridge. The flooring of the other stories is carried on wooden beams resting on corbels; and communication from floor to floor was maintained by simple wooden ladders. Every possible defensive device was provided: the space for the cross bow men was arranged in niches provided with vertical slits only 6 centimeters wide, crossed twice horizontally. From the third floor every TIX LV Id — 57 — sort of missle could be dropped upon those beneath, and a similar arrangement existed in the vaulting over the passageway. The topmost floor under the roof framing is provided merely with crenelations. The bridge has in no way suffered from its restoration, which has been handled with the greatest discrimination, so that the resulting structure typifies, $ os, > su both by its simplicity and by the beauty of its proportions, the best period of Gothic architecture. The fact that this architecture found its most developed expression in religious buildings does not in the least diminish the value of work performed for civil or military purposes, rather the reverse. In fact, regardless of period or style, no one could fail to appreciate the qualities of this bridge. An interesting silhouette, combined with a nice balance between solids and voids, gives to the whole a quality of distinction that is further enhanced by the well-studied curves of the pointed arches, the perfect suita- — 58 — bility of the forms employed for defensive purposes, and by the bold simplicity of the contrasting horizontal and vertical lines. Nothing seems to have been sacrificed to decorative effect, and yet what an essential decorative composition has resulted! Only one moulding, of a markedly nervous profile, is permitted to tempt the eye from the austere lines of military necessity. The moulding in question follows the line of the extrados of the arches, except where it returns horizontally against the faces of the piers. It is perhaps worth while to note here that the little chatelet which precedes the entrance to the bridge on the left hand side, as shown on our drawings, does not exist today, but is based upon a restoration made by Mr. Paul Gout". For those who have seen the bridge, learned its life, studied its character, the preceding description seems an utterly inadequate picture of the part that it has played in the life of the town that it serves. No description can give an idea of how constantly its towers dominate the view; how intimate and essential a part they play in the everyday existence of the towns-folk; what an added beauty the curving reflections of the arches give to the graceful lines of the bridge, and how pleasingly the rich cream color of the stonework mingles with the green of the trees on the left bank; and yet this, and much more, is needed to give you the whole story of this ever-living presence, and our advice to one and all is to go and see the Pont Valentré for themselves. (1) Histoire et description du Pont Valentré 4 Cahors (Lot), par M. Paul Gout. NVANVINOW LY HDdIMa AHL THE BRIDGE AT MONTAUBAN (Tary-er-Garonne) ON THE TARN Even as we see it today, stripped of many features that must have origi- nally greatly added to its interest, this bridge is impressive. In the first place, it is 200 meters long, and built of brick. Its seven pointed arches carry the roadway at a height of about 19 meters above the river. Six of these arches have the same span, ie. 21.50 meters; but the seventh, which is nearest the town, is a meter wider. The piers, which are eight meters thick, have triangular break-waters both up and down-stream, while above the break-waters the tympana are pierced by arched openings, to add to the free-way in times of flood. These are the essential elements of the bridge as we see it today. It was started, so far as we can learn, in 1311, and carried to completion under the direction of Etienne de Ferriéres and Mathieu de Verdun. The structure that was thus brought into being some six hundred years ago, in addition to the imposing dimensions that we now admire, carried defensive towers at each end, linked together by high (1.35 meter) parapets which included narrow sidewalks and also crenelations”. The silhouette of the bridge gained still further interest from a chapel that was built upon the break-water of one of the central piers. This was dedicated to Ste. Catherine, and could be reached not only from the road- way but also by means of a circular stair in the pier itself, leading to a little door at water level. All these features so essential at the time the bridge was built and sus- (1) At least the bridge is so represented in a bas-relief of the middle of the XVI" century. The bridge across the Adige at Verona has a similar arrangement although the road-way is narrower. — 60 — ceptible of adding so appreciably to the interest of the bridge in our own time, have, alas, disappeared. It was in 1828 that, in an effort to gain a meter or so in width, these interesting parapets were removed and replaced by projecting stone slabs, held up by corbels and crowned by an iron railing whose only redeeming feature is its elemental simplicity. The towers had long since ceased to exist. One of them, that near the town, only lasted until 1663, and the other was destroyed in 1701 to make room for a monumental entrance-way erected to celebrate the Peace of Ryswick. This latter construction was in existence up to fifty years ago, when it yielded in its turn to the demands of traffic; and with it the little chapel also disappeared. About the openings in the center of the piers, to which reference has already been made, there is a highly specialized and most carefully detailed construction for the distribution of the thrust of the arches, that is worthy of most careful study and that is clearly portrayed in the section accompanying our measured drawings. A more skilful contriving of balanced thrusts, in order that the essential needs of the construction might be met without impo- sing unnecessary weight upon the carrying arches, could hardly be devised than appears at N and M, and at A and B in our section drawings. No Gothic cathedral shows a nicer interpretation of structural needs. Having called attention to this highly intricate and most masterly compu- tation of weights and thrusts, little remains that in especially noteworthy. Yet to anyone who has seen the bridge it leaves an impression of fine scale, imposing mass, well proportioned arches, and structural stability that is lasting. A bridge that can lay so strong a hold on the memory when stripped of every iota of decoration, must have sterling qualities. We way well wonder, in comparison, what impression |the bridge of St. Benezet at Avignon would make without its chapel, of that of Valentré at Cahors without its three towers. Yet, stripped as it stands of former glories, the patine of the centuries has dealt kindly with its honorable scars, and with the help of the mellow brick work, has left us a thing as lovely in color as it is noble in proportions. AIX FLV 1d NOILoasS dNy WINOL WULNZD ect YMA AX ALVId Jay Lava) LY A9dINa AHL BRIDGE AT CERET (Pyninies-Onenraces) ON THE TECH At only a short distance from the Spanish frontier is located the bridge of Céret, undoubtedly one of the most striking as well as one of the most unusual bridges of France. It is on the line of the national highway from Perpignan to Prats-de-Mollo, just where this road, coming from the little village of Le Boulou, crosses the Tech before entering the town of Céret. To the interest that a great semicircular arch of over 45 meters in span would naturally attract, is added the remarkable boldness and lightness of its construction. The unusual silhouette gains an added interest from the arched openings that pierce the solid approaches and thus lighten the load upon the sides of the great arch. While rumor has it that this bridge is of Roman origin, there seems no doubt that its construction belongs definitely to the first half of the XIV" century, contemporaneous with that of the fortified bridge at Cahors. It is quite possible, however, that the existing bridge replaced a Roman structure of similar appearance. The character of this bridge would seem to justify such an hypothesis, and we should further remember that the valley of the Tech was the line followed by the Roman road from Nimes and Elne (Elena) towards Spain, which crossed the Pyrénées either by the Col d’Ares, the road that Czesar probably followed, or by the Col de Perthuis, over which Hannibal’s army is supposed to have passed. — 62 — Local archives enable us to establish a fairly definite date for the construc- tion of the existing bridge. It appears to have been built during the reign of Sanche and Jayme II, kings of Majorca, probably between the years 1324 and 1340, at the expense of the town and of those dwellers in the upper valley who had an interest in seeing it built (). The work was carried out under the direction of the consuls of Céret, and the bridge was crossed, if not inaugurated as well, in 1349 by Pedro IV, king of Aragon and brother-in-law of Jayme II. te font ve CERET The arch-vault of this daring piece of work is built of two entirely separate arches. The first, at the intrados, is of a uniform thickness of 95 centimeters; the second varies in thickness from 37 centimeters at the crown to 50 centi- meters at the sides. The arch, as originally built, was very likely semicircular; but, following the removal of the centering, and because of various accidents, the crown has dropped about 40 centimeters. The rise is now 22.70 meters, and the span 45.50 meters. The condition of the bridge has been a source of anxiety for some time past. Undoubtedly the principle of entire independence between the vault and the arches (an idea of Roman origin) has given unparalleled elasticity to this (1) Mr. Séjourné, whom we have to thank for this information, indicates that several legacies were also left between 1324 and 1334 to aid in the construction of this bridge. IAX GALVI1d — 68 — enormous stone arch. But either because of defective stone work, of for some other reason, the elements of the vault have lost a certain degree of cohesion so that deformations that are easily apparent to the naked eye have occurred, particularly on the up-stream face. Thus the elasticity has become a risk rather than an advantage. In the early part of the XVIJJI'» century it was noticed that the passing of artillery shook the bridge in a serious manner, and again in the following century, in spite of precautions, that a carriage crossing at any speed caused the bridge to tremble to an unreasonable extent. By 1750 cracks appeared, and in the same year the wall continuing the bridge-head on the down-stream side toward Le Boulou collapsed, followed twelve years later by that on the up-stream side. Both were replaced by angle wing walls. In an |effort to solidify the structure it was decided to fill in, at least in part, those arched openings which had been originally created to relieve the load on the sides of the arch. The appearance has suffered in consequence, and Mr. Séjourné comments on the futility of this proceeding which adds to the burdens of the arch, at the same time damaging the appearance of one of the oldest and the finest monuments of France. THE BRIDGES OF ST-AFFRIQUE, OF VIENNE, OF NYONS AND OF CLAIX We cannot say our last word about the bridges of the Middle Ages without speaking of three structures which, while not of first importance, are nevertheless of so striking an appearance that we should fail in our undertaking if we did not call them to our readers’ attention. These are the bridges of St. Affrique in the valley of the Tarn, and of Vienne and Nyons in the region watered by the Rhone; and while they obviously are not entitled to detailed comment, they certainly should receive the recognition of the sketches and notes that follow. Saint-Affrique, a modest sous-préfecture in the department of the Aveyron, is situated on a little stream named the Sorgue, whose waters eventually reach the Tarn. Here we find an old Mediaeval bridge of an unusual character. The nature of its architecture, the narrowness of its roadway accentuated by its steeply sloping ramps of approach, combine with its abrupt cut-waters to strongly mark its individuality, at the same time indicating that it is one of the oldest bridges in the district. Exact information is unfortunately lacking as to the precise date of its construction. We know merely that it was in existence in 1368, but the characteristics mentioned above are ample evidence that it must have been built many years before this date. Its main arch has a span of 21.50 meters, and is flanked by two minor arches of unequal openings, one being 15.40 meters and the other 9.60 meters wide. These dimensions, plus two piers of 3.40 meters each, give the bridge a length of 53.30 meters. The piers have cut-waters both up and down-stream that are almost identical and that provide, at the level of the narrow roadway, much needed NOUWATAV) TINON 49°91 WaTV LN Iv TAX ULV Id en ay'o) — 65 — passing space. Not only is this roadway excessively narrow, 2.50 to 2.75 meters between parapets, but in order to climb over the crown of the central arch it has a slope of at least 14 per cent. One other peculiarity is the use of small arches between the bridge and its abutments, evidently used in connection with an effort to facilitate access to the bridge. Simpler still is the bridge at Vienne. This old town, which in Gallo-Roman times was the capital of a considerable region, and still preserves a charming temple as evidence of its former splendor, is situated on the shores of the Rhone about 30 kilometers to the south of Lyon. At its northern extremity Bridge on the Gére at Vienne, by Louis Rosenberg the river receives a small affluent, the Gére, and just at this point, among the old houses that give it so picturesque a setting, we find the single and some- what flattened arch which we show in our sketch. Its qualities and characte- ristics are so simple that they call for no further comment. The Eygues is an affluent of the Rhone which flows into it from the east about 12 kilometers below the bridge of St. Esprit, approximately on a line with Orange. The bridge of Nyons spans this stream in a single arch and is noteworthy both because of its interesting outline, the boldness of its construc- tion, and its age. Even though we cannot be positive as to the date of its construction we know that it was begun after 1351, and finished in the early years of the XV" century, perhaps in 1407. We know further that the (1) This is the date given by Mr. Séjourné. — 66 — master mason who undertook the first stages of the work for 220 florins was a certain Thibault of Nyons. With the laying of the abutments, completed in 1398, a man named Guillaume de Pays undertook the balance of the work for 1.200 florins. Two years later the engineer J. de Beaulieu insisted upon a modification of the centering, which seemed insufficient for an arch of such a span. There is every reason to believe that he was right, and that even the safeguards which he called for were insufficient to meet the requirements, for the crown of the arch gives the impression of a segment of a circle that is out of line, or flattened. Mr. Séjourné calls attention to a similar deformation in the bridges of St. Esprit and Avignon, and we shall see that it is likewise noticeable in the Renaissance bridge at Claix. The bridge at Nyons, by Louis Rosenberg There exists, in the embankment on the left side, a little passage with a barrel vault which bears a string course, at the spring of the vault, of a peculiarly Roman character. This is one reason for believing that this fine bridge was constructed upon foundations of a much earlier date, probably contemporaneous with that large group of structures belonging to the Roman period that characterize this region. At the very summit of the bridge, directly over the crown of the arch, there may still be found remains of an older masonry that have been smoothed off horizontally, and which undoubtedly belonged to a central tower, evidence of whose existence is to be found in old documents. It is said to have been in the form “of a cube six feet square”, covered by a little dome, whose purpose, like that of many a similar construction of this period, was “to admit, repel, or check those who tried to pass”. = (Op = The three bridges that we have just described all belong to the Middle Ages; but we have included one other in this group which, while Mediaeval in appearance, actually belongs to the XVII century. This is the bridge of Claix. It was built in the years from 1608-1611, and spans the Drac, about two leagues from Grenoble in the direction of Sisteron. Even though it was built at so much later a date, it closely resembles the bridge at Nyons. Its span, of 46.35 meters, is a few meters greater than that at Nyons, but the curve at the crown of the arch seems too close to the are of a circle for us not to attribute its flattening to some accident on the removal of the centering, or to some later settlement. In this case also, thanks to Mr. Séjourné, we know the names of those who were responsible for this bold piece of construction. The first was Bruisset of Grenoble, drowned, alas, during the work. He was succeeded by Jean Albert de la Mure, with whom was associated the carpenter Sallemin. Twelve years after the bridge was finished, a sort of triumphal gateway was built on the left side, ornamented with commemorative inscriptions; but no vestige of this remains. TWO VIEWS, UP AND DOWN-STREAM, OF THE BRIDGE AT SAINT-SAVIN ON THE GARTEMPE SSMOTNOL LY ADdIud AHL 4itter ERE THE BRIDGE AT TOULOUSE ACROSS THE GARONNE This great bridge of Toulouse, because of its dimensions no less than its architecture, is one of the most important in the south of France. It is also one of the most striking of those that span the large rivers, for, as we have remarked elsewhere, the most interesting bridges are more apt to be found on streams of minor importance. Its length is actually in excess of 220 meters between abutments, and its width is nearly 20 meters. There are, further- more, special and unusual characteristics that attract our attention. Before commenting on these special features it will be well to place the bridge in its historical setting so that we may feel acquainted with the various vicissitudes through which it has passed. The building of the bridge is accre- dited to Nicholas Bachelier and to his son. They worked on it from 1543 to 1626. Certain authors even give a date as late as 1632 for the completion of the work. For its embellishment the celebrated architect Mansart erected a triumphal arch at the entrance on the left end. This was retained until 1861. As a consequence of repairs undertaken at about this time, namely 1867, the coping was lowered about 45 centimeters, and an increase of width resulted amounting to 80 centimeters. These repairs enabled the old bridge to with- stand the flood of June 1875, which was of unusual violence. It overthrew the bridge of St. Michael up-stream, and down-stream the bridge of St. Peter as well, in addition to causing very serious damage by flooding the entire suburb of St. Cyprien. We may now turn to a study of those special features referred to above with the feeling, at least, of having made the acquaintance of the bridge. Its color is perhaps the first thing that strikes us, for both brick and stone mingle — 70 — pleasantly in its color composition, being used freely, in broad and well balanced proportions. Aside from the color, it is certainly unusual to find a marked difference in the level of the embankments at the two ends of the bridge. This feature alone creates a curious dissymmetry in the two slopes of the bridge, as well as variety in the span of the arches and width of the piers. As a matter of fact, there are seven arches, of which however the chief one, with an opening of 31.70 meters, is the third from the right end as we look down-stream. It forms the center of a group of five three-centered arches of considerable difference in size, the smallest having an opening of not more than 21.60 meters. Two semicircular arches of 16 and 13.50 meters in diameter, respectively, complete the bridge in the direction of the suburb of St. Cyprien. All of these arches are enlarged on the up-stream side by cornes de vache, or funnel shaped increases in the arch opening. The slope varies from 2.4 centimeters to the meter on one side, to 4 centimeters on the other. So much for the arches; but the piers also are well worth our study. They vary in thickness from 11.70 to 7.33 meters, according to the span of the adjacent arches. From this fact alone we might conclude that the bridge was built in a thoroughly substantial manner. But perhaps a consideration of even more weight in arriving at such a conclusion is the question of the free-way, in a bridge exposed to the floods of so powerful a river as the Garonne. As a matter of fact the free-way was relatively restricted, but its effective area was increased by oval openings that add a note of interest to the tympana above the piers. As shown in an old engraving of 1783, it had been the intention to use a lion skin decoration about these openings, but the frames have been left in the rough"), In the base of the piers, which are themselves developed both up and down-stream into cut-waters, there is further matter of interest. These piers indeed are of an imposing mass, since the arches themselves have a depth of 20 meters, to which the cut-waters, both up and down-stream, add 10 and 8 meters respectively, thus giving the piers a total length of 38 meters. But the base of these piers is constructed in a manner not often met in modern bridges. The cut-waters rest, a little above water level, on lower cut-waters or foundation piers of even greater projection, a method which seems to have had good results so far as the preservation of the structure is concerned. It was a procedure frequently adopted by the Romans, as is shown in the piers of the bridge of St. Angelo, and in the central support of the bridge of Fabricius, to which reference has already been made in connection with the bridge of Sommieres. (1) A sketch of this motive which had a projection of from 30 to 50 centimeters is given in the work of Mr. de Dartein. The engraving referred to is by Berthault. TAX ALY Id ee The different levels of the embankments, in relation to the level of the road-bed, raised some difficulties with the approach to the bridge at either end. On the right hand, or town side, a widening of the roadway was arranged for, just as it meets the line of the abutment, in much the same manner as at the Pont Royal in Paris. Thus, while this bridge is not unusual in architectural design, there are arious features, as noted above, that are sufficiently unusual to warrant its inclusion in our chosen list. THE BRIDGE AT MONTMORILLON, ON THE GARTEMPE FROM THE DRAWING BY S. CHAMBERLAIN THE BRIDGE AT CHATELLERAULT OVER THE VIENNE This substantial and handsome bridge, which spans the Vienne at Chatel- lerault, is much of a type with the Pont-Neuf at Paris. They resemble one another both in the number and outline of their arches, and in the general sturdiness of their appearance. Even though the former lacks the round towers of the Pont-Neuf, it makes a striking appearance both because of its general mass and because of the fine entrance-way which dominates one of the approaches. Following the comparison with the Pont-Neuf at Paris, it is interesting to note that the two bridges were ‘built at nearly the same time, for while that at Paris was completed in the years from 1578 to 1607, the one at Chatel- lerault, begun fourteen years earlier, was not completed until 1611. A still further bond between the two bridges lies in the fact that, after 1575, the work on the bridge at Chatellerault was directed by Charles Androuet du Cerceau, son of the celebrated architect, and own brother of the Jean-Baptiste Androuet who played so important a part in carrying on the work of the Pont-Neuf. The bridge of which we are now speaking replaced a wooden bridge, that had in turn taken the place of a still older bridge, destroyed by a flood at the time when the city was besieged in 1370. In the same manner the wooden bridge was destroyed in 1556, after having been in a precarious condition since 1539. There was a delay of eight years following the first royal ordinance calling for the construction of a stone bridge, before a new decision was reached, this time by Charles IX, and before the entire problem was turned over to the builders Joguet and Gaschou-Belle. The work, however, advanced very slowly at first, even though an architect named Blondin was in charge XIX FLVId ae EY aTVOS HowyY GNOOZS JO NOILVART3 HoOUY ZIddIW NO= Howy Lsvid NO NOILoOasS Spee IM eke A al | { | | (wvaw.s-Mmoa) NOILWAT1] TW WaNZO "LNGO .wlIAX- 4, IAX LIAY wa lalaleainea elke oh it St rl ee ae from 1575 to 1594. At this latter date, Charles Androuet was called to take charge of the work as royal engineer for the highways of Poitou. He remained in charge until his death in 1606, and there is no doubt that the greatest progress was made during the period of his responsibility. Because of the fact that the bridge was almost entirely built during the reign of Henry of Navarre it is frequently named either after him or his minister Sully. CHATELLERAULT PONT HEARI WY ER The handsome entrance gateway already referred to, which so effectively completes the bridge, was threatened with absolute destruction in the second half of the eighteenth century. It was an engineer named Barbier who made this suggestion in 1768, together with that of eliminating the brackets from the cornice of the bridge, all under the guise of a restoration. The proposition, which was looked upon by the city magistrates as a piece of outrageous vandalism, had no immediate result; the idea, however, made some headway, and was taken up fifty years later, fathered by the Administration of the Ponts et Chaussées with characteristically aggressive persistence. ae) ee In spite of repeated protests from its municipal council, the city had to yield to the destruction of the central portion of the entrance. This was the more irritating because it was just this portion that belonged to the city, while the towers, for some unknown reason, belonged to the state. The city did, however, succeed in saving the towers, which it was allowed to buy back under a royal ordinance of 1823. Our drawing shows the entrance as it existed before the destruction of the central portion referred to above. The bridge itself is of generous dimension, measures 135 meters in length between abutments, and has nine arches. These arches are unusual in one respect, that they are all of equal opening (about 9.85 meters) with piers of equal width (4.60 meters). Further, being three centered, it is perhaps noteworthy that the rise of the arches in mid-stream is only 15 centimeters less than half the diameter; in other words, the arches are almost semicircular, while in the case of those next the shore this difference amounts to more than 1.20 meters. Each one of these arches slopes off, on both the up and down- stream faces, into funnel-shaped cornes de vache, the angle being determined by the slant of the break-waters in plan. Another unusual feature is that while the coping and cornice are absolu- tely level, the road bed has a fall from the center toward either entrance, a condition that is expressed, on the up and down-stream elevations of the bridge, by the varying distance between the crown of the arches and the level of the underside of the cornice. There are break-waters both up and down-stream, but those on the up- stream side, having to meet the force of flood water, rise vertically to the height of the bridge cornice, where they interrupt the line of the consoles. The down-stream cut-waters are handled less abruptly, and rise only to a normal height above water level, being finished by stepped pyramids. Considering the time at which the bridge at Chatellerault was built, its width is also notheworthy, — this is 21.80 meters over all, which, while it is less than the Pont Marie at Paris, is nevertheless greater than the bridge at Toulouse by 1.85 meters, and than the Pont-Neuf at Paris by 1.60 meters. In fact it seems almost too wide for its length. THE PONT-NEUF AT PARIS THE PONT NEUF, AT PARIS, OVER THE SEINE It seems quite absurd to our time and generation that a bridge built only a hundred years after Columbus discovered America should be called the “New Bridge”; yet to the French of Henry IV’s time it was new, and to them also the solidity of its construction was as much a matter of pride as was its beauty. In fact, a man noted for particularly robust health was said to be “as strong as the Pont-Neuf”, — somewhat of an exaggeration as we shall find, but nevertheless significant of current opinion. Briefly, the Pont-Neuf was begun in 1578 and finished in 1607. It has three distinct elements: a long arm, measuring 150 meters, spanning the wide branch of the Seine; a broad platform or landing on the Isle de la Cité, 38 meters wide; and a short arm, measuring 82 meters, across that portion of the Seine flowing between the Isle de la Cité and the Latin Quarter or Rive Gauche. The width of the bridge is 20.80 meters. Its location is only one of the reasons for its well deserved reputation, for it has qualities of rare beauty in itself. The proportion of solids to voids, the contrast of graceful curves with sturdy piers, the whole crowned by a cornice of unusual excellence in detail and scale and set off by the foliage of the little park that lies at the foot of its central platform, combine to give us a thing of such varied charm as rarely meets the eye. It is further well in character with the grace and charm that we all associate with the capital of France. The bridge as we now see it represents in substance one of the two designs that were presented by a commission especially appointed for this purpose in 1578. The original design called for triumphal arches and a great — 76 — pavilion on the central landing, but these features never took material form. The selected design was remarkable in that in contained no provision for houses on the bridge — an indication of unusual foresight at a time when the road-way of any bridge was apt to be so invaded by this sort of obstruction as to be almost valueless from a traffic standpoint. Further evidence of the need for this additional bridge may be found in the limited capacity of the Pont-au-Change and the Pont Notre-Dame, and in the fact that both of these structures were in such poor repair that artillery was not allowed to cross them. Haste was thus of the essence of this undertaking, and in 1578 on the 31st of May the first stone was laid by King Henry III in the presence of Catherine de Medici. Thanks to the very low water resulting from a serious drought", the piers of the shorter arm were raised rapidly to the spring of the arches. Then came the first interruption for, as the result of a demand for houses, the original plan had to be modified; and in order to adjust the newly made arches to the necessary increase in width, the “cornes de vache” were added that now differentiate the arches on this side from those on the longer branch, where, on account of the slower progress of the work, it was only necessary to lengthen the piers in order to meet the demand for increased width. Though good will and energy were shown at the outset, neither was of long duration. Henry III made ineffective complaints as to the slowness of the work in 1583, and from 1588 to 1599 all work was stopped by the religious (1) Journal of L’Estoile. PLATE XX wars. It was not until after this latter date, when Henry IV took upon himself personal responsibility for the completion of the work, that real progress was made. The energetic king, as an evidence of good faith, promised that he would cross a bridge at this spot within three years, and, being a man of his word, in spite of the fact that some of the earlier work had to be done over and strengthened, in June 1603, at the risk of his neck, he crossed on the newly finished arches, although the bridge was not completed for general use until three or four years later. So much pleased was the King with the final result that he forbade the construction of the proposed houses, and opened up a new street, the rue Dauphine, as a continuation of his new bridge. Thus we see the bridge actually in use, and by such crowds that its exis- tence was at once justified. Booths of every conceivable sort, for peddlers, jugglers, pastry cooks, etc., to the number of 178, took available space on both sides and on the center platform. In fact, they attracted such crowds and so interferred with circulation that they had to be suppressed in 1756, although SS fi some were replaced in the round towers, which were built by Soufflot in 1775, only to be demolished in 1851. In spite of the immense documentation that is available, there has long existed much diversity of opinion as to authorship of this bridge. The consensus of opinion among those best informed, including M. de Lasteyrie') and M. de Dartein®, leads us to conclude that the construction of the bridge may be properly attributed to Baptiste Androuet and to Guillaume Marchand. It may be well to note here, before proceeding to a more detailed analysis of the architectural features of the Pont Neuf, certain decorative elements that have always aroused comment. First among these is the statue of Henry IV which Louis XII ordered from Franqueville in honor of his father. As it was not possible to have castings of such size made in France, the order went to Italy; that for the figure was placed with Jean Bologne and that for the horse with his pupil Tacca. Shipped in 1613 from Livourne, the two bronzes, which were lost in a shipwreck, were recovered with great difficulty and set in place in 1614, only to by thrown into the Seine in 1792, so that nothing now remains of this original work but a foot. A clever temporary substitute was set up at the time of Louis XVIII’s entry to Paris, in May, 1814; and four years later the present statue by Lemot was put in place on the day of the féte of St. Louis. Certainly the little park of the Vert-Galant™ is entitled to consideration in any appraisal of the decorative elements of the bridge. Lying smiling and green under the prow of the Isle de la Cité, it is not difficult to imagine it as one of the two or three little islands that occupied the space now covered by the platform of the bridge and the Place Dauphine. That every flood of the Seine covers and enriches its flower beds and lawns is perhaps one reason why it remains such a verdant spot of color at the foot of its somber masonry setting. Let us turn now to a more particular analysis of the bridge, beginning with the smaller portion and its five arches. The axes of these arches are not parallel, so that the span of each arch varies according to whether it is mea- sured on the up or down-stream face. But taking the average span of each arch, there is a variation in their diameters, for they are all but semicircular, of from 9.78 meters in the smallest to 15.56 in the largest. The thickness of the piers varies similarly, although neither of these facts is apparent to the casual observer. The cut-waters are triangular, being continuous in plan with the slope of (1) Documents inédits sur la construction du Pont Neuf (1882). (2) Etudes sur les ponts en pierre antérieurs au XIX¢ siecle remarquables par leur décoration. (3) In the Louvre. (4) A name by which Henry IV was popularly known. PLATE XXI oe = 70 the “cornes de vache”. The round towers above the cut-waters are crowned, like the arches, by a vigorous cornice with handsome brackets. The masks that decorated the latter were at least in part credited to Germain Pilon. But these original masks no longer exist except in museums, those that we now see having been contributed by various modern artists; no less than 93, which are the work of Barye, are found on the down-stream side of the long portion. Aside from a slight lowering of the cornice in 1886 in connection with the elimination of some troublesome steps between the sidewalks and the road- way, this portion of the bridge has undergone very little change. The long side, however, has been changed appreciably. It has seven arches with the same divergence of axes noted above. The smallest of these has an average span of 14.75 meters, while that of the largest is 19.47 meters. The thickness of the piers bears about the same relation to the openings of the arches as on the shorter side, their greater thickness causing the cut-waters to project well beyond the extreme face on the semicircular towers. The reader will recall that arches on this long side differ from those on the other in that they are without “cornes de vache”. A still further change resulted from thorough repairs made in 1848 when, in an effort to reduce the grade of the road-way, the arches, with the exception of the one next the platform, were all made three-centered instead of semicircular. Recalling the popular belief as to the solidity of the Pont Neuf’s construc- tion, it is perhaps only fair to note that this has not been entirely borne out by the passing of the years. So weary did the good bridge seem in 1778 of the constant and increasing demands upon its strength, that a commission, which included both Soufflot and Perronet, was appointed to make a tho- rough examination of its condition. Although the report indicated that the largest arch had been badly built, and that this was true of most of the arch stones on the long side as well, still no action was taken until 1827, when some slight corrections were carried out. It was not until 1842 that a thorough overhauling of the long portion was undertaken under the direction of the engineer de Lagalisserie. It was in the process of this work that the arches were changed, as we have seen, from semicircular to three-centered, that adequate drainage was provided. and the entrances widened. In fact, the whole job was so well done that there has since been no anxiety as to its stability. The same is not the case with the small portion, which was in so precarious a condition in 1885 that the foundations of the piers, undermined by a deepening of the river bed, had to be entirely rebuilt. As a further precaution those foundations were surrounded by a protecting wall, which was in turn safe-guarded by a bed of broken stone. And so we may bring our history to a close, hopeful that what we have eae ees told may interest our readers in the qualities of a bridge whose charm must be apparent to the most casual observer. It is in many ways expressive of just those qualities of common sense and grace mingled with a vigorous bonhomie that characterised that most beloved of French kings : Henry of Navarre. sluvd ‘AIWVW-LNOd AHL THE PONT MARIE AT PARIS Although some years younger than the Pont-Neuf, the Pont Marie is never- theless one of the oldest in Paris, and while it is less celebrated than its senior, it remains undeniably interesting. Its rather pronounced slope gives it a cha- racteristic outline, and the simple motive of the niches crowning each of its piers is sufficient to add a note of real architectural value. It has much of the charm of the Pont Royal, in the turn of its arches and the slope of its road-way, with somewhat more pretention to architectural interest in the decoration of the tympana above the break-waters, and in the fact that its road-way is at an appreciably greater height above the water level. Another peculiarity, that is unusual but not in the least related to its architecture, is the fact that the construction of the bridge was neither paid for, nor controlled, by the state, but was entirely a matter of private enterprise. The story is as follows : Early in 1600, when the Isle de la Cité was packed so tight that its houses spilled over on to the bridges, the Isle St. Louis remained unoccupied except for a few huts, and was divided by a shallow, muddy stream into two sections. Three enterprising individuals — Le Regrattier, treasurer of the Swiss, Poulle- tier, secretary to the king, and a contractor, Christophe Marie, — recognising the possibilities of this situation, joined in asking permission to do the work = So necessary to make this land available, on condition that the ground should become their property. Authorization was granted to them in 1614 by the king, on condition that they should build bridges to the island from both sides, and also fill in the muddy creek that cut the island in two, together with the establishment of some system of drainage. The number and size of the arches and piers as well as the freeway were all clearly detailed in this authorization, which also included permission to build houses on the bridge similar to those on the Pont Notre-Dame, merely reserving 24 feet of the width for circulation. It appears that these houses had a shop and kitchen on the ground floor, above which were three stories and an entresol, each containing one room and an alcove. The bridge was 92.25 meters in length, and its width 23.60 meters. Named, as we may easily surmise, after the contractor mentioned above, the first stone in its construction was laid in 1614 by Louis XIII and Marie de Medici. Although the inscription now on the bridge says that it dates from 1614-15, it appears that the work was not entirely finished until 20 years later. Flood and disaster followed close on the heels of its completion, for in the mighty floods of 1658, when the ice broke up in the Seine on the last day of February, two of the arches were swept away, and with them 20 houses with their occupants i IIXX ALVId a ee amounting to 120 souls). Between this catastrophe and 1670, when these arches were entirely rebuilt, the occupants of the remaining houses were twice warned to leave. But though the arches were replaced the destroyed houses were never rebuilt. In fact in 1741, when another flood threatened, 18 others were pulled down, and the remainder were demolished by law in 1788. Since then, except for some slight modifications in the slope of the road- way, no events of particular interest have happened to the bridge. It remains a structure of fine qualities; the handling of its proportions and the treatment of the niches are both noteworthy. The bridge seems to share in or even add to that peculiar charm which so distinguishes the Isle St. Louis for all who know it. It has qualities of spacious width and reposeful dignity that belong with this pleasant back-water in the hurrying stream of Parisian life. (1) A similar mishap had occurred in 1499 to the Pont Notre-Dame when, fortunately, only four or five persons perished. But active steps were then taken to find who was responsible; — the Prevot of the Merchants, the Echevins of that and the preceding year, the Procureur of the king, the Greffier, and the two Receveurs of the City, were all sent to prison where, in addition, they paid heavy fines, and some even died. Ye ert & THE PONT-MARIE, PARIS THE PONT ROYAL AT PARIS This bridge, even if it lacked other merits, should endear itself to architects because of the great names associated with it. Drawn by Mansart, it was built by Gabriel’s grandfather, and the work officially accepted by Liberal Bruant. It has, however, definite claims upon our interest aside from the association with these famous men. The breadth and simplicity of its composition combine with the beauty of its stonework to give a result that has been admired from many points of view, perhaps particularly from the quais and the shores. It offers a further element of interest in that, from a certain standpoint, it may be regarded as the first of the modern bridges; for it is indeed the first where care was taken not to choke the river with piers, where the road-way was given a sufficient width to accommodate a considerable traffic, and where a new method was employed in building the foundations, that for two centuries thereafter was almost uniformly followed. Apparently, neither the architect who conceived the designs, nor the contractor who carried out their construction, is entitled to credit for the practically perfect performance of the work on this bridge; for such serious difficulties were encountered at the very outset, in building the foundations of the first pier, that it was decided to call upon the services of a preaching brother named Francois Romain, from Holland, who had made a reputation in connection with the building of the bridge at Maestricht. Gauthey, in his Traité des Ponts, gives most detailed information about the building of the Pont Royal, including data concerning the foundations, which were apparently started 15 feet below mean water level. This information prompts Mr. de Dartein to point out that brother Francois Romain might justly claim ee SG credit for initiating three new processes in the construction of the Pont Royal alone, — the employment of a dredge to prepare a bed for the foundation, the introduction of pouzzolane in the mortar of the masonry surrounding the piles and, finally, of utilizing the principle of caissons, which has since been employed universally for this type of work. The Pont Royal replaced a wooden bridge which had been carried away in 1684, and which, in its turn, had been built to replace a previous wooden bridge dating from 1632 and burned in 1656. The existing bridge was built during the years from 1685 to 1687, at the expense of the king. Thanks to Gauthey we know its exact cost, 675.000 francs, according to the figures of Jacques Gabriel, architect to the king, and contractor for his buildings ©, who had taken part under the direction of Mansart, during the preceding years, in the important work at Versailles. The estimate is dated January 5, 1685, and the first stone was set in place on the 25" of the following October. From Gauthey we also learn that Gabriel died nine months after the work started, but that his widow, in accordance with the usage of the period, and contrary to her own preference, was constrained to accept the completion of the work on the bridge, as part of her inheritance. The work was directed by her brother, Pierre de I'lle, himself architect to the king, but the responsibility for the execution of the contract rested upon her. None of these somewhat unusual conditions seems to have delayed the progress of the work, which as a matter of fact was more rapid than in the case of most bridges hitherto built. We have noted that an effort was made in the Pont Royal to assure a more adequate free-way than in previous bridges, so that the use of the elliptical, or better the three-centered arch, may be regarded as an innovation in Paris, where, up to this time, the arches used had been nearly semicircular. It is only fair to remind our readers, however, that about one hundred and twenty years earlier, the great Ammanati had achieved, in his bridge of the Trinita at Florence, an idea that was even more daring and modern. This bridge spans the Arno with three arches 29 meters wide, separated by piers 7.90 meters in width. The curve of these arches is very much flattened : for half of the small axis of the ellipse ® measures only 4.57 meters, its center being 3 meters above mean water level. The lines of the arches in the Pont Royal were certainly much less flattened than those in the Trinifa, as is shown by the fact that the relation (1) This is Jacques Gabriel (1632-1686), a nephew of Francois Mansart the elder, father of Jacques-Jules Gabriel, the first engineer of the Ponts ef Chaussées (1667-1742), and grandfather of Jacques-Ange Gabriel, the famous architect (1698-1782). (2) See diagram p. 16. (3) To be exact, the elliptical arches are slightly broken at the crown. TNXX aALVId co co SS NN N = ; YN t KK ; . \ - : = — | : : -+ — = ——— = L\ al srenoour N fe 5 se § phi — zs 23 ee eae eb ee ee eee f Sana = = —— - y, == SSS ee = = a SS! 7 i : Ladd .. SS = smuLaWw = === NOd T