The church to which this most stately tower is attached is not of any

great interest, beyond a simple Romanesque doorway and window in the

west front, and some very plain arches to match in the transepts. The

choir is rather poor late Gothic, spoiled by a great blank space between

arcade and clerestory. Of the nave we hardly know what to say. As it

stands, it is plainly modern; the great round pillars are hollow; but

the design is one which we can hardly fancy coming into anybody's head,

unless it reproduced something older. It is something like Boxgrove,

something like some German churches, but not exactly. A pair of

pier-arches are grouped under a single arch containing a single

clerestory window, and there is a barrel-vault above all. A church in

the hands of Huguenots, called "La Salle des Conferences," seems to have

a Romanesque shell and keeps three windows in a flat east end. Not far

from the donjon is the Decorated church of Saint Lawrence, where the

usual late Gothic dies off into _Renaissance_ at the west end. But the

other great piece of ecclesiastical work in Verneuil, besides the

Magdalen tower, is the choir of the church of Our Lady, lower down in

the town. There is an east end, such as one hardly sees on so small a

scale out of Auvergne. Here is the apse, the surrounding aisle, the

apses again projecting from the aisle; and the varied outline is made

yet more varied by a round turret of the same date and style thrown in

among the apses. The general air is early, the work plain, the masonry

simple; but the clerestory windows have pointed arches. We gaze with

delight on an outline more thoroughly picturesque than we have seen for

a long while, and which carries back our thoughts to a land of which all

the memories are pleasing. We purpose to look at it once more before we

finally turn away from Verneuil; but good intentions are not always

carried out. Let us dream of another Arvernian journey, so planned as to

take Verneuil on the road.

BEAUMONT-LE-ROGER

1892

The name of Roger of Beaumont must be well known to any who have studied

the details of the Norman Conquest of England, though Roger's own

position with regard to that event is a negative one. His sons play a

part in the Conquest itself, and yet more in the events that followed

the Conquest. In the reign of Henry I. Robert of Meulan, son of Roger of

Beaumont, but called from the French fief of his mother, is the most

prominent person after the King himself and Anselm. But Roger himself,

the old Roger, stayed in Normandy as the counsellor of Duchess Matilda,

while his eldest son followed Duke William to the war. There is interest

enough about the man himself and his belongings to give attraction to

the place which specially bears his name, and which, in truth, was his

own creation. The man and the place are called after one another. Roger

is the Roger of Beaumont; Beaumont is the Beaumont of Roger. He was not

always Roger of Beaumont; he first appears as Roger, son of Humfrey _de

Vetulis_. One learns one's map of Normandy by degrees. The description

of _De Vetulis_ is a little puzzling; it has been turned into French and

English in more ways than are right. But get out at the Beaumont station

of the Paris and Cherbourg Railway--it comes between Evreux and

Bernay--and walk to the little town of Beaumont, and a fresh light is

gained. Perhaps it strikes us for the first time, perhaps it comes up

again as a scrap of knowledge lighted up afresh, when, between the

station and the town, we pass through the _faubourg_ of _Les Vieilles_.

How it came by the name we need not ask; the name was there and is

there, and we see that Humfrey _de Vetulis_ is simply Humfrey of _Les

Vieilles_. We see that here down below was the earliest seat of the

house, till Roger climbed the _Bellus Mons_, to found his castle, to

give it his name, and to take his name from it. It is a pleasant process

when these small facts come out on the spot with a life that they can

never get out of books. A scoffer might ask whether it were worth while

to go to Beaumont-le-Roger simply to get a clearer notion of the meaning

of the words "Humfredus de Vetulis." But it is clearly worth while to go

to Beaumont-le-Roger, both for the association of the place and to see

what Roger made and what others have made since his day. At Hauteville

we could simply guess at the spot which may have witnessed the earliest

wiles of Robert the _Wiscard_: there is no doubt at all as to the scene

of the earliest wiles of one who might have been called Robert the

Wiscard just as truly. Here were spent the early days of Robert, son of

Roger, great in three lands--Lord of Beaumont, Count of Meulan, and Earl

of Leicester, forefather in the female line of the most glorious holder

of his earldom.[59]

We walk from the station with the _Bellus Mons_ plainly before us in a

general way, in the shape of a well-wooded range of high ground. But we

see no castle standing up. An abiding castle of Roger's day we hardly

look for; but we do not even see any special mount rising above the pass

of the hill, or standing out as a promontory in front of it. The most

prominent object is the parish church nestling at the foot of the hill.

We see that it has a rich tower; we presently see that it has also one

of those wonderfully lofty choirs, which seldom get westward as far as

the tower, but which, if they did, would cut down the tower to

insignificance. We are used to these things; we know that the work that

we see must be late; but that does not cut off the hope that the church

may contain something of the age of Roger or his sons. A building of

Roger's youth would be something precious. It would rank with Duchess

Judith's Abbey at Bernay, with the long and massive nave of the church

at Breteuil, in which, notwithstanding modern tamperings, we are tempted

to see a work of William Fitz-Osborn, while he was still only lord of

Breteuil, and not yet Earl of Hereford. But of Roger and his house the

church of Beaumont has no signs; all is late, save the pillars with

Transitional capitals, which peep out. The choir is very late, and in

its details very bad; here, as in a hundred other places, we wonder how

men who had such grand general conceptions could be so unlucky in the

way of carrying them out. The aisles have some good Flamboyant windows,

and the tower, if it had been carried up to its full height, would have

been a fine example of the style. And against it now lean two memorial

stones commemorating founders and foundations, but not of the house of

_De Vetulis_. They are brought from the neighbouring abbey, of which we

shall presently have to speak.

Close above the church we take a road up the hill-side. It is well to

turn presently, to take in the strange grouping of the tower and the

tall choir, as seen from a point a little above them. But our object now

is that which is historically the central, physically the loftiest,

point at Beaumont, the castle on the _Bellus Mons_ itself. We soon begin

to see fragments of masonry rising above us on the left hand. Here,

then, is the castle; and so in a sense it is. That is, it is part of

its works, within its precincts; but it is not the head work of all. We

go on a little further, and we see signs of mound and ditch plainly

enough. But we do not take in their full grandeur, till we are kindly

admitted within the gate of one of the small holdings into which the

site of the fortress of Roger's rearing is now cut up. Then we see,

indeed, why it was that "Rogerius de Vetulis" was changed into "Rogerius

de Bello Monte."

It is, indeed, a "_bellus mons_" in the sense of commanding a wide and

pleasant outlook. The town and church of Beaumont, from some points the

abbey close below, the wide vale of the Rille and the hills beyond, make

up a cheerful landscape. But if by the "_bellus mons_" we were to

understand a fair natural hill, we should be led astray. The actual site

of Roger's keep is neither a natural hill nor an artificial mound. It is

a piece of the natural hill artificially cut off from the general mass.

The founder chose a point of the hill-side which suited his objects. Its

southern face, towards the open country, was steep enough for purposes

of defence; for the rest, he cut off the piece of ground that was to be

fortified by a gigantic ditch in the form of a horse-shoe. It is a ditch

indeed, one that gladdens the eye that is looking out for such things.

There is not so much of it, but what there is seems as grand as anything

at Arques or Old Sarum. Lilybaeum stands apart; Roger must have had

plenty of labour at his command; but he had not, like the engineers of

Carthage, to dig through the solid rock. It is a ditch to look down on

from above, and also to walk along in its depth, and to look up on each

side. The ground is not absolutely open all round; some obstructions of

farm-buildings, and the like, hinder one from stepping out the

horse-shoe quite as far as it goes; but the top of the mound--if mound

is the right word--is perfectly free. There are fragments of masonry

left everywhere, _but_ there is no continuous wall anywhere, nor any

scrap of detail by which we could fix a date. Still, enough is left for

all purposes of historical association, enough to show in what kind of a

place Roger of _Les Vieilles_ fixed his home. It is not exactly an

eagle's nest; for that kind of dwelling Normandy supplies fewer

opportunities than some other lands. But it comes much more nearly to an

eagle's nest than the home of any lord of Laigle who dwelled at Laigle.

The exact ground-plan Mr. Clark, and few besides Mr. Clark, could make

out. But without making out the exact ground-plan, we learn enough to

teach us not a little about both Roger's Beaumont and Beaumont's Roger.

Was the lord of Beaumont-le-Roger entitled to a _sainte chapelle_ in his

castle? Perhaps he might seem to be so when he was also Count of Meulan

and Earl of Leicester. Perhaps it might seem so still more when

Beaumont had come into the hands of French kings, and had begun to be

granted out as a _comte-pairie_ for their sons. But, seemingly before

that time, which did not come till the fourteenth century, a building

arose which is not exactly a _sainte chapelle_ within the castle, but

which is very near to the castle, and which has very much the air of a

_sainte chapelle_. When we speak of a _sainte chapelle_ we, of course,

mean a _sainte chapelle_ anywhere, whether at Riom, Paris, or anywhere

else. This building is the abbey church of Beaumont, which stands just

below the castle on the hill-side, a building once evidently of

remarkable beauty. Perhaps the most notable feature about it is the

ascent from the road below to the abbey buildings, a covered passage

lighted by large early Geometrical windows. We make our way up and

presently reach the abbey itself. It is plain that on this narrow ledge

on the hill-side it was no more possible than it was on the steep of

Saint Michael's Mount to put the several buildings of the monastery in

their accustomed relation to the church and to one another. Too much has

perished for any one but a specialist in monastic arrangements to

attempt to spell out the buildings of the monastery in detail; but it

seems that a good deal lay to the westward of the church which in

ordinary cases would have been placed to the north or south. The church

is but a fragment; the north and east walls are there, and from them we

can reconstruct it. "East Wall" is here a phrase that may be used; for

we are a little amazed to find that the church had no apse, but an

English-looking flat end. The large east window has lost its tracery,

which should have been something of the pattern of the Angels' Choir at

Lincoln. The whole of the work that remains is of the best French Early

Gothic. Seen from below, from the bridge across the Rille at no great

distance, there is something wonderfully striking in this single side of

the church, an inside seen from outside, with its sheltered windows and

vaulting-shafts, standing against the side of the castle-hill. How was

it when both abbey and castle were perfect? As it is, the abbey is the

more prominent of the two. We can see at least a piece of it, while we

have to guess at the castle; none of its fragments stand out at any

distance. Yet, even looking thus, the abbey seems something subordinate,

something dependent; it seems crowded into an unnatural position in

order to be an appendage to something else. The parish church stands out

boldly enough. It has a right to do so; it came in the order of nature.

It proclaims the separate being of the town of Beaumont. The town of

Beaumont doubtless sprang up because of the presence of the castle; but

it sprang up by an independent growth; it was not the personal creation

of any of its lords. The abbey, on the other hand, placed on so strange

a site, was clearly the personal device of its own founder, who may have

felt a number of very different feelings gratified, as he saw an abbey

of his own making at his feet.

The result is an abbatial church unlike all other abbatial churches. The

abbey of Beaumont is very beautiful, while the abbey of Almeneches is

very ugly; yet Almeneches comes one degree nearer than Beaumont to one's

ordinary notion of an abbey church. The abbey of Beaumont must have been

a lovely chapel, but only a chapel. If it stood in its perfect state at

Caen, among that wonderful group of noble minsters and great parish

churches, it would strike us as a beautiful, but a small thing. This is

not the usual position of the church of an abbey. It was, in fact, a

pious and artistic fancy; while not, in strictness of description, a

_sainte chapelle_ or other chapel of a castle, it has all the effect of

being such. Or in its position against the hill-side, it may call up the

memory of Brantome far away in Perigord;[60] it has nothing in common

with a typical abbey church like Saint-Evroul, except the accident of

being much of the same date and style.

One building still remains to be noticed in the Beaumont of Roger. That

is the church of his earliest home at Les Vieilles. It had, or was meant

to have, a pretty thirteenth-century tower. But the church is a mere

fragment, mutilated, desecrated, shut up. A decently kept ruin is far

less offensive than a church in such a state as this. But the thought

again comes, as at Saint-Evroul, how short a time has passed since the

parish church of Les Vieilles and the abbey church of Beaumont were both

living things. No man now alive can remember them such; but not so many

years back many could. In 1861 we talked with one who remembered the

abbey church of Bernay in the full extent of its choir and Lady-chapel.

We go back after thirty years to find the church of the Conqueror's

grandmother in other things much as it was, still desecrated, but with

no more of actual destruction. But we find that the one genuine Roman

shaft that was there, one of the very few such north of Loire, has

either perished or has been so covered up with timber framework as to be

quite out of sight. And one later, but still early capital, had been

knocked away to make a convenient resting-place for a wooden beam. One

would think that such a building as this, even if it cannot be restored

to divine worship, might at least be made _monument historique_ and

taken care of. Only then the State would some day come and take away

every real shaft and every real capital, and put imitation shafts and

capitals in their stead. And that might be even worse than the wooden

beams.

JUBLAINS

1876

We know not how far the name of Silchester may be known among Frenchmen,

but we suspect that the name of Jublains is very little known among

Englishmen. The two places certainly very nearly answer to one another

in the two countries. Both alike are buried Roman towns whose sites had

been forsaken, or occupied only by small villages; both have supplied

modern inquirers with endless stores both of walls and foundations and

of movable relics; and the two spots further agree in this, that both at

Silchester and at Jublains the history of the place has to be made out

from the place itself; all that we can do is to make out the Roman

names; we have no record of the history of either.[61] The names which

the two places now bear respectively illustrate the rules of French and

English nomenclature. Silchester proclaims itself by its English name

to have been a Roman _castrum_, but it keeps no trace of its Roman name

of Calleva. But Naeodunum of the Diablintes follows the same rule as

Lutetia of the Parisii. The old name of the town itself is forgotten,

but the name of the tribe still lives. The case is not quite so clear as

that of Paris; some unlucky etymologists have seen in the name Jublains

traces of _Jules_ and of _bains_; but a moment's thought will show that

the name is a natural corruption of _Diablintes_. The name is spelled

several ways, of which _Jublains_ is now the one in vogue; but another

form, _Jublent_, better brings out its origin. As for the two places

themselves, Jublains and Silchester, each of them has its points in

which it surpasses the other. At Silchester there is the town-wall,

nearly perfect throughout the whole of its circuit. Jublains fails here;

but, on the other hand, Silchester has no one object to set against the

magnificent remains of the fortress or citadel, the traditional camp of

Caesar. Silchester again has the great advantage of being systematically

and skilfully dug out, while Jublains has been examined only piecemeal.

This again illustrates the difference between the state of ownership in

England and in France. Silchester is at the command of a single will,

which happily is in the present generation wisely guided. Jublains must

fare as may seem good to a multitude of separate wills, of which it is

too much to expect that all will at any time be wisely guided. But it

is worth while to remember on the other hand that a single foolish Duke

may easily do more mischief than several wise Dukes can do good, and

that out of the many owners of Jublains, if we cannot expect all at any

time to be wise, there is a fair chance that at no moment will every one

of them be foolish.

At the present moment most certainly several of the owners of Jublains

are the opposite of foolish, and the most important monument of all is

placed beyond the individual caprice of any man. The great fortress is

diligently taken care of under the authority of the local Archaeological

Society; the theatre is the property of M. Henri Barbe, a zealous

resident antiquary and the historian of the place; and the other chief

remains are easily accessible, and, as far as we can see, stand in no

danger. But it is of course impossible to dig up the whole place in the

same way as Silchester has been dug up. The modern Diablintes must live

somewhere; no power short of that of an Eastern despot can expel them

all from the sites of their predecessors, even to make the ways and

works of those predecessors more clearly known.

But we have as yet hardly said what and where Jublains is. It lies in

the old county and diocese of Maine, in the modern department of

Mayenne, on the road between the towns of Mayenne and Evron. The site

was, as the local historian well points out, one admirably chosen for

the site of a town, standing as it does at the point of junction of the

roads from various parts of Central and Northern Gaul and from the

Constantine and Armorican peninsulas. It stands on a gently sloping

height, with a wide view over the flatter land to the south, and over

the Cenomannian hills more to the east, the peak of Montaigu, namesake

of our own Montacute, forming a prominent object. The traveller coming

along the road from Mayenne, the most likely point of approach, will

hardly notice anything remarkable till he reaches the parish church, a

building of no special importance, but which has a bell-gable of a type

more familiar in Britain than in Gaul. Here, if he has any eyes at all,

he will see that the church is built on the foundations of some much

larger and earlier building. The masses of Roman masonry are clear

enough, with two round projections near the two western angles of the

church. These are the remains of the _thermae_ of Naeodunum, and the

traveller has in fact passed through the greater part of the ancient

city to reach them. There are plenty of other and far greater remains;

but this is the only one which lies immediately on the road by which the

traveller is likely to come. The enclosed space of the town was an

irregular four-sided figure, with no distinct four streets of a

_chester_, but rather with a greater number of ways meeting together,

like our Godmanchester. The whole eastern side of the town is full of

remains among the fields and gardens; not far from the northern

entrance, a field or two away from the road, are the very distinct

foundations of a temple locally known as that of Fortune. A walk over

two or three more fields, crossed by traces of foundations at almost

every step, brings the traveller to a more singular object, known

locally as _La Tonnelle_, which looks very much like the foundation of a

round temple, such as that of Hercules (late Vesta) at Rome. And

something like the effect of such a temple is accidentally preserved. A

line of trees follows the circular sweep of the foundations, and their

trunks really make no bad representatives of the columns of the temple.

In short, when the traveller is once put upon the scent, he finds scraps

of ancient Naeodunum at every step of his walk through Jublains and its

fields.

But the most important remains of all lie in the south-western part of

the old enclosure. To the extreme south of the city lies the theatre.

This is happily the property of M. Barbe, who lives and carries on his

researches within its precinct. Its general plan has been made out, and,

as diggings go on, the rows of seats are gradually becoming visible. It

differs from the shape of most other theatres, as its curved line

occupies more than a semicircle, like the shape of a Saracenic

horse-shoe arch. It seems that no signs of an amphitheatre had been

found at Jublains; so M. Barbe is driven to the conclusion that the

same building must have been used for both purposes. How far this is

archaeologically sound we must leave to those who are specially learned

in amphitheatres to determine. But we cannot forget the dissatisfied

audience in Horace who, between the acts, or even during the performance

itself, called for "aut ursum aut pugiles." The position, sloping away

to the south, is indeed a lovely one, and we may congratulate the man

who has found at once his home and his work on such a spot.

Sketches of Travel in Normandy and Maine · 第 10 / 13 段