A modern visitor could be easily seduced by Three Sisters
of Provence, whether it is the seamless flow of pure stone-vaulted spaces, the
gentle and sometimes golden glow from light falling on bare stone, the
carefully calibrated hierarchy of elements, or the unfailing discipline of the continuously
felt geometric order. On top of all
this, in their current restored state, the buildings play to the contemporary requirement
for painless rusticity and explicit naturalness: unadorned stone surfaces
underfoot, overhead and on walls; retained mason’s marks proving hand-made
authenticity; the imperfects and discolouring that could only have resulted
from a lengthy service; the controlled irregularity of the (local) stone
roofing tiles; and the now unmatchable position in wild country: if not the exact
form, at least the preferred textures and location of a desirable contemporary
country house.
But these buildings are not some easy luxurious abode, designed
for the comfort of the occupants and to be envied by the television viewers. The three surviving intact Cistercian
monasteries of Provence, known as the Three Sisters of Provence are the words
of the Rule of St Benedict formed
into stone. The same qualities of
discipline, balance, consistency and cohesion are found in both the 6th
century manual on running a monastic community and these 12th
century buildings: buildings designed to most effectively bring the monks
closest to God. The three sisters are Senanque near Gordes in the western
Luberon, Silvacane near the Durance
River on the southern edge of the Luberon, and Le Thoronet, further to the east.
The great distinguishing feature of Cistercian
monasteries was their sparseness, the rejection of the ornaments and
decoration, whether in stone, paint or fabrics, that other orders or the wider
church used to glue their adherents more firmly to them. Instead of visual clues, monks were to reflect
solely on the word of God, either sung, recited (during the main meal) or read individually. Buildings had to encourage this singular
focus not only through the near absence of adornments but also in the enclosure
and removal from wider world with windows placed high and kept small, though
carefully detailed and precisely positioned.
The distracting comforts were avoided, whether it was the unyielding
stone provided as the bed base in the brother’s dormitory or the absence of
heating except for one space: the calefactory.
The daily discipline of physical work (alongside the prayer), the
assistance of lay helpers, the seemingly constant donation of additional land
by local lords, together with the order and system brought to the task of food
production and storage, meant regular nourishing food was available, something
very different to the variability of the outside world.
It is this constancy of daily existence, undistracted by
hunger or the random events of the wider world, reinforced by the regularity
and repetition of the sequence of stone spaces that provided the best
opportunity for monks to stay focused on their singular mission of getting
closer to God. An efficient earthly
ordering of living, praying, contemplative and working spaces provided the best
chance of freeing their minds for non-earthly things. Though, of course, it was ultimately this
same ability and discipline to order material things that concentrated excess
wealth in the hands of the monasteries and, in many cases, corrupted their
original mission in later centuries.
Just as the Rule of St Benedict was not some
instant, abstract or even utopian ideal about how a group of people could live
effectively together, the arrangement of monastic spaces resulted from
experience over time and had to combine workability with symbolism. The symbolism is obvious: the Latin cross
form of the church is the dominant element, with the cloister, ideally nestled
into north-eastern corner of the cross, providing the link space, drawing all
the other parts together, whilst doubling as a reading, meditation and possibly
meeting space (though silence was required, with necessary discourse by hand
signals). The other key spaces of the
sacristy, chapterhouse (meeting room), calefactory and monk’s dormitory were an
extension of the transept or cross arm of the church (allowing direct access to
the church at night, from the dormitory).
This was a tried and true formula, repeated in monastery after
monastery, just as much as a modern fast food chain would lay down world-wide systems
and procedures.
While the system may have been precisely prescribed, the
realisation could never be. Abstract
geometry had to meet physical reality, whether that is the shape of the land,
the nature of the local stone, and even the quirks, interests and knowledge of
the local builders. Each of the Sisters
step down their site, adjusting floor levels to the slope with carefully
considered transitions that add complexity to the spaces. While cloisters are all square more or less,
they are rarely level and in one case, Thoronet,
the form is so distorted as to be trapezoidal, with the expanded (and sunny)
northern end holding an elegant hexagonal room for the washing fountain. The cloister of Thoronet also descends quite
rapidly into this northern end, with multiple flights of stairs providing a
challenge for perambulating monks. Silvacane holds the most of the height
changes within the church, making a seating ledge out of the step up from the
nave to the southern aisle and a rather tight set of steep stairs from the
church to the cloister, allowing the steps in the cloister itself to be quite
modest.
However, it is the colour of the stone and the lightness,
openness and styling of the stone screen separating the central garden from the
walkers that define the cloister. The
cloister of Senaque is perhaps the
most enticing, with sunlight able to fall on the double sets of fine columns: a
small forest of light-coloured trunks that enable our sight to easily penetrate
the supports, as well as sunlight to brighten the elegant flower or leaves of the
column capitals. By contrast, the depth
of the cloister arches of Thoronet
creates a sequence of mini-vaults, demonstrating that the main vault of the
cloister is firmly suspended. Initially
hidden, a single sturdy column in each mini-vault produces two secondary vaults
(or arches?) and oculus above, creating a complex stone screen of great depth
and dramatic shadows. With its pink or
orange colour and rich pockmarked surface, this stonework the is the ultimate
in pleasing rusticity: gentle golden reflected light thrown on to heavily
textured and almost irregular surfaces.
This enviable material, combined with the stripped-down, almost 20th
century sense of geometry greatly impressed one of the high priests of
Modernism, Le Corbusier, when he was after inspiration for his own monastery (Sainte Marie de La Tourette, near Lyon).
The cloister of Thoronet
is almost an exact extrusion of the nave arches of the adjoining church. Both have amazingly minimal, with a small
projecting capital restricted to the inner surface of the arches and pilasters,
just enough to define the separation of the vertical (pilaster) from the curving
(arch) and reinforce the modularity of the system. The absence of wrap-around mouldings or
capitals allows the whole inner surface of the nave or cloister walls to flow
almost uninterrupted into the stone of the vault above: all-around unceasing stone. Again, only a simple moulding for the length
of the springing of the vault breaks the flow and helps control the space.
While Thoronet
divides the barrel vault of the nave with a sequence of simple ribs aligned
with the centre of the piers of the arcade, Silvacane ignores this ‘rule’ and has a unbroken nave vault through
to the crossing, while Senanque goes
for a more elaborate combination of engaged columns, with clearly defined
capitals, both for the arches and for the base of the vault ribs. All three abide by the Cistercian habit of
ending ribs well above the floor to allow for stalls to abut the nave piers. All churches end in either a pleasing
semicircular apse, or in the case of Silvacane,
a more stark square sanctuary, though all retain the seeming obligatory three balanced
windows. Windows
in general are simple and deep-set: pin-pricks of light in an otherwise sombre
interior, with the sloping surfaces of the slits in the thick walls creating
expanded pockets of light. This is a
long distance from the later northern French quest for churches to become
almost walls of glass, with light, particularly light coloured by stained
glass, given some mystical role as leading the mind directly to the immaterial,
heavenly or transcendent. Here it is the
building form itself that is to influence the mind.
When these monasteries were built, Christianity was very
old and had hammered out its position on key doctrinal issues over the previous
millennia or more. To the monks, God was
not some nebulous unformed thing but to be approached with fixed idea of the
nature of his existence and purpose in bringing his physical presence into this
world. So equally the separation and
simplification of these buildings is not some ‘New Age’ stripping away of the
distracting low grade clutter of the modern industrialized world, with the hope
that enlightenment and non-attachment might somehow result, but instead is a strict
system. The sequence of bays, columns,
vault spans, heights and spaces of various purposes are all locked together in
a way that reinforces the sense of the whole place, and possibly the
relationship to the whole cosmos created by God the architect.
It is tempting to describe these Sisters as ‘machines for
producing spiritual enlightenment’, just as Modernism Architects saw their
houses as ‘machines for living in’.
However, ‘machine’ implies that there is almost a guarantee about the
result, a precision about the method and a nearly infinite repeatability. Instead, all the original monks themselves would
have been likely to acknowledge is that the simplicity and order of these
spaces created the possibility of moving closer to their God.
No comments:
Post a Comment