Architectural Antiquities of Normandy Part 4

[20] The reader will observe, that this pillar is probably imperfect; for that there seems reason to believe, that it was originally surmounted by a capital, which united with the moulding above.

[21] See _Cotman's Architectural Antiquities of Norfolk_, plate 37.

PLATES XVIII. AND XIX.

CHURCH OF ST. MICHEL DE VAUCELLES, AT CAEN.

(CENTRAL TOWER AND NORTH PORCH.)

[Ill.u.s.tration: Plate 18. TOWER OF THE CHURCH OF ST. MICHEL DE VAUCELLES, CAEN.]

The Abbe De la Rue, in his excellent publication upon the town of Caen,[22] does not furnish the satisfactory information which might have been hoped, relative to the date of the erection of the church of St.

Michael, in the suburb of Vaucelles. He contents himself with observing,[23] that it is a work of different aeras: that the tower and its supporting pillars belong to a primitive church, of which no account remains; that a part of the nave may be seen, from the circular form of the arches having been obviously altered into pointed, to have belonged to the same church; that the choir was raised and increased during the sixteenth century; that the aisles are partly of the same century, and partly of the preceding; and that the other portion of the nave and the new tower, are productions of our own days.

In all this there is nothing definite; and, unfortunately, our knowledge of Norman architecture is not such as will justify us in attempting to fix precise aeras 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 aera." 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 circ.u.mstances 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 Marche,[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.

[Ill.u.s.tration: 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 ca.n.a.l of the Orne, the formation of which has somewhat circ.u.mscribed its limits; for these formerly extended into the Rue St. Jean, and included the hospital, called the Hotel 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 Abbe De la Rue, from whom these historical particulars are derived, this n.o.ble 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 a.s.signed 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 va.s.sals 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 ma.s.s 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 n.o.blest 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 n.o.ble remains of Norman architecture.

NOTES:

[22] _Essais Historiques sur la Ville de Caen et son arrondiss.e.m.e.nt.

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 _Antiquites 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 circ.u.mstance, 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 p.r.o.nounced 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 antiquite 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."

[Ill.u.s.tration: 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. Regn.o.bert, 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 Abbe 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 circ.u.mstance, from which the Abbe 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.)

[Ill.u.s.tration: 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 amba.s.sadors 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 s.e.x.--Gratefully, we are told, did the n.o.ble 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 t.i.tle 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 sanct.i.ty, 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 Besancon, 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 ma.n.u.script, "totum fuit pulchrum: capilli albi et pulchri; lapis etiam unde percussus fuit albus; vas pulchrum et alb.u.m; 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, a.s.sisted 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]