ldings of these panelled pilasters either do not quite fit those of
the fluted strips behind, or else are cut off against them, as are also
the top mouldings of the fluted part; further, the fluted part runs up
rather awkwardly into the vault, so that it seems reasonable to
conjecture that these square renaissance pilasters and the arches may be
an after-thought, added because it was found that the original
buttresses were not quite strong enough for their work, and this too
would account for the purely renaissance character of the carving on
them, while the rest is almost entirely Gothic or Manoelino. The arches
are carried diagonally across the corners, in a very picturesque manner,
and they all help to keep out the direct sunlight and to throw most
effective shadows.

The parapet above these arches is carved with very pleasing renaissance
details, and above each pier rise a niche and saint.

The upper cloister is simpler than the lower. All the arches are round
with a big splay on each side carved with four-leaved flowers. They are
cusped at the top, and at the springing two smaller cusped arches are
thrown across to a pinnacled shaft in the centre. The buttresses between
them are covered with spiral grooves, and are all finished off with
twisted pinnacles. Inside the pointed vault is much simpler than in the
walks below.

Here the tracery is very much less elaborate than in the Claustro Real
at Batalha, but as scarcely a square inch of the whole cloister is left
uncarved the effect is much more disturbed and so less pleasing.

Beautiful though most of the ornament is, there is too much of it, and
besides, the depressed shape of the lower arches is bad and ungraceful,
and the attempt at tracery in the upper walks is more curious than
successful.

The chapter-house too, though a large and splendid room, would have
looked better with a simpler vault and without the elliptical arches of
the apse recesses.

The refectory, without any other ornament than the bold ribs of its
vaulted roof, and a dado of late tiles, is far more pleasing.

Altogether, splendid as it is, Belem is far less pleasing, outside at
least, than the contemporary work at Batalha or at Thomar, for, like the
tower of Sao Vicente near by, it is wanting in those perfect proportions
which more than richness of detail give charm to a building. Inside it
is not so, and though many of the vaulting ribs might be criticised as
useless

[Illustration: