Thiepval Anglo-French Cemetery

Description

The most important British memorial in France is impressive in its scale and architecture. It evokes responses varying from ‘monstrous’ and ‘hideous’ to ‘superior’ and ‘brilliant’. The fact is that the memorial is unique in its manifestation, although it is derived from renowned examples in architectural history. The reference to the Arc de Triomphe in Paris leads to misunderstandings, however. Whereas in Paris, the heroic deeds of Napoleon’s army were celebrated, Thiepval commemorates the casualties of the struggle that did not have a winner. The monument commemorates no fewer than 73,000 solders from the United Kingdom and South Africa who were missing after the senseless mass slaughter of the Battle of the Somme in July 1916. In addition, it commemorates the co-operation between the British and the French armies in the 1916 offensive, and there is a cemetery with French and British graves on the west side of the memorial.

In 1923 Lutyens was commissioned to create a monument in St. Quentin to commemorate 60,000 soldiers who did not return. An important practical element in the assignment was the creation of sufficient wall surface for the names of the missing. In most cases, the architect applied the ambulatory cloister structure around a central space with a monument, so that much wall surface was available. Previously, Reginald Blomfield had designed a monument in the stronghold around Ypres in the form of a city gate, which called to mind the traditional arch of triumph, like the Arc de Tromphe in Paris, which was elongated to generate sufficient wall surface. However, the 57,000 turned out to be far from sufficient and a second memorial was established in Passendale, designed by Herbert Baker. In this same period, Lutyens designed an entrance building for the cemetery in Warlencourt, which resembles the Menin Gate by Blomfield in its set-up. In the design at St. Quentin, Lutyens also places the memorial over the road, but he divides the arch of triumph into a stack of smaller arches so that instead of two or four there are no fewer than sixteen pillars to which 73,000 names could ultimately be applied. After a total reconsideration of all the planned memorials, instigated by French objections, and after long diplomatic negotiations, the design was constructed in an almost unchanged form as a communal British-French monument on the upland plain at Thiepval between 1928 and 1932.

In comparison to the buildings on the cemeteries and, for example, the memorial in Arras, the enormous scale of the building is a striking feature. Whereas the classical architecture of temples and arches of triumph has been reduced to a human scale at the cemeteries, here it seems like a super-human scale has been sought. For psychological reasons, the height is just a little lower than the Arc de Triomphe. However, the great difference is that in Thiepval the large scale is built down to a smaller scale that is much more comprehensible for the visitor. The building consists of an ingenious combination of arches that increase in size in four stages of which the lowest is similar to the gate buildings at the cemetery in terms of scale, and the highest has the almost same dimensions as the Arc de Triomphe.

The arches are identical in their form, with the largest arch at the top. The keystone of each arch touches the frame that extends under the semicircular termination of the next arch. In addition to this play of stacked arches, the total volume diminishes in stages due to the fact that the mass adjoining each arch remains the same but decreases optically due to the increasingly large arches. At the top of the memorial, this interplay of stepped tapering masses is continued to a termination that suddenly displays parallels with the top of Art Deco skyscrapers. On this point, the built memorial differs from the first design for St. Quentin, which had a red lantern at the top and a saucer-shaped dome with a possible vista point. Ultimately, the memorial was not built over the road, although Lutyens did propose this again at the new location. In the built memorial, the access road and the main axis of the memorial traverse one another in a circular forecourt. The path through the high- est gateway has been replaced by a stairway with the War Stone at the centre. With this change, the significance of the memorial has become more powerful. As a consequence, the association with a gateway has made way for something that most refers to a Hall of Honour. Although the memorial has a clear main axis that runs precisely eastwest, the pure frontal character lacks the expression of an arch of triumph as all the masses are extended on all sides. This is even more apparent in the memorial itself. From the posi- tion of the War Stone, there is a fine view in all directions out across the former battlefields. At this spot, it becomes evident that the building has an extremely spatial effect on the inside and acquires the ambience of a Hall of Honour or a part of a cathedral. The visitor can stroll along the panels with names in the vaults of the various arches.

Despite the initial impression of the overwhelming scale of the building, Lutyens attempted, with a stepped building, to bring the enormous dimensions back to human proportions. To the visitor to the memorial, there is enough stimulus to come into contact with the building. In addition to the panels with names, the floors have been elaborated in various patterns of brick and natural stone. A band with decoration has been incorporated at the bottom of each of the sixteen pillars, showing the same cut-out motif as the laurel wreaths that hang above the panels. The corners of the pillars taper slightly above and below the panels in order to give the mass a certain amount of elegance. The ceiling of the barrel vaulting is decorated with a motif taken from a Buddhist stupa like the one that Lutyens applied in the Government House in New Delhi, which had just been completed.

Right from his first assignment for a memorial for the Rand Regiments Memorial in Johannesburg in South Africa in 1911, Lutyens had been researching the possibility of elaborating the form of the classic arch of triumph. In his first monument, he applied for the first time the principle of arches in two different façades in various sizes but with the same proportions. He combined this principle with that of a temple front and thus unconsciously developed a prototype for the shelters at the cemeteries. He continued this principle with the two pavilions at the cemeteries in Étaples, the Leicester War Memorial and the All India
War Memorial in New Delhi. In the design for St. Quentin, Lutyens applied for the first time the Roman arch of triumph with three openings adjoining one another in two directions with different sizes of openings. The Renaissance architect Alberti applied this principle in his Sant’Andrea Church in Mantua. In doing so, Alberti was the first architect to trans- late a Christian building into forms that had been borrowed from classical pre-Christian architecture. It is not surprising that Lutyens again used Alberti’s principles in an assignment for a cathedral in Liverpool in 1929. Just as in Mantua, the motifs of the arch of triumph were continued in two direc- tions to form a three-dimensional unit in the nave. From the façade, he extended the central arch of the arch of triumph as barrel vaulting in the central nave of the church. In the side aisles, he turned the barrel vaulting 90° so that a series of lateral passages were created, which were actually a reduction of the same principle.

With the exception of the crypt, the cathedral in Liver- pool was never completed. This means that the memorial in Thiepval is the only building by Lutyens that can give an impression of what the cathedral might have looked like. It would appear to be no coincidence that, just as with the cathedral in Liverpool, the main axis lies east west in accordance with the traditions of ecclesiastical construction. Don’t the nearby cathedrals of St. Quentin and Amiens also lie on the highest point in their surroundings? With this insight, the memorial at Thiepval can be regarded as a fragment of an unrealized cathedral. Or should we interpret it as a ruin – according to Winston Churchill the most authentic commemorative monument to a war. Anyone now visiting the memorial will notice that the area where the memorial stands is surrounded by groves transected by the visibility lines to the four points of the compass. The groves around the cathedral-like memorial unconsciously evoke the first proposal by Lutyens, dating from 1917, for an unrealized cathedral of trees in front of the immense Trouville War Hospital Cemetery, as well as the rejected plan for a tree cathedral in a park in Leicester.

After completion, various items have been altered for practical reasons down through the years. After countless technical problems, the original brickwork has been replaced twice. The walls along the grassy field in front of the memorial have been changed from stepped walls to a low horizontal wall. At the circular intersection, the walls have been removed and a bench in a hedge has been placed in the open visibility line to the east. On the west side a monumental stairway has been added in order to make the cemetery more accessible. Finally, a few years ago, a new visitor centre was realized at the entrance to the grounds.

Bibliography

, Jeroen Guerst – Cemeteries of the Great War by Edwin Lutyens

Also cited in