of Norman architecture is not such as will justify us in attempting to
fix precise æras to the different specimens which are left us of it. As
far, however, as it may be allowed to judge from corresponding edifices,
Mr. Turner seems correct in his opinion, that "the circular-headed
arches in the short square tower, and in a small round turret which is
attached to it, are _early Norman_."[24] He subjoins the observation,
that "they are remarkable for their proportions, being as long and as
narrow as the lancet-windows of the following æra." The conical
stone-roofed pyramid is, with the exception of its lucarne windows, most
probably of the same date. With regard to the porch,[25] the subject of
the _nineteenth plate_, its general resemblance in style to the southern
porch of the church of St. Ouen, and its having, like that, its inner
archivolt fringed with pendant trefoils, are circumstances that have
likewise been pointed out in the work just referred to. Both porches may
probably be of nearly the same date, the latter part of the fourteenth,
or beginning of the fifteenth century. Caen, but a short time before the
revolution, contained another very similar architectural specimen in the
western portal of the church of St. Sauveur du Marché,[26] now replaced
by an entrance altogether modern. The nave of the church of St. Sauveur
was built, according to De la Rue, in the fourteenth century; and it may
fairly be inferred, that the portal was also of the same date; but this
porch wanted the pendant trefoils, and was altogether less ornamented
than that of St. Michael, as the latter was than that at Rouen. Both
those at Caen, however, agreed in the wall above the arch rising into a
triangular gable covered with waving tracery, a very peculiar, and a
very beautiful style of decoration.
[Illustration: Plate 19. CHURCH OF ST. MICHEL DE VAUCELLES, CAEN.
_North Porch._]
Vaucelles is at this time the largest of the five parishes that compose
the suburbs of Caen. It is separated from the town by the great canal of
the Orne, the formation of which has somewhat circumscribed its limits;
for these formerly extended into the Rue St. Jean, and included the
hospital, called the Hôtel Dieu, as well as that which derives its name
from the Conqueror. During the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the
presentation to the living of Vaucelles lay alternately between the two
royal abbeys of Caen. Queen Matilda, previously to the year 1066,
purchased a moiety of the patronage and of the tythes, together with a
mill at Montaigu, and gave them to her abbey of the Trinity; and about
eleven years afterwards, Ralph, the curate of Vaucelles, the hereditary
proprietor of the other half, ceded his share to the abbey of St.
Stephen, on condition of being himself received into that monastery. The
latter establishment, within less than one hundred and fifty years,
obtained the exclusive patronage, upon the consideration of their making
the nuns an annual payment of twenty sols, and ninety-six bushels of
barley.
In the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the parish of Vaucelles was in
the hands of lords of its own; among whom, the most conspicuous were the
Fitz-Herberts. An illegitimate son of Prince Henry, afterwards Henry I.
by a daughter of Robert Corbet, was the origin of this family. To his
own name, Herbert, he added that of Fitz-Henry: his sons became
Fitz-Herberts; and each of their descendants, in every successive
generation, commonly adopted the baptismal appellation of his respective
father, by way of a family name; till, towards the close of the
thirteenth century, the whole of them agreed upon Fitz-Herbert as a
patronymic. Their possessions were extensive in Caen and the
neighborhood; and the records of those early times make frequent mention
of their riches and liberality. Thus, according to the Abbé De la Rue,
from whom these historical particulars are derived, this noble family,
still represented in our own country by the Earls of Pembroke, was not
only derived from the town of Caen, but had an origin different from
what is assigned to it by Dugdale, Collins, and Edmondson.[27] The first
of the family noticed in England, appears to have lived in the time of
King Stephen. In 1302, Vaucelles seems to have become exempt from all
feudal conditions. It was in that year, that Philip le Bel sent William
de Gilly to Caen, to liberate his own vassals and those of the lords,
and to grant them all the privileges of burghers.
Among the ministers of this parish, was Roger, one of the most
distinguished of our British prelates in the time of Norman rule. The
tradition relates, that, during the wars for the succession among the
Conqueror's sons, Henry, chancing to enter Caen with his small army upon
a Sunday, stopped to hear mass at the church of Vaucelles; and that
Roger performed the service with such spirit and rapidity, that the
officers were unanimous in their wish that he should accompany the army.
The invitation was accordingly given, and the priest consented; and he
so completely gained the confidence of the prince, by recommending
economy as the surest means of carrying his point, that he was soon
appointed superintendant of the finances; and, in 1102, was honored with
the mitre of Salisbury. At a subsequent period, he was created
Chancellor of England; and, during the absence of the king in Normandy,
constantly filled the high office of regent of the kingdom. William of
Malmesbury, who dwells at much length, and with equal satisfaction, upon
his history, states, that many of our noblest edifices arose from his
munificence. In this respect, his greatest works were at Salisbury and
Malmesbury: the former, long since levelled with the ground; the latter,
still lovely and venerable in its ruins, and exhibiting, even in our
days, one of the most noble remains of Norman architecture.
NOTES:
[22] _Essais Historiques sur la Ville de Caen et son arrondissement.
Caen, 1820._ In 2 vols. 8vo.
[23] I. p. 279.
[24] _Tour in Normandy_, II. p. 181.
[25] Over the door-way within this porch is sculptured a figure of St.
Michael, in high relief, of apparently the same date as the porch.
[26] Engraved in _Ducorel's Tour in Normandy_, p. 74.
[27] See _Bankes' Extinct Baronage_, I. p. 301.
PLATE XX.
STATUE OF WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR.
The statue here figured, has been introduced into this work altogether
as an historical curiosity; and, though it may seem to be somewhat
misplaced in a publication devoted to the elucidation of the
Architectural Antiquities of Normandy, it is hoped, that a single
deviation, and in favor of such a subject, may not only be deemed
admissible, but may also be acceptable to the reader.
At the time when De Bourgueville wrote his _Antiquités de la Ville de
Caen_, near the close of the sixteenth century, this statue was attached
to the gate adjoining the church of St. Stephen: it has since been
transferred to the wall of the church itself. The worthy old magistrate
says of it, that "it represented William the Conqueror on horseback, as
if in the act of entering the town, having under the feet of his horse
the figure of the body of a young man; while, before him, are kneeling a
man and woman, apparently in the act of demanding explanation respecting
the death of their son." He adds, that "it is a remarkable piece of
antiquity; but that he can tell nothing more of its history, than is
represented by the figures." From the above account, the only one
apparently left us, it is plain how much the statue, or rather group,
has suffered in modern times; but at what particular period, or on what
occasion, is unknown. It is equally plain, that the supposing of it to
be intended to represent the greatest of the dukes who swayed the Norman
sceptre, is by no means a fiction of the present day. This circumstance,
however, and its age likewise, have of late been much disputed. The
leading opinions upon these subjects, have been collected by Mr.
Turner,[28] who inclines to think that it is really of the period of
Norman dominion, and was actually designed for Duke William. He
parallels it with a very similar piece of sculpture from the
chapter-house of the abbey of St. Georges de Bocherville,[29] a
performance of unquestionable antiquity. His remarks upon the subject
are as follows:--"One of the most learned antiquaries of the present
time has found a prototype for the supposed figure of the Duke among the
sculptures of the Trajan column. But this, with all due deference, is
far from a decisive proof that the statue in question was not intended
for William. Similar adaptations of the antique model, 'mutato nomine,'
frequently occur among the works of the artists of the middle ages; and
there is at least a possibility that, had the face been left us, we
might have traced some attempt at a portrait of the Norman duke. Upon
the date of the sculpture, or the style of the workmanship, I dare not
venture an opinion. There are antiquaries, I know, (and men well
qualified to judge,) who believe it Roman: I have heard it pronounced
from high authority, that it is of the eleventh century; others suspect
that it is Italian, of the thirteenth or fourteenth centuries; while M.
Le Prevost and M. De Gerville maintain most strenuously that it is not
anterior to the fifteenth. De Bourgueville certainly calls it 'une
antiquité de grand remarque;' but we all know that any object which is
above an hundred years old, becomes a piece of antiquity in the eye of
an uncritical observer; and such was the good magistrate."
[Illustration: Plate 20. STATUE OF WILLIAM DUKE OF NORMANDY.
_South side of the Parish Church of St. Etienne at Caen._]
The parish of St. Stephen, at Caen, is generally distinguished by the
epithet of _the old_, whence an opinion has commonly prevailed, that its
church was one of those founded by St. Regnobert, in the middle of the
fourth century; and that the present edifice, if not actually in part
the same, is at least raised upon its foundations, and is certainly one
of the most ancient in Caen. This belief has been, in a measure,
countenanced by De Bourgueville and Huet, relying upon what appears to
have been an inaccurate translation from Robert Cenalis[30] But, on the
contrary, it appears from the Abbé De la Rue, that the author in
question makes no mention whatever of this parish, and that the
appellation was first given it by the Conqueror, by way of
distinguishing its church from the more sumptuous one erected by
himself, and also dedicated to the protomartyr; a circumstance, from
which the Abbé justly observes, that nothing more is to be deduced, than
that a church existed here anterior to his time; but by no means
necessarily of great antiquity. The present building is of the
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries; a medley of debased Gothic and
corrupted Roman.
NOTES:
[28] _Tour in Normandy_, II. p. 174.
[29] See plate 11, of this work, right-hand figures in the upper line;
see also _Turner's Tour in Normandy_, II. p. 11, with a figure.
[30] _Essais Historiques sur Caen_, I. p. 225.
PLATES XXI.--XXIII.
ABBEY CHURCH OF ST. STEPHEN.
(WEST FRONT, AND ELEVATION OF COMPARTMENTS OF THE NAVE.)
[Illustration: Plates 21-22. ABBEY CHURCH OF ST. ETIENNE, CAEN.]
The two royal Abbeys of Caen, long the pride of the town, while France,
not yet revolutionized, suffered them to exist in their glory, and while
her sons felt honored by the monuments of the piety and greatness of
their ancestors, are still, in their present state of degradation, among
the most interesting edifices which the province or the kingdom can
boast The building and the endowment of them are often mentioned with
admiration by the monastic historians of Normandy, one of whom, William
of Jumieges, gives the following account of their origin.
The marriage of Duke William with Matilda, daughter of Baldwin, Count of
Flanders, the son of his father's sister,[31] was within the prohibited
degrees of consanguinity, and greatly scandalized the clergy of the
duchy. They frequently remonstrated with their sovereign upon the
subject, and at length they succeeded so far, that he was induced to
dispatch ambassadors to Rome, to consult the Pope upon the steps
necessary to be adopted. His Holiness, prudently considering that a
divorce would in all probability be followed by war between the Flemings
and Normans, determined to have recourse to a more pacific expedient;
and consented to grant them absolution, upon condition of their
performing penance. The penance enjoined upon the occasion was the
erection of two monasteries; one for the religious of either
sex.--Gratefully, we are told, did the noble pair accept the proffered
terms; and instantly did they apply themselves to the fulfilment of
their task.
The abbey, undertaken by the Duke, the subject of these plates, is
stated by Huet, and authors in general, to have been completed in 1064,
two years prior to the conquest of England:[32] according to Ordericus
Vitalis, it was not dedicated till 1077. But upon this latter point
authors are not agreed: some say that the dedication took place in 1073;
and others, in 1081. However this may be, it seems certain that the
foundation-charter was granted subsequently to the year 1066; for in it
William takes the title of king, and among his many princely donations
are enumerated various properties and privileges in different parts of
Britain; decisive proofs that he was at that time in possession of the
island, and considered himself firmly fixed upon its throne. The abbey
thus raised, was, during the whole of the monarch's life, honored with
his especial favor; and at his death, he bequeathed it other lands,
together with his sceptre, the crown he wore upon occasions of the
highest solemnity, his hand of justice, a cup made of precious stone,
his golden candlesticks, and all the royal ornaments which usually
appertain to the crown. Still further to manifest his gracious regard,
he directed that the abbatial church should be the depository of his
mortal remains; and that a foundation, so rich in worldly wealth, might
not lack the more precious possessions of sanctity, he bought, as we
are told by the early writers,[33] _at no small price_, a portion of the
relics of the proto-martyr, consisting of a part of his arm, which was
preserved in the city of Besançon, and a small phial containing some
drops of blood, averred to have flowed from the same limb. At a
subsequent time, the King added to these a lock of the Saint's hair,
together with a portion of the skin of his head, and the stone with
which he was killed.[34] The hair was white, and as fresh as if it had
only then been severed; and it was kept in a beautiful crystal vessel;
so that, to use the words of a contemporary manuscript, "totum fuit
pulchrum: capilli albi et pulchri; lapis etiam unde percussus fuit
albus; vas pulchrum et album; et aspicientibus rem adeo pulchram magnam
faciunt admirationem."
The first abbot of the convent was Lanfranc, a native of Italy, who had
established himself in the neighboring monastery of Bec, where the fame
of his talents had acquired him a most extensive celebrity; and the zeal
with which he had applied himself to the task of education,[35] had
increased it to a degree, of which, in these days, we have little idea.
But he held the pastoral staff only a very short time, for he was, as
early as the year 1070, translated to the more important post of
Archbishop of Canterbury; and it was reserved to his successor, William
de Bonne Ame, to have the honor of presiding over the community, at the
period when John of Avranches, Archbishop of Rouen, assisted by his
suffragan bishops, as well as by Lanfranc himself, with Thomas, his
brother metropolitan, and many abbots, and a wonderful throng of people,
performed the ceremony of the dedication.[36]
The Conqueror's sons confirmed the various donations made to the abbey
by their parent. The eldest of them, Robert, his successor in the
dukedom, added the privilege of a fair and a weekly market at Cheux.
William Rufus, the second, entered into a negociation with the monks, to
re-purchase his father's royal ornaments, in exchange for the parish of
Coker, in Somersetshire; but he died before the completion of the
treaty; and this was finally carried into effect by Henry I. with one
only difference, that Brideton, (now called Burton) in Dorsetshire, was
substituted for Coker. It was Henry, according to the Abbé De la
Rue,[37] who raised the superb monument over his father's remains; but
Ordericus Vitalis expressly attributes the work to William Rufus.[38]
Respecting its splendor, all writers are unanimous: the shrine placed
upon the mausoleum, was a "mirificum memoriale, quod ex auro et argento
et gemmis competentèr splenduit." The care of building the tomb was
committed to a goldsmith at Caen, of the name of Otto, who had received
from the Conqueror a grant of land in Essex; and whose descendants,
under the name of Fitz-Othon, had the principal direction of the English
mint, till the death of Thomas Fitz-Othon, the last of the family, in
1282.
Henry II. in a very long charter, confirmed the various endowments and
privileges previously bestowed upon the convent, and added others of his
own. From this time forward, it continued to increase in wealth and
power. In the year 1250, its revenues, in Normandy, amounted to four
thousand livres, a sum equivalent to eighty-two thousand and sixteen
livres of the present day. In 1668, when money in France was of about
half its present value, the abbot and monks divided an income of
sixty-four thousand and four livres: and in 1774, this income had
swelled to one hundred and ninety-two thousand livres, notwithstanding
the immense losses suffered by the suppression of the alien priories in
England. Thus an increase had taken place of nearly one hundred and ten
thousand livres, in about five hundred and twenty years. The
ecclesiastical patronage of the abbey, at the time of the revolution,
extended over twelve churches. Its monks, who were of the order of St.
Benedict, continued till the year 1663 to belong to the class of
Benedictines, called _unreformed_; but the Duchess of Longueville, wife
of the then abbot, introduced at that period the brethren of the
congregation of St. Maur.
The privileges and immunities granted to the convent of St. Stephen, are
detailed at considerable length by Du Moustier,[39] who has also
carefully collected the particulars of the life of Lanfranc, and has
given a catalogue, accompanied with short biographical notices, of the
rest of the abbots. By far the greater number of these were men eminent
for their rank or talents; and some of them were subsequently promoted
to higher dignities. William de Bonne Ame, the second abbot, succeeded
John de Bayeux in the metropolitan throne of Rouen; Hugh de Coilly,
grandson of King Stephen, after being elected to preside over this
monastery, was almost immediately transferred to the archbishopric of
York;[40] and Charles de Martigni, abbot of St. Stephen's in the
fifteenth century, was successively honored with two episcopal mitres.
It was by him that the prelacy was first held _in commendam_, an example
too tempting not to be followed; and the abbey, thus constantly gaining
in the dignity of its superiors, as constantly lost in their real value.
Seven cardinals, (among whom were the celebrated Cardinals of Richelieu,
Mazarine and Fleury,) a natural son of King Henry IV. an archbishop of
Lyons, two of Aix, and one of Rouen, were among its most modern abbots.
Another of them, John Le Got,[41] was present at the abjuration of Henry
IV. in the church of St. Denys, on the twenty-fifth of July, 1593; and
by virtue of his office as apostolical prothonotary, subscribed his name
to the letter from the bishops to the Pope, declaring that nothing had
taken place in the transaction, inconsistent with the reverence due to
his holiness. A list of considerable length might also be made from
among the monks of the convent, of those who have been ennobled by their
talents or dignities.
The monastic buildings appertaining to the Abbey of St. Stephen were
begun in 1704, and completed after a period of twenty-two years. They
are now attached to the royal College of Caen, to which establishment
they were appropriated at the revolution; and, provided as they were
with noble gardens, they were an accession of the utmost importance to
the institution. But the value of the gift has, within the ten last
years, been considerably lessened, by the municipality having robbed the
college of the greater part of the gardens, for the purpose of
converting them into an open square. The plan of the buildings was
furnished by a lay-brother of the Benedictine order, named William De la
Tremblaye, who also erected those of the sister Convent of the Trinity,
at Caen; and those of the Abbey of St. Denis. During the storms of the
revolution, the abbatial church happily suffered but little. Fallen,
though it be, from its dignity, and degraded to parochial, it still
stands nearly entire. Not indeed as it came from the hands of the Norman
architect, but as it was left by the Huguenots in the sixteenth century,
when, with the violence which marked the transactions of that æra,
doors, windows, floors, wood-work, lead, iron, marble, manuscripts, and
books, were given up to indiscriminate destruction: bells were broken,
roofs stripped, altars profaned, the very tombs opened; and, as if no
point had been gained, so long as aught was suffered to remain, the
central tower was undermined, in the hope that its fall would involve
the ruin of the whole edifice. And fall, indeed, it did; but happily
only carried away with it a portion of the eastern end. From this
circumstance, however, have arisen discrepancies of style, for which it
would be difficult, without such knowledge, to account. The nave and the
transepts are the only pure remains of the original building: the choir
and aisles are of pointed architecture, and are, consequently, not of
equal antiquity. Even the western front partakes, in a measure, of the
same mixture. All, to the top of the towers, is genuine Norman, and of
the eleventh century: the spires, with their surrounding turrets, are
of a later æra.[42] At the same time it may reasonably be doubted how
far the Abbé De la Rue is right in ascribing them to the fourteenth
century. To differ from so able an antiquary and so competent a judge in
matters of this description, is always hazardous; but the author of this
article must, nevertheless, be allowed to hesitate before he gives a
full assent. It is known that the choir was enlarged, and the apsis
built as it now exists, during the prelacy of Simon de Trevieres, which
extended from the year 1316 to 1344; but history is silent as to any
other additions made at that period to the church; and the style of the
architecture of the spires does certainly appear to be earlier than that
of the parts just mentioned. No argument is to be drawn from the general
aspect of the building; for such is the great excellence of the Caen
stone, and so little has it suffered in an atmosphere untainted by coal
smoke, and in a climate probably superior to our own, that all the parts
appear to be in equally good preservation, and the whole looks as fresh
as if but yesterday hewn from the quarry. An opinion has commonly
prevailed, that an epitaph, still visible on the exterior of the apsis,
is that of the builder of the church. Facsimiles of it have been given
by Ducarel[43] and Gough,[44] the former of whom seems to have no doubt
of the fact. Such, however, cannot be the case; the very shape of the
characters sufficiently disproves it: they are altogether unlike those
used on Queen Matilda's tomb, a relic, whose authenticity was never
called in question. The character of the architecture of the chapel
affords a still more decisive contradiction. Indeed, after what has
already been said, it needs scarcely be added, that the building itself
did not exist at the period assigned by Ducarel to the epitaph, which is
most probably that of the person who erected the apsis, and made the
other alterations in the fourteenth century.