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 FIRST.
[Illustration: Coat of arms of the Duchy of Normandy.
Emblems of the towns of Rouen and Caen.]
LONDON:
PRINTED FOR JOHN AND ARTHUR ARCH, CORNHILL;
AND J. S. COTMAN, YARMOUTH.
MDCCCXXII.
[Illustration]
PREFACE.
An artist, engaged in the illustration of the Architectural Antiquities
of England, could scarcely do otherwise than often cast a wistful look
towards the opposite shores of Normandy; and such would particularly be
the case, if, like Mr. Cotman, to a strong attachment to his profession
and the subject, he should chance to add a residence in Norfolk. This
portion of the kingdom of the East-Angles, in its language and in its
customs, but especially in the remains of its ancient ecclesiastical
architecture, abounds in vestiges of its Teutonic colonists. The richly
ornamented door-ways of its village churches have, in particular, long
been the theme of admiration among antiquaries. Bred up in the midst of
these, and warmly partaking in the admiration of them, Mr. Cotman
devoted his pencil and his graver to the diffusion of their fame. Common
report, aided by the suffrages of the learned, and in some degree by
locality, designated them as Saxon: at the same time, when they were
compared with what is left in Britain, of workmanship avowedly Norman,
the points of dissimilarity appeared trifling or altogether vanished.
Was it then to be inferred that, between Norman and Saxon architecture,
there was really no difference; and, carrying the inference one step
farther, that the hordes of barbarians denominated by these different
appellations, although they might not have embarked at the same port,
were only cognate tribes of one common origin, if not in reality the
same? The solution of the first of these questions, the only one
immediately in view, seemed best to be sought in that province of
France, where the Norman power had been most permanently established,
and where it was therefore reasonably to be expected, that genuine
productions of Norman art might, if any where, be found. With this view,
Mr. Cotman crossed the channel; and the result of three successive
journies, in the years 1817, 1818, and 1820, is here submitted to the
public.
Those who find pleasure in inquiries of this description, will join in
the regret, that an undertaking like the present was so long delayed.
Incalculable had been the advantages, had it but commenced previously
to the period of the French revolution. That fearful storm burst with
tremendous violence upon the castles of barons, the palaces of kings,
and the temples of religion. Many of the most sumptuous edifices, which
had mocked the hand of time, and had been respected amidst the ravages
of foreign or domestic warfare, were then swept from the face of the
earth. Others, degraded, deserted, neglected, and dilapidated, are at
this moment hastening fast to their decay. Yet no small portion of what
is valuable has been happily left. The two royal abbeys of Caen, though
shorn of much of their former grandeur, are still nearly entire. Château
Gaillard, the pride of Richard's lion heart, and the noble castles of
Arques and of Falaise, retain sufficient of their ancient magnificence,
to testify what they must have been in the days of their splendor: the
towns and châteaus, which were the cradles of the Harcourts, Vernons,
Tancarvilles, Gurneys, Bruces, Bohuns, Grenvilles, St. Johns, and many
others of the most illustrious English families, are still in existence;
and, of more modern date, when the British Edwards and Henrys resumed
the Norman sceptre, numerous buildings of the highest beauty are every
where to be met with. In his researches after these, Mr. Cotman had the
advantage of being assisted by the kindness of three of the most
distinguished antiquaries of the present day, M. le Prevost, M. Rondeau,
and M. de Gerville, but particularly by the last, whose friendly help
has likewise extended towards the preparing of the letter-press for many
of the articles from the western part of the province. It were
ungrateful not to acknowledge the assistance derived from Mr. Cohen, in
the same department. The value of his aid, which has been most freely
contributed, can be duly appreciated by those alone who have had
opportunities of judging of the accuracy and extent of his knowledge.
In the selection of subjects for engraving, attention has been
principally paid to two points, excellence in the objects themselves,
and certainty as to dates; but the greatest stress has been laid upon
the latter. The author of a work which professes to be in any degree
didactic, can never impress too strongly upon his mind the value of the
Roman precept, "prodesse quàm delectare;" and an artist, accustomed by
his habits to the contemplation of the beautiful and the picturesque,
requires above all men to be warned on this head. Many of the buildings
here represented, might easily have been exchanged for others, more
perfect, more elegant, or more ornamented; but it is hoped that they
could not have been exchanged for those that would have been more
instructive. The main object of the publication has been to exhibit a
series of specimens of Norman architecture, as they actually exist in
Normandy itself; and, by taking those whose dates are best defined, to
enable the antiquary and the amateur of other countries, not only to
know the state of this extraordinary people, as to their arts, at the
epoch of their greatest glory, but also to compare what is in Normandy
with what they find at home. Another volume, devoted to the illustration
of the same description of architecture, in the south of France, in
Italy, and in Sicily, would fill a hiatus, whose existence has long been
regretted. In Germany, Denmark, and Sweden, it is to be feared that
little remains; and, thanks to the spirit of English artists and to the
patronage of the English public, what is in this country is already in
a great measure recorded. To an Englishman, it is hoped it may be a
source of venial self-congratulation, that the first publication upon
Norman architecture originates in his own island: he will likewise
probably not be displeased to find, that this collection of the finest
remaining specimens of Norman art upon the continent, contains nothing
which he cannot rival, indeed surpass, at home.
But, at the same time that the principal end proposed in this work has
been to set before the public those edifices, whether sacred, military,
or domestic, which were erected during the age most properly designated
as Norman, the æra anterior to the union of the ducal coronet with the
crown of France, it has been felt that, in whatever light the
publication might be regarded, it would be incomplete without the
addition of other buildings of a subsequent period. A farther number of
specimens has therefore been admitted, conducting the series through the
style of architecture, commonly termed Gothic, down to the time when
that style finally disappeared before an Italian model, more or less
debased.
In the descriptive portion of these volumes, attention has been almost
exclusively directed to two points, the historical and the
architectural. On the latter of these, so much has been said under each
separate article, that whatever might be added in this place could be
little more than repetition; and the history of Normandy, from the
establishment of the dukedom to the beginning of the thirteenth
century, is so interwoven with that of England, that it has been
considered needless here to insert an epitome of it, as had at first
been intended. In lieu of this, a Table is subjoined, exhibiting the
succession, marriages and progeny of the Norman Princes, copied from Du
Moulin; and such Table can scarcely be regarded otherwise than useful,
as bringing the whole under the eye in a single point of view: a
Chronological Index, it is hoped, may in a great measure answer the same
purpose as to architecture. It is only justice, however, to add, that,
in this Index, much has necessarily been left to conjecture; and, where
it is so, the author naturally expects that others will occasionally
differ from him in opinion; especially as no opportunity is afforded him
of detailing the grounds whereby he has formed his own. Upon the subject
most likely to create doubts and difficulties, the very early date
assigned to the employment of the pointed arch, he begs the attention of
the reader to those authorities, which, in his judgment, warrant the
conclusion he has drawn. If mistaken in this, or in any other point, he
will be most thankful for correction; and, in the language of that
author, who is, as he long has been and probably always will be, more
than any other the object of quotation, he takes leave, with the
well-known valedictory lines,
"Vive, vale; si quid novisti rectius istis,
Candidus imperti; si non, his utere mecum."
[Illustration: CHURCH OF QUERQUEVILLE NEAR CHERBOURG]
SUBJECTS CHRONOLOGICALLY ARRANGED.
In the following list, an Obelisk is affixed to the dates which depend
upon conjecture. Those preceded by an Asterisk denote the year of the
dedication of the building.
NO. OF PLATES. DATE.
53. _Rouen_, Crypt in the Church of St. Gervais before + 1000
13. _St. Sauveur le Vicomte_, Castle before + 1000
69. _Lillebonne_, Castle + 1000
48. _Caen_, Chapel in the Castle + 1000
89, 90. _Falaise_, Castle--Keep of + 1000
83. _St. Sanson sur Rille_, Church + 1020
67. _Anisy_, Church + 1030
68. _Perriers_, Church--Nave of + 1030
97. _Cerisy_, Abbey Church 1040
95. _Mount St. Michael_, Abbey Church--Nave of 1048
87, 88. _St. Lo_, Church of the Holy Cross--(some
of the sculpture probably of the ninth century) + 1050
1. _Arques_, Castle + 1050
84. _Foullebec_, Western door-way of the Church + 1050
70. _Briquebec_, Castle--(the multangular tower
probably of the fourteenth century) + 1050
5-10. _St. Georges de Bocherville_, Abbey Church 1050
92-94. _Coutances_, Cathedral * 1056
17. _Tamerville_, Church + 1060
44-46. _Léry_, Church + 1060
54. _Rouen_, Church of St. Paul + 1060
73-75. _Lisieux_, Church of St. Peter 1060
55, 56. _Caen_, Church of St. Nicholas 1066
24-33. _Ditto_, Abbey Church of the Holy Trinity * 1066
82. _Montivilliers_, Abbey Church--Towers and door-way + 1066
2, 3. _Jumieges_, Abbey Church * 1067
60, 61. _Fontaine-le-Henri_, Church + 1070
21-23. _Caen_, Abbey Church of St. Stephen * 1077
57. _Cheux_, Church + 1080
98. _Oyestraham_, Church + 1080
58, 59. _Bieville_, Church + 1080
* 33. _Caen_, Tombstone of Queen Matilda 1083
37. _Haute Allemagne_, Tower of Church + 1100
16. _Than_, Church + 1100
18. _Caen_, Tower of the Church of St. Michel de
Vaucelles + 1100
12. _Grâville_, Church 1100
99, 100. _Séez_, Cathedral * 1126
14. _St. Sauveur le Vicomte_, Abbey Church + 1130
96. _Mount St. Michael_, Knights' Hall 1130
39-41. _Gournay_, Church of St. Hildebert--Interior of
the nave, and capitals of columns + 1140
20. _Statue of William the Conqueror_ + 1150
91. _Creully_, Church + 1150
11. _St. Georges de Bocherville_, Sculpture in
the Chapter House 1170
42, 43. _Rouen_, Chapel of the Hospital of St. Julien + 1190
80, 81. _Château Gaillard_ 1195
51, 52. _Rouen Cathedral_, West front--Northern Tower 1200
47. _Colomby_, Church + 1200
68. _Perriers_, Church--Choir + 1230
38. _Gournay_, Church of St. Hildebert--West front + 1250
4. _Jumieges_, Entrance to the Knights' Hall + 1280
76. _Rouen_, Church of St. Ouen 1340
71. _Fécamp_, Southern entrance of the Church of
St. Stephen + 1340
35. _Dieppe_, Church of St. Jacques--Western
front--(the tower probably fifty years earlier) + 1350
72. _Eu_, Screen in the Church of St. Lawrence + 1360
66. _Tréport_, Church 1370
19. _Caen_, South Porch of the Church of
St. Michel de Vaucelles + 1380
82. _Montivilliers_, Abbey Church--Chapter-House 1390
36. _Dieppe_, Eastern end of the Church of St. Jacques + 1400
79. _Louviers_, South porch of the Church + 1420
85, 86. _Tancarville_, Castle + 1420
89, 90. _Falaise_, Castle--Talbot's Tower 1430
34. _Dieppe_, Castle + 1450
51, 52. _Rouen Cathedral_, Western front--Southern Tower 1485
95. _Mount St. Michael_, Abbey Church--Choir 1500
78. _Rouen_, Palace of Justice 1500
77. _Ditto_, Fountain of the Stone Cross 1500
68. _Caen_, House in the Rue St. Jean + 1500
62, 63. _Fontaine-le-Henri_, Château + 1500
49, 50. _Rouen Cathedral_, Southern Transept 1500
51, 52. _Ditto_, Western Front--Porch 1509
15. _Andelys_, Great House + 1530
64. _Rouen_, House in the Place de la Pucelle + 1540
PLATES IN THE FIRST VOLUME.
PLATE.
1. Castle of Arques to face page 1
2. Abbey Church of Jumieges, West Front 2
3. -- -- -- -- Parts of the Nave 3
4. -- -- -- -- Arch on the West Front 3
5. Abbey Church of St. Georges de Bocherville, West Front 4
6. -- -- -- -- -- -- General View 4
7. -- -- -- -- -- -- West Entrance 5
8. -- -- -- -- -- -- South Transept 5
9. -- -- -- -- -- -- Sculptured Capitals 5
10. -- -- -- -- -- -- Ditto 6
11. -- -- -- -- -- -- Sculptures in the
Cloisters 6
12. Church of Grâville 7
13. Castle of St. Sauveur le Vicomte 8
14. Abbey Church of St. Sauveur le Vicomte 11
15. Great House at Andelys 13
16. Church of Than 16
17. Church of Tamerville 17
18. Tower of the Church of St. Michel de Vaucelles, Caen 18
19. North Porch of Ditto 18
20. Statue of William, Duke of Normandy 20
21. \ Abbey Church of St. Etienne, Caen, West Front 21
22. /
23. -- -- -- -- Compartments of the Nave 24
24. Abbey Church of the Holy Trinity, Caen 27
25. -- -- -- -- East End 32
26. -- -- -- -- East End of Interior 32
27. -- -- -- -- North Side of the Choir 32
28. -- -- -- -- Arches under the central Tower 33
29. -- -- -- -- East Side of South Transept 33
30. -- -- -- -- Interior of the Nave 33
31. -- -- -- -- South Side of the Nave 34
32. -- -- -- -- Crypt 34
33. -- -- -- -- Capitals 34
33.* Inscription on the Tomb of Queen Matilda 35
34. Castle of Dieppe 35
35. Church of St. Jacques, at Dieppe, West Front 38
36. -- -- -- -- East End 38
37. Tower of the Church of Haute Allemagne, near Caen 39
38. Collegiate Church of St. Hildebert, at Gournay, West Front 39
39. -- -- -- -- -- -- View across
the Nave 41
40. -- -- -- -- -- -- Capitals 42
41. -- -- -- -- -- -- Capitals 42
42. Chapel in the Hospital of St. Julien, near Rouen, South Side 43
43. -- -- -- -- -- -- Interior 44
44. Church of Léry, near Pont de l'Arche, General View 45
45. -- -- -- -- -- West Front 46
46. -- -- -- -- -- Interior 46
47. Elevation of the Church of Colomby, near Valognes 47
48. Chapel in the Castle at Caen 48
49. \ Cathedral Church of Notre Dame, of Rouen, South Transept 50
50. /
51. \ -- -- -- -- -- -- West Front 51
52. /
53. Crypt in the Church of St. Gervais, at Rouen 56
54. Church of St. Paul, at Rouen, East End 57
GENEALOGY OF THE NORMAN DUKES.
===============
N. PRINCE OF LOWER DENMARK.
|
|
+----------+-----------+
| |
| GOURIN, killed
| in Denmark.
|
2nd wife, POPPEIA, ROLLO, 1st Duke = 1st wife, GISLA, daughter
daughter of Berenger, = of Normandy. of Charles the Simple,
Count of the Bessin. | A.D. 911. King of France.
|
+---+-----------------------+
| |
SPROTE, daughter of = WILLIAM, LONGA-SPATHA, GERLOC, wife to
the Count of Senlis. | 2nd Duke of Normandy. William, Count of
| A.D. 917. Poitiers.
+--------+
|
1st wife, EMMA, daughter = RICHARD I. 3rd = 2nd wife, GONNOR,
of Hugues le Grand, Duke Duke of Normandy. | originally his
of France. A.D. 944. | concubine.
|
+-----+-----------------+-----------+------+------+-------------+
| | | | | |
| ROBERT, MAUGER, EMMA, HAVOISE, MATILDA,
| Archbishop of Count of Queen of wife of wife of
| Rouen, Count Corbeil. England. Geoffrey, Eudes,
| of Evreux. Duke of Count of
+---------------------+ Brittany. Chartres.
|
2nd wife, = RICHARD II. called = 1st wife, JUDITH, da.
PAPHIE, or | THE GOOD, 4th | of Geoffrey, Duke of
POPPEA. | Duke of Normandy. | Brittany.
| A.D. 996. |
+------------+-+ |
| | |
MAUGER, WILLIAM OF ARQUES, |
Archbishop Count of Talou. |
of Rouen. |
+------------+---------+--------+---+--------+--------+--+
| | | | | | |
RICHARD III. WILLIAM, ALICE, ELEANOR, PAPIE, | N. died
5th Duke of Monk at wife of wife of wife | unmarried.
Normandy. Fécamp. Rinaldo, Baldwin, of Guibert |
A.D. 1026. Count of Count of of St. |
| Burgundy. Flanders. Vallery. |
| |
NICOLAS, Abbot of St. Ouen: and two daughters, one |
of them married to Walter of St. Vallery, the other |
to the Viscount of Bayeux:--all illegitimate. |
+----------------------------+
|
ROBERT, 6th = ARLETTE,
Duke of | daughter
Normandy. | of Foubert,
A.D. 1028. | citizen of
| Falaise.
|
WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR, = MATILDA, daughter
7th Duke of Normandy, | of Baldwin, Count
and King of England. | of Flanders.
A.D. 1035. |
+-------+-------------+--------------+----+--+------+------+------+-----+
| | | | | | | | |
| RICHARD, WILLIAM RUFUS, | CECILIA. | | | |
| killed in King of England. | CONSTANCE. | | |
| the New | ALICE. | |
| Forest. +---------------+ AGATHA. |
| | |
| N. his = ROBERT, COURT-HOSE, = SIBILLA, |
| MISTRESS. | 8th Duke of | daughter |
| | Normandy. | of William, |
| | A.D. 1087. | Count of |
| | | Conversans. |
| +--------+------+--------+ +----------------------------+ |
| | | | | |
| RICHARD, WILLIAM, N. wife to N. da. of Marquis = WILLIAM, |
| died from a killed in Hélie de Renier, and sister Count of |
| surfeit, in the St. Saen. to the Queen of Flanders. |
| hunting. Crusades. France. +------------+
| |
| ADELA. = STEPHEN,
| | Count of
| | Blois.
| +------------+----------+---------------------+--+
| | | | |
| WILLIAM. THEOBALD, HENRY, STEPHEN, = MATILDA of
| Earl of Bishop of King of | Boulogne.
| Blois. Winchester. England. |
| +---------------+
| |
| EUSTACE, 10th Duke of
| Normandy. A.D. 1135.
|
+------------------------------------+
|
1st wife, = HENRY I. King = 2nd wife,
MATILDA, da. | of England, ADELIZA,
of Malcolm, | and 9th Duke daughter of
King of | of Normandy. the Duke of
Scotland. | A.D. 1107. Louvain.
+---------+-----------------+
| |
WILLIAM ADELIN, 1st hus. = MATILDA. = 2nd hus.
drowned after his HENRY V. | GEOFFREY,
marriage. Emperor. | Count of
| Anjou, and
| 11th Duke of
| Normandy.
| A.D. 1143.
+-------------------+------------+
| | |
ELEANOR, = HENRY PLANTAGENET, GEOFFREY, WILLIAM.
Countess of | 12th Count of
Poitiers and | Duke of Normandy. Nantes.
Duchess of | A.D. 1150:
Aquitaine. | Count of Anjou,
| Touraine,
| and Maine, and King
| of England.
+-----------++--------------+----------------+-----------+
| | | | |
WILLIAM. | RICHARD COEUR- | JOHN LACKLAND, King
| DE-LION, King of | of England, 14th
MARGARET, = HENRY THE England, and 13th | and last Duke of
of France. YOUNG, Duke of Normandy. | Normandy. A.D. 1199.
crowned King A.D. 1189. |
of England. +-----+
|
GEOFFREY, Count = CONSTANCE,
of Brittany. | daughter of
+----------+ Conan, Duke of
| Brittany.
|
ARTHUR, Duke of Brittany,
killed by his uncle John.
THE
ARCHITECTURAL ANTIQUITIES
OF
NORMANDY.
PLATE I.
CASTLE OF ARQUES.
[Illustration: Plate 1. CASTLE OF ARQUES.]
The town of Arques, situated in the immediate vicinity of Dieppe, is a
spot consecrated by the historical muse, and one upon which a Frenchman
always dwells with pleasure, as the place that fixed the sceptre in the
hands of the most popular monarch of the nation, Henry IV.
The sovereign, fleeing from the superior forces of the league, here, in
the very confines of his kingdom, finally resolved to make his last
stand; urged to the measure by the Marshal de Biron, but doubtful in his
own mind, whether it would not be the wisest as well as the safest plan,
to seek refuge in the friendly ports of England. Reduced to the utmost
extremity, "a king without a kingdom, a husband without a wife, and a
warrior without money," he stopped at Arques, in a state bordering upon
despair; and yet, when the Count de Belin, who was brought in prisoner
shortly before the battle, assured his majesty, that, in two hours, an
army of forty thousand men would be upon him, and that he saw no forces
there to resist them, the king replied, with that gaity of mind that
never forsook him, "You see not all, M. Belin, for you reckon not God,
and my just claim, who fight for me."
Henry's whole army consisted of only three thousand infantry and six
hundred cavalry: the hostile forces amounted to more than thirty
thousand, commanded by the Duke of Mayenne, one of the ablest leaders of
the league, but the Fabius rather than the Marcellus of the party. The
occasion, however, needed the sword rather than the buckler: Henry's
soldiers fought with the courage of desperation; but every thing seemed
lost, when, according to the account given by Sully, the fog, which had
been very thick all the morning, cleared suddenly away, and afforded the
garrison in the castle of Arques a full view of the enemy's army,
against which they discharged four pieces of artillery with such effect,
as to kill great numbers of them. Their progress was thus effectually
stopped; and the guns from the castle continuing to play upon them, they
were soon thrown into disorder, and retreated to their original
position.
From this time, the aspect of the king's affairs changed: his well-known
laconic epistle to Crillon, "hang thyself, brave Crillon, for we have
fought at Arques without thee," shewed his own sense of the important
results that might be expected from the battle. The most important of
all was, that he was immediately joined by an auxiliary force of four
thousand English and Scotch, sent by Queen Elizabeth to his aid; and
that, almost immediately afterwards, another, still more considerable
reinforcement, was brought him by the Count of Soissons, Henry of
Orleans, Duke of Longueville, D'Aumont, and Biron; so that the Duke of
Mayenne was obliged to retreat in his turn, and Henry saw himself within
a few days under the walls of the capital; in a situation to dictate
terms to his rebellious subjects.
The castle of Arques had on this occasion essentially served the royal
cause; but it seems to have been suffered from that time forwards to
fall into decay. All mouldering, however, and ruined as it is, its
walls and towers may yet for many centuries bid defiance to wind and
weather, unless active measures are used for their demolition.
At the revolution the castle became national property, and as such was
sold: it has now fallen into the hands of a lady who resides in the
neighbouring town.
The present plate, which represents the principal entrance, will serve
to convey some idea of the general character of the building, as well as
of the immense size of the massy towers, and of the crumbling appearance
of their surface. Two piers only remain of the draw-bridge, by which
they were approached; and the three successive arches of the gateway are
torn into little more than shapeless rents. It would be very difficult
to convey, by means of any engraving, an adequate idea of the grand
character of the whole ruin, or of its imposing situation. Still more
difficult would be the attempt to represent its masonry. The walls have
certainly been in most places, and probably in all, covered with a
facing of brick, of comparatively modern date; and in some parts this
facing still remains, or, where it is torn off, nothing but rubble is
visible. In other places they appear to have been constructed of
alternate layers of brick and flint, disposed with the same regularity
as in Roman buildings; and the thin form of these bricks leads also to
the impression that they are of Roman workmanship.
If such a supposition may be allowed to be well founded, the first
establishment of a fortress in this situation is probably but little
posterior to the Christian æra; and many antiquarians are disposed to
believe that such was really the case. At the same time, even allowing
the truth of this surmise in its fullest extent, it is most probable
that the Roman castle had fallen into ruin and disuse long before the
Norman conquest.
Both William of Jumieges and the chronicle of St. Wandrille expressly
mention, that William, son to Duke Richard II. received from his nephew,
the conqueror, the earldom of Arques, and built a castle there. Other
writers ascribe the origin of the fortress to the eighth century, and
others to the latter part of the twelfth. Nothing is now left
sufficiently perfect to determine the point, nor any thing that can
justly be considered decisive of the style of its architecture.
The situation of the castle is very bold: it crowns the extremity of a
ridge of chalk hills of considerable height, which commencing to the
west of Dieppe, and terminating at this spot, have full command of the
valley below. The fosse which surrounds the walls is wide and deep. The
outline of the fortress is oval, but not regularly so; and it is varied
by towers of uncertain shape, placed at unequal distances. The two
entrance towers, and those nearest to them to the north and south, are
considerably larger than the rest. One of these larger lateral towers[1]
is of a most unusual form. It appears as if the original intention of
the architect had been to make it circular; but that, changing his
design in the middle of his work, he had attached to it a triangular
appendage, probably by way of a bastion. Three others adjoining this are
square, and indeed appear to partake as much of the character of
buttresses as of towers.
The castle is internally divided into two wards, the first of which, on
entering, is every where rough with the remains of foundations: the
inner, which is by far the largest, is approached by a square gate-house
with high embattled walls, and contains towards its farther end the
quadrangular keep, whose shell alone is standing. The walls of this are
of great height: in their perfect state they were carefully faced with
large square stones, but these are principally torn away. The crypts
beneath the castle are spacious, and may still be traversed for a
considerable length.
NOTES:
[1] See _Account of a Tour in Normandy_, I. p. 37, t. 3.
PLATES II. III. IV.
ABBEY CHURCH OF JUMIEGES.
Before the revolution despoiled France of her monastic institutions, the
right bank of the Seine, from Rouen to the British Channel, displayed an
almost uninterrupted line of establishments of this nature. Within a
space of little more than forty miles, were included the abbeys of St.
Wandrille, Jumieges, Ducler, and St. Georges de Bocherville.
[Illustration: Plate 2. ABBEY CHURCH OF JUMIEGES.
_West Front._]
The most illustrious of these was Jumieges; it occupied a delightful
situation in a peninsula, formed by the curvature of the stream, where
the convent had existed from the reign of Clovis II. and had, with only
a temporary interruption, caused by the invasion of the Normans,
maintained, for eleven centuries, an even course of renown; celebrated
alike for the beauty of its buildings, the extent of its possessions,
and the number and sanctity of its inmates. Philibert, second abbot of
Rebais, in the diocese of Meaux, was the founder of this monastery. He
migrated hither with only a handfull of monks; but the community
increased with such surprising rapidity, that in the time of Alcadrus,
his immediate successor, the number was already swelled to nine hundred,
and, except upon the occasion just mentioned, this amount never appears
to have experienced any sensible diminution.
The monastery of Jumieges reckoned among its abbots men of the most
illustrious families of France. In early times, Hugh, the grandson of
Charlemagne, held the pastoral staff: it afterwards passed through the
hands of Louis d'Amboise, brother to the cardinal, and of different
members of the houses of Clermont, Luxembourg, d'Este, and Bourbon.
The abbatial church, as it now stands, (if indeed it does now stand, for
in 1818, when drawings were made for these plates, its demolition was
proceeding with rapidity,) was chiefly built in the eleventh century, by
Robert the Abbot, who was translated from Jumieges to the bishopric of
London, and thence to the archiepiscopal throne of Canterbury. The
western front (_see plate 2_) is supposed to be certainly of that
period, and all very nearly of the same æra, though the southern tower
is known to be somewhat the most modern. The striking difference in the
plan of these towers, might justly lead to the inference, that there was
also a material difference in their dates, and that they were not both
of them part of the original plan; but there do not appear to be any
grounds for such a supposition. On the other hand, the contrary seems to
be well established; and those who are best acquainted with the
productions of Norman architects, will scarcely be surprised at
anomalies of this nature.
[Illustration: Plate 3. ABBEY CHURCH OF JUMIEGES.
_Parts of the Nave._]
The interior of the nave (_plate 3_) is also a work of the same period,
except the lofty pillars that support the cornice, and the symbols of
the evangelists that are placed near the windows of the clerestory.
These were additions made towards the latter end of the seventeenth
century. The pillars were rendered necessary by the bad state of the
roof: the symbols were added only by way of ornament. They are of
beautiful sculpture, and, as such, have lately been engraved upon a
larger scale, in an _Account of a Tour in Normandy, in 1818_, (II. p.
27) which work also contains a general view of the ruins of Jumieges,
and a representation of some ancient trefoil arches that are very
remarkable.
Of the square central tower one side only is now remaining. This tower
was despoiled of its spire in 1557. The Choir and Lady-Chapel are almost
entirely gone. They were of pointed architecture; and it appears that
they were erected during some of the latter years of the thirteenth
century, or at the commencement of the fourteenth.
In the Lady-Chapel lay the heart of Agnes Sorel, who died at the
neighbouring village of Mesnil, on the ninth of February, 1450, while
her royal lover, Charles VII. was residing at Jumieges, intent upon the
siege of Honfleur. Her body was interred in the collegiate church of
Loches in Touraine. Upon her monument at Jumieges was originally placed
her effigy, in the act of offering her heart to the Virgin. But this
statue was destroyed by the Huguenots, who are said to have been guilty
of the most culpable excesses in this monastery. Agnes' tomb remained
till the revolution, when it was swept away with all the rest, and,
among others, with one of great historical curiosity in the neighbouring
church dedicated to St. Peter; for the convent of Jumieges contained
two churches, the larger under the invocation of the Holy Virgin, and a
smaller by its side, sacred to the chief of the apostles.
The tomb here alluded to was called by the name of _le tombeau des
Enerves_, or _de Gemellis_; and so much importance was attached to it,
that it has even been supposed that the Latin name of Jumieges,
_Gemeticum_, was a corruption from the word _gemellis_. Upon the
monument were figures of two young noblemen, intended, as it is said, to
represent twin sons of Clovis and Bathilda, who, for sedition, were
punished by being hamstrung and confined in this monastery.
[Illustration: Plate 4. ABBEY OF JUMIEGES.
_Arch on the West Front._]
The third plate of Jumieges, which is copied from a drawing by Miss
Elizabeth Turner, represents a noble arch-way, the entrance to a porch
that leads to a gallery adjoining the former cloisters, and known by the
name of the _Knight's Hall_. It is a remarkably fine specimen of a very
early pointed arch, still preserving all the ornaments of the
semi-circular style, and displaying them in great richness and beauty.
There is no authority for the date of this gallery: nor does it appear
that any historical record is preserved respecting it. The style of the
architecture would lead to the referring of it, without much hesitation,
to the latter part of the thirteenth century.
PLATES V.-XI.
ABBEY CHURCH OF ST. GEORGES DE BOCHERVILLE.
[Illustration: Plate 5. ABBEY CHURCH OF ST. GEORGES DE BOCHERVILLE.
_West Front._]
In a work like the present, devoted expressly to the elucidation of the
Architectural Antiquities of Normandy, and more particularly intended to
illustrate that style of architecture which prevailed during the time
when the province was governed by its own Dukes, it has appeared
desirable to select one or two objects, and to exhibit them, as far as
possible, in their various details.
Under this idea, the abbey church of St. Georges de Bocherville has been
taken from the upper division of the province, and that of the Holy
Trinity at Caen from the lower. Both of these are noble edifices; both
are in nearly the same state in which they were left by the Norman
architects; and both of them are buildings whose dates may be cited with
positive certainty.
The abbey of St. Georges was situated upon an eminence on the right bank
of the Seine, two leagues below Rouen. It owed its origin to Ralph de
Tancarville, lord of the village, about the year 1050. A rage for the
building and endowing of monastic establishments prevailed at that
period throughout Normandy; and this nobleman, who had been the
preceptor to Duke William in his youth, and was afterwards his
chamberlain, unwilling to be outdone by his compeers in deeds of piety
and magnificence, founded this monastery and built the church in honor
of the Virgin and St. George. Both the conqueror and his queen assisted
the pious labour by endowments to the convent; and Ordericus Vitalis
relates how, upon the decease of the monarch, the monks of St. Gervais,
at Rouen, where he died, made a solemn procession to the church of St.
Georges de Bocherville, there to offer up their prayers for the soul of
their departed sovereign.
At the revolution the abbatial church was fortunate enough to become
parochial, and it thus escaped the ruin in which nearly the whole of the
monastic buildings throughout France were at that time involved. Its
previous good fortune in having been so very little exposed to injury or
to alteration, is even more to be wondered at.
[Illustration: Plate 6. ABBEY CHURCH OF ST. GEORGES DE BOCHERVILLE.
_General view._]
The general view of the church, (_plate 6_) for the drawing of which the
author is indebted to Miss Elizabeth Turner, is calculated to convey a
faithful idea of the effect of the whole. Whatever is here seen is
purely Norman, except the spire; and upon the subject of spires
antiquaries are far from being agreed: some regarding them as a
comparatively modern invention, while others, on the contrary, believe
that the use of them may be traced to a very remote period. The
semi-circular east end, with a roof of high pitch, the windows separated
by shallow buttresses, or by slender cylindrical pillars, and the
grotesque corbel-table, are, all of them, characteristics of the early
Norman style: a greater peculiarity of the present building, and one
indeed that is found in but few others, lies in the small semi-circular
chapels attached to the sides of the transepts.
The west front (_plate 5_) exhibits a deviation from the general style
of the church, in the two towers with which it is flanked. The shape of
the arches in these plainly indicates a later æra; but they are early
instances of pointed architecture. The grand entrance is displayed upon
a larger scale in the seventh plate. The ornaments to this door-way are
rich and varied, and there are but few finer portals in Normandy. But in
specimens of this description the duchy is far from being able to bear a
comparison with England. It would be difficult, perhaps impossible, to
assign a satisfactory reason for this circumstance; and yet the fact is
so obvious, that it cannot fail to have occurred to every one who has
paid any attention to the architecture of the two countries.
In the interior of the church there is scarcely an architectural anomaly
to be discovered. The only alterations are those which were rendered
necessary by the injuries done to the building in the religious wars,
during the sixteenth century; and the repairs on that occasion extended
only to a portion of the roof, and of the upper part of the wall on the
south side of the nave. As a satisfactory specimen of the character of
the whole of the inside, the south transept has been selected for the
subject of the eighth plate. In this, however, as well as in the
opposite one, there is a peculiarity which requires to be noticed; that,
within the church, at the distance of a few feet from the end wall, is
placed a column, from which an arch springs on either side, occupying
the whole width of the transept, and thus forming an open screen. The
screen terminates, above, in a plain flat wall, which is carried to but
a very short distance higher than the arches, so as to be nearly on a
line with the triforium. The same arrangement exists also in some other
churches in Normandy; as in that of the royal abbey of St. Stephen at
Caen, in the abbey church at Cerisy, in the abbey church at Fécamp, and
in the cathedral at Séez. In the two last mentioned buildings, it is
found connected with the pointed architecture. At Cerisy, a church,
erected A.D. 1030, by Robert, father to the Conqueror, the screen is
surmounted by a row of seventeen semi-circular arches, which rise to
about half the height of the columns of the triforium, and form an
elegant parapet. It is possible that there may have been originally some
decoration of the same kind at St. Georges. At Fécamp, the screen is
carried up to the roof by three tiers, each consisting of three arches;
and the recess thus made, is still used as a chapel, having an altar at
the east end, and, in the centre, an ancient font. Such may have been
originally the case at St. Georges; and thus we may account for the
small semi-circular additions to the transepts, one of which is visible
in the general view of the church. Mr. Cotman, however, suggests another
idea, which may have entered into the mind of the architect of St.
Georges; that, by means of this screen at the end of the transepts, the
aisles of the nave would receive apparent length; from the columns,
which form the screen, ranging in a line with those of the outer walls
of the church. Among our English ecclesiastical buildings, there are
similar screens in the transepts of Winchester cathedral[2], where the
portion of the church that remains in its original state, greatly
resembles, in its architecture, the church of St. Georges de
Bocherville, and is known to have been erected at nearly the same
date[3].
[Illustration: Plate 7. ABBEY CHURCH OF ST. GEORGES DE BOCHERVILLE.
_West entrance._]
[Illustration: Plate 8. ABBEY CHURCH OF ST. GEORGES DE BOCHERVILLE.
_South Transept._]
[Illustration: Plate 9. ABBEY CHURCH OF ST. GEORGES DE BOCHERVILLE.
_Sculptured Capitals._]
Within the spandrils of the arches, just mentioned, are two highly
curious bas-reliefs, figured here in the _tenth plate_, and marked A and
B. They are on square tablets, cut out of the solid stone, in the same
manner as the blocks of a stone engraving; the rims being left elevated,
so as to form rude frames. One of them represents a prelate, who holds a
crozier in his left hand, while the first two fingers of the right are
elevated in the action of giving the blessing. Below him are two small
heads; but it would be as difficult to conjecture what they are intended
to typify, or why they are placed there, as it would be to state the
meaning of the artist, in having represented the whole of his vestment
as composed of parallel diagonal lines. In the opposite bas-relief, are
seen two knights on horseback, in the act of jousting; as rude a piece
of sculpture, especially with respect to the size and form of the
steeds, as can well be imagined; and yet it possesses a degree of
spirit, worthy of a better age. The shields of the riders are oblong;
their tilting spears pointless; their conical helmets terminate in a
nasal below, like the figures in the Bayeux tapestry. "This
coincidence," as has been observed elsewhere[4], "is interesting, as
deciding a point of some moment towards establishing the antiquity of
that celebrated relic, by setting it beyond a doubt, that such helmets
were used anterior to the conquest; for it is certain, that these
basso-relievos are coeval with the building that contains them."
The nave of the church of St. Georges is, in its height, divided into
three compartments: the lowest consists of a row of square, massy piers,
varied only by a few small columns attached to their angles, and
connected by wide arches, which are generally without any other ornament
than plain fluted mouldings; the second compartment, or triforium, is
composed of a uniform series of small arches, broken, at intervals, by
the truncated columns; which, supporting the groinings of the roof
above, terminate abruptly below, nearly upon a level with the capitals
of the lowest arches; in the clerestory, the arches are also simple and
unornamented; their size nearly intermediate between those of the first
and second tiers. It is almost needless to mention, that, in a perfect
building, of such a date, the whole of the arches are semi-circular. The
same is equally the case in the choir; but this part of the edifice is
considerably richer in its architectural decorations; and the noble
arch, which separates it from the nave, is surrounded with a broad band
of the embattled moulding, inclosing two others of the chevron moulding.
A string-course, of unusual size, formed of what is called the cable
ornament, goes round the whole interior of the building.
The general effect of the semi-circular east end, shews a striking
resemblance between the church of St. Georges and Norwich cathedral; and
those who take pleasure in researches of this description, will do well
to trace the points of similarity through other parts of the edifices.
The two kingdoms can scarcely boast more noble, or more perfect
buildings, of the Norman style; and there is the farther advantage, that
the difference between the periods of their respective erection is but
small. Our English cathedral rose in the early part of the reign of
William Rufus, when his follower, Herbert de Losinga, who, not content
with having purchased the bishopric for £1900, bought also the abbacy of
Winchester for his father, for £1000, was cited before the Pope for this
double act of simony, and, with difficulty, retained his mitre, upon the
condition of building sundry churches and monasteries. Norwich has,
indeed, a superiority in its tower, in regard to which, it may safely be
put in competition with any edifice of the same style, in Normandy or in
England. For beauty, richness, variety, and purity of ornament, there is
nothing like it. On the other hand, Norwich has undergone various
alterations, as well in its interior, as its exterior[5], and it has no
decoration of the same description comparable with the capitals in the
church of St. Georges. These are so curious, that it has been thought
right to devote to them the _ninth_ and _tenth plates_ of this work[6].
The capitals near the west end of the church, are comparatively simple:
they become considerably more elaborate on advancing towards the choir;
and it is most interesting to observe in them, how the Norman architects
appear, in some instances, to have been intent upon copying the Roman
model, or even adding to it a luxury of ornament, which it never knew,
yet still preserving a classical feeling and a style of beauty, of which
the proudest ages of architecture need not be ashamed; while, in other
cases, the rudeness of the design and execution is such, that it can
scarcely be conceived, but that they were executed by a barbarous
people, just emerged from their hyperborean woods, and equally strangers
to the cultivation of art, and the finer feelings of humanity. And yet,
even in some of those of the latter description, attentive observation
may lead to traces of classical fables, or representations of the holy
mysteries of Christianity. Thus, one of the capitals[7] seems designed
to portray the good Shepherd and the Lamb; another[8] appears to allude
to the battle between the followers of Æneas and the Harpies. It would
not, perhaps, be going too far, to say, that many of the others have
reference to the northern mythology, and some of them, probably, to
Scandinavian history.
[Illustration: Plate 10. CAPITALS IN THE ABBEY CHURCH OF ST. GEORGES DE
BOCHERVILLE.]
[Illustration: Plate 11. ABBEY CHURCH OF ST. GEORGES DE BOCHERVILLE.
_Sculpture in the Cloisters._]
In the chapter-house, which stands between the church and the monastic
buildings, the capitals are decidedly historical, and exhibit an
apparent connection very unusual in similar cases. The _eleventh plate_
contains some of these[9]. Another, and of the greatest curiosity, now
lost, has been etched in Mr. Turner's _Tour in Normandy_, from a drawing
by M. Langlois, a very able and indefatigable artist of Rouen. It
represents a series of royal minstrels, playing upon different musical
instruments. This part of the building is known to have been erected
towards the close of the twelfth century, and is consequently an hundred
years posterior to the church. It is now extremely dilapidated, and
employed as a mill. The capitals here figured, are taken from three
arches that formed the western front. The sculpture in the upper line,
and in a portion of the second, most probably refers to some of the
legends of Norman story: the remainder seems intended to represent
the miraculous passage of Jordan and the capture of Jericho, by the
Israelites, under the command of Joshua. The detached moulding on the
same plate, is copied from the archivolt of one of these arches: the
style of its ornament is altogether peculiar. To the pillars that
support the same arches, are attached whole-length figures, in high
relief, of less than the natural size. Two of them represent females;
the third, a man; and one of the former has her hair disposed in long
braided tresses, that reach on either side to a girdle. All of them hold
labels with inscriptions, which fall down to their feet in front. The
braided locks, and the general style of sculpture, shew a resemblance
between these statues and those on the portals of the churches of St.
Denys and Chartres, as well as those which stood formerly at the
entrance of St. Germain des Prés, at Paris, all which are figured by
Montfaucon, in his _Monumens de la Monarchie Française_, and by him
referred to the sovereigns of the Merovingian dynasty; but have been
believed, by subsequent writers, to be the productions of the eleventh
or twelfth century, an opinion which the statues at St. Georges may be
considered to confirm.
NOTES:
[2] See _Britton's Winchester Cathedral_, ground plan and plate 12.
[3] _Milner's Winchester_, I. p. 194.--Other authors, I am well aware,
and those of great weight, have said much with regard to the _Saxon
work_ at Winchester; but, though I have examined the building itself,
and the various publications respecting it, with some care, I confess I
have met with no portion that did not appear to me to be truly Norman.
[4] _Turner's Tour in Normandy_, II. p. 10.
[5] The complete uniformity of style throughout the church of St.
Georges, joined to the absence of all screens or other objects whatever,
that might intercept the sight from west to east, produces an effect,
not only grand, but altogether deceptive. It is impossible not to admit
the superior judgment of the French, in thus keeping their religious
edifices free from incumbrances; it is scarcely possible, too, not to
feel persuaded, that the Norman church is larger than the English,
though their respective dimensions are in reality as follows:
NORWICH. ST. GEORGES.
Length of nave 200 feet 135 feet
-------- choir 183 92
-------- transepts 180 102
Width of the nave with aisles 70 64-1/2
[6] In the former of these plates, the capitals, marked Nos. 1, 6, 8, 9,
10, and 12, are taken from the exterior of the east end; Nos. 2, 6, and
7, from the nave; and Nos. 3, 4, and 11, from the door-way. In the
latter plate, the exterior of the east end has supplied Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6,
7, 8, and 10; the nave, Nos. 4 and 9; and the door-way, No. 5.
[7] Plate 10, No. 8.
[8] Plate 10, No. 5.