 |
[102] Pommeraye, Histoire de l'Eglise Cathedrale de Rouen, p. 33.
[103] Turner's Tour in Normandy, I. p. 144.
[104] Bibliographical, Antiquarian, and Picturesque Tour in France and Germany, I. p. 50.
[105] Pommeraye, Histoire des Archeveques de Rouen, p. 22.
PLATE LIII.
CRYPT IN THE CHURCH OF ST. GERVAIS, AT ROUEN.
It has been inferred, and with much apparent probability, from the silence of Julius Caesar, that the proud capital of Normandy had either no existence in the time of that general, or was at most only a place of small importance. There have not, however, been wanting, among the historians of Rouen, some, who, jealous, as usual, for the honor of their city, ascribe to it an antiquity beyond the deluge, and trust to the latter half of its classical name, for bearing them out in the assertion, that its foundations were laid by Magus, the son and successor of Samothes, first king of Gaul. Others, more moderate, have contented themselves with the belief, that, although Caesar does not make mention of Rothomagus, there is still no reason to question its existence before the Christian aera, or to doubt that it was then the chief town of the Velocasses, as Lillebonne was of the neighboring tribe of the Caletes, the inhabitants of the present Pays de Caux. It is at least known with certainty, that, in the division of Gaul, which took place not very long afterwards, into seventeen provinces, Rouen became the metropolis of the Lugdunensis Secunda; and that, from that time forwards, it continued gradually to rise in consequence, till the establishment of Neustria into an independent sovereignty stamped it with the title of the capital of a nation.
At the present time, Rouen can shew scarcely any remains of Roman antiquity: "the wide waste of all-devouring years," has effaced those vestiges which that powerful people seldom failed to have impressed, wherever their dominion had once been firmly established. The small church of St. Gervais, derives therefore a peculiar interest, as exhibiting proofs, sufficiently decided, though far from important, of a connection with Italy. These proofs rest principally upon the Roman bricks and other debris, some of them rudely sculptured, which have been employed in the construction of the piers of the crypt, and upon the sculpture of the capitals of some columns on the exterior of the apsis.
The church of St. Gervais is situated at a short distance without the walls of Rouen, upon a slight eminence, adjoining the Roman road to Lillebonne, and near a rising ground, commonly called the Mont aux Malades, as having been, in the eleventh century, the site of a monastery, destined for the reception of lepers. According to Farin,[106] the church was originally an abbey, and is expressly recognized as such in a charter of Duke Richard II. dated A.D. 1020; in which, among other donations to his favorite monastery at Fecamp, he enumerates, "item Abbatiam Sancti Gervasii, quae est juxta civitatem Rothomagum, et quicquid ad ipsam pertinet." The authors of the Gallia Christiana[107] add that, "at the time when this abbey was conferred upon Fecamp, it was taken from the monks of St. Peter at Chartres." Two centuries subsequently, St. Gervais appears to have sunk into the rank of a simple priory, under the immediate control of the monks of Fecamp, who assumed the title of its priors. In process of time, the still humbler name and dignity of a parochial church were alone left; but the period at which this last change took place, is not recorded. The abbot of Fecamp continued, however, till the period of the revolution, to exercise spiritual jurisdiction over what was termed the barony of St. Gervais; including not only this single parish; but some others dependent upon it. He nominated to the livings, directed the religious establishments, had entire control over the prisons, and was entitled to all privileges arising from the fair of St. Gervais, which was annually held at Rouen, in the Fauxbourg Cauchoise, on the twentieth of June. It is even on record, that in the year 1400, the abbot ventured upon the bold experiment of forbidding William de Vienne, then archbishop of Rouen, either to carry his cross, or to give his benediction within the precincts of his jurisdiction; but so daring an assumption of power was not to be tolerated, and the matter was accordingly referred to the parliament of Paris, who decided in this instance against the abbot.
Adjoining to the church of St. Gervais, stood originally one of the palaces of the Norman Dukes and it was to this[108] 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, that 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 deserted in the hall.
The ducal palace, and the monastic buildings, are now wholly destroyed. Fortunately, however, the church still remains, and 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 and 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 design of the original architect, that a portion of work should intervene between the summits 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, represented in the plate; 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. Here, according to Ordericus Vitalis,[109] was interred the body of St. Mello, 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. 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 serve 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.
NOTES:
[106] Histoire de la Ville de Rouen, v. p. 1.
[107] XI. p. 124. A.
[108] The whole of the remainder of this article is transcribed from Turner's Tour in Normandy, I. p. 125.
[109] Duchesne, Scriptores Normanni, p. 558.
PLATE LIV.
CHURCH OF ST. PAUL, AT ROUEN.
Next to the church of St. Gervais, that of St. Paul is the most interesting relic of ancient architecture among the ecclesiastical buildings at Rouen. Indeed, it may be considered as the only other of an early date; the round tower attached to the abbatial church of St. Ouen[110] being altogether inconsiderable, and indebted for its principal interest to its connection with an abbey endowed with such extensive possessions, and gifted with so much reported sanctity.
The foundation of the church of St. Paul is of very remote antiquity: it is said to have been laid by St. Romain, in memory of his great victory over heathenism, when, triumphant, he erected the banner of the cross upon the ashes of the temple of Venus. Impure was the goddess, and most impure were her rites; so that, to use the words of Taillepied, in speaking of this same temple, "la dedans la jeunesse, a bride avallee, souloit se souiller et polluer par ordre luxure et paillardise abominable, ne ayant egard qu'aupres de ce lieu y avoit un repaire de malins esprits qui faisoyent sortir une fumee tant puante et infecte que la mortalite s'en ensuyvoit par apres."
This very remark concerning the infectious vapor, seems decisive as to the feet of the church of St. Paul occupying the site of the pagan fane. It stands without the walls of the town, upon elevated ground, at a very short distance to the right of the barrier below Mont St. Catherine, on the road to Paris, in the immediate vicinity of some mineral springs, strongly impregnated with iron. Prior to the revolution, the church was under the jurisdiction of the monastery of Montivilliers. The abbess had the right of nomination to the vacant benefice; and, till the middle of the seventeenth century, she was in the habit of regarding St. Paul's as a priory, and fixing there a colony of her nuns. But they were all recalled in 1650, and were never afterwards succeeded by a fresh establishment.
Respecting the various changes of the edifice, Farin contents himself with the brief remark, "that it was repeatedly destroyed during the wars, and rebuilt by the liberality of the Norman Dukes."[111] The eastern part of what is now standing is evidently of Norman time; and, architecturally considered, it is a most curious specimen, being probably the only church in existence which terminates to the east in three semi-circular compartments. Of these, the central division is considerably the most lofty, as well as the most prominent; and the arrangement of the corbel-table, which is carried equally round them all, proves that it must always have been so. The sculpture of this corbel-table is viewed by the Norman antiquaries with peculiar interest: some of the heads, with widely distended jaws, beset with teeth of enormous size, represent wolves; others, with human features and whiskered upper lips, are supposed to be intended for the Saxon foe, who, at the time of the Norman invasion, were induced, we are told, by the smooth faces of their opponents, to entertain the erroneous belief, that the approaching host was but an army of priests. Mr. Cotman, who has observed in similar situations, in many other parts of Normandy, faces equally shadowed with whiskers, has been led to the suspicion, that they were intended in derision of the Saxons.
Internally, the triple circular ending of the church is no longer observable. Both of the lateral divisions are parted off at the extremity, and formed into distinct apartments: the southern is applied to the purpose of a sacristy, while the northern serves merely as a lumber-room. The nave, which is thrice the width of the chancel, and is clearly of a date comparatively modern, is separated from the more eastern portion of the building by a semi-circular arch. The sculpture upon the capitals appears of Roman design: that on one of them, exhibits a row of graceful figures in a pure classical taste, intent upon some action, but so much mutilated, that it would be now no easy task to conjecture the object of the artist. The aisles of the chancel are divided from the central compartment by double arches, a larger and a smaller being united together, all of them semi-circular, and all of the Norman style of architecture. Attached to the eastern end of the church, within the lumber-room just mentioned, stands a piece of Roman sculpture, supposed by M. Le Prevost to have served originally for an altar. Mr. Turner has given a figure of it in his Tour; and he conjectures, that it was of the workmanship of the fourth century; a supposition founded upon the resemblance borne by its ornaments, to those upon the pedestal of the obelisk raised by Theodosius, in the Hippodrome at Constantinople, as represented in the elaborate publication of the late M. Seroux d'Agincourt.[112]
NOTES:
[110] Figured in Turner's Tour in Normandy, I. p. 127.
[111] Histoire de la Ville de Rouen, v. p. 8.
[112] Histoire de la decadence de l'Art, pl. 10, Sculpture, fig. 4-7.
ARCHITECTURAL
ANTIQUITIES
OF
NORMANDY,
BY JOHN SELL COTMAN;
ACCOMPANIED BY HISTORICAL AND DESCRIPTIVE NOTICES BY DAWSON TURNER, ESQ. F.R. AND A.S.
VOLUME THE SECOND.
LONDON:
PRINTED FOR JOHN AND ARTHUR ARCH, CORNHILL; AND J. S. COTMAN, YARMOUTH.
MDCCCXXII.
PLATES IN THE SECOND VOLUME.
PLATE.
55. Church of St. Nicholas, at Caen, West End to face page 59 56. — — — — East End 60 57. Church at Cheux, near Caen, from the North-East 62 58. Church at Bieville, from the North-West 63 59. — — Elevations and Details 64 60. Church at Fontaine-le-Henri, near Caen, North Side of Chancel 65 61. — — — — — Elevations 66 62. Chateau at Fontaine-le-Henri, near Caen 67 63. — — — — — Elevation of central Compartment 68 64. House in the Place de la Pucelle, at Rouen 69 65. House in the Rue St. Jean, at Caen 70 66. Tower of the Church at Treport, near Caen 71 67. Church of Anisy, near Caen 73 68. Church of Perriers, near Caen 74 69. Castle of Lillebonne 75 70. Castle of Briquebec 77 71. Church of St. Stephen's, at Fecamp 79 72. Screen in the Church of St. Lawrence, at Eu 81 73. Church of St. Peter, at Lisieux, West Front 83 74. / 75. — — — — South Transept 86 76. Abbey Church of St. Ouen, at Rouen 87 77. Fountain of the Stone Cross, at Rouen 90 78. Palace of Justice, at Rouen 91 79. Church of Louviers, South Porch 93 80. Chateau Gaillard, North-East View 95 81. — — South-West View 96 82. Abbey Church of Montivilliers, West End 97 83. Church of St. Sanson sur Rille 99 84. Church of Foullebec, West Door-way 100 85. Castle at Tancarville 101 86. Entrance to the Castle at Tancarville 103 87. Church of the Holy Cross, at St. Lo, West Door-way 104 88. — — — — — Sculpture 106 89. Castle of Falaise, North-West View 107 90. — — North View 109 91. Interior of the Church of Creully 110 92. Cathedral Church of Notre Dame, at Coutances, West Front 111 93. / 94. — — — — — — Elevation of the Nave 115 95. Mount St. Michael, on the Approach from Pontorson 116 96. — — Interior of the Knights' Hall 120 97. Abbey Church of Cerisy, Interior of the Choir 121 98. Church at Oyestraham, West Front 122 99. Cathedral Church of Notre Dame, at Seez, West Front 123 100. — — — — — Elevation of the Nave 125
The Figure referred to in the Note, p. 117, is inserted at the beginning of the Preface.—As a Vignette, at the end of the Preface, is introduced a View of the Church of Querqueville, near Cherbourg, a building of unquestionable antiquity, and here figured, as the only instance in Normandy, or possibly in existence, of a church whose transepts, as well as the chancel, terminate in a semi-circular form. In these parts, the walls are formed of herring-bone masonry, which is not the case with the tower or nave, which are more modern. The tower is, however, probably of the Norman aera; and the peculiar masonry which distinguishes the chancel, is still observable for a few feet above its junction with the nave. Its ornaments may be compared with those of St. Peter's church, at Barton-upon-Humber, and Earl's-Barton church, Northamptonshire, both of them figured in the fifth volume of Britton's Architectural Antiquities, and both evidently Norman. The church of Querqueville has no buttresses. Its length, from east to west, is forty-eight feet and six inches; from north to south, forty-three feet and four inches; the width of the nave is nine feet and nine inches.
PLATES LV. AND LVI.
CHURCH OF ST. NICHOLAS, AT CAEN.
The Abbe De la Rue, in his Historical Essays upon Caen, contents himself with remarking, with regard to the church of St. Nicholas, that it is the only specimen of real Norman architecture now left entire in the town; for that the abbatial church of the Holy Trinity, a building of the same period and style, has been so disguised by the alterations made with the view of adapting it to its present purpose, that, considered as a whole, it is no longer to be recognized as a type of the religious edifices of the Normans. Such being the case, it is the more to be lamented that the church here figured, should not only have been degraded from its original application, but should have been appropriated to an object eminently liable to expose it to injury. It is now used as a stable for cavalry; but, fortunately, it has still been suffered to remain entire; and hopes are entertained, that it may yet be one day again employed as a place of worship.
The exterior of the building has not altogether escaped uninjured or unaltered. In the western front, (see plate fifty-five,) both the lateral towers have lost their original terminations, and have been reduced to a level with the roof of the nave. One of them still remains in a state of dilapidation: to the other has been added a square tower, of rather elegant proportions, surmounted by a small crocketed pinnacle, the workmanship probably of the fourteenth century. The rest of this part of the church is as it was first built, except that the great arches of entrance are entirely blocked up. The whole is of extreme simplicity, and vies in that respect with the same portion of the adjoining church of the abbey of St. Stephen; the different members of the two being nearly the same, though disposed in a dissimilar manner.
The central tower of the church of St. Nicholas is square and small, and so low as to admit only a single tier of semi-circular-headed windows, four on each side. It terminates in a ridged roof, and apparently, never was higher; though, as far as may be judged from analogy, a greater elevation was probably designed by the architect. Along the sides of the church, immediately beneath the roof, runs a bold projecting cornice, of antique pattern, formed of numerous horizontal mouldings; and, under this, the corbel-table presents only a row of plain knobs, instead of the monsters commonly found in Norman buildings. The clerestory, throughout both the nave and choir, is filled with narrow arches, alternately pierced for windows, and left blank. All these arches, as well as the windows of the transepts and of the projecting aisles below, are without the accompaniment of pillars or ornaments of any description, excepting a broad flat moulding of the simplest kind, which wholly encircles them. The disposition of the windows in the lower part of the nave, differs from that of those above, in their being separated from each other by shallow buttresses, which hold the place of the blank arches. A plain string-course also is continued the whole length of the church beneath the windows, as in the west front. On the south side is a door, the only one now in use in the church, which is entered by a very noble Norman arch, composed of a great number of cylindrical mouldings, arranged in three broad bands, but without pillars or capitals, and with no other variation than that of size, and of the addition of the billet-moulding to the outer row. The transome-stone of this arch is unquestionably coeval with the arch itself, the sculpture of the masonry being interwoven with it. Attached to the eastern side of both the transepts, is a circular chapel, as in the churches of St. Georges, of St. Taurin at Evreux, of Fecamp, of Cerisy, and in several other ancient religious buildings in Normandy. Nor is England altogether without specimens of the same kind: a similar chapel, now in a ruinous state, and called by Blomefield, "the sexterie or ancient vestry," is joined to the north transept of Norwich cathedral; and near the eastern extremity of the same church, are four others. But the principal characteristic of those at St. Nicholas', is the extremely high pitch of the stone roof, a peculiarity equally observable in the roof of the choir; and hence the following remarks on the part of Mr. Turner[113]:—"Here we have the exact counterpart of the Irish stone-roofed chapels, the most celebrated of which, that of Cormac in Cashel cathedral, appears, from all the drawings and descriptions I have seen of it, to be altogether a Norman building. Ledwich asserts that 'this chapel is truly Saxon, and was erected prior to the introduction of the Norman and Gothic styles.'[114] If we agree with him, we only obtain a proof, that there is no essential difference between Norman and Saxon architecture; and this proposition I believe, will soon be universally admitted. We now know what is really Norman; and a little attention to the buildings in the north of Germany, may terminate the long-debated questions relative to Saxon architecture, and the stone-roofed chapels in the sister isle."
In the east end of the church of St. Nicholas, (see plate fifty-six,) may be remarked a sensible approximation in point of style, to the same part in the church of the Trinity. The circular apsis is divided into compartments by slender cylindrical pillars; and each intercolumniation is filled by a couple of windows of comparatively large size, placed one above the other, while a row of narrow blank arches occupies the lower part. The head of each of these smaller arches is hewn out of a single stone. The height of the roof, in this part of the church, is so much greater than in the choir, as almost to justify the suspicion that it was no part of the original plan, but was an addition of a subsequent, though certainly not of a remote, aera. Were the line of it continued to the central tower, it would wholly block up and conceal the windows there. The discrepancy observable in the style of its architecture, may also possibly be regarded as enforcing the same opinion. But, indeed, as has already been more than once observed in this work, no inferences drawn from style must be admitted without the utmost hesitation. A very sensible discussion upon this point, as illustrated by the church of St. Nicholas itself, and the two adjoining churches of the Trinity and of St. Stephen, has lately appeared in one of the most popular English periodical publications, from the pen of a writer possessed of the deepest knowledge of the subject, and gifted with the most comprehensive and clearest views[115]. It were an injustice to the readers of this work, not to extract it upon the present occasion. It will supersede the necessity of any labored description of the interior of the building.—
"When a distinct gradation of style is observable, it is natural to conclude, that these architectural varieties, emanating from one prototype, each clearly to be discriminated, yet dying into another by imperceptible shades, were successively developed at certain intervals of time. This reasoning, though it advances upon legitimate premises, may be fallacious, as is proved at Caen, where three coeval churches, probably erected by the same architect, are distinguished by such remarkable modifications of the Norman Romanesque style, that were we not acquainted with the facts, we might well suppose that they marked the progress of architecture during three half centuries.—St. Nicholas, the first of these edifices, was built by the monks of St. Stephen's Abbey some time between the years 1066 and 1083. The original lines are characterized by simplicity and regularity. All the capitals of the columns, embedded in the side walls, are of one order; and the capitals of the pier-columns, which nearly resemble the others, are equally uniform. The east end terminates by an apsis, of which the elevation resembles the exterior of the cathedral of Pisa. Three circular arches, supported by Corinthianizing pilasters, form the western portal. The original cross-vaulting of the side-aisles still remains: it is without groins, and of Roman construction, and the whole interior shews that the architect was endeavoring to recollect the models of the great city.—If we pass from hence to the adjacent abbey church of St. Stephen, erected at the same period, we shall observe that the conception of the architect is more Norman than in the church which we have quitted. The nave is divided into bays by piers, alternating with circular pillars of smaller diameter. The pier consists of a pilaster fronted by a cylindrical column, continuing to about four-fifths of the height of the roof. Two cylindrical columns then rise from it; so that from this point upwards, the pier becomes a clustered column: angular brackets sculptured into knots, grotesque heads, and foliage, are affixed to the bases of the derivative pillars. A bold double-billeted moulding is continued below the clerestory, whose windows adapt themselves to the binary arrangement of the bays of the nave; that is to say, a taller arch is flanked by a smaller one, on its right side, or on its left side, as the situation requires; these are supported by short massy pillars; and an embattled moulding runs round the windows. These features are Norman; but in other portions of the church, the architect Romanises again, as in St. Nicholas. The piers of the aisle-arches are of considerable width: the pillars at each angle are connected by an architrave, distinctly enounced, running along the front of the pier, and interposed between the capitals and the springing of the well-turned semi-circular arch. The triforium is composed of a tier of semi-circular arches, nearly of equal span with those below. The perspective of the building is grand and palatial. In the evening, when it is illuminated only by a few faintly-burning tapers, the effect of the gleams of light, reflected from the returns of the arches and pillars, is particularly fine. Beyond the central arch which supports the tower, all is lost in gloom, except that at the extremity of the choir, the star-light just breaks through the topmost windows above the altar.—In the church of St. Stephen, the leading ideas of the architect were still influenced by the Roman basilica; a third and more fanciful modification is to be observed in the coeval church of the Holy Trinity. Here the piers are narrower; the columns supporting the aisle-arches are consequently brought closer together, and the architrave is less prominent than at St. Stephen's: there the embattled moulding is confined to the clerestory; in the present church, it runs round the principal arches; and, instead of the lofty triforium which there surmounts the side-aisles, the walls which we now describe are threaded by a gallery supported by misproportioned pillars, whose capitals exhibit every possible variety of grotesque invention. The bold archivolts beneath the central tower are chased with the Norman lozenge: they are circular; but the eastern arch, which runs higher than the others, is obtusely pointed, though it is evidently of the same date with its companions."
The parish of St. Nicholas is placed without the walls of Caen, in that portion of the suburbs known by the name of Le Bourg-l'Abbe, as having been, before the revolution, under the jurisdiction of the abbot of St. Stephen. In the same quarter was also included the parish of St. Ouen, as was a portion of those of St. Stephen and St. Martin. The two last-mentioned churches were ceded, in the earliest period of the history of Caen, by the Chapter of the Cathedral of Bayeux, to Queen Matilda, in exchange for some other preferment, and were by her bestowed upon the nuns of her new convent of the Trinity. But the increasing power of the rival monastery, built by her husband, naturally caused its occupants to turn a wistful eye towards churches so immediately in their vicinity. Disputes succeeded; and the monks of St. Stephen erected the church of St. Nicholas, that their suburb might no longer be without a religious building which depended wholly upon themselves. Peace was at length restored by means of a charter from the Duke, dated in the year 1083, whereby St. Nicholas was recognized as parochial, an equivalent was given to the abbess by the extension of her power in her own quarter of St. Giles, and the respective parishes of St. Stephen and St. Martin were allowed to retain all they possessed in the Bourg-l'Abbe, except five families expressly designated in the charter. These five were transferred to St. Nicholas; and, to secure to the saint a certain increase of votaries hereafter, a proviso was added, enacting that every house which might be built in future, in that suburb, should belong to his parish. Hence, the two other saints retained nothing more than the ground covered by the tenements then standing, sixty-seven in number; and the necessary consequence was, that from that period till the year 1790, when the whole was remodelled, the limits of the several parishes were confused and irregular in the extreme. Not only did adjoining dwellings belong to different parishes, but the line frequently ran between the various apartments of the same house, or even separated the apartment themselves.
The church of St. Nicholas, as indebted for its existence to the monks of the abbey of St. Stephen, continued for some time to receive its pastors from among the brethren of that convent. At a subsequent period, the monks, after they had transferred to substitutes the performance of their religious duties, still endeavored to preserve their supremacy; but they were finally obliged to relinquish it; and the ministers of St. Nicholas enjoyed the same rights as the other clergy of Caen, though the ecclesiastical privileges of the abbot remained inviolate.
To the church of St. Nicholas was attached a guild, in the early lists of whose members were included names of the greatest distinction in the town and neighborhood. St. Nicholas was in remote times an object of especial devotion; and the company incorporated under his patronage, naturally partook of his celebrity. The Abbe De la Rue also states, that it was from within this church, that what were termed the Apostolic decrees, were delivered in the twelfth century. They derived their name from being pronounced by commissioners delegated by the Pope, to decide in matters touching the canon law; and the numerous appeals to the court of Rome, at that period, rendered the necessity for such decisions of frequent occurrence.
NOTES:
[113] Tour in Normandy, II. p. 176.
[114] Antiquities of Ireland, p. 151.
[115] Quarterly Review for June, 1821, p. 120.
PLATE LVII.
CHURCH OF CHEUX.
The earliest mention which occurs of Cheux, a small country town, about nine miles to the west of Caen, is to be found in the charter, granted about the year 1077, by the Conqueror, for the foundation of his abbey of St. Stephen. The king, in this instrument, after a pious proem, reciting that he has been led to the holy task by the expectation of obtaining remission for his sins and a hundred-fold reward in heaven, places, as the very first of the gifts destined for the endowment of the rising monastery, the town of Cheux. He also expressly designates Cheux, and the four places immediately following, as villas juris mei, thereby meaning, as M. de Gerville justly remarks, to draw a distinction between those donations which came immediately from himself, and those which originated with any of his subjects, and stood in need of nothing more than a ratification on his part. Another remark may, perhaps, not impertinently be made upon this part of the charter, as curiously illustrative of the manners of the times as to the nature of feudal tenures, and the mode of recruiting the army. In the very next paragraph, a distinction is drawn between the rights of two different classes of men, the coloni and conditionarii, the latter being explained by the words of the charter itself, to mean free men ("liberos homines.") The Duke assigns to the abbey, the towns themselves, together with their inhabitants, mills, waters, meadows, pastures, and woods; and also with all the revenues and customs derivable from them, as they have been enjoyed by himself, or any of his predecessors. He likewise expressly stipulates, that such of the people of Cheux and Rotz, as do not hold frank-tenements, ("qui francam terram non tenent,") should be exclusively devoted to the service of the church and the monks, so as not to be subject to any call arising from military expeditions, or other cause, unless the Prince himself should personally, or by letter, direct the abbot to send them. Even in the latter case, he binds himself to summon each by name, and never to call them out, except the province should be invaded by a foreign foe; nor on any account to require their services beyond the limits of the duchy.
At the same time that the Conqueror's children confirmed all the donations made by their father to the abbey of St. Stephen, Robert, his successor upon the ducal throne, added the privilege of an annual fair at Cheux, and a weekly market: the latter was held upon a Sunday, during the twelfth century, but was afterwards, by an order from King John, changed to a Tuesday. Upon the accession of Henry II. to the dukedom, another charter of great length was granted in favor of the royal abbey; and in this, Cheux is again mentioned. The King not only follows the example of his predecessors, in renouncing all right to it, but he gives his royal assent, in the following terms, to two purchases which had been made in it:—"Concedo emptionem, quam fecit Willelmus Abbas, Joanni, filii Conani, Canonico Bajocensi, scilicet, totam terram suam de Ceusio, quae est de feudo S. Stephani; 23 libr. annual; et emptionem quam fecit Willelmus Abbas, a Radulpho, fratre Vitalis, scilicet, sex acras terrae, quam tenebat in feodu de praedicto sancto in Ceusio, pro quibus faciebat serraturas portarum Ceusii, pro C. solid. census."
From that time to the revolution, Cheux continued to be one of the principal domains of the abbot of St. Stephen. According to the territorial division of ancient France, it formed a part of what was termed the Election of Caen, and was included in the archdeaconry of Bayeux, and the deanery of Fontenay. The revolution, introducing a new arrangement, together with a new set of terms, has placed it in the arrondissement of Caen, and in the canton of Tilly.
The church is a fine specimen of Norman architecture; remarkable as to its plan, in having the choir of considerably greater width than the nave. The portion east of the tower is composed of three distinct parts, unequal in size, the central being the narrowest, as is strikingly the case in the church at Great Yarmouth; but all of the same height, and each of the lateral ones exactly equalling in its width the length of the transept to which it is attached; and thus, also, the choir and transepts, taken collectively, form nearly a square, except that, to the end of the middle compartment, is attached a circular apsis, of an unusually small size; and, seen from the inside of the church, this disproportion becomes even more conspicuous: the great thickness of the wall necessarily subtracting much from the space. It even strikes the eye as being less than it really is, from being subdivided into a number of small arches; which, with the vaulted roof, lighted by the extremely narrow windows below, and the larger ones above, give this end of the church a very peculiar appearance.
PLATE LVIII. AND LIX.
CHURCH OF BIEVILLE.
It is only when considered as a curious relic of ancient ecclesiastical architecture, that the church of Bieville can lay claim to any attention whatever. History, even in its lowest department, topography, is altogether silent with regard both, to the building and the parish, except so far as to record that the church was among the dependencies of the royal abbey of St. Stephen, at Caen; though even in this character, it does not appear till the middle of the fourteenth century, when it is mentioned in one of the registers of the diocese of Bayeux. Its situation is about four miles north of Caen.
Taken as a whole, the church of Bieville has probably no parallel in Normandy or in England. The upper story of the tower alone is of a subsequent aera, and that, the earliest style of pointed architecture: all the rest of the structure is purely Norman, and of extreme simplicity. The church of St. Peter, at Northampton, said to have been erected by Simon de St. Liz, during the reign of William the Conqueror, is encircled at the height of the clerestory by a row of small arches, similar in their proportions and decorations to those at Bieville; but they are there continued in an uninterrupted line round the building, while at Bieville they occupy only a comparatively small portion of it. In the nave of this latter church, they are disposed regularly in triplets, the central one only pierced for a window, and each three separated by a flat Norman buttress.
The western front, represented in plate fifty-eight, is divided by plain string-courses into three stories of irregular height: the basement contains only the door, which is entered by a richly-ornamented arch, (see plate fifty-nine, fig. B.) surmounted by a broad drip-stone, decorated with quatrefoils, and terminating at each end in a human head of classical character. The lowest moulding of this arch is considerably more flattened than the upper, a peculiarity that is likewise observable in the interior arch to the great door-way at Castle-Acre Priory, in Norfolk.[116] In the second story are six arches, supported by eight pillars, with capitals and bases of ordinary character: even these, contiguous as they stand, are divided into two equal sets, by the intervention of a flat space in the centre, so narrow, as to wear the appearance of a pilaster. Here, too, as in the nave, the central arch of each compartment is alone pierced for a window.—The upper story has only a single window, precisely resembling those below, but flanked on each side by a circular one, similar to that in the front of the neighboring chapel of the Delivrande:[117] or, if a comparison be sought among Norman edifices in England, to those in the tower of Norwich cathedral;[118] in the same part of the church of St. James, at Bury St. Edmunds;[119] and in the east end of the church of the Hospital of St. Cross.[120] In point of general character, the western front of the church of Bieville may not unaptly be compared with that of the chapel of the Delivrande, or of the hospital of St. Leonard, at Stamford, as figured by Carter.[121] The tower of the church at Bieville is well calculated to serve as a specimen of the towers of the village churches, comprized in a circuit of twenty miles round Caen. Among others, those of Soumont, Ifs, Soulangy, Potigny, and the Lower Allemagne, to the south, and of Lyons, Oyestraham, and several more, to the north, greatly resemble it.
Plate fifty-nine, as being altogether architectural, will best be understood by a set of regular references to the different subjects it embraces.
A. Door-way on the north side of the nave, remarkable for its lintel or transom-stone in the figure of a pediment, from which the arch rises, encircled with a single, wide, plain, flat moulding. There is a similar instance in the church of Martinvast, near Cherbourg; but the pediment there assumes a form more decidedly conical.[122] Transom-stones occur frequently in Normandy, and are variously sculptured; from the rude cross, either alone or encompassed with the cable-moulding, to the elaborate representations of the crucified Saviour, or other subjects from holy writ. Profane subjects, which are of so frequent occurrence on transom-stones in England, are very seldom found in the duchy: the writer of the present article never recollects to have met with any; and Mr. Cotman's more extensive researches have brought him acquainted only with a single instance, a centaur, in the act of discharging his arrow at a stag, in the church of Urville, near Valognes.
B. Great western entrance, (already described.)
C. First compartment of the nave from the west, showing the structure and disposition of the arches, and the very flat buttresses with a double projection, the first only equalling that of the corbels. The square-headed door is modern. Several of the sculptures on the corbels are close imitations of those upon the church of the Holy Trinity, at Caen.
D. and E. Portions of other compartments of the nave, to obtain a complete idea of which, it is only necessary to produce the dotted lines below, to the same length as that at C; the parts and their disposition being precisely the same, with the exception of the door.
F. Elevation of the choir, which is divided into two equal portions by a flat buttress, flanked on each side by a slender cylindrical column. Of these parts, one is quite plain, except only the corbel-table and ornamented frieze below. The other has two arches, recently blocked up, similar to those of the nave, but with a richer exterior moulding. The door below these has the same peculiarity, in the drip-stone rising from sculptured heads, as in the western entrance. The frieze beneath the corbels very much resembles that in the same situation in the church of the Holy Trinity, (see plate thirty-one,) and is likewise continued over the buttresses, as well as along the receding part between.
NOTES:
[116] Figured in Britton's Architectural Antiquities, III. pl. 2.
[117] Figured in Turner's Tour in Normandy, II. p. 295.
[118] Britton's Norwich Cathedral, p. 33, pl. 6.
[119] Britton's Architectural Antiquities, III. p. 80.
[120] Antiquarian and Topographical Cabinet, V.
[121] Ancient Architecture, pl. 24.—In the description of this building, page 33, Mr. Carter speaks of it as being of Saxon origin; and, in the chronological table attached to his work, he classes it in the third of the four aeras into which he divides his specimens of Saxon architecture.
[122] A still more remarkable example occurs in Essington church, Gloucestershire, figured by Carter, in his Ancient Architecture, pl. XV. fig. X. The transom-stone is there formed of part of an octagon, rising from an horizontal torus moulding, which finishes in a spiral direction round two heads. A lion and a griffin fill the space within.
PLATE LX. AND LXI.
CHURCH OF FONTAINE-LE-HENRI, NEAR CAEN.
The parish of Fontaine-le-Henri lies about eight miles north of Caen, immediately adjoining Than, whose church has already been figured in this work. The register of the livings appertaining to the diocese of Bayeux, made about the year 1350, and commonly known by the name of the livre pelut, (liber pelutus, or the parchment book,) contains only the following brief notice of it:—"Ecclesia de Fontibus Henrici LX Libras.—Dnus dicte ville.—Archidiaconatus de Cadomo.—Decanatus de Dovra." In the Gallia Christiana, and other similar works, no mention whatever is made of this parish.
According to the modern division of France, Fontaine-le-Henri is included in the canton of Creueilly: the name of the village, to whose deanery it formerly appertained, cannot fail to strike the ear of an Englishman, as being the same with that of the celebrated harbor in his own island, the common landing-place from Calais. But the English Dover, from having been originally a Roman station, is generally supposed to have derived its appellation from the Romans; and Darell, in his History of the castle, published by Grose,[123] gives it as his opinion that, among the ancient Britons, it was called Rupecester, but, on the Roman invasion, got the new name of Dofris, Dobris, or Doris, "in consequence of the filling or damming up of the harbor;" "Doafer," as he observes a few pages before, "signifying, in the language of those times, a harbor shut up, or of difficult access." A still higher authority, the learned Bishop Huet,[124] classes the word, Douvres, among those whose origin is to be sought in the ancient language of Gaul, and proposes two derivations: one from Dufyrrha, a rising ground; the other from Dvvr, the term for water. Thus, without giving any opinion of his own, he leaves the matter to his reader, with a "utrum horum mavis elige."
The Norman village of Douvres is celebrated upon more than one account: it was the birth-place of Thomas of Dover, almoner to the Conqueror, and by him created archbishop of York in 1070; of Sampson of Dover, his brother, made bishop of Worcester in 1097; and of a second Thomas of Dover, nephew to the first of the name, who, in 1109, had the singular honor of being elected at once to the episcopal throne of London, and the archiepiscopal throne of York; the latter of which he accepted. His brother, Richard, wore at the same time the mitre of Bayeux.—Douvres was the principal place of one of the seven baronies, which formed the episcopal manse of the bishops of Bayeux. During the thirteenth, and the two following centuries, it was also selected for their country-seat. Within its limits stands the chapel of the Delivrande,[125] said to have been founded by St. Regnobert, the second bishop of the diocese, and still held in the highest repute for its sanctity.
Of the church of Fontaine-le-Henri, the architecture is decidedly Norman, and is distinguished by a bold and noble style, resembling in its general character, as well as in its individual features, the abbatial churches of St. George, and of the Trinity. Hence, though no record is left of the actual founder, there is little room for doubt as to the aera of the foundation. It may be observed on this occasion, that in Normandy, as in England, it very seldom happens that information is to be obtained on these particulars, when the same individual united in his person the characters of lord of the village and patron of the living. It was only where benefices were in the hands of religious houses, that events so generally unimportant as the building and repairing of village churches, were considered deserving of being recorded.
With regard to the various proprietors of Fontaine-le-Henri, much information is to be gleaned from Laroque's History of the House of Harcourt. The laborious author, after having completed his general account of the Norman nobility, in a single folio volume, devoted four others to the genealogy and fortunes of this one illustrious family. From him it appears that, during the period when Normandy was under the sway of its own Dukes, the parish of Fontaine-le-Henri was in the hands of the family of Tilly, one of whom is to be found among the companions of the Conqueror, in his descent upon England. Early in the thirteenth century, during the reign of King John, they held the lordship of Fontaine-le-Henri conjointly with the castellany of Tilly. Mention of them occurs repeatedly in the Ecclesiastical History of Ordericus Vitalis, as well as in the annals of the abbeys of St. Stephen and of Ardennes, near Caen; and it was from the baptismal name of Henry, commonly borne by that branch of them, who were possessors of Fontaine, that the parish took its present distinctive appellation; a distinction not a little needed, considering that there are fifteen other places in Normandy, called by the general name of Fontaine. John de Tilly, the last of the male line of the family, who were lords of Fontaine-le-Henri, died about the year 1380: he was succeeded in the inheritance by his sister, Jane, who, in 1382, married Philip D'Harcourt, and thus added the property to the immense domains of the Harcourts.
The first of the plates appropriated to this building, embraces only a portion of the western compartment of the south side of the chancel, drawn in rapid perspective, the view being taken from immediately beneath the corbel-table, for the sake of embracing the soffit of the arches, and the projecting mouldings. Here, as at Bieville, the lintel or transom-stone of the arch of entrance[126] assumes the form of a pediment, but rests upon the jambs of the door-way, on a level with the capitals. To the instances of a similar formation, adduced under the preceding article, should be added the very remarkable one at Pen church, in Somersetshire, figured in the Antiquarian and Topographical Cabinet. On the lintel is sculptured the Lamb bearing the Cross, enclosed within a circle, flanked on either side by a nondescript animal; the whole supported by two crowned heads placed in niches in the jambs.
The following is a description of the different parts of plate sixty-one:[127]—
A. East end of the chancel.—The central buttress, flanked, like the two lateral ones, with cylindrical pillars, divides this portion of the church into two equal portions. The general appearance of these buttresses, and the circumstance of their being supported upon a fillet and plinth, would almost warrant the calling of them pilasters; and those upon the northern side of the chancel, Figure B, assume that character even more decidedly, having no projection beyond the cornice, which they support as an entablature.—It will be remarked, that the whole building is raised upon a plinth of a bold character; and Mr. Cotman justly observes, that the chancel may be regarded as a model for beautiful proportions and exquisite finishing. As respecting Norman buttresses, he is of opinion, that the edifices of highest antiquity will be found to be altogether without any; and that they were first added merely by way of ornament, to break the monotonous appearance of a long uninterrupted space of level wall. Indeed, the Norman walls, commonly from six to ten feet in thickness, could scarcely require any additional strength from extrinsic objects; and least of all, could they receive it from a projection of not more than the same number of inches. Even where buttress has been added to buttress, as in the north side of the chapel of the hospital of St. Julien, near Rouen,[128] and in some other instances, it may almost be questioned, if support was the only circumstance contemplated by the architect. The double buttresses at St. Julien's, could scarcely fail to be coeval with the building, as appears from the string-course being continued in an unbroken line over them, a fact that was omitted to be noticed in the description of the chapel.
NOTES:
[123] History of Dover Castle, p. 8.
[124] Origines de Caen, p. 315.
[125] See Turner's Tour in Normandy, II. p. 295; where this chapel is described and figured.
[126] Mr. Cotman observes, that much might be said in connection with this door-way, upon the subject of the decorations of the semi-circular-headed arches in Normandy and in England. But, confining himself to heads of the peculiar grotesque character, sculptured upon the arch at Fontaine-le-Henri, he remarks, that such, though far from being very uncommon in Britain, are of extremely rare occurrence in the duchy; insomuch, that he can recal no other specimens of them, than those upon a large arch which separates the nave from the chancel, in the church of Berigny, near St. Lo, and upon another on the south side of the church of Bracheville pres le Grand. The heads, in this last instance, are precisely like those at Iffley church, in Oxfordshire, (see Britton's Chronological and Historical Illustrations of Ancient Architectures;) but they are confined to the archivolt alone, while, at Iffley, they are disposed in a double row, and form broad bands, that encircle the pillars as well as the top of the arch. In England are the following instances, most of them figured in the works of Britton and Carter:—
South door-way of St. Peter's church, Oxford. ———————— St. Peter's church, at Rasen, in Lincolnshire. ———————— Earls-Barton church, Northamptonshire. North door-way of Lullington church, Somersetshire. Architrave on the east side of the cemetery-gate, Canterbury cathedral. West door-way of Kenilworth church. South door-way of Moorvinstowe church, Cornwall. Arches in the nave of ditto. —————————— Wymondham church, Norfolk. West door-way of the church of Barton St. Mary, ditto.
[127] In the title of this plate, it is unfortunately stated to represent the East end OF the SOUTH side of the chancel, instead of the East end AND the NORTH side of the chancel.
[128] See p. 44.
PLATES LXII.-LXV.
CHATEAU OF FONTAINE-LE-HENRI.
CENTRAL COMPARTMENT OF FONTAINE-LE-HENRI.
HOUSE IN THE PLACE DE LA PUCELLE, AT ROUEN.
HOUSE IN THE RUE ST. JEAN, AT CAEN.
It neither falls within the scope of this work to attempt any thing in the form of a dissertation upon the ancient domestic architecture of Normandy, nor, supposing such an object to be desirable, would the present state of the duchy afford materials for the purpose. The lover of researches into architectural antiquity no sooner directs his attention to that branch of his subject, which, as tending to elucidate the habits of his forefathers, would be peculiarly interesting, than he finds an insuperable obstacle opposed to his progress. The zeal of churchmen and the pride of barons, have preserved us many noble relics of ecclesiastical and castellated buildings; but the private residence of the more humble individual has, in no portion of the globe, been able to secure to itself any thing approaching to a durable existence. What was raised for comfort alone, was not in itself designed for perpetuity; and the varying tastes of successive occupants, the changes of fashions, or, what operate even more powerfully than all, the changes of fortune, have conspired to subject this portion of human labor, in an eminent degree, to that mutability which is the general lot of human undertakings. In early times, also, the state of society operated powerfully towards the production of the same destructive effect. When even the monarch could no otherwise provide for the safety of his palace, than by encircling it with the fortifications of the castle, a life of continual alarm afforded his subjects no encouragement for the cultivation of the arts of peace. Society knew no other classes than the lord and his vassals: the former, enthroned in military state; the latter, too poor to raise his aim beyond the necessaries of life; or, where riches existed, too depressed by servitude to dare to let them appear. Hence, during the prevalence of the feudal system, very little, if any thing, more is known of domestic architecture, than is to be collected from the rude illuminations of missals, or the unsatisfactory descriptions of chroniclers. The monuments themselves have disappeared from the face of the earth; or, if any instances can be adduced, tending to disprove so comprehensive an assertion, they are few in number, and worthless in quality. The utmost to be hoped for are such mutilated remains, as Winwal-House, in Norfolk, lately figured by Mr. Britton, in his Chronological and Historical Illustrations of the Ancient Architecture of Great-Britain; remains that are calculated to excite no other emotions than regret, and to awaken, without being by any means able to satisfy, curiosity.—Nor indeed have Mr. Cotman's extensive researches enabled him to meet with any of this description, all poor as they are, within the limits of Normandy.
At the same time it has appeared right, conformably with the plan that has been adopted in this work, as to ecclesiastical edifices, to lay before the reader some specimens of the domestic architecture of the duchy, which, though far removed from Norman times, are almost equally so from our own days. Even these are rapidly disappearing; it is more than possible, that the three subjects here selected for publication may, in the course of a few years, be recorded only in these plates. One of them is already levelled with the ground;[129] while the more interesting house in the Place de la Pucelle, at Rouen, though it has been suffered to continue in existence, has been so much injured in its exterior, and is degraded to so mean a purpose, that its demolition would at no time be matter for surprise.—Specimens, like these, are curious in the history of the arts: they shew the progress which architecture had made in Normandy, at one of the most interesting epochs in French history; they also shew its relative state, as respectively applied to civil and religious purposes. And, if they be all three productions of nearly the same aera, they are sufficiently characterised each from the other, by marks of distinction.
"A history of the civil and domestic architecture of the middle ages, is yet a desideratum; and unless this task is soon accomplished in England, the opportunity will be lost for ever." The very sensible author, from whom this sentence is quoted, goes on to say, "The halls of Elizabeth's days are almost worn out. The mansions of the time of Charles I. are falling apace, and in every quarter of a century a class must disappear, by the conjoined operations of repair and decay. The towns of England perhaps afford the worst and poorest specimens of the dwelling houses: the best and richest are found in the Netherlands. We can hardly qualify this assertion by recollecting the magnificent range of palaces which bordered the Strand, in the reign of Henry VIII. Our own dwelling-houses are usually composed of timber frames filled in with plaster. Troyes, in Champagne, is built entirely in this fashion, every street is the perfect 'counterfeit' of old Cheapside. Beauvais is built in the same manner, but the houses are profusely varied with carving, and a good artist might employ himself there for a twelvemonth. Many of the ancient houses at Caen are of chesnut timber. The Abbe De la Rue supposes that they were built by the English, after the place was taken by Henry V. in 1417. His 'bombards' destroyed a great part of the town during the siege; and after he had regained possession, he granted the sites of the demolished tenements to his English subjects. In choosing this material, they may have been guided partly by choice, as being a domestic fashion, and partly by necessity; for the use of stone was restricted by Henry, to the building and repairing of 'eglises, chasteaulx, et forteresses.' The king, by letters-patent, declared that the 'quarries of white stone' were to remain to him and his heirs for ever: this monopoly proves the value in which the Caen stone was held."
Some account has already been given, under the preceding article, of the changes of proprietors which the domain of Fontaine-le-Henri underwent, during the reigns of the Norman Dukes, and down to the conclusion of the fourteenth century. The estate then passed into the possession of the Harcourts, in whose hands it continued a considerable length of time: it has since been subject to various owners, and has now finally become the property of the Viscount de Canisy. The Chateau (see plates sixty-two and sixty-three) is a noble building, and a very characteristic specimen of the residences of the French noblesse, during the latter part of the fifteenth century, at which period there is no doubt of its having been erected, although no records whatever are left upon the subject. Fontaine-le-Henri was then still in the possession of the family of Harcourt, whose fortune and consequence might naturally be expected to give rise to a similar building.—As compared with the mansions of the English nobility, the chateau at Fontaine-le-Henri may be advantageously viewed in conjunction with Longleat, in Wiltshire,[130] the noble seat of the Marquess of Bath. The erection of the latter was not commenced till the year 1567, thus leaving an interval of at least half a century between them; a period, probably, much the same as may be presumed from other documents to have intervened between the introduction of the Italian style of architecture in France and in England. Longleat was built by John of Padua, who is stated by Mr. Britton, "to have been an architect of some note at the time; as is evinced by his being termed Devizor of his Majesty's buildings, and by the grant made him by Henry VIII. and renewed in the third year of Edward VI." Fontaine-le-Henri was also the production of trans-alpine architects. Both of them bear decided marks of the nation to which they owe their origin; but in the English mansion, the Italian features are most decidedly enounced; while, in the French, they are strikingly modified by the peculiarities of their adopted country.
The central compartment (plate sixty-three) has been selected by Mr. Cotman for publication, as being the portion of the structure which is in the purest taste. This also most resembles Longleat. But it is on the other hand by far the least ornamented. The rest of the front of the building is covered with the richest profusion of medallions, scrolls, friezes, canopies, statues, and arabesques, in bas-relief, worked with extraordinary care, and of great beauty. Their style is that of the Loggie of Raphael; or, to compare them with another Norman subject of the same aera, of the sculptures upon the mausoleum raised to the Cardinal d'Amboise, in Rouen cathedral: indeed, for delicacy of workmanship, they may almost compete with the ornaments upon this far-famed monument.[131]
For the drawing of the second of the houses here figured, that in the Place de la Pucelle, at Rouen, (see plate sixty-four,) Mr. Cotman has to acknowledge himself indebted to the pencil of Miss Mary Turner. Rouen abounds in buildings, whose fronts are ornamented in a somewhat similar manner, but none among them will bear a comparison with this for the sumptuousness of its decorations.[132] In another and more important point of view, the house in question stands still more decidedly unrivalled; for a wing of it, which is not shewn in the present plate, exhibits a series of representations, illustrative of different events connected with the chivalrous meeting in the field of cloth of gold. These figures have been already engraved: they were first published by Montfaucon; then copied by Ducarel; and, very recently, two of them have again appeared in the publications of Mr. Dibdin[133] and Mr. Turner.[134] The latter of these gentlemen has been copious in his description of this building; and the following account of it is borrowed nearly verbatim from his pages:—
"In the square which has acquired an ill-omened celebrity by the barbarous execution of the Maid of Arc, stands a house within a court, now occupied as a school for girls, of the same aera as the Palais de Justice, and in the same Burgundian style, but far richer in its sculptures. The entire front is divided into compartments by slender and lengthened buttresses and pilasters. The intervening spaces are filled with basso relievos, evidently executed at one period, though by different masters. A banquet beneath a window in the first floor, is in a good cinque-cento style. Others of the basso-relievos represent the labors of the field and the vineyard; rich and fanciful in their costume, but rather wooden in their design: the salamander, the emblem of Francis I. appears several times amongst the ornaments, and very conspicuously. I believe there is not a single square foot of this extraordinary building, which has not been sculptured.—On the north side extends a spacious gallery. Here the architecture is rather in Holbein's manner: foliaged and swelling pilasters, like antique candelabra, bound the arched windows. Beneath, is the well-known series of bas-reliefs, executed on marble tablets, representing the interview between Francis I. of France, and Henry VIII. of England, in the Champ du Drap d'or, between Guisnes and Ardres. They were first discovered by the venerable father Montfaucon, who engraved them in his Monumens de la Monarchie Francaise; but to the greater part of our antiquaries at home, they are, perhaps, more commonly known by the miserable copies inserted in Ducarel's work, who has borrowed most of his plates from the Benedictine.—These sculptures are much mutilated, and so obscured by smoke and dirt, that the details cannot be understood without great difficulty. The corresponding tablets above the windows are even in a worse condition; and they appear to have been almost unintelligible in the time of Montfaucon, who conjectures that they were allegorical, and probably intended to represent the triumph of religion. Each tablet contains a triumphal car, drawn by different animals—one by elephants, another by lions, and so on, and crowded with mythological figures and attributes.—A friend of mine, who examined them this summer, tells me, that he thinks the subjects are either taken from the triumphs of Petrarch, or imitated from the triumphs introduced in the Polifilo. Graphic representations of allegories are susceptible of so many variations, that an artist, embodying the ideas of the poet, might produce a representation bearing a close resemblance to the mythological processions of the 'mystic dream.'—The interior of the house has been modernized: so that a beam covered with small carvings is the only remaining object of curiosity. On the top, a bunch of leaden thistles has been a sad puzzle to antiquaries, who would fain find some connection between the building and Scotland; but neither record nor tradition throw any light upon their researches. Montfaucon, copying from a manuscript written by the Abbe Noel, says, 'I have more than once been told, that Francis I. on his way through Rouen, lodged at this house; and it is most probable, that the bas-reliefs in question were made upon some of these occasions, to gratify the king by the representation of a festival, in which he particularly delighted.' The gallery-sculptures are very fine, and the upper tier is much in the style of Jean Goujon. It is not generally known that Goujon re-drew the embellishments of Beroald de Verville's translation of the Polifilo; and that these, beautiful as they are in the Aldine edition, acquired new graces from the French artist—I have remarked, that the allegorical tablets appear to coincide with the designs of the Polifilo: a more accurate examination might, perhaps, prove the fact; and then little doubt would remain. The building is much dilapidated; and, unless speedily repaired, these basso-relievos, which would adorn any museum, will utterly perish. In spite of neglect and degradations, the aspect of the mansion is still such that, as my friend observed, one would expect to see a fair and stately matron standing in the porch, attired in velvet, waiting to receive her lord."
To the house at Caen[135] (figured in plate sixty-five) are attached no historical mementos; nor is any record preserved as to its founder or possessor. It is not even honored by the slightest mention in the Abbe De la Rue's recent publication, or in those of De Bourgueville or Huet. In all probability it owes its existence to some wealthy citizen, during the reigns of Charles VIII. or Louis XII. as "it was principally at that period, that the practice prevailed in France, of ornamenting the fronts of the houses with medallions. The custom died away under Francis I."[136]—According to this theory, the houses at Caen and at Fontaine-le-Henri may be placed in exactly the same aera, and about forty years anterior to that at Rouen.
Caen can show another remarkable instance of domestic architecture, a castellated building, which, it has been remarked, might easily mislead the studious antiquary. This building, commonly known by the name of the Chateau de la Gendarmerie, but more properly called the Chateau de Calix, is generally believed by the inhabitants of the town to have been erected for the purpose of commanding the river, while it flowed in its ancient, but now deserted, bed. According, however, to the Abbe De la Rue, no fortification of any description ever existed in the same place; but the structure, however martial in its appearance, was in its character altogether pacific, and was built during some of the latest years of the fifteenth, or earliest of the sixteenth, century, by Girard de Nollent, then owner of the property.[137] Two statues, apparently intended to represent heathen divinities, but now absurdly called Gendarmes, frown over its battlements, which, like those of the adjacent wall, and like the face of the principal tower, are still charged with medallions, though the ebullition of revolutionary enthusiasm has destroyed the arms of the Nollents.
Previously to dismissing this subject, it may be worth while to remark, that the ogee canopy, surmounting the window placed between the two medallions in the house in the Rue St. Jean, at Caen, is nearly a fac-simile of that which is still seen over the door that led to what was once the great hall in the Conqueror's palace, adjoining the abbey of St. Stephen. The resemblance between them is so great, that it would be difficult to believe that they are of very different dates. But the palace was unquestionably the production of more than one aera; and in the scarcity of materials for the forming of a correct opinion upon the subject, it is impossible to say, whether the door in question may not have been inserted some time after its erection, or even whether the ornamental part may not have been added to it at a period subsequent to its formation.
NOTES:
[129] The house at Caen, is that which is here alluded to.—It has already been mentioned, that the Great House at Andelys has suffered the same fate. Since the account of that circumstance was written, the author of the present article has been favored with the following extract from a letter from Lord Compton, dated in August last:—"The noble grande maison d'Andelys, is now, alas, no more! We made a detour by a horrible road, for the purpose of visiting it; but great was our mortification to find only a small piece of unornamented wall, the sole vestige which the barbarians had left standing; and that is now probably destroyed—and 'green grass grows where Troy-town stood.' I need hardly say, that I derived a great deal of pleasure from a three-days' stay at Rouen; after which we made an excursion to St. Georges de Bocherville and Jumieges, and were highly interested and pleased by both.—Oh! that the Vandals would leave the abbey of Jumieges, even in its present state of dilapidation! In a few years, with the mellowing tints of time, and the ornament of a little ivy and vegetation, it would be one of the most picturesque and beautiful ruins in Europe; but, alas! it is in vain to hope it. Cotman's representations of Jumieges and Andelys will now be doubly valuable."
[130] Figured and described in Britton's Architectural Antiquities, II. p. 105.
[131] See Turner's Tour in Normandy, I. p. 157.
[132] One of the most curious buildings of this description, the ancient abbey of St. Amand, was not only rich to the greatest degree of profusion in its decorations, but derived a peculiar interest from their being almost wholly carved in wood. This building is now nearly destroyed; but, fortunately, some of its principal features are recorded in four of the plates of M. de Jolimont's Monumens de la Normandie.
[133] Bibliographical, Antiquarian, and Picturesque Tour through France, &c. I. p. 101.
[134] Tour in Normandy, I. p. 200.
[135] On the front of the new house, which has lately been erected upon the spot that was occupied by this, have been fastened the two medallions here represented: these alone were saved from the general destruction.
[136] Turner's Tour in Normandy, II. p. 170.
[137] Essais Historiques sur la Ville de Caen, I. p. 310.
PLATE LXVI.
CHURCH OF TREPORT.
Treport is an insignificant fishing-town, situated at the mouth of the small river, the Bresle, near the western extremity of Normandy. But, however unimportant its present state, most writers agree in regarding it as venerable for antiquity, assigning to it an existence coeval with the days of Julius Caesar. That illustrious general speaks of a harbor, opening into the British Channel, under the denomination of Ulterior Portus; and by this name he is supposed to have intended to designate Treport. The modern Latin historians of France apply the title without scruple: it is even so used in the charter for the foundation of the abbey, dated in the middle of the eleventh century. The very sensible author of the Description of Upper Normandy, is, however, of opinion, that such application is not warranted; and, after discussing the subject at some length, he inclines to think it more probable that Treport may have been termed by the Romans, Citerior Portus; though he candidly admits that he finds no mention of a place so called among their writers.[138] The modern name of the town he derives from the Celtic word, Treiz; or, as it is sometimes spelt, Traiz, Trais, or Treaz; a word still in use in Lower Brittany, to signify "the passage of an arm of the sea, or of a river towards its mouth."
According to the same author, there is no reason to believe that Treport was a place of note, either during the period of the dominion of the Gauls, or of the Romans. From the beginning of the twelfth century, however, it has excited, at different times, a greater or less degree of interest. Various attempts have been made to raise it into commercial importance; and, sunk as it is at present, "it once could boast rows of handsome, well-built streets, a considerable number of inhabitants, and as many as a hundred vessels, fishing-boats included, belonging to the port."—Henry I. one of the earliest Counts of Eu, turned in 1101, the course of the Bresle, so as to bring it more immediately under the walls of Treport: it was he also who dug the first harbor. Another of the same line of Counts, Charles of Artois, repaired this harbor in 1475, and undertook the greater work of cutting a navigable canal as far as Eu. The task, however, was suspended long before its completion; but the vestiges still remain, and even to the present day pass under the name of the Canal d'Artois. In 1154, a fresh attempt was made, and by a far greater man, to raise the prosperity of Treport. Henry, Duke of Guise, caused a basin to be formed here, capable of containing ships of three hundred tons burthen; and added to it a jetty, defended by strong palisades. The whole was shortly after swept away; nor did better success attend the labors of the celebrated Vauban, who, admiring the situation of the town, undertook, after a lapse of one hundred and thirty-four years, to repair the works of the Duke of Guise.
But the sea is not the only enemy with which Treport has had to contend: its misfortunes have also been in great measure attributable to its defenceless state, situated as it is, in the immediate vicinity of England. The British fleet effected a landing in 1330, and destroyed the town with fire and the sword. In the course of the succeeding year, they returned with the same design; and again in 1413; on which last occasion, not content with burning Treport itself, they likewise set fire to many neighboring villages. The religious wars during the following century were the source of almost equal calamities; but neither the sea nor warfare have inflicted such fatal wounds upon Treport, as causes emanating immediately from the prosperity of France. Its proximity to the flourishing harbor of Dieppe, has naturally diverted its trade to that quarter: the restoration of Calais to the French monarchy, caused it a yet more irreparable injury; for, previously to that time, Treport was the principal place in the channel, for the baking of biscuit, and for the landing and curing of the herrings caught by the fishermen of France in the German Ocean.
Treport was one of the first French towns that afforded a residence for the Knights Templars. A colony of them established themselves here in 1141. In the middle of the preceding century, its abbey of Benedictines, dedicated to the Archangel Michael, had been founded by Robert, Earl of Eu. The foundation-charter is preserved, both in the Neustria Pia and Gallia Christiana; and a very curious document it is, as illustrative of the manners of the times. Robert appears in it in the light of a most liberal, and a most wealthy, benefactor. Not the least extraordinary of his donations, is the permission which he bestows upon the monks, of "getting whatever they can in the towns of Eu and of Treport:" immediately after this, succeed particular grants relative to sturgeons and grampuses, fish that are now of extremely rare occurrence in the channel, but which would scarcely have there been noticed, had not the case in those times been far different; and had they not also been held in high estimation.[139]
Just one hundred years subsequently to the foundation of the monastery, John, Count of Eu, confirmed to it whatever donations it had previously received; in doing which, he makes use of this singular expression, "that he places them all with his own hands upon the altar." His piety, however, appears to have been but short-lived. A few years only elapsed before the same nobleman was guilty of flagrant sacrilege in the very abbey that he had sworn to protect. His crime and his penitence are together recorded in an instrument printed in the Neustria Pia.[140]
What is further known relative to the convent, is little and unimportant. The most remarkable circumstance, is the extreme poverty to which the monks were reduced in 1384; when, on being called upon to pay the sum of forty-six shillings and eight-pence, they pleaded their utter inability, and presented to the king the following piteous remonstrance:—"Cette Abbaie, etant frontiere de l'Anglois, n'aiant ni chateau ni defense, a ete arse et mise en un si chetif point, qu'il y a peu de lieux ou nous puissions habiter, si ce n'est es demeurans des anciens edifices, et es vieilles masures.......... Notre grande Eglise est arse depuis trente ans, et une autre petite Eglise qu'avions depuis refaite, a grand meschief est ruinee et chue jusqu'en terre, avec la closture et tout le dortoir ars, ensemble nos biens et nos lits.... De plus sommes endettez en Cour de Rome pour les finances dez Abbez qu'avons eus en brief temps; et devons encore a plusieurs persones de grosses sommes de deniers que n'avons pu, et ne pouvons encore acquitter; dont c'est pitie.... finalement pour paier 10 livres sur les 56 livres demandees par le Receveur, avons engage nos Calices sans les pouvoir retirer."
NOTES:
[138] Description de la Haute Normandie, I. p. 13.
[139] The whole of the passage is curious.—"Item in Ulteriori Portu et in Auco oppido; decimam denariorum de Vice-comitatibus, et in utraque villa quicquid abbas et monachi acquirere poterunt. Quod si homines Abbatis piscem, qui vocatur Turium, capiunt, totus erit S. Michaelis: crassus piscis si captus fuerit, ala una et medietas caudae erit monachis."—From this passage, it is plain what importance was attached to the crassus piscis, under which denomination were probably included the porpesse, the dolphin, and all kinds of cetaceous animals, as well as the grampus. Ducange, with his usual ability and learning, has brought together a considerable quantity of curious matter upon the subject, under the word, Craspiscis. From him it appears that, in the year 1271, the question was argued before the Norman parliament, to whom such fish belonged, in the event of its being thrown upon the shore; and the decision was in the following words.—"Quod consuetudo generalis est in Normannia, quod, quando talis piscis invenitur in littore maris, nec Baro, nec Miles, nec alius, qui a Rege teneat, talem piscem habet, si valeat ultra 50 libras, nisi per cartam eum habeat."—See also Turner's Tour in Normandy, II. p. 21, respecting the existence of a whale-fishery near Jumieges, upon the authority of the writer of the Gesta Sancti Philiberti.
[140] P. 589.—"Notum sit universis Ecclesiae Dei filiis, quod ego Joannes, Comes Auci, pro stipendio militum et servientium, quos tenui per guerram Regis, invadiavi maximam partem et optimam Thesauri Ecclesiae S. Michaelis de Ulterior-Portu, duos videlicet Textus praetiosos, et duo Thuribula praetiosa, unum calicem argenteum, et optime deauratum; cappas caras viginti quatuor: casulam peratam et bonam: Praeterea, tot et tantis gravaminibus praefatam Ecclesiam tam saepe gravavi, quam vices gravaminum numerare non possem: quare pro multis pauca, pro magnis parua, rependens, concedo, et in perpetuum do praedictae Ecclesiae, avenam et frumentum de Verleio, quae pertinet ad Forestagium. Diligenter autem haeredes exoro, ne Ecclesias terrae suae gravent, sed honorent et protegant. Et si quid eis pro salute animae meae et parentum meorum dedi, vel pro ablatis reddidi, in pace stabiliter tenere faciant: recordantes, quod ipsi morituri sunt: Sicut praedecessores nostri mortui sunt."
PLATE LXVII.
CHURCH OF ANISY.
The present plate has been introduced into this work, with the view of exhibiting a Norman village church of unquestionable antiquity, having its walls, on either side, built of a coarse dark stone, fashioned like Roman bricks, and disposed in a zig-zag, or, as it is more commonly termed, a herring-bone direction. A similar disposition of the masonry is observable in a portion of the church of Perriers, the subject of the following plate: it is still more conspicuous at the neighboring church of St. Matthieu, already mentioned in this work.[141] The old church of St. Croix, at St. Lo, and the lower part of the east end of the church of St. Hildebert, at Gournai, exhibit the same peculiarity, which, according to Mr. Turner, likewise exists in portions of the outer walls of the castle at Arques, as well as in the keep of the castle at Falaise.[142] These various instances, all of them taken from structures which are beyond a doubt of Norman origin, will remove any hesitation as to the Normans having practised this mode of building. Still farther confirmation will be found in the English castles of Tamworth and Colchester, both of the same early aera:[143] the stones, in the latter, are disposed precisely as here figured: in the former, horizontal strata regularly alternate with the inclined, as if in imitation of various Roman remains.[144] And, indeed, that they were really constructed with such an intention, appears highly probable; as, according to Sir Henry Englefield, whose authority is unquestionable, the same style of masonry is seen at Silchester, which is most certainly a pure Roman relic: it is even stated, that the old walls of the city of Rome were so built.[145]
Abstracted from the peculiarity just noticed, there is little in the church of Anisy to excite interest. A flat moulding, not less wide than a buttress, and surmounted by a narrow string-course of the plainest character, is continued round the whole nave, and divides it into two stories of equal height; while four Norman buttresses, on either side, separate it into three compartments. In the original state of the church, the windows were confined to the upper portion alone, and alternated with the buttresses: they rose from the string-course, narrow, circular-headed, surrounded with squared freestone, and having no other ornament than a slender cylindrical moulding above. In succeeding times, either the want of a sufficient quantity of light, or a desire for improvement, led to the introduction of larger cinquefoil-headed windows, occupying equal portions of the upper and lower stories. Throughout the whole of this part of the church, the apertures made by the scaffolding are left; and, what is remarkable, are edged with freestone.
The corbels are grotesque; and the subjects of some indecent.—In the west front there is nothing remarkable: the door-way and window above are of the most common character of Norman architecture: neither in this part of the church, nor in the chancel, is the herring-bone masonry continued; nor does the horizontal moulding extend over either of them.
NOTES:
[141] P. 16.
[142] Tour in Normandy, I. p. 37.
[143] It is hoped, that this assertion is not too bold.—The accounts of Tamworth castle, as a building, are indeed particularly unsatisfactory: neither Leland, in his Itinerary, nor Shaw, in his History of Staffordshire, throw any light upon the aera of its construction. Yet, even from the wretched plate given in the latter work, the castle, all altered as it is, appears to preserve somewhat of the character of its Norman origin; while the fact of its having belonged to the powerful family of Marmion, immediately after the conquest, adds historical probability to the opinion. With regard to Colchester, no one who has seen it will feel hesitation on the subject, although the quantity of Roman bricks visible in every part, very naturally lead to the conclusion, that it was raised upon the ruins of a far earlier edifice.
[144] Carter's Ancient Architecture, p. 36, pl. 42, fig. E.
[145] Strutt's Manners and Customs of the Anglo-Saxons, &c. I. p. 28.
PLATE LXVIII.
CHURCH OF PERRIERS.
The upper half of this plate exhibits a north-west view of the church of Perriers: the lower represents it in the opposite direction. From both it will be observed, that the different parts of the building are the productions of two different aeras, the nave having been erected during the prevalence of the semi-circular architecture, while the chancel exhibits a specimen of probably the very earliest period of the pointed style. In reference to the preceding plate, it is not uninteresting to remark, that the herring-bone masonry is, in this instance, altogether confined to the more early portion of the structure, the whole of which is composed of it, with the exception of the buttresses.
The great western door-way to the church of Perriers is very peculiar. Mr. Cotman regards it as the only instance, in the duchy, of a real Norman building having its principal entrance square-headed. Its massive lintel, shaped, as at Bieville, into a pediment, and surmounted by an arch, which is rather the segment of an ellipsis than of a circle, is likewise remarkable. But the very large arch on the northern side of the nave, adjoining the west end, is by far the most striking architectural feature of the building. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to assign any satisfactory reason for its existence. Its situation precludes the idea of its having been placed there by way of support to the tower: its size forbids the supposition, that it ever served as an entrance. Had there been an aisle or chapel beyond, it certainly might have been the medium of their communication with the main building; but the buttress contiguous to it, proves that the wall in which it is inserted, was the outer wall of the church. As it is, it appears a perfect anomaly, and must remain as a crux for the ingenuity of future antiquaries. |
|
