This is the Palace of the Popes at Avignon, at one time the largest building in medieval Europe and still the largest Gothic palace in Europe, and therefore presumably the world (American Gothic aside). It was originally the Bishop of Avignon's Palace from way-back-when, and it was only modernised by the Popes because things in Rome got a bit hot and tricky in the early 1300s. This palace famously drained the resources of the church for its 50 year construction period, and in the end nobody really lived there. Wikipedia reliably informs me that it was only inhabited and used by the papacy for a mere 70 years - the rest of the time it became a symbol of the papal schism of the 1400s, and was in the charge of the "anti-popes" Clement VII and Benedict XIII for a time until the papacy once more gained control of what even then must have been seen as a bit of a white elephant. In fact, from 1403 onwards it continued to deteriorate, and one might argue that a take over and ransacking by Napoleon's forces in the 1700s did more good than harm and actually gave this vast edifice some purpose - for use as a barracks, and what seems to be the obligatory site of massacre of counter-revolutionaries (not that this is a good use of a building). In an even better twist the whole thing then became mostly stables, until it was vacated in 1909 and turned into an archive/museum. It's now on the UNESCO list and is under almost constant restoration. Napoleonic forces do put one's papal palace in disarray, so.
So, paraphrasing from Wiki aside, doesn't anyone else find this bizarre? Not that it's a world heritage site (you've got to admit there's some pretty fabulous crennelation work going on there), but just the sheer size and scale and pointlessness of thing. It was never a convincing palace, for popes or otherwise, but after winning it back from the anti-papists the RC's could hardly then flog it off to an obliging power-crazed Renaissance Duke. Mixed messages at best. No, seems to me they were always a bit stuck with it - although I'm sure it served as a welcome retreat from the strains of the papal seat. No doubt when Napoleon invaded there was a communal sigh of relief from the Vatican - "Thank God Bonaparte has taken that monstrosity off our hands - no more central heating bills!" And even the normally-grandiose Boney could only think of the rather boring barracks/stables/bit of massacre and pillaging route. And then he too seemed to want to forget about it, stable the nags there, move on to better things.
Perhaps the moral of this ramble (if one is needed) is that every building has a time. The Palais-des-Papes's time is unquestionably now - this building has been waiting over 700 years just to become a tourist attraction, and lo! It's the best use for a building that is clearly unliveable-in and from the plans appears to have no green outdoor space to speak of. It is now justifiably celebrated as pretty near the apex of gothic-catholic hubris, visitors pour in and it is one of the most visited places in France.
And what hubris it is, like something out of a knight errant's fairy tale or medieval stonemason's "my dream palace" book of drawings, or the title page of "The Greatest Hits of the Secular Romanesque Gothic Style". One suspects that had it been built in Rome the Pope would still be taking midnight walks in its courtyards, touching the honey-coloured stones and feeling the weight of ages upon him as he plans his own modern-day massacres. But no, they built it at Avignon, spent far too much money, went and had a papal schism then saw the whole thing as the bad idea it was. And, most wonderfully for everyone, it has been barely touched since 1403, meaning that it is (unlike all the Vatican buildings and most other medieval structures), charmingly unspoilt. The House of Valois would be proud. Only not, because they didn't build it. And how much better than having a mothballed palace to having a busy, thriving space where people look, experience and enjoy a fantastic building? Or horses, we could go back to the horses.
Rome's loss is France and the modern tourist's gain - even if the history part probably needs sexing up on the tour (what, no poisoning? No seiges? Just a massacre of the counter-revolutionaries? Didn't Catherine d'Medici even visit?). The building speaks for itself, a marvellously overblown medieval folly and proof that hubris isn't always misplaced, in the end........
No comments:
Post a Comment