The Chateau du Vieux Palais and le petit Chateau like the edifices which I have already noticed, have equally yielded to time and violence. M. Carpentier has furnished us with representations of both these castles, drawn and etched by himself, in the Itinerary of Rouen. The first of them has also been inaccurately figured by Ducarel, and satisfactorily by Millin, in the second volume of his Antiquites Nationales; where, to the pen of this most meritorious and indefatigable writer, of whom, as of our Goldsmith, it may be justly said, that "nullum fere scribendi genus non tetigit, nullum quod tetigit non ornavit," it affords materials for a curious memoir, blended with the history of our own Henry Vth, and of Henry IVth, of France. The castle was the work of the first of these sovereigns, and was begun by him in 1420, two years after a seven months' siege had put him in possession of the city, long the capital of his ancestors, and had thus rendered him undisputed master of Normandy. This was an event worthy of being immortalised; and it may easily be imagined that private feelings had no little share in urging him to erect a magnificent palace, intended at once as a safeguard for the town, and a residence for himself and his posterity. The right to build it was an express article in the capitulation he granted to Rouen, a capitulation of extreme severity[59], and purchased at the price of three hundred thousand golden crowns, as well as of the lives of three of the most distinguished citizens; Robert Livret, grand-vicar of the archbishop, John Jourdain, commander of the artillery, and Louis Blanchard, captain of the train-bands. The two first of these were, however, suffered to ransome themselves; the last, a man of distinguished honor and courage, was beheaded; but Henry, much to his credit, made no farther use of his victory, and even consented to pay for the ground required for his castle. He selected for the purpose, the situation where, defence was most needed, upon the extremity of the quay, by the side of the river, near the entrance from Dieppe and Havre. A row of handsome houses now fills the chief part of the space occupied by the building, which, at a subsequent period, was again connected with English history[60], as the residence of our James IInd, after the battle of La Hague; before his spirit was yet sufficiently broken to suffer him to give up all thoughts of the British crown, and to accept the asylum offered by Louis XIVth, in the obscure tranquillity of Saint Germain's. It continued perfect till the time of the revolution, and was of great extent and strength, defended by massy circular towers, surrounded by a moat, and approachable only by a draw-bridge.

The castle, which still remains to be described, and whose smaller size is sufficiently denoted by its name, was also built by the same monarch, but it was raised upon the ruins of a similar edifice that had existed since the days of King John. Being situated at the foot of the bridge, the older castle had been selected as the spot where it was stipulated that the soldiers, composing the Anglo-Norman garrison, should lay down their arms, when the town surrendered to Philip Augustus.—It was known from very early time by the appellation of the Barbican, a term of much disputed signification as well as origin: if we are to conclude, according to some authorities, that it denoted either a mere breast-work, or a watch-tower, or an appendage to a more important fortress, it would appear but ill applied to a building like the one in question. I should rather believe it designated an out-post of any kind; and I would support my conjecture by this very castle, which was neither upon elevated ground, nor dependent on any other. It consisted of two square edifices, similar to what are called the pavillions of the Thuilleries, flanked by small circular towers with conical roofs, and connected by an embattled wall. Not more than fifty years have passed since its demolition; yet no traces of it are to be found.

A few rocky fragments, appearing now to bid defiance to time, indicate the scite of the fortress, which once arose on the summit of Mont Ste. Catherine, and which, though dismantled by Henry IVth, and reduced to a state of dilapidation, was still suffered to maintain its ruined existence till a few years ago. Its commanding situation, upon an eminence three hundred and eighty feet high and immediately overhanging the city, could not but render it of great importance towards the defence of the place; and we accordingly find that Taillepied, who probably wrote before its demolition, gives it as his opinion, that whoever is in possession of Mont Ste. Catherine, is also master of the town, if he can but have abundant supplies of water and provisions;—no needless stipulation! At the same time, it must be admitted that the fort was equally liable to be converted into the means of annoyance. Such actually proved the case in 1562, at which time it was seized by the Huguenots; and considerations of this nature most probably prevailed with the citizens, when they declined the offer made by Francis Ist, who proposed at a public meeting to enlarge the tower into an impregnable citadel. In the hands of the Protestants, the fortress, such as it was, proved sufficient to resist the whole army of Charles IXth, during several days.—Rouen was stoutly defended by the reformed, well aware of the sanguinary dispositions of the bigotted monarch. They yielded, and he sullied his victory by giving the city up to plunder, during twenty-four hours; and we are told, that it was upon this occasion he first tasted heretical blood, with which, five years afterwards, he so cruelly gorged himself on the day of St. Bartholomew. Catherine of Medicis accompanied him to the siege; and it is related that she herself led him to the ditches of the ramparts, in which many of their adversaries had been buried, and caused the bodies to be dug up in his presence, that he might be accustomed to look without horror upon the corpse of a Protestant!

Near the fort stood a priory[61], whose foundation is dated as far back as the eleventh century, when Gosselin, Viscount of Rouen, Lord of Arques and Dieppe, having no son to inherit his wealth, was induced to dispose of it "to pious uses," by the persuasions of two monks, who had wandered in pilgrimage from the monastery of Saint Catherine, on Mount Sinai. These good men assured him, that, if he dedicated a church to the martyred daughter of the King of Alexandria, the stones employed in building it would one day serve him as so many stepping-stones to heaven. They confirmed him in his resolution, by presenting him with one of the fingers of Saint Catherine. To her, therefore, the edifice was made sacred, and hence it is believed that the hill also took its name. In the Golden Legend, we find an account of the translation of the finger to Rouen not wholly reconcileable with this history.—According to the veracious authority of James of Voragine, there were certain monks of Rouen, who journeyed even until the Arabian mountain. For seven long years did they pray before the shrine of the Queen Virgin and Martyr, and also did they implore her to vouchsafe to grant them some token of her favor; and, at length, one of her fingers suddenly disjointed itself from the dead hand of the corpse.—"This gift," as the legend tells, "they received devoutly, and with it they returned to their monastery at Rouen."—Never was a miracle less miraculous; and it is fortunately now of little consequence to inquire whether the mouldering relic enriched an older monastery, or assisted in bestowing sanctity on a rising community. According to the pseudo-hagiologists, the corpse of Saint Catherine was borne through the air by angels, and deposited on the summit of Mount Sinai, on the spot where her church is yet standing. Conforming, as it were, to the example of the angels, it was usual, in the middle ages, to erect her religious buildings on an eminence. Various instances may be given of this practice in England, as well as in France: such is the case near Winchester, near Christ-Church, in the Isle of Wight, and in many other places. St. Michael contested the honor with her; and he likewise has a chapel here, whose walls are yet standing. Its antiquity was still greater than that of the neighboring monastery; a charter from Duke Richard IInd, dated 996, speaking of it as having had existence before his time, and confirming the donation of it to the Abbey of St. Ouen. But St. Michael's never rivalled the opulence of Saint Catherine's priory.—Gosselin himself, and Emmeline his wife, lay buried in the church of the latter, which is said to have been large, and to have resembled in its structure that of St. Georges de Bocherville: it is also recorded, that it was ornamented with many beautiful paintings; and loud praises are bestowed upon its fine peal of bells. The epitaph of the founder speaks of him, as—

"Premier Autheur des mesures et poids Selon raison en ce paeis Normand."

It is somewhat remarkable, that there appear to have been only two other monumental inscriptions in the church, and both of them in memory of cooks of the convent; a presumptive proof that the holy fathers were not inattentive to the good things of this world, in the midst of their concern for those of the next.—The first of them was for Stephen de Saumere,—

"Qui en son vivant cuisinier Fut de Reverend Pere en Dieu, De la Barre, Abbe de ce lieu."

The other was for—

"Thierry Gueroult, en broche et en fossets Gueu tres-expert pour les Religieux."

The fort and the religious buildings all perished nearly at the same time: the former was destroyed at the request of the inhabitants, to whom Henry IVth returned on that occasion his well-known answer, that he "wished for no other fortress than the hearts of his subjects;" the latter to gratify the avarice of individuals, who cloked their true designs under the plea that the buildings might serve as a harbor for the disaffected.

Of the origin of the fort I find no record in history, except what Noel says[62], that it appears to have been raised by the English while they were masters of Normandy; but what I observed of the structure of the walls, in 1815, would induce me to refer it without much hesitation to the time of the Romans. Its bricks are of the same form and texture as those used by them; and they were ranged in alternate courses with flints, as is the case at Burgh Castle, at Richborough, and other Roman edifices in England. That the fort was of great size and strength is sufficiently shewn by the depth, width, and extent of the entrenchments still left, which, particularly towards the plain, are immense; and, if credence may be given to common report, in such matters always apt to exaggerate, the subterraneous passages indicate a fortress of importance.

It chanced, that I visited the hill on Michaelmas-day, and a curious proof was afforded me, that, at however low an ebb religion may be in France, enthusiastic fanaticism is far from extinct. A man of the lower classes of society was praying before a broken cross, near St. Michael's Chapel, where, before the revolution, the monks of St. Ouen used annually on this day to perform mass, and many persons of extraordinary piety were wont to assemble the first Wednesday of every month to pray and to preach, in honor of the guardian angels. His manner was earnest in the extreme; his eyes wandered strangely; his gestures were extravagant, and tears rolled in profusion down a face, whose every feature bore the strongest marks of a decided devotee. A shower which came at the moment compelled us both to seek shelter within the walls of the chapel, and we soon became social and entered into conversation. The ruined state of the building was his first and favorite topic: he lamented its destruction; he mourned over the state of the times which could countenance such impiety; and gradually, while he turned over the leaves of the prayer-book in his hand, he was led to read aloud the hundred and thirty-sixth psalm, commenting upon every verse as he proceeded, and weeping more and more bitterly, when he came to the part commemorating the ruin of Jerusalem, which he applied, naturally enough, to the captive state of France, smarting as she then was under the iron rod of Prussia. Of the other allies, including even the Russians, he owned that there was no complaint to be made: "they conduct themselves," said he, "agreeably to the maxim of warfare, which says 'battez-vous contre ceux qui vous opposent; mais ayez pitie des vaincus.' Not so the Prussians: with them it is 'frappez-ca, frappez-la, et quand ils entrent dans quelque endroit, ils disent, il nous faut ca, il nous faut la, et ils le prennent d'autorite.' Cruel Babylon!"—"Yet, even admitting all this," we asked, "how can you reconcile with the spirit of christianity the permission given to the Jews by the psalmist, to 'take up her little ones and dash them against the stones.'"—"Ah! you misunderstand the sense, the psalm does not authorize cruelty;—mais, attendez! ce n'est pas ainsi: ces pierres la sont Saint Pierre; et heureux celui qui les attachera a Saint Pierre; qui montrera de l'attachement, de l'intrepidite pour sa religion."—Then again, looking at the chapel, with tears and sobs, "how can we expect to prosper, how to escape these miseries, after having committed such enormities?"—His name, he told us, was Jacquemet, and my companion kindly made a sketch of his face, while I noted down his words.

This specimen will give you some idea of the extraordinary influence of the Roman catholic faith over the mind, and of the curious perversions under which it does not scruple to take refuge.

Leaving for the present the dusty legends of superstition, I describe with pleasure my recollections of the glorious prospect over which the eye ranges from the hill of Saint Catherine.—The Seine, broad, winding, and full of islands, is the principal feature of the landscape. This river is distinguished by its sinuosity and the number of islets which it embraces, and it retains this character even to Paris. Its smooth tranquillity well contrasts with the life that is imparted to the scene, by the shipping and the bustle of the quays. The city itself, with its verdant walks, its spacious manufactories, its strange and picturesque buildings, and the numerous spires and towers of its churches, many of them in ruins, but not the less interesting on account of their decay, presents a foreground diversified with endless variety of form and color. The bridge of boats seems immediately at our feet; the middle distance is composed of a plain, chiefly consisting of the richest meadows, interspersed copiously with country seats and villages embosomed in wood; and the horizon melts into an undulating line of remote hills.

Footnotes:

[49] Farin, Histoire de Rouen, I. p. 97.

[50] In a paper printed in the Transactions of the Rouen Academy for 1818, p. 177, it appears that, so late as 1789, a considerable portion of very old walls was discovered under-ground; and that they consisted very much of Roman bricks. Among them was also found a Roman urn, and eighty or more medals of the same nation, but none of them older than Antoninus.—From this it appears certain that Rouen was a Roman station, though of its early history we have no distinct knowledge.

[51] These are the Tour du Gascon, Tour du Donjon, and Tour de la Pucelle.

[52] Histoire de Rouen, I. p. 32.

[53] Histoire de Rouen, III. p. 34.

[54] It is also worth while to read the following details from Bourgueville, (Antiquites de Caen, p. 33) whose testimony, as that of an eye-witness to much of what he relates, is valuable:—"Ils ont le Privilege Saint Romain en la ville de Rouen et Eglise Cathedrale du lieu, au iour de l'Ascension nostre Seigneur de deliurer un prisonnier, qui leur fut concede par le Roy d'Agobert en memoire d'un miracle que Dieu fist par saint Romain Archeuesque du lieu, d'auoir deliure les habitans d'un Dragon qui leur nuisoit en la forest de Rouuray pres ladite ville: pour lequel vaincre il demanda a la justice deux prisonniers dignes de mort, l'un meurtrier et l'autre larron: le larron eut si grand frayeur qu'il s'enfuit, et le meurtrier demeura auecque ce saint homme qui vainquit ce Serpent. C'est pourquoy l'on dit encore en commun prouerbe, il est asseure comme vn meurtrier. Ce privilege de deliurance ne doit estre accorde aux larrons.—Saint Ouen successeur de S. Romain, Chancelier dudit Roy d'Agobert viron l'an 655, impetra ce priuilege: dont ie n'en deduiray en plus oultre les causes, pour ce qu'elles sont assez communes et notoires, et feray seulement cest aduertissement, qu'il y a danger que messieurs les Ecclesiastiques le perdent, acause qu il s'y commet le plus souuent des abus, par ce qu'il se doit donner en cas pitoyable et non par authorite ou faueurs de seigneurs, comme aussi ne se doit estendre, sinon a ceux qui sont trouuez actuellement prisonniers sans fraude, et non a ceux qui s'y rendent le soir precedent comme estans asseurez d'obtenir ce priuilege, combien qu'ils ayent commis tous crimes execrables et indignes d'un tel pardon, voire et que les Ecclesiastiques n'ayent eu loisir d'avoir veu et bien examinez leur procez. Aussi ce beau priuilege est enfraint en ce que ceux qui l'obtiennent doiuent assister par sept annees suiuantes aux processions au tour de la Fierte S. Romain, portant vne torche ardante selon qu'il leur est charge faire. Ce qui est de ceste heure trop contemne: et tel mespris leur pourroit estre reproche comme indignes et contempteurs d'vn tel pardon. Vn surnomme Saugrence pour auoir abuse d'un tel priuilege fut quelque temps apres retrude et puni de la peine de la roue pour auoir confesse des meurtres en agression pour sauuer aucuns nobles ou nocibles qui les auoient commis.—Il s'est faict autres fois et encore du temps de ma ieunesse de grands festins, danses, mommeries ou mascarades audit iour de l'Ascension, tant par les feturiers de ceste confrairie saint Romain que autres ieunes hommes auec excessiues despences: et s'appelloit lors tel iour Rouuoysons, a cause que les processions rouent de lieu en autre, et disoit l'on comme en prouerbe, quand aucuns desbauchez declinoient de biens qu'ils auoient fait Rouuoysons, a scauoir perdu leurs biens en trop uoluptueuses despenses et mommeries sur chariots, qui se faisoient de nuict par les rues quelque saison d'Este qu'il fust, pour plus grandes magnificences."

[55] See Gallia Christiana, XI. p. 12.

[56] A minute and very curious account of the whole of this ceremony, from the first claiming of the prisoner to his final deliverance, is given in Tuillepied's Antiquites de Rouen, p. 79.

[57] Noel, Essais sur le Departement de la Seine Inferieure, II. p. 228.

[58] Antiquites Nationales, II. No. 21 p. 3

[59] Millin, Antiquites Nationales, II. No. 20. p. 3.

[60] Noel, Essais sur le Departement de la Seine Inferieure, II. p. 209

[61] Farin, Histoire de Rouen, V. p. 113.

[62] Essais sur le Departement de la Seine Inferieure, II. p. 210.



LETTER IX.

ANCIENT ECCLESIASTICAL ARCHITECTURE—CHURCHES OF ST. PAUL AND ST. GERVAIS—HOSPITAL OF ST. JULIEN—CHURCHES OF LERY, PAVILLY, AND YAINVILLE.

(Rouen, June, 1818.)

We, East Angles, are accustomed to admire the remains of Norman architecture, which, in our counties, are perhaps more numerous and singular than in any other tract in England. The noble castle of Blanchefleur still honors our provincial metropolis, and although devouring eld hath impaired her charms and converted her into a very dusky beauty, the fretted walls still possess an air of antique magnificence which we seek in vain when we contemplate the towers of Julius or the frowning dungeons of Gundulph. Our cathedral retains the pristine character which was given to the edifice, when the Norman prelate abandoned the seat of the Saxon bishop, and commanded the Saxon clerks to migrate into the city protected or inclosed by the garrison of his cognate conquerors. Even our villages abound with these monuments. The humbler, though not less sacred structures in which the voice of prayer and praise has been heard during so many generations, equally bear witness to Norman art, and, I may say, to Norman piety; and when we enter the sheltered porch, we behold the fantastic sculpture and varied foliage, encircling the arch which arose when our land was ruled by the Norman dynasty.

Comparatively speaking, Rouen is barren indeed of such relics. Its military antiquities are swept away; and the only specimens of early ecclesiastical architecture are found in the churches of St. Paul and St. Gervais, both of them, in themselves, unimportant buildings, and both so disfigured by subsequent alterations, that they might easily escape the notice of any but an experienced eye. Of these, the first is situated by the side of the road to Paris, under Mont Ste. Catherine, yet, still upon an eminence, beneath which are some mineral springs, that were long famous for their medicinal qualities, but have of late years been abandoned, and the spa-drinkers now resort to others in the quarter of the town called de la Marequerie. Both the one and the other are highly ferruginous, but the latter most strongly impregnated with iron.

The chancel is the only ancient part of the present church of St. Paul's, and even this must be comparatively modern, if any confidence may be placed in the current tradition, that the building, in its original state, was a temple of Adonis or of Venus, to both which divinities the early inhabitants of Rouen are reported to have paid peculiar homage. They were worshipped in vice and impurity[63]; nor were the votaries deterred by the evil spirits who haunted the immediate vicinity of the temple, and who gave rise to so fetid and infectious a vapor, that it often proved fatal! This very remark seems to indicate the scite of the church of St. Paul, with its neighboring sulphureous waters. St. Romain demolished the temple, and dispersed the sinners. Farin, in his History of Rouen[64], says, that the church was repeatedly destroyed and rebuilt by the Norman Dukes, to some of whom, the chancel, which is now standing, probably owes its existence. The nave is evidently of much more modern construction: it is thrice the width of the other part, from which it is separated by a circular arch. The eastern extremity differs from that of any other church I ever saw in Normandy or in England: it ends in three circular compartments, the central considerably the largest and most prominent, and divided from the others, which serve as aisles, by double arches, a larger and smaller being united together. This triple circular ending is, however, only observable without; for, in the interior, the southern part has been separated and used as a sacristy; the northern is a lumber-room. In the latter division, M. le Prevost desired us to notice a piece of sculpture, so covered with dirt and dust that it could scarcely be seen, but evidently of Roman workmanship, and, probably, of the fourth century, if we may judge from its resemblance to some ornaments[65] upon the pedestal of the obelisk raised by Theodosius, in the Hippodrome of Constantinople. Our friend's conjecture is, that it had originally served for an altar: perhaps it might, with equal probability, be supposed to have been a tomb.—The corbels on the exterior of this building are strange and fanciful.



St. Gervais also stands without the walls of Rouen; but at the opposite end of the town, upon a hill adjoining the Roman road to Lillebonne, and near the Mont aux Malades, a place so called, as having been selected in the eleventh century, on account of the salubrity of its air, for the situation of a monastery, destined for the reception of lepers. Upon this eminence, the Norman Dukes had likewise originally a palace; and, it was to this, that William the Conqueror caused himself to be conveyed, when attacked with his mortal illness, after having wantonly reduced the town of Mantes to ashes. Here, too, this mighty monarch breathed his last, and left a sad warning to future conquerors, deserted by his friends and physicians the moment he was no more; while his menials plundered his property, and his body lay naked and neglected in the hall[66].

The ducal palace, and the monastic buildings of the priory, once connected with it, are now completely destroyed. Fortunately, however, the church still remains, though parochial and in poverty. It preserves some portions of the original structure, more interesting from their features than their extent. The exterior of the apsis is very curious: it is obtusely angular, and faced at the corners with large rude columns, of whose capitals some are Doric or Corinthian, others as wild as the fancies of the Norman lords of the country. None reach so high as the cornice of the roof, it having been the intention of the original architect, that a portion of work should intervene between the summit of the capitals and this member. A capital to the north is remarkable for the eagles carved upon it, as if with some allusion to Roman power. But the most singular part of this church is the crypt under the apsis, a room about thirty feet long by fourteen wide, and sixteen high, of extreme simplicity, and remote antiquity. Round it runs a plain stone bench; and it is divided into two unequal parts by a circular arch, devoid of columns or of any ornament whatever, but disclosing, in the composition of its piers, Roman bricks and other debris, some of them rudely sculptured. Here, according to Ordericus Vitalis[67], was interred the body of St. Mellonus, the first Archbishop of Rouen, and one of the apostles of Neustria; and here, his tomb, and that of his successor, Avitien, are shewn to this day, in plain niches, on opposite sides of the wall. St. Mello's remains however, were not suffered to rest in peace; for, about five hundred and seventy years after his death, which happened in the year 314, they were removed to the castle of Pontoise, lest the canonized corpse should be violated by the heathen Normans. In the diocese of Rouen St. Mello is honored with particular veneration; and the history of the prelates of the see contains many curious, and not unedifying stories of the miracles he performed. His feast, together with that of St. Nicasius, his companion, is celebrated on the second of October; and their labors are commemorated with a hymn appointed for their festival:—

"Primae vos canimus gentis apostolos, Per quos relligio tradita patribus; Errorisque jugo libera Neustria CHRISTO sub duce militat.

"Facti sponte suis finibus exules Huc de Romuleis sedibus advolant; Merces est operis, si nova consecrent Vero pectora Numini.

"Qui se pro populis devovet hostiam Mellonus tacita se nece conficit; Mactatus celeri morte Nicasius Christum sanguine praedicat."

Heretics as we are, we ought not to refrain from respecting the zeal even of a saint of the Catholic calendar, when thus exerted. Besides which, he has another claim upon our attention: our own island gave him birth, and he appeared at Rome as the bearer of the annual tribute of the Britons, at the very time when he was converted to Christianity, whose light he had afterwards the glory of diffusing over Neustria. The existence of these tombs and the antiquity of the crypt, recorded as it is by history and confirmed by the style of its architecture, have given currency to the tradition, which points it out as the only temple where the primitive Christians of Neustria dared to assemble for the performance of divine service. Many stone coffins have also been discovered in the vicinity of the church. These sarcophagi seem to confirm the general tradition: they are of the simplest form, and apparently as ancient as the crypt; and they were so placed in the ground that the heads of the corpses were turned to the east, a position denoting that the dead received Christian burial.



Another opportunity will be afforded me of speaking of the church of St. Ouen; but, as a singular relic of Norman architecture, I must here notice the round tower on the south side of the choir, probably part of the original edifice, finished by the Abbot, William Balot, and dedicated by the Archbishop Geoffroi, in 1126. It consists of two stories, divided by a billetted moulding. Respecting its use it would not now be easy to offer a probable conjecture: the history of the abbey, indeed, mentions it under the title of la Chambre des Clercs, and supposes that it was formerly a chapel[68]; but its shape and size do not seem to confirm that opinion.

The chapel of the suppressed lazar-house of St. Julien, situated about three miles from Rouen, on the opposite side of the Seine, is more perfect than either St. Paul or St. Gervais, and, consequently, more valuable to the architect. This building, without spire or tower, and divided into three parts of unequal length and height, the nave, the choir, and the circular apsis, externally resembles one of the meanest of our parish-churches, such as a stranger, judging only from the exterior, would be almost equally likely to consider as a place of worship, or as a barn. It is, however, if I am not mistaken, one of the purest and most perfect specimens of the Norman aera. I know of no building in England, which resembles it so nearly as the chancel of Hales Church, in Norfolk; but the latter has been exposed to material alterations, while the chapel of which I am speaking is externally quite regular in its design, being divided throughout its whole length into small compartments, by a row of shallow buttresses rising from the ground to the eaves of the roof, without any partition into splays. Those on the south side are still in their primaeval state; but a buttress of a subsequent, though not recent, date, has been built up against almost every one of the original buttresses on the north side, by way of support to the edifice. Each division contains a single narrow circular-headed window: beneath these is a plain moulding, continued uninterruptedly over the buttresses as well as the wall, thus proving both to be coeval; another plain moulding runs nearly on a level with the tops of the windows, and takes the same circular form; but it is confined to the spaces between the buttresses. There are no others. The entrance was by circular-headed doors at the west end and south side, both of them very plain; but particularly the latter. The few ornaments of the western are as perfect and as sharp as if the whole were the work of yesterday. This part of the church has, however, been exposed to considerable injury, owing to its having joined the conventual buildings, which were destroyed at the revolution. The inside is, like the exterior, almost perfect, but it is very much more rich, uniting to the common ornaments of Norman architecture, capitals, in some instances, of classical beauty. The ceiling is covered with paintings of scriptural subjects, which still remain, notwithstanding that the building is now desecrated, and used as a woodhouse by the neighboring farmer.

The date of the erection of the chapel is well ascertained[69]. The hospital was founded in 1183, by Henry Plantagenet, as a priory for the reception of unmarried ladies of noble blood, who were destined for a religious life, and had the misfortune to be afflicted with leprosy. One of their appellations was filles meselles, in which latter word, you will immediately recognize the origin of our term for the disease still prevalent among us, the measles. Johnson strangely derives this word from morbilli; but the true northern roots have been given by Mr. Todd, in his most valuable republication of our national dictionary; a work which now deserves to be named after the editor, rather than the original compiler. It may also be added, that the word was in common use in the old Norman French, and was plainly intended to designate a slight degree of scurvy.

To pursue this subject a few steps farther, Jamieson, who is as excellent in points of etymology as Johnson is deficient, quotes, in his Scottish Dictionary, an instance where the identical expression, meselle-houses, is used in old English;

"...to meselle-houses of that same rond, Thre thousand mark unto ther spense he fond." R. BRUNNE, p. 136.

The Norfolk farmers and dairy-maids tell us to this day of measly pork: in Scotch, a leper is called a mesel; and, among the Swedes, the word for measles is one nearly similar in sound, maess-ling. The French academy, however, have refused to admit meselle to the honor of a place in their language, because it was obsolete or vulgar in the time of Louis XIIIth. The word is expressive, and no better one has supplied its place; and we may suppose that it was introduced by the Norman conquerors, and that it properly belongs to the Gothic tongues, in the whole of which the root is to be found more or less modified. Instances of this kind, and they are many, serve as additional proofs, if proofs indeed were needed, of the common origin of the Neustrian Normans, of the Lowland Scots, and of the Saxon and Belgian tribes, who peopled our eastern shores of England.

The priory continued to be appropriated to its original purpose till 1366, when Charles Vth united it to the hospital, called the Magdalen, at Rouen, upon condition that a mass should be celebrated there daily for the repose of his soul. In the year 1600, on the destruction of the abbey upon Mont Ste. Catherine, the monks of that establishment were allowed to fix themselves at St. Julien; but they resigned it, after a period of sixty-seven years, to the Carthusians of Gaillon, who, incorporating themselves with their brethren of the same order at Rouen, formed a very opulent community. The monastery, previously occupied by the latter, was known by the poetical appellation of la Rose de Notre Dame: indeed, it is thus termed in the charter of its foundation, dated 1384. But the situation was unhealthy, and the new comers had therefore little difficulty in persuading its occupants to remove to the convent of St. Julien, which they inhabited conjointly till the revolution. At a very short period before that event, they had rebuilt the whole of the priory with such splendor, that it was one of the most magnificent in the neighborhood. But the edifice, which had then been scarcely raised, was soon afterwards levelled with the ground. The foundations alone attest the former extent of the buildings; and the park, now in a state of utter neglect, their original importance.

Rouen, as I have observed, is scantily ornamented with remains of real Norman architecture; for, even at the risk of a bull, we must deny that title to the Norman edifices of the pointed style. Its vicinity, however, furnishes a greater number of specimens, among which the churched of Lery, of Pavilly, and of Yainville, are all of them deserving of a visit from the diligent antiquary.

Lery is a village adjoining Pont-de-l'Arche: its church is cruciform, having in the centre a low, massy, square tower, surmounted by a modern spire. A row of plain Norman arches, intended only for ornament, runs round the tower near the base, and over them on each side is a single round-headed window. All the other windows of the building are of the same construction, and this renders it probable that the east end, in which there is also one of these windows, is really coeval with the rest of the church; though, contrary to the usual plan of the Norman churches, it is terminated by a straight wall instead of a semi-circular apsis. The west front contains a rich Norman door-way, surmounted by three windows of the same style, adjoining each other, with a triple row of the chevron-ornament above them. The interior wears the appearance of remote antiquity: the arches are without mouldings, the pillars without bases, and the capitals are destitute of all ornamental sculpture. In fact, these portions are nothing but rounded piers; and so obviously was mere solid strength the aim of the architect, that their diameter is fully equal to two-thirds of their height. A double row of pillars and arches separates the nave into three parts, of unequal width; and another arch of greater span, though equally plain, divides it from the chancel. In St. Julien, we observe a most simple exterior, accompanied by an interior of comparatively an ornamented style: here the case is exactly the reverse; but in neither instance does there appear any reason to doubt that the whole of the building is coeval. We shall be driven, therefore, to admit, that any inferences respecting the aera of architecture drawn merely from the comparative richness of the style, must be considered of little weight, and that, even in those days, a great deal depended upon the fancy of the patron or architect. Of the real time of the erection of the church at Lery, there is no certain knowledge. Topographers, however minute in other matters, seem in general to have considered it beneath their dignity to record the dates of parish-churches; though, as connected with the history of the arts, such information is exceedingly valuable. Lauglois, who has given a figure of the western front of this at Lery, refers it without any hesitation to the time of the Carlovingian dynasty. But this opinion is merely grounded on the resemblance of some of its capitals to those of the pillars in the crypt at St. Denis; the best judges doubt whether there is a single architectural line in that crypt, which can fairly be referred to the reign of Charlemagne. Hence such a proof is entitled to little attention; and On studying the style of the whole, and its conformity with the more magnificent front of St. Georges de Bocherville, it would seem most reasonable to regard them both as of nearly the same aera, the time of the Norman Conquest. We may through them be enabled to fix the date to a specimen of ancient architecture in our own country, more splendid than these, the Church of Castle Rising, whose west front is so much on the same plan, that it can scarcely have been erected at a very different period.

Pavilly has considerably more to recommend it, as the "magni nominis umbra" than either of the others; it having been the seat of an abbey founded about the year 668, and named after Saint Austreberte, who first presided over it. Here, too, we have the advantage of being able to ascertain with greater precision the date of the building, which, in the archives of the Chartreux at Rouen[70], is stated to have been constructed about the conclusion of the eleventh century. The remains of the monastery are not considerable: they consist of little more than a ruined wall, containing three circular arches, evidently very ancient from their simplicity and the style of their masonry, and some pillars with capitals differing in ornament from any others I recollect, but imitations of the Grecian, or rather attempts to improve upon it. The inside of the parish-church is more interesting than the ruins of the abbey. It is characterised, as you will observe in the annexed sketch, by massy square piers, to each side of which are attached several small clustered columns, intended merely for ornament. One of them is fluted, the work, probably, of some subsequent time; and another, on the same pier, is truncated, to afford a pedestal for the statue of a saint. The capitals are without sculpture.



The church at Yainville differs materially from either of the others: its square low central tower is of far greater base than that of Lery: the transept parts of the cross have been demolished; and, beyond the tower, to the east, is only an addition that looks more like an apsis than a choir, a small semi-circular building with a roof of a peculiarly high pitch, like those of the stone-roofed chapels in Ireland, which, I trust, I shall be able hereafter to convince you were undoubtedly of Norman origin. But the most curious feature in this building is, that one of the buttresses is pierced with a narrow lancet window; a decisive proof, that the Normans regarded their buttresses as constituent parts of the edifice at its original construction, and that they did not add them at a subsequent time, or design them to afford support, in the event of any unexpected failure of strength. Indeed, what are usually called Norman buttresses, such as we find at Yainville, and at the lazar-house at St. Julien, have so very small a projection, that they seem much more designed to add ornament or variety than for any useful purpose.—Yainville is a parish adjoining Jumieges, and was formerly dependent upon the celebrated abbey there, which will furnish ample materials for a future letter.

Footnotes:

[63] Taillepied, Antiquites de Rouen, p. 77.

[64] Vol. II. part V. p. 8.

[65] Seroux d'Agincourt, Historie de la Decadence de l'Art; plate 10, Sculpture, fig. 4-7.

[66] Du Moulin, Histoire Generale de Normandie, p. 236.

[67] Duchesne, Scriptores Normanni, p. 558.

[68] Histoire de l'Abbaye de St. Ouen, p. 188.

[69] Farin, Histoire de Rouen, V. p. 121

[70] Description de la Haute Normandie, II. p. 268.



LETTER X.

EARLY POINTED ARCHITECTURE—CATHEDRAL—EPISCOPAL PALACE.

(Rouen, June, 1818.)

In passing from the true Norman architecture, characterised "by the circular arch, round-headed doors and windows, massive pillars with a kind of regular base and capital, and thick walls without any very prominent buttresses",[71] to those edifices which display the pointed style, I shall enter into a more extensive field, and one where the difficulty no longer lies in discovering, but in selecting objects for observation and description.

The style which an ingenious author of our own country has designated as early English[72], is by no means uncommon in Normandy. In both countries, the circular style became modified into Gothic, by the same gradations; though, in Normandy, each gradation took place at an earlier period than amongst us. The style in question forms the connecting link between edifices of the highest antiquity, and those of the richest pointed architecture; combined in some instances principally with the peculiarities of the former, in others with the character of the latter: generally speaking, it assimilates itself to both. The simplicity of the principal lines betray its analogy to its predecessors; whilst the form of the arch equally displays the approach of greater beauty and perfection.

Of this aera, the cathedral[73] of Rouen is unquestionably the most interesting building; and it is so spacious, so grand, so noble, so elegant, so rich, and so varied, that, as the Italians say of Raphael, "ammirar non si puo che non s'onori."—By an exordium like this, I am aware that an expectation will be raised, which it will be difficult for the powers of description to gratify; but I have still felt that it was due to the edifice, to speak of it as I am sure it deserves, and rather to subject myself to the charge of want of ability in describing, than of want of feeling in the appreciation of excellence.

The west front opens upon a spacious parvis, to which it exposes a width of one hundred and seventy feet, consisting of a centre, flanked by two towers of very dissimilar form and architecture, though of nearly equal height. Between these is seen the spire, which rises from the intersection of the cross, and which, from this point of view, appears to pierce the clouds; and these masses so combine themselves together, that the entire edifice assumes a pyramidical outline. The French, who, without any real affection for ancient architecture, are often extravagant in their praises, regard this spire as a "chef d'oeuvre de hardiesse, d'elegance, et de legerete." Bold and light it certainly is; but we must pause before we consider it as elegant: the lower part is a combination of very clumsy Roman pediments and columns; and, as it is constructed of wood, the material conveys an idea of poverty and comparative meanness.—It is commonly said in France, that the portal of Rheims, joined to the nave of Amiens, the choir of Beauvais, and the tower of Chartres, would make a perfect church; nor is it to be denied that each of these several cathedrals surpasses Rouen in its peculiar excellence; but each is also defective in other respects; so that Rouen, considered as a whole, is perhaps equal, if not superior, to any. The front is singularly impressive: it is characterised by airy magnificence. Open screens of the most elegant tracery, and filled, like the pannels to which they correspond, with imagery, range along the summit. The blue sky shines through the stone filagree, which appears to be interwoven like a slender web; but, when you ascend the roof, you find that it is composed of massy limbs of stone, of which the edge alone is seen by the observer below. This free tracery is peculiar to the pointed architecture of the continent; and I cannot recollect any English building which possesses it. The basement story is occupied by three wide door-ways, deep in retiring mouldings and pillars, and filled with figures of saints and martyrs, "tier behind tier, in endless perspective." The central portal, by far the largest, projects like a porch beyond the others, and is surmounted by a gorgeous pyramidal canopy of open stone-work, in whose centre is a great dial, the top of which partly conceals the rose window behind. This portal, together with the niches above on either side, all equally crowded with bishops, apostles, and saints, was erected at the expence of the cardinal, Georges d'Amboise, by whom the first stone was laid, in 1509[74].

The lateral door-ways are of a different style of architecture, and, though obtusely pointed, are supposed to be of the eleventh century: a plain and almost Roman circular arch surmounts the southern one. Over each of the entrances is a curious bas-relief: in the centre is displayed the genealogical tree of Christ; the southern contains the Virgin Mary surrounded by a number of saints; the northern one, the most remarkable[75] of all, affords a representation of the feast given by Herod, which ended in the martyrdom of the Baptist. Salome, daughter of Herodias, plays, as she ought to do, the principal character. The group is of good sculpture, and curiously illustrative of the costumes and manners of the times. Salome is seen dancing in an attitude, which perchance was often assumed by the tombesteres of the elder day; and her position affords a graphical comment upon the Anglo-Saxon version of the text, in which it is said that she "tumbled", before King Herod. The bands or pilasters (if we may so call them) which ornament the jambs of the door-ways, are crowned with graceful foliage in a very pure style; and the pedestals of the lateral pillars are boldly underworked.

On the northern side of the cathedral is situated the cloister-court. Only a few arches of the cloister now remain; and it appears, at least on the eastern side, to have consisted of a double aisle. Here we view the most ancient portion of the tower of Saint Romain.—There is a peculiarity in the position of the towers of this cathedral, which I have not observed elsewhere. They flank the body of the church, so as to leave three sides free; and hence the spread taken by the front of the edifice, when the breadth of the towers is added to the breadth of the nave and aisles. The circular windows of the tower which look in the court, are perhaps to be referred to the eleventh century; and a smaller tower affixed against the south side, containing a stair-case and covered by a lofty pyramidical stone roof, composed of flags cut in the shape of shingles, may also be of the same aera. The others, of the more ancient windows, are in the early pointed style; and the portion from the gallery upwards is comparatively modern; having been added in 1477. The roof, I suppose, is of the sixteenth century.

The southern tower is a fine specimen of the pointed architecture in its greatest state of luxuriant perfection, enriched on every side with pinnacles and statues. It terminates in a beautiful octagonal crown of open stone-work.—Legendary tales are connected with both the towers: the oldest borrows its name from St. Romain, by whom chroniclers tell us that it was built; the other is called the Tour de Beurre, from a tradition, that the chief part of the money required for its erection was derived from offerings given by the pious or the dainty, as the purchase for an indulgence granted by Pope Innocent VIIIth, who, for a reasonable consideration, allowed the contributors to feed upon butter and milk during Lent, instead of confining themselves, as before, to oil and lard.—The archbishop, Georges d'Amboise, consecrated this tower, of which the foundation was laid in 1485; and he had the satisfaction of living to see it finished, in 1507, after twenty-two years had been employed in the building.

The cardinal was so truly delighted by the beauty of the structure, which had arisen under his auspices, that he determined to grace it with the largest bell in France; and such was afterwards cast at his expence.—Even Tom of Lincoln could scarcely compete with Georges d'Amboise; for thus the bell was duly christened. It weighed thirty-three thousand pounds; its diameter at the base was thirty feet; its height was ten feet; and thirty stout and sweating bell-ringers could hardly put it into swing.—Such was the importance attached to the undertaking, that it was thought worthy of a religious ceremony. At the appointed hour for casting the bell, the clergy paraded in full procession round the church, to implore the blessing of heaven upon the work; and, when the signal was given that the glowing metal had filled the enormous mould, Te Deum resounded as with one voice; the organ pealed, the trombones and clarions sounded, and all the other bells in the cathedral joined, as loudly and as sweetly as they could, in announcing the birth of their prouder brother.—The remainder of the story is of a different complexion:—The founder, Jean le Machon, of Chartres, died from excess of joy, and was buried in the nave of the cathedral, where Pommeraye[76] tells us the tomb existed in his time; with a bell engraved upon it, and the following epitaph:—

"Cy-dessous gist Jean le Machon De Chartres homme de facon Lequel fondit Georges d'Amboise Qui trente six mille livres poise Mil cinq cens un jour d'Aoust deuxieme Puis mourut le vingt et unieme."

Nor was this the only misfortune; for, after all, this great bell proved, like a great book, a great nuisance: the sound it uttered was scarcely audible; and, at last, in an attempt to render it vocal, upon a visit paid by Louis XVIth to Rouen in 1786, it was cracked[77]. It continued, however, to hang, a gaping-stock to children and strangers, till the revolution, in 1793, caused it to be returned to the furnace, whence it re-issued in the shape of cannon and medals, the latter commemorating the pristine state of the metal with the humiliating legend, "monument de vanite detruit pour l'utilite[78]."

Some of the clerestory windows on the northern side of the nave are circular: the tracery which fills them, and the mouldings which surround them, belong to the pointed style; the arches may therefore have been the production of an earlier architect. The windows of the nave are crowned by pediments, each terminating, not with a pinnacle, but with a small statue. The pediments over the windows of the choir are larger and bolder, and perforated as they rise above the parapet; the members of the mouldings are full, and produce a fine effect.

The northern transept is approached through a gloomy court, once occupied by the shops of the transcribers and caligraphists, the libraires of ancient times, and from them it has derived its name. The court is entered beneath a gate-way of beautiful and singular architecture, composed of two lofty pointed arches of equal height, crowned by a row of smaller arcades. On each side are the walls of the archiepiscopal palace, dusky and shattered, and desolate; and the vista terminates by the lofty Portal of St. Romain; for it is thus the great portal of the transept is denominated. The oaken valves are bound with ponderous hinges and bars of wrought iron, of coeval workmanship. The bars are ornamented with embossed heads, which have been hammered out of the solid metal. The statues which stood on each side of the arch-way have been demolished; but the pedestals remain. These, as well as other parts of the portal, are covered with sculptured compartments, or medallions, in high preservation, and of the most singular character. They exhibit an endless variety of fanciful monsters and animals, of every shape and form, mermaids, tritons, harpies, woodmen, satyrs, and all the fabulous zoology of ancient geography and romance; and each spandril of each quatrefoil contains a lizard, a serpent, or some other worm or reptile. They have all the oddity, all the whim, and all the horror of the pencil of Breughel. Human groups and figures are interspersed, some scriptural, historical, or legendary; others mystical and allegorical. Engravings from these medallions would form a volume of uncommon interest. Two lofty towers ornament the transept, such as are usually seen only at the western front of a cathedral. The upper story of each is perforated by a gigantic window, divided by a single mullion, or central pillar, not exceeding one foot in circumference, and nearly sixty feet in height. These windows are entirely open, and the architect never intended that they should be glazed. An extraordinary play of light and shade results from this construction. The rose window in the centre of the transept is magnificent: from within, the painted glass produces the effect of a kaleidoscope.—The pediment or gable of this transept was materially injured by a storm, in 1638, one hundred and thirty years after it was completed; and the damage was never restored.

The southern transept bears a near resemblance to that which I have already described; but it was originally richer in its ornaments, and it still preserves some of its statues. Here the medallions relate chiefly to scripture-history; but the sculpture is greatly corroded by the weather, and the more delicate parts are nearly obliterated; besides which, as well here, as at the other entrances, the Calvinists, in 1562, and, more recently, the Revolutionists, have been most mischievously destructive, mutilating and decapitating without mercy. The spirit, indeed, of the French reformers, bore a near resemblance to the proceedings of John Knox and his brethren: the people embraced the new doctrine with turbulent violence. There was in it nothing moderate, nothing gradual: it was not the regular flow of public opinion, undermining abuses, and bringing them slowly to their fall; but it was the thunderbolt, which—

"In sua templa furit, nullaque exire vetante Materia, magnamque cadens magnamque revertens Dat stragem late sparsosque recolligit ignes."

Among the legends recorded on the southern portal, or the Portail de la Calende, is that of the corn-merchant; the confiscation of whose property paid, as the chronicles tell us, for the erection of this beautiful entrance. He himself, if we may believe the same authority, was hanged in the street opposite to it, in consequence of having been detected in the use of false measures.

The original Lady-Chapel, at the east end of the cathedral, was taken down in 1302. The present, which is considerably more spacious, is chiefly of a date immediately subsequent. Part, however, was built in 1430, when new and larger windows were inserted throughout the church; whilst other parts were not finished till 1538, at which time the Cardinal Georges d'Amboise restored the roof of the choir, which had been injured in 1514, by the destruction of the spire.

The square central tower, which is low and comparatively plain, is the work of the year 1200. It is itself more ancient than would be supposed from the character of its architecture; but it occupies the place of one of still greater antiquity, which was materially damaged in 1117, when the original spire of the church was struck by lightning. This first spire was of stone, but was replaced by another of wood, which, as I have just mentioned, was also destroyed at the beginning of the sixteenth century. A fire, arising from the negligence of plumbers employed to repair the lead-work, was the cause of its ruin.—To remedy the misfortune, recourse was had to extraordinary efforts: the King contributed twelve thousand francs; the chapter a portion of their revenue and their plate; collections were made throughout the kingdom; and Leo Xth authorised the sale of indulgences, a measure, which, at nearly the same period, in its more extensive adoption for the building of St. Peter's at Rome, shook the Papacy to its foundation. The spire thus raised, the second of wood, but the third in chronological order, is the one which is now in existence. It was, like its predecessor, endangered by the carelessness of the plumbers, in 1713; but it does not appear to have required any material reparations till ten years ago, when a sum of thirty thousand francs was expended upon it.

From what has already been said, you will not have failed to observe that this cathedral is the work of so many different periods, that it almost contains within itself a history of pointed architecture. To attempt a labored description of it were idle: minute details of any one of the portals would fill a moderate volume; and a quarto of seven hundred pages, from which I have borrowed most of my dates, has already been written upon the subject by a Benedictine Monk of the name of Pommeraye, who also published the history of the Archbishops of the See[79].

The first church at Rouen was built about the year 270: three hundred and thirty years subsequently, this edifice was succeeded by another, the joint work of St. Romain and St. Ouen, which was burned in the incursions of the Normans, about the year 842. Fifty years of Paganism succeeded; at the expiration of which period, Rollo embraced the faith of Christ, and Rouen saw once more within its walls, by the munificence and piety of the conqueror, a place of Christian worship. Richard Ist, grandson of this duke, and his son Robert, the archbishop, enlarged the edifice in the middle of the tenth century; but it was still not completed till 1063, when, according to Ordericus Vitalis, it was dedicated by the Archbishop Maurilius with great pomp, in the presence of William, Duke of Normandy, and the bishops of the province. Of this building, however, notwithstanding what is said by Ducarel[80] and other authors, it is certain that nothing more remains than the part of St. Romain's tower, just noticed, and possibly two of the western entrances; though the present structure is believed to occupy the same spot.

To the honor of the spirit and good feeling of the inhabitants of Rouen, this church is one of those that suffered least in the outrages of the year 1793. Its dimensions, in French feet, are as follows:—

FEET.

Length of the interior.............. 408 Width of ditto....................... 83 Length of nave...................... 210 Width of nave........................ 27 Ditto of aisles...................... 15 Length of choir..................... 110 Width of ditto....................... 35-1/2 Ditto of transept.................... 25-1/2 Length of ditto..................... 164 Ditto of Lady-Chapel................. 88 Width of ditto....................... 28 Height of spire..................... 380 Ditto of towers at the west end..... 230 Ditto of nave........................ 84 Ditto of aisles and chapels.......... 42 Ditto of interior of central tower.. 152 Depth of chapels..................... 10

Four clustered pillars support the central tower, each of which is thirty-eight feet in circumference; the rest, of which there are forty-four in the nave and choir, those in the former clustered, the others circular, are less by one-third. The windows amount in number to one hundred and thirty-three; the chapels to twenty-five. Most of the latter were fitted up during the minority of Louis XIVth, with wreathed columns, entwined with foliage, the style in vogue in the seventeenth century. In the farthest of these chapels, upon the south side, is the tomb of Rollo, first Duke of Normandy; in the opposite chapel, that of his son and successor, William Longue-Epee, who was treacherously murdered at Pecquigny, in 944, during a conference with Arnoul, Count of Flanders.



The effigies of both these princes still remain placed upon sarcophagi, under plain niches in the wall. They are certainly not contemporary with the persons which they represent, but are probably productions of the thirteenth century, to which period Mr. Stothard, from whose judgment few will be disposed to appeal, refers the greater part of what are called the most ancient in the Musee des Monumens Francais. At the same time, they may possibly have been copied from others of earlier date; and I therefore send you a slight sketch of the figure of Rollo. Even imaginary portraits of celebrated men are not without their value: we are interested by seeing how they have been conceived by the artist.—Above the statue is the following inscription:—

HIC POSITUS EST ROLLO, NORMANNIAE A SE TERRITAE, VASTATAE, RESTITUTAE, PRIMUS DUX, CONDITOR, PATER, A FRANCONE ARCHIEP. ROTOM. BAPTIZATUS ANNO DCCCCXIII, OBIIT ANNO DCCCCXVII. OSSA IPSIUS IN VETERI SANCTUARIO, NUNC CAPITE NAVIS, PRIMUM CONDITA, TRANSLATO ALTARI, HIC COLLOCATA SUNT A B. MAURILIO ARCHIEP. ROTOM. ANNO MLXIII.

Two other epitaphs in rhyming Latin, which were previously upon his tomb, are recorded by various authors: the first of them began with the three following lines—

DUX NORMANNORUM, CUNCTORUM NORMA BONORUM, ROLLO FERUS FORTIS, QUEM GENS NORMANNICA MORTIS INVOCAT ARTICULO, CLAUDITUR HOC TUMULO.

Over William Longue-Epee is inscribed—

HIC POSITUS EST GULIELMUS DICTUS LONGA SPATHA, ROLLONIS FILIUS, DUX NORMANNIAE, PREDATORIE OCCISUS DCCCCXXXXIV.

with an account of the removal of his bones, exactly similar to the concluding part of his father's epitaph.

The perspective on first entering the church is very striking: the eye ranges without interruption, through a vista of lofty pillars and pointed arches, to the splendid altar in the Lady-Chapel, which forms at once an admirable termination to the building and the prospect. The high altar in the choir is plain and insulated. No other praise can be given to the screen, except that it does not interrupt the view; for surely it was the very consummation of bad taste to place in such an edifice, a double row of eight modern Ionic pillars, in white marble, with the figures of Hope and Charity between them, surmounted by a crucifix, flanked on either side with two Grecian vases.

The interior falls upon the eye with boldness and regularity, pleasing from its proportions, and imposing from its magnitude. The arches which spring from the pillars of the aisles, are surmounted by a second row, occupying the space which is usually held by the triforium: the vaulted roof of the aisles runs to the level of the top of this upper tier. This arrangement, which is found in other Norman churches, is almost peculiar to these; and in England it has no parallel, except in the nave of Waltham Abbey. Within the aisle you observe a singular combination of small pillars, attached to the columns of the nave: they stand on a species of bracket, which is supported by the abacus of the capital; and they spread along the spandrils of the arches on either side. These pillars support a kind of entablature, which takes a triangular plan. The whole bears a near resemblance to the style of the Byzantine architecture. Above the second row of arches are two rows of galleries. The story containing the clerestory windows crowns the whole; so that there are five horizontal divisions in the nave.—I give these details, because they indicate the decided difference of order which exists between the Norman and the English Gothic; a difference for which I have not been able to assign any satisfactory cause.

The tombs that were originally in the choir, commemorating Charles Vth, of France; Richard Coeur de Lion; his elder brother, Henry; and William, son of Geoffrey Plantagenet, were all removed in 1736, as interfering with the embellishments then in contemplation. The first of them alone was preserved and transferred to the Lady-Chapel, where it has subsequently fallen a victim to the revolution. The others are wholly destroyed; nor could Ducarel find even a fragment of the effigies that had been upon them; but engravings of these had fortunately been preserved by Montfaucon[81], from whom he has copied them. The monument of the celebrated John of Lancaster, third son of our Henry IVth, better known as the Regent Duke of Bedford, had been previously annihilated by the Calvinists. Lozenge-shaped slabs of white marble, charged with inscriptions, were inserted in the pavement over the spots that contain the remains of the princes, and they have been suffered to continue uninjured through the succeeding tumults. On the right of the altar, you read,—

COR RICHARDI, REGIS ANGLIAE, NORMANNIAE DUCIS, COR LEONIS DICTI. OBIIT ANNO MCXCIX.

On the opposite side:—

HIC JACET HENRICUS JUNIOR, RICHARDI, REGIS ANGLIAE, COR LEONIS DICTI, FRATER. OBIIT ANNO MCLXXXIII.

And in the choir behind the altar:—

AD DEXTRUM ALTARIS LATUS JACET JOHANNES, DUX BEDFORDI, NORMANNIAE PROREX. OBIIT ANNO MCCCCXXXV.

Of Prince William nothing is said; it was found, upon opening his place of sepulture, that he had not been interred here.—Richard strangely received a triple funeral. In obedience to his wishes, his heart was buried at Rouen, while his body was carried to Fontevraud, and his entrails were deposited in the church of Chaluz, where he was killed:—this division is commemorated in the quaint, yet energetic lines, which are said to have been inscribed upon his tomb:—

VISCERA CARCEOLUM, CORPUS FONS SERVAT EBRARDI, ET COR ROTOMAGUM, MAGNE RICHARDE, TUUM. IN TRIA DIVIDITUR UNUS QUI PLUS FUIT UNO; NEC SUPEREST UNI GLORIA TANTA VIRO.

Richard neither withheld his gifts nor his protection from the metropolitan church; and, after his death, the chapter inclosed the heart of their benefactor in a shrine of silver. But a hundred and fifty years subsequently, the shrine was despoiled, and the precious metal was melted into ingots, forming a portion of the ransom which redeemed St. Louis from the fetters of his Saracen conqueror.

Henry the younger, who was crowned King of England during the life-time of his father, against whom he subsequently revolted, also requested on his death-bed, that his body might be interred in this church; and his directions were obeyed, though not without much difficulty; for the chapter of the cathedral of Mans, where his servants rested with the body in transitu, seized and buried it there; nor did those of Rouen recover the corpse, without application to the Pope and to the King his father.

A tablet of black marble, affixed to one of the pillars of the nave, contains the following interesting memorial:

IN MEDIA NAVI, E REGIONE HUJUS COLUMNAE, JACET BEATAE MEM. MAURILIUS, ARCHIEP. ROTOM. AN. MLV. HANC BASILICAM PERFECIT CONSECRAVITQUE ANNO MLXIII. VIX NATOS BERENGARII ERRORES IN PROX. CONCIL. PRAEFOCAVIT. PLENUS MERITIS OBIIT ANN. MLXVII. HOC PONTIF. NORMANNI, GULIELMO DUCE, ANGLIA POTITI SUNT ANNO MLXVI.



In the northern aisle of the choir, there still exists a curious monument, in an injured state indeed, but well deserving of attention, from its antiquity. It has been referred by tradition to Maurice, or William of Durefort, both of them archbishops of Rouen, and buried in the cathedral, the former in 1237, the latter in 1331; but the recumbent figure upon it seems of a yet more distant date. It differs in several respects from any that I have seen in England[82]. The tomb is in the wall, behind a range of pillars, which form a kind of open screen round the apsis. Below the effigy, it is decorated with a row of whole-length figures of saints, much mutilated: the circular part above is lined with angels, a couple of whom are employed in conveying the soul of the deceased in a winding-sheet to heaven[83].



The Lady-Chapel contains two monuments of great merit, and which, considered as specimens of matured art, have now no rivals in Normandy; for both owe their origin to a period of refinement and splendor. The sepulchre raised over the bodies of the two Cardinals of Amboise, successively Archbishops of Rouen, towers on the southern side of the chapel. The statues of the cardinals are of white marble. The prelates appear kneeling in prayer; and the following inscription, engraved in a single line, and not divided into verses, is placed beneath them:—

PASTOR ERAM CLERI, POPULI PATER, AUREA SESE LILIA SUBDEBANT QUERCUS[84] ET IPSA MIHI. MORTUUS EN JACEO, MORTE EXTINGUUNTUR HONORES; AT VIRTUS MORTIS NESGIA MORTE VIRET.

Immediately behind the cardinals are figures of patron saints; a centre tablet represents St. George and the Dragon; above are the apostles; below, the seven cardinal virtues. The execution of these is particularly admired, especially that of the figure of Prudence; but a row of still smaller figures, in devotional attitudes, carved upon the pilasters between the virtues, are in higher taste. Various arabesques in basso-relievo, of great beauty, and completely in the style of the Loggie of Raphael, adorn the other parts of this sumptuous tomb.—As a whole it is unquestionably grand, and it is yet farther valuable as an illustration of the gorgeous taste that prevailed at the end of the fifteenth century; but the mixture of black and white marble and gilding has by no means a good effect, and every part is overloaded with ornaments[85]. These, however, are the faults of the times: its merits are its own.

On the north side of the chapel is entombed the Duke of Breze, once Grand Seneschal of Normandy; his tomb is chaste and simple, forming a pleasing contrast to the elaborate memorial of the cardinals. The statue of the seneschal himself, represented stretched as a corpse, upon a black marble sarcophagus, is admirable for its execution. The rigid expression of death is visible, not only in the countenance, but extends through every limb. Diana of Poitiers, a beauty who enjoys more celebrity than good fame, erected the monument; and she caused her statue to be placed on the tomb, where she is seen kneeling and contemplating. In the following inscription she promises to be as faithful and united to him after his death as she was while they both lived: and she truly kept her word; for, during his life-time, she was grievously suspected of infidelity[86], and she subsequently lived in an open state of concubinage with Henry IInd, and was at last buried at her own celebrated residence at Anet, twenty leagues from her husband.—

HOC, LODOICE, TIBI POSUI, BREZAEE, SEPULCHRUM, PICTONIS AMISSO MOESTA DIANA VIRO; INDIVULSA TIBI QUONDAM ET FIDISSIMA CONJUX, UT FUIT IN THALAMO, SIC ERIT IN TUMULO.

A second female figure on the tomb, with a child in her arms, has been supposed intended to represent the nurse of the duke; as if the design of the sculptor had been to read a lesson to mortality, by exhibiting the warrior in the helplessness of infancy, in the vigor of manhood, and as a breathless corpse. Some persons, however, consider it as a personification of Charity; others suppose that it represents the Virgin Mary. In the midst was originally an erect statue of De Breze, decorated with the various symbols of his dignities; but this sinned beyond the hope of redemption against the doctrines of liberty and equality, and it was accordingly removed at the time of the revolution, together with two inscriptions. One of them, which detailed his honors, with the addition that he died July twenty-third, 1531, has recently been recovered by the care of M. Riaux, and is restored to its place. The other inscription and the effigy, it is feared, are irrevocably lost. An equestrian statue in the upper part of the monument was suffered to remain, and, as a record of the military costume of the sixteenth century, I annex a sketch of it. The armorial hearings upon the horse and armor are nearly obliterated.—The pile is surmounted a figure of Temperance; the bridle in whose mouth shews how absurd is allegory, when "submitted to the faithful eye."



Lenoir, who, in his work on the Musee des Monumens Francais, has treated much at large of the history of Diana of Poitiers, and has figured her own beautiful mausoleum, which he had the merit of rescuing from destruction, pronounces[87] this monument to be from the hand of Jean Cousin, one of the most able sculptors of the French school.

Over the altar in the Lady-Chapel is the only good painting in the cathedral, the Adoration of the Shepherds, by Philip de Champagne, a solid, well-colored, and well-grouped picture. Two cherubs in the air are excellently conceived and drawn: the whole is lighted from the infant Christ in the cradle, a concetto, which has been almost universally adopted, since the time when Corregio painted his celebrated Notte, now at Dresden.

There is no great quantity of painted glass in the church, but much of it is of good quality. The windows of the choir, on either side of the Lady-Chapel, are as rich as a profusion of brilliant colors can make them; but the figures are so small, and so crowded, that the subjects cannot be traced. They are said to be the work of the thirteenth century. The painted windows in St. Stephen's chapel, of the sixteenth century, are generally considered the best in the cathedral. I own, however, that I should give the preference to those in the chapel of St. Romain, in the south transept. One of them is filled with allegorical representations of the virtues of the archbishop; another with his miracles: every part is distinct and clear, and executed with great force and great minuteness. The vestments of the saint have all the delicacy of miniature-painting.

The library of the cathedral, formerly one of the richest in France, disappeared during the revolution; but the noble room which contained it, one hundred feet long, by twenty-five feet wide, still remains uninjured; as does the door which led into it from the northern transept, and which continues to this day to bear the inscription, Bibliotheca. The staircase, communicating with this door, is delicate and beautiful. The balustrades are of the most elegant filagree; and it has all the boldness and lightness which peculiarly characterise the French Gothic. Its date being well ascertained, we may note it as an architectural standard. It was erected by the archbishop, Cardinal d'Etouteville, about the year 1460, thirty or forty years subsequently to the building of the room.

Respecting the contents of the sacristy, I can say little from my own knowledge; but I find by Pommeraye, that, before the revolution, it boasted of a large silver image of the Virgin, endued with peculiar sanctity, a few drops of her milk, and a portion of her hair[88]; a splinter of the true cross, set in gold, studded with pearls, sapphires, and turquoises; and reliques of saints without number. Now, however, it appears, that of all its treasures, it has preserved little else except the shrine of St. Romain, and another known by the general name of Chasse des Saints. The former is two feet six inches long, and one foot nine inches high, and is of handsome workmanship, with a variety of figures on the sides, and St. Romain himself at the top. Formerly it was supposed to be made of gold; now I was assured by one of the canons, that it is of silver gilt; but Gilbert[89], who is a plain layman, maintains that it is only copper. Had it been otherwise, it would have contributed to the ways and means of the unchristian republic; but the democrats spared it, for they had well ascertained that the metal was base, and that the jewels, which adorn it, are but glass.—This is not the original shrine which held the precious relics: the shrine in which they were deposited by the archbishop, William Bonne Ame, when first brought to the cathedral, in 1090, was sold during a famine, and its proceeds distributed to the starving poor; after which, in 1179, Archbishop Rotrou caused another still more costly to be made; but the latter was broken to pieces by the Calvinists, in 1562, and the saint's body cast into the fire[90].

Thus, then, I have led you, as far as I am able; through the cathedral, adjoining which, at the east end, stands the palace of the archbishop, a large building, but neither handsome nor conspicuous, principally the work of the Cardinal Georges d'Amboise, though begun by the Cardinal d'Etouteville, in 1461. The rooms in it which are shewn to strangers are the anti-chamber, commonly called la salle de la Croix, the library, and the great gallery. This last, which is one hundred and sixty feet long, is also known by the name of la salle des Etats. In it are placed four very large paintings by Robert, an eminent French artist of comparatively modern date. They represent the city of Rouen, the town of Dieppe, that of Havre de Grace, and the archiepiscopal palace at Gaillon. The view of Rouen represents in the foreground the petit Chateau, and is on that account peculiarly interesting. All of them are fine paintings, but much injured by the damp. In the anti-chamber are portraits of seven prelates of the see, and among them those of the Cardinal de la Rochefoucault, and M. de Tressan: our guide could name no others.

The present archbishop is the Cardinal Cambaceres, brother to the ex-consul of that name, a man of moral life and regular in his religious duties. He was placed here by Napoleon, all of whose appointments of this nature, with one or two exceptions, have been suffered to remain; but I need scarcely add that, though the title of archbishop is left, and its present possessor is decorated with the Roman purple, neither the revenue, nor the dignity, nor the establishment, resemble those of former times. The chapter, which, before the revolution, consisted of an archbishop, a dean, fifty canons, and ten prebendaries, besides numberless attendants, now consists but of his eminence, with the dean, the treasurer, the archdeacon, and twelve canons. The independent annual income of the church, previous to the revolution, exceeded one hundred thousand pounds sterling; but now its ministers are all salaried by government, whose stated allowance, as I am credibly informed, is to every archbishop six hundred and twenty-five pounds per annum; to every bishop four hundred and sixteen pounds thirteen shillings and fourpence; and to every canon forty-one pounds thirteen shillings and four-pence. But each of these stipends is doubled by an allowance of the same amount from the department; and care is taken to select men of independent property for the highest dignities.—From the foregoing scale, you may judge of the state of the religious establishment in France. It is, indeed, unjustly and unreasonably depressed, and there is much room for amendment; but we must still hope and trust that things will not soon regain their former standard, though attempts are daily making to identify the Catholic clergy with the present dynasty; and the most lively expectations are entertained from the well-known character of some of the royal family.

Footnotes:

[71] Bentham, History of Ely, 2nd edit. I. p. 34.

[72] Liverpool Panorama of Arts and Sciences, article Architecture.

[73] The only views of the cathedral with which I am acquainted, are,

A single plate of the west front, 16 in. by 11-1/2in.—Anonymous; . . . . . . . . . . . north side, 16 in. by 11-1/2in.—Marked S.L.B.; A small north-west view, engraved by Pouncey, in the first volume of Gough's Alien Priories; And the west front, on an extremely reduced; scale, in Seroux d'Agincourt's Histoire de l'Art par les Monumens, Architecture, t. 64. f. 21. p. 68.

[74] This great benefactor to Rouen died the following year, deeply lamented by the inhabitants, and generally so by France; but, above all, regretted by Louis XIIth, his sovereign, whom, to use the words of Guicciardini, he served as oracle and authority. The author of the History of the Chevalier Bayard, is still louder in his praise.—The western facade of the cathedral was not finished till 1530, twenty years after his death.

[75] A representation of this has recently been published from an engraving on stone by Langlois.

[76] Histoire de l'Eglise Cathedrale de Rouen, p. 50.

[77] Noel, Essais sur le Departement de la Seine Inferieure, II. p. 239.

[78] Millin, Histoire Metallique de la Revolution Francaise, t. 22. f. 84.

[79] Histoire des Archeveques de Rouen, folio 1667.

[80] Anglo-Norman Antiquities, p. 12.

[81] Monumens de la Monarchie Francaise, II. t. 15. f. 3 and 5.

[82] As these effigies are in general little understood, even by those who look at them with pleasure as specimens of art, or with respect as relics of antiquity, I am happy to be able to give the following detailed illustration of this at Rouen, extracted from a letter which the Right Rev. Dr. Milner had lately the kindness to write me upon the subject.

"The sepulchral monument in the cathedral of Rouen represents a prelate; that is to say, Bishop or Mitred Abbot, as appears by his mitre, gloves, ring, and sandals. But, as he bears the Pallium, (to be seen on his neck, just above his breast, and hanging down before him, almost to his feet) it appears that he is a Metropolitan, or Archbishop, as, indeed, each of the bishops of Rouen was, from the time of St. Ouen and St. Romanus, in the seventh century, if not from that of St. Nicasius, in the third or fourth. The statue has been mutilated in the mitre, the face, and the crosier; probably when the Huguenots were masters of the city. The mitre is low, as they used to be from the tenth century, when they began to rise at all in the Latin Church, down to the fourteenth, since which they have grown to their present disproportioned height. The arms are crossed, as in prayer; and the left arm supported a crosier, the remnant of which is seen under that arm. Both hands are wrapped up in ornamented gloves, which were an essential part of the prelatic dress. The principal vestment is the Planeta, Casula, or Chausible; as it was shaped till within these three or four hundred years. Underneath that, and behind the hanging Pallium, appears the Dalmatic, edged with gold lace; and under that, extending the whole breadth of the figure, and finishing with rich and deep thread lace, is the Alb, made of fine linen. The Tunic is quite hidden by the dalmatic. The Sandals appear to be of gold tissue, and to rest on a rich carpet.

"I ought to have mentioned, that the mitre appears, by the jewels with which it is ornamented, to represent that which is called Mitra pretiosa, from this circumstance. An inferior kind of mitre, worn on less solemn occasions, was termed Mitra Aurifrygiata; and a common one, made of plain linen or silk, was termed Simplex Mitra. The only part of the dress which puzzles me, is the great ornament on the neck and shoulders. The question is, (which those can best determine who have seen the original statue,) whether it adheres to the Pallium, or to the Casula. In either case, it must be considered as part of the vestment to which it adheres.

"It is quite out of my power to determine, or even to conjecture on any rational grounds, which, of a certain three-score of archbishops of Rouen, the figure represents; but, if I were to choose between Maurice, the fifty-fourth archbishop, who died in 1235, and William, of Durefort, the sixty-first, who died in 1330, from the comparative lowness of the mitre, and some other circumstances of the dress, I should determine in favor of the former. Perhaps it may represent our Walter, who was first Bishop of Lincoln, and then transferred to Rouen, by Pope Lucius IIIrd. He died in 1208, after having signalized himself as much as any of his predecessors or successors have done.

"P.S. On consulting with an intelligent ecclesiastic of Rouen, I am inclined to think that the above-mentioned ornament upon the shoulders, is the Mozetta, being a short round cloak, which all bishops still wear, with the Rochet, Pectoral Cross, and Purple Cassock, as their ordinary dress; but, in modern times, the Mozetta is laid aside, when the prelate puts on his officiating vestments; though he retains the cassock, cross, and rochet, underneath them. My informant says, that this mozett is common on the tombs of bishops who died in former ages."

[83] The same idea is to be observed on many ancient monuments: among others, it is engraved on the fine sepulchral brass to the memory of Sir Hugh Hastings, in Elsing church.—See Cotman's Norfolk Sepulchral Brasses.

[84] By the words Lilia and Quercus, are designated the armorial bearings of the King of France, and Pope Julius IInd, of the House of Rovere.

[85] The bodies of the Cardinals d'Amboise were dug up in 1793, together with most of the others interred in the cathedral, for the sake of their leaden coffins: at the same time the lead was also stripped from the transepts; and a colossal statue of St. George, which stood on the eastern point of the choir, was likewise consigned to the furnace.

[86] Ducarel says (Anglo-Norman Antiquities, p. 20.) that she was the favorite mistress of two successive kings; but I do not find this assertion borne out by history.

[87] Vol. IV. p. 47.

[88] The doctrine of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, gave rise to some curious doubts respecting the authenticity of the Virgin's hair. Ferrand, the Jesuit, states the arguments to the contrary with candor; but replies to them with laudable firmness. The passage is a whimsical specimen of the style and reasoning of the schools:—"Restat posteriore loco de capillis Deiparae Virginis paucis dicere, enimvero an illi sint jam in terris!—Dubitationem aliquam afferre potest mirabilis ipsius anastasis, et in coelum viventis videntisque assumptio triumphalis.—Quid ita?—quid si intra triduum ad vitam revocata, si coelis triumphantis in morem invecta, si corpore gloria circumfuso Christo assidet? Quidquid Virgineo capiti crinium inerat hand dubie caelis intulit, ne quid perfectae ac numeris omnibus absolutae ipsius pulchritudini deesse possit. Nae ille in politiori literatura imo et in rebus humanis omnino peregrinus sit qui ignoret quantum ad muliebrem formam comae conferat pulchritudo ... ne singulas Marianae pulchritudinis dotes persequar, ejus ima craearies de qua, agimus tantae fuit venustatis ut mysticus ipsius Sponsus blande querulus exclamare cogatur, vulnerasti cor meum in uno crine colli tui.... Naenias igitur occinere videtur qui Deiparae capillos in terris relatos esse memoret atque adeo servari obfirmate asseveret, cum illos tantum ad redivivae Virginis speciem conferre constet.—Non efficiet tamen unquam haec Antidicomarianitae fabula, quin credam bene multos ex aurea Dei Genitricis caesarie crines, diversis in locis ecclesiisque religiose servari.... Meae fidei non unum est argumentum; nam a prima aetate ad confectam usque, e Mariana coma non pancos, ut fit, capillos pecten decussit, nisi si forte caesariem B. Virginis impexam semper perstitisse velis, quod numquam (ut inquit de Christo Diva Brigitta) super eam venit vermis, aut perplexitas, aut immunditium. At sine causa multiplicari miracula quis aequo animo feret?—Ubi vero Genetrix e vita discessit, quam sollicite pollinctrices auream illam Marianae comae segetem demessuerunt, quam in sacris suis tunc hierothecia reconderent ad memoriam tantae Imperatricis, et ad suae consolationis et pietatis argumentum: quod si forte totam funditusque a pollinctricibus, Deiparae reverentissimis, demessam caesariem ferre nec possis nec velis, extremes saltem illius cincinnos attonsos fuisse feres ab piissimis illis faeminis, quibus vel perexiguus Dei Genitricis capillus ingentis thesauri loco futurus etat."—Disquisitio Reliquiaria, l. 1. cap. II.

[89] Description Historique de l'Eglise de Notre Dame de Rouen, p. 83.

[90] The event is described in the metrical history of Rouen, composed by a minstrel ycleped Poirier, the limper. This little tract is a chap-book at Rouen: most towns, in the north of France and Belgium, possess such chronicle ballads in doggerel rhyme, which are much read, and eke chaunted, by the common people.

"... un massacre horrible Survint soudainement. Les Huguenots terribles Et Montgommerie puissant, Par cruels enterprises Renverserent les Eglises De Rouen pour certain. Sans aucune relache Pillent et volent la chasse Du corps de St. Romain.

"Le zele Catholique Poursuivant l'Huguenot Un combat heroique Lui livra a propos, Au lieu nomme la Crosse, Et reprirent par force La chasse du Patron. Puis de la Rue des Carmes La portent a Notre Dame En deposition!"



LETTER XI.

POINTED ECCLESIASTICAL ARCHITECTURE—THE CHURCHES OF ST. OUEN, ST. MACLOU, ST. PATRICE, AND ST. GODARD.

(Rouen, June, 1818.)

In the religious buildings, the subject of my preceding letters, I have endeavored to point out to you the specimens which exist at Rouen, of the two earliest styles of architecture. The churches which I shall next notice belong to the third, or decorated style, the aera of large windows with pointed arches divided by mullions, with tracery in flowing lines and geometrical curves, and with an abundance of rich and delicate carving.

This style was principally confined in England to a period of about seventy years, during the reigns of the second and third Edward. In France it appears to have prevailed much longer. It probably began there full fifty years sooner than with us, and it continued till it was superseded by the revival of Grecian or Italian architecture. I speak of France in general, but I must again repeat, that my observations are chiefly restricted to the northern provinces, the little knowledge which I possess of the rest being derived from engravings. No where, however, have I been able to trace among our Gallic neighbors the existence of the simple perpendicular style, which is the most frequent by far in our own country, nor of that more gorgeous variety denominated by our antiquaries after the family of Tudor.

So long as Normandy and England were ruled by the same sovereign, the continual intercourse created by this union caused a similarity in their architecture, as in other arts and customs; and therefore the two earliest styles of architecture run parallel in the two countries, each furnishing the counterpart of the other. Whether or not the decorated style was transmitted to England from the continent, is a question which cannot be solved, until our collections of continental architecture shall become more extensive. After the reign of Henry VIth, our intercourse with Normandy wholly ceased; and, left to ourselves, many innovations were gradually introduced, which were not known to the French architects, who, with nicer taste, adhered to the pure style which we rejected. Hence arose the perpendicular style of pointed architecture, a style sufficiently designated by its name, and obviously distinguished from its predecessors, by having the mullions of its windows, its ornamental pannelling, and other architectural members and features, disposed in perpendicular lines. Finally, however, both countries discarded the Gothic style, though at different aeras. The revival of the arts in Europe, in consequence of the capture of Constantinople and of the greater commercial intercourse between transalpine Europe and Italy, gradually gave rise to an admiration of the antique: imitation naturally succeeded admiration; and buildings formed upon the classical model generally replaced the Gothic. Italian architects found earlier patrons and earlier scholars, in France, than amongst us, our intermediate style being chiefly distinguished by its clumsiness.