Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2015 https://archive.org/details/normandyitsgothiOOstep ■ * * * * • * - •** Port de la Grosse Horloge, Rouen. ^ormantg. ITS GOTHIC ARCHITECTURE AND HISTORY: AS ILLUSTRATED BY TWENTY-FIVE PHOTOGRAPHS FROM BUILDINGS IN ROUEN, CAEN, MANTES, BAYEUX, AND FALAISE. A SKETCH; BY F. G. STEPHENS. LONDON: ALFRED W. BENNETT, 5, BISHOPSGATE STREET WITHOUT. CUNDALL, DOWNES, and CO., 168, NEW BOND STREET. 1865. J2ormanti}>, ITS GOTHIC ARCHITECTURE AND HISTORY: AS ILLUSTRATED BY TWENTY-FIVE PHOTOGRAPHS FROM BUILDINGS IN ROUEN, CAEN, MANTES, BAYEUX, AND FALAISE. A SKETCH ; BY F. G. STEPHENS. LONDON: ALFRED W. BENNETT, 5, BISHOPSGATE STREET WITHOUT. CUNDALL, DOWNES, and CO., 168, NEW BOND STREET. 1865. Hist of ipfjotograpfjic ^lustrations. ^ORT de la Grosse Horloge, Rouen Church of St. Ouen, Interior, Caen Bayeux Cathedral, from the South Wesi Bayeux Cathedral, West Front Church of St. Pierre, West Front, Caen . Church of St. Pierre, South Porch, Caen Church of St. Pierre, South Side, Caen Church of St. Gilles, Caen West Door of Notre Dame, Mantes Birth Chamber of William the Conqueror in the Chateau Rouen Cathedral, Interior Rouen Cathedral, North Porch Rouen Cathedral, West Front St. Ouen, from the South East, Rouen Convent of the Benedictines, Rouen Les Halles, Rouen Palais de Justice, Rouen St. Ouen, West Front, Rouen St. Maclou,' Rouen Notre Dame, from the South, Mantes Tower of St. Maclou, Mantes Bayeux Cathedral, Interior Bayeux Cathedral, from the South . Church of St. Etienne le Vieux, Caen Chateau de Falaise, Normandy e Falaise frontispiece . i . 2 4 6 8 . io . 12 14 17 1 8 20 . 22 24 26 28 30 3 6 . 38 . 40 41 . 42 43 45 46 I ... . • - f - — ‘ * ... - • * > > - v :• «,•** . ■ • . ’ • > , v • . • ^ •' > , * ' • % V .. / . M * * % * 1 b : - . • \- . ■ » ' . :f •* > . • '■ - . • ■ *• • - '■ : . * ' • * Church of St. Ouen* Interior , Rouen , jftormanDp for GEletien ^unoreu pears. T will serve to introduce the main subject of our remarks to the reader if we recall to his mind, in the briefest terms, some of the most important events in the history of the land known to us under the name of Normandy, selecting those events which have, more or less directly, influenced even the de- tails of the buildings photographically illustrated in the following pages. Little is known of the country ere Caesar found all France divided among various branches of the Kymric family of the Celtic race; some of these branches gave the names they bore to r the chief cities of the province, and are still held in memory by designations which are presented to us in but slightly altered forms; thus, the city of the Baiocasses is still Bayeux, that of the Lexiovii is still Lisieux. Relics of the early worship of these nations exist in many parts of France ; Britany, that neighbouring and long-ago subject province to Normandy, is peculiarly rich in such; for examples, there are — J, the great dolmen, styled Pierre Levee , near Poitiers ; 2, the stone-chest, known as the Maison des Fees , which is near Saumur; and, 3, the famous ruins of Carnac, Morbihan, Britany. The tribes inhabiting Normandy and part of Britany, terrified, it may be, by the utter extermination of their neighbours the Nervii, submitted to Caesar. Some of these tribes, or their members, probably shared in the resistance of the Veniti and were effectually admonished by the ruin of their fleet at the mouth of the Loire in the year 56 b.c. It cannot be supposed that so wealthy a province as that of Normandy was peopled less thickly than others in Gaul, especially when it is recollected that the men of the western provinces had, long before this time, invaded the seats of their ancient brethren in Britain and driven them away from many B 2 Normandy for Eleven Hundred Years. parts of the coast. No doubt can be entertained that the number of the inhabitants of Gaul was immense at this period just mentioned ; it is related * that out of three millions of fighting men one million was slain, and a second million sold into captivity during the progress of what Caesar styles the pacification of the country. This operation was so far effectual, that for nearly two hundred and fifty years the land slept in peace, if a sort of lethargic animalism can be so styled ; its population assimilated with the Romans, supplying its youth to the legions, and receiving the education, the arts, and also the vices of the conquerors. It is averred, upon doubtful authority, that the Apostle Paul brought Christianity into France, and the agency of St. Philip, as well as that of St. Trophimus, disciple of St. Peter, has been affirmed. It is certain, that in the middle of the second century the seeds of the faith had borne the fruit usual in those days — martyrdom and persecution. About 250 a.d., the chief sees of France were established, and, although grievously perse- cuted, the religion of Christ was, by the beginning of the fourth century, firmly established. So completely was this the case, that sections of the Christians began, in 350, to persecute each other : Arianism, as the weakest division, suffered most. The first monastery founded in France was at Liguge, near Poitiers.f Normandy under the Romans formed part of the province of Lugdunensis Secunda, the capital of which was Rotomagus, now Rouen. The death- throes of the empire affected this section less than others which were more remote from the great centre of disturbance, i.e., from the borders of the Rhine, westwards to Paris. The year 406 saw the Burgundian Franks fairly and finally established on the west bank of the Rhine, and from that day there was no hope of peace for the Roman power in the north of Gaul. Stilicho, Honorius, Constantine, Aetius, and others could not stop the torrent of invaders ; and it required all the power, most strenuously united, of the Roman Aetius, the Visigothic Theodoric, and Merovig the Frank, to defeat Attila the Hun on the field of Chalons (June, 451), with the slaughter of 162,000 men. The convulsions which tore Gaul from end to end had for their outcome the increased power of the orthodox church, and through that, as M. Michelet truly says, the uprising of the Frankish nation. Clovis, the Frankish king, stamped out the last spark of * Plutarch. •f The belief of the Gauls in the immortality of the soul had doubtless much to do with the ready reception and rapid spread of Christianity amongst them. This conviction took forms so practical in their character as to influence the daily acts of the men j it is recorded that it was a constant practice of theirs to contract debts with the understanding that repayment should be made in a future state of existence, and servants followed their masters into the grave with a thorough conviction of an unbroken companionship. r .-4Nk Normandy for Eleven Hundred Years . j power in Gaul that pretended to be Roman, and although beginning life with the aid of his own tribe, the Salian Franks, which numbered not more than 5,000 men, he died, at the age of forty-five, lord of all the land from the middle Rhine to the sea, from Bayonne to the Meuse. From him descended the Merovingian dynasty, the history of which is of little other importance, says Hallam, than to impress on the mind a thorough notion of the extreme wickedness of every person concerned in it. At the death of Clovis, Normandy fell to the Jot of Childebert I., king of Paris. When the Frankish kingdom was again divided among the sons of Chlothaire I., (their father was the most horrible ruffian of the race,) this province was part of Neustria, and in the hands of Chilperic I., king of Soissons, husband of Galeswintha the Fair and Fredegonda. Under the charge of the owner of the last of these evil names Neustria remained until her death in 59 7. The iniquity of the family was boundless; and while they ruled Europe from Bohemia to the sea, and from the Weser to the Py- renees, the best thing we know concerning them is, that the minister of Dagobert I. (who died 638) was St. Ouen, Archbishop of Rouen, patron of the church represented in the succeeding pages. The “ Sluggard Kings” succeeded these monsters of the early Merovingian race, and in due time, themselves becoming intolerable, they were virtually abolished by Pepin de Heristal, Mayor of the Palace of Austrasia, who defeated Thierry III., king of Neustria, at Testry (687). Henceforward Austrasia and Neustria were governed by Pepin under forms which are somewhat like those of a modern constitutional monarchy. The descendants of Clovis lived in country places, fattened, and squabbled for small plunder of the nation, until the time was ripe for their removal. Charles Martel, after defeating the Neustrians, became sole ruler. The battle of Tours ( 7 2 3 ) P ut all France into his hands, and rendered him famous as the saviour of Christendom from the Moors. Among the lots of the sons of Charles Martel, Neustria fell to Pepin le Bref (741), and shared in all the wars of the brothers. Another brother was Remigius, Archbishop of Rouen,* a man often confounded with the saint of the same name, who, long before, crowned Clovis at Paris; a third brother was Abbot of Stithin (St. Quentin). Pepin ‘le Bref dealt with Childeric III., last of the' Merovingians, so that he died forgotten, but in peace, at the convent of St. Bertin, near St. Omer. Next followed the turn of the Carlovingians. Pepin’s two sons were David — well known to us by the name of Charlemagne — and Carloman. The former, with other territories, got Neustria and, ultimately, the * Ordericus Vitalis, b. 5, c. 9. 4 Normandy for Eleven Hundred Tears . whole of their father’s realm. Charles, the son of Charlemagne, succeeded in adding Austrasia to the kingdom, thus setting the division of the country in a new line from east to west, instead of from north to south, as often happened before. Hugh, another son of Charlemagne, was Abbot of St. Quentin, one of those great perversions of the ecclesiastical office which, as Sir F. Palgrave says, had much to do with the downfall of faith. Charlemagne died Jan. 28, 814, and entered the tomb he had prepared for himself under the vault at Aix la Chapelle ; there his embalmed corpse sat on the throne in silence and darkness nearly two centuries, until his own descendant Otho III., with a better apology for the act than that of Herod when he violated the tomb of Solomon, entered the chamber and lifted the veil from the face of the dead king ; a later conqueror took away the sword Joyeuse which had done so much towards the civilization of the West. The sons of Louis le Debonrtaire were Lothaire, Pepin, Louis, and Charles le Chauve. When their father chastised the Bretons he returned in triumph to Rouen, then a highly flourishing city. Until the beginning of the eighth century the Northmen’s attacks had been confined to the coast; about that time, and as the next age advanced, they grew bolder. In 820 they attacked the northern coasts of France, were defeated, but, persistently transferring their ships to the sea-line of the Mediterranean, ravaged Acquitania, the kingdom of Louis le Debonnaire's youth. A quarrel at home amongst these spoliators brought some of them to the coast of that emperor, and he made Harold King of Jutland, a Count on the Rhine, Duke of Oldenburg and King of Denmark. Gunt- bald. Archbishop of Rouen (833-848), had much to do with the wars between Louis and his three sons. It was in his time that the event which has now to be related took place. Ordericus Vitalis, the Norman chronicler — with more spirit than chronological exactness — says of this occurrence as follows: “In the time of Charles, King of the Franks, surnamed the Simple, Biorn, also called Ironsides, son of Lodbroc, King of the Danes, accompanied by Hasting, his tutor, and a numerous band of young warriors, issued from their homes like a sword from the scabbard , for the destruction of the nations. Suddenly sweeping over the shores of France, like a whirlwind rising from the sea, and reducing to ashes towns, cities, and holy minsters, for thirty years the invaders and their confederates harassed the Christians with continual inroads.” Long before this period the Northmen had passed up the rivers of Britain, but the protective measures of Louis le Debotinaire had sufficed for those of France, and the ravagers of that country were almost entirely confined to its sea- coasts. Charles le Chauve was the fourth son of Louis le Debonnaire ; he was crowned King of Neustria a.d. 838, and afterwards became King Bayeux Cathedral , West Front . Normandy for Eleven Hundred Tears . 5 of the Franks. With the death of Louis le Debonnaire the whole fabric of the Carlovingian Empire was shattered. What happened soon after the accession of Charles cannot be better told than in the words of Sir F. Palgrave. They are so vigorous and so truly emphasize the importance of the event that it would be hard to improve them. Louis the German, another son of Charlemagne, having defeated the troops of Lothaire (May 13, 841), set forward to meet his ally Charles at Chalons with a good deal of satisfaction. The Northmen had a splendid opportunity. “ On the eve preceding this very day when Louis cut up and dispersed “ the Frankish army under the Duke of Austrasia’s command, did Jarl “ Osker’s fleet enter the brimful river. The Seine flood-tides were then “ accompanied by a sudden head or rise of waters, the sea conflicting with “ the river, similar to the Eager , or eau-guerre , so remarkable at the mouth “ of the Severn ; this roar could be heard five leagues off. As their vessels “ rowed upwards, and the crews contemplated the unfolding of the winding “ shores, how the prospect must have delighted theNorthmen during this their “ first navigation of the Seine: the fruitful fields, thick orchards, the bright, te cheerful, and healthy cliffs, and the succession of villas, burghs, and mon- “ asteries, basking securely in the enjoyment of undisturbed opulence. Gener- “ ations had elapsed since the country had been visited by war, the Northmen “ had been restrained, and commerce and agriculture contributed to the “ people’s welfare. But the Danish fleet never slackened oar nor sail, “ the crews never touched the land : they had a great object in view, " they would not halt to plunder now — lose the tide, not they ! Osker “ was seeking to secure the booty of Rouen by a coup- de-main. Gallo- “ Roman Rothomagus, and the various suburbs and villages included in its “ modern municipal octroi , constitutes a congeries of islands, another Venice “ upon the Seine. The ground-plot of the present flourishing city was either “ partly occupied or much intersected by the ramifying channels of the “ river, as well as by the various rivulets, the Renelle, the Aubette, and “ the Robec, the Roth-buck , or red-bock , the red-stream — a name of “ which the etymology perplexes the ethnographist, uncertain whether the “ Teutonic roots should be claimed for the Gaulish indwellers, or the “ Scandinavian invaders. The bed of the Seine came very nigh the Ca- “ thedral ; the Church of St. Martin de la Roquette was so-called in “ consequence of its having been built upon a small rock in the middle of ** the waters, and the parishes of St. Clermont, St. Eloi, and St. Etienne “ were insular likewise. The city was fired and plundered. Defence was “ wholly impracticable, and great slaughter ensued; it was reported that “ the Archbishop was killed. This, however, was not the case ; Gundo- “ bald, the prelate, escaped like the monks of St. Ouen, who fled, bearing 6 Normandy for Eleven Hundred Tears . “ with them the relics of the saint ; but the monastery, then standing “ beyond the city precincts, was sacked, -and the buildings exceedingly “ damaged. It is thought, however, by some architectural antiquaries, that “ the Tour des Clercs, the Romanesque fragment now incorporated with “ the exquisitely delicate flamboyant structure, is a portion ©f the apse be- longing to the original Basilica. Of the cathedral hardly one stone “ remained upon another; nor were the injuries which the sacred struc- “ ture of Rouen received during this invasion effectually repaired, until the “ piety of Rollo and the Normans restored the fabrics their forefathers “had destroyed. Osker’s three days’ occupation of. Rouen was remune- “ ratingly successful. Their vessels loaded with spoil and captives — gentle “ and simple, clerks, merchants, citizens, soldiers, peasants, nuns, dames, and “ damsels, the Danes dropped down the Seine, to complete their devasta- “ tions on the shores. They had struck the first blow at the provincial “ capital, and were now comparatively at leisure. Dagobert’s and Clo- “ thaire’s foundation, Jumieges, pre-eminent for sanctity, was surrounded « by a large and populous bourgade , which had grown up under the fos- “ tering protection of the abbey. The monks dispersed themselves after “ burying a portion of their treasure. So complete was the scatteraway, “ that one of the brethren never stopped until he reached St. Gall. This “ incident furnishes an anecdote for the history of melody. The fugitive bore “ with him an antiphonarium , containing various sequences, a rhythmical “ and cadenced church song, then much in use among the Northern Gauls. “ Now, at St. Gall, there was a young man named Notker, possessing a sin- gular talent for music; this science he studied deeply, and the Neustrian “ sequences , a style of composition hitherto unknown there, suggested to “ him the composition of others, which produced a good effect upon the “ liturgical talent prevailing during the Middle Ages.” This is the history of the first appearance of the Northmen upon the Seine. Their progress towards the sea was marked by ravages of similar character. Fontenelle, the ancient St. Wandrille, with its seven churches and a monastery, surrounded by vineyards and gardens, bought exemption from plunder. It is probable that at this period Juliabona, the modern Lillebonne, where so many relics of Roman magnificence have been disin- terred of late, was destroyed. “The Danes then quitted the Seine,” says the author just quoted, “having formed their plans for renewing the en- “ couraging enterprise — another time they would do more. Normandy “ dates from Osker’s three days’ occupation of Rouen.” Even so terrible an invasion as this upon the body politic of Charlemagne’s empire produced little real effect upon the passionate hate of the rulers. Little more than a month after the arrival of Osker the questions at issue between Louis the Church of St. Pierre , West Front , Caen , Normandy for Eleven Hundred Tears . 7 German and Charles the Bald on the one side, and Lothaire the Emperor on the other, were debated in the tremendous battle of Fontenay; a hun. dred thousand combatants were slain, and Lothaire utterly defeated. The Northmen continued their ravages, and the Loire was as much infested as the Seine, a more bitter measure was dealt to Nantes than that which had fallen to the lot of her sister city, Rouen. The treaty of Verdun redivided ■ the Carlovingian inheritance, and drew some of the boundary lines of modern Europe. To Charles le Cbauve France fell, and with it, Neustria — soon to become Normandy. In 845, the Northmen attacked Paris, and, Charles being helpless, it was abandoned to them. Ragnor Lodbroc was, this time, really their chieftain. They rifled the ancient abbeys of the metropolitan city, did infinite damage, and were at last bought off with seven thousand pounds of silver. Robert the Strong, Count of Anjou, the king’s commander, in vain attempted to stay their advance over the open country. Although he defeated them time after time, he could not save his master from the disgraceful composition made with the freebooters, in which they were compensated by blood-fine for every Norman who had been killed by a Frank. This Robert was ancestor of the Capetian line of French kings, his great-grandson being Hugh Capet. The incessant invasions of the Northmen and the robberies of their allies, the discontented populace of the country, did much towards establishing feudalism in France; thus, for protection the wealthy built castles, and the poorer sort sought refuge within and around them. The ancient pastoral state of the country, so picturesquely described by Thierry in his brilliant “ Dix ans d' etudes his - “ toriques^ and so characteristic of a nation in the condition of the Neus- trians and «&ustrasians for several centuries after the decay of the Roman power, had now to pass away. Louis III. utterly defeated the Northmen in 883, at Sancourt, near Abbeville, close on the Norman border. The treachery of Charles the Fat to Godefrid, a Norman chieftain, brought the invaders before Paris (885), and, after a splendid display of fortitude on the part of Eudes, Count of Paris, and other lords who were with him during a siege of nearly two years, the followers of Rollo, (of whom we shall soon hear fully), were bought off, this time with eight hundred pounds of silver. The imbecility of the Frankish monarch was distinctly marked in this arrangement. Eudes of Paris became Duke of France on the death of Charles the Fat. The transaction which domiciled the North- men (under the name of Normans) in France, was proposed by the brother and successor of Eudes in the fief of Paris to King Charles the Simple. It was an Archbishop of Rouen, Franco, who (a. d. 91 1) was ambassador to Rollo on this occasion. The terms which bought from the Norman 8 Normandy for Eleven Hundred Tears . leader that rest for the country which its own lords could not secure were the hand of Giselle, the king’s daughter, and all the territory south of the Epte, including Normandy and Britany. The same archbishop baptized Rollo under the name of Robert. The province was divided among the Norman' chiefs, and a new power came into existence. The experiment succeeded to a wonder, and in no respect more so than as regards the churches in which the province was so wealthy. The great minsters where religion had intrenched herself while wave after wave of barbarism swept over the land, were rapidly reconstructed ; the Faith rose again indomitable, the true Phoenix. It is only the student of old records who can fairly realize the constantly recurring destruction of these edifices : to such their rebuilding presents itself in all its significance. That rebuilding was, each time, on a more splendid scale. The history of struc- tures such as those represented in the following photographs may be summed up thus, as regards the periods that elapsed from the introduction of Chris- tianity until that at which we have now arrived, and even to a more recent date. They were erected by pious hands in humble wise ; they were burnt, they were rebuilt, they were reburnt, they were again rebuilt, and so on, time after time; but each new building was on a larger scale and with more costly materials. At last the destroyer himself, as in the case of the Normans in France and Italy, became the reconstructor. He used, it is true, the old stones over again, but he added to them, and while for a long time the Roman architectural details furnished models for imitation* the style was changed piecemeal, if not in general character, by every man who used it. The Romanesque styles of design display the Roman elements employed in a freer spirit and adapted to a wider range of service. The history of a building is, in most important respects, the history of a people. No structures testify to the truth of this with greater force than those of Normandy now before us and others remaining in the same pro- vince. The influence of the Romans upon their subject Gauls appears in one of the earliest buildings known to exist in Normandy which have a Christian origin. This is the crypt of the Church of St. Gervais, at Rouen, reported, on very good grounds, to be the oldest structure in Rouen, and amongst the most ancient of Christian buildings in France. This is a small low-roofed and unpretending structure, said to have been built in the fourth century, and now near the Havre railway terminus — such is the manner in which we speak of an ancient church, it is near the railway station, not vice versa . The crypt of this edifice is certainly con- structed with Roman bricks, laid, in the manner of that race of perfect builders, alternately with lines of rough stone. Examples of different Church of St. Pierre , South Porch , Caen i ■V- ' \ .-Jv * •• ' , V ■• V „■ , • *. - n. ■ MV* •' - 1 V * •o- $r ' A A* ft *• , ; •; . 4. * • i . Normandy for Eleven Hundred Tears . 9 « methods of using these materials may be seen at St. Albans, Lillebonne, Colchester, in the Jewry Wall at Leicester, at Caerleon and Caerwent in Monmouthshire, Autun, and elsewhere. In the walls of this crypt are built several rudely sculptured fragments of Roman work ; such appear to be some of the caps of the exterior apsidal columns of the church above. The exterior of the apse above does not coin- cide in form with the interior ; the former is angular, the latter semicircular. At these angles there are placed, exteriorly, several rude columns having in one or two instances Corinthian and Doric capitals (so says Cotman), and others have grotesque decorations ; one bears an eagle. The crypt itself, which is older than the apfe, is covered by a semicircular arched roof, or ceiling, and has a low stone bench running round the walls ; an arch divides it into two unequal parts, and it is without columns, pilasters, or ornaments of any kind, unless a sort of abacus inserted at the spring of the arch just named be styled such. The interior is 30 feet in length, 14 feet wide, and 16 feet high. Many stone coffins have been found in this place, the feet being pointed to the east. The entire establishment has undergone many changes ; originally an oratory, it was in less remote days a monastery, or small cell, with a hospital for lepers attached ; it is next recorded as being under the rule of an abbot. In 1020, Duke Richard II. gave it to the monks of Fecamp, taking it from those of St. Peter, at Chartres ; it sank, at a later date, to the rank of a priory, and is now a parish church. One of the most interesting points of detail connected with this church is that certain holes remain at one end of the presbytery in which, in all probability, were placed the ends of the rod which carried the velum or veil used to separate the presbytery from the body of the church. The altar slab is marked with five crosses, typifying the wounds of Christ, one at each corner, and one in the centre. These slabs were used for the sacrament of the Eucharist only, and were generally of wood in the first four or five centuries of our era. At the Convent of Epone, a.d. 509, they were ordered to be constructed of stone. That the slab at St. Ger- vais may not be older than those early in the sixth century is not decided by the act of the Council in question ; stone altars of much earlier date are recorded.* It is probably later than the crypt. * Notwithstanding the rigours of the church reformers of the sixteenth century, many stone altars have escaped destruction even in England. One of the most perfect of these is that at Arundel, Sussex. There is another at St. Mary’s, Ripon. The hatred of stone altars of this order which was entertained by most of the reformers of more energetic sort is well known to students ; they insisted, not without the authority of ancient practice, that these articles should be of wood ; hence we find, as at Arundel — where the ancient faith had powerful adherents — that the difficulty was met by covering the stone-slab with a wooden one. It is not an uncommon thing in our time to discover how far the rage C io Normandy for Eleven Hundred Tears . The Church of St. Gervais the Martyr may, in more ways than one, be taken to illustrate the progress of Normandy in arts. There are two ellip- tically-arched recesses in the walls of the crypt, which are said to have contained the bones of Sr. Mello and St. Avician, Archbishops of Rouen.* * The former was the Apostle of Normandy, at least of Rouen ; he was buried in the public cemetery of the city, circa a.d. 310, which was on the road to Lillebonne. Over his grave and that of St. Avician — both right valiant preachers who faced the early phases of the tenth persecution — their succes- sor, St. Vitricius, “ the brave victor and avenger of sins,” a.d. 384, erected the crypt in question. These relics were amongst the treasures of the city which were carried off when Osker and his companions, as before related, made their appearance on the Seine ; they were taken to Pontoise, and were the occasion of the foundation of an abbey there. Ordericus Vitalis refers to these tombs as ancient in his time, and he stood about half way between their presumed creation and our own age. St. Avician was the immediate successor of Mellon, or Mello, as he is some- times styled. At the east end of the Church of St. Gervais the apse is trigonal, and it is supported by the crypt above described. It is, however, of later date, and of the style known to French antiquaries as the first Romanesque. Some of the pillars which have been built into this wall have capitals of classic character, and serve to illustrate what has before been said of the use of ancient models by the early builders of Normandy, either with regard to the employment of the actual Roman works, or the more or less faithful imitation of the designs they displayed. In his “ Abecedaire D’Archeologie,” M. de Caumont figures several examples of this kind, especially one in the Baptistry of St. Jean at Poitiers, which is clearly of the Merovingian period. At St. Brice, near Chartres, are other works of like character. against these utensils, when of stone, has been carried, by finding that certain paving stones distinguishable for their great size, which have lain for centuries in the footway of churches and their approaches, are nothing less than the ancient altar-slabs, which, placed with their cross-inscribed faces downwards, have suffered the indignity of forming parts of the trottoir. Rarely do these slabs appear with their faces upwards, as in Lincoln Cathedral. They were finally removed by Queen Elizabeth, 1564. * This is an interesting example of the practice of extra-mural interment at that age, even with regard to persons so highly honoured as these early bishops. M. De Caumont, referring to the subject, quotes many examples of this custom in the Gallo-Roman towns, and especially instances the discovery by M. l’Abbe Le Comte, cure de St.-Exupere, nigh Bayeux, in the church of that place — which is about three-quarters of a mile from Bayeux — of a complete series of the stone coffins of the early bishops of Bayeux. The early bishops of Chartres were buried at St. Brice, those of Amiens at St. Acheul. Several of the acts of the Synod at Lillebonne, a.d. 1080, regulated the cemeteries. The regu- lations in question are exceedingly curious and forcibly illustrate society in the eleventh century. These cemeteries were allowed to be places of refuge, when in the borders, in time of war. Church of St. Pierre , South Side, Caen , Normandy for Eleven Hundred Tears . 1 1 An event intimately connected with the progress of our history, and with one of the themes we have soon to take in hand, happened at the priory once attached to the Church of St. Gervais. St. Vitricius, when he erected the oratory over the bones of the early bishops before named, ob- tained, it is said, through the action of St. Ambrose, some of the relics of St. Gervais and St. Protasius,* and to the first of these he dedicated the little building. This edifice in the course of time received the adjunct of a monastery of the same name and invocation. To this place we know that no less a person than Gulielmus Conquestator, or William the Conqueror, was removed to die. “ The noise of Rouen/’ says Ordericus Vitalis,f “ which is a populous place, becoming insupportable to the sufferer, the “ king gave orders that he should be removed out of the city to the Church “ (priory) of St. Gervais, standing on a hill to the west, which his grand- father, Duke Richard, had given to the Monastery of Fecamp. Then “Gilbert Bishop of Lisieux, and Guntherd Abbot of Jumieges, with some “ others well skilled in medicine, carefully watched over him, devoting “ themselves zealously to their master’s welfare, both spiritual and tem- poral/’ The account of the death of William given by the author just named is one of the most impressive and picturesque fragments of our his- tory, and should be known to every Englishman. No doubt can be entertained that it is, in all essential points, strictly and literally faithful. After an apology, or rather an explanation of the acts of his life, the whole of which is singularly consistent and characteristic, full of the verve of a man of might such as the Conqueror was, he begins from the time when his boyish companion, Osbertus de Crepon, brother of Duchess Gun- nor, was assassinated in the ducal bed-chamber by Roger de Montgomery, and the boy-duke (himself) on several occasions secretly removed (lest he should be murdered by his own relatives) by his uncle Walter, brother of Arlotta, his mother, who hid him in poor men’s houses. The king sums up the acts of himself, of his friends, and of his enemies, and seems, even in death, to have felt the sting of the reproach of bastardy with a strange and really unreasonable bitterness. He sketches the history of the conquest of Eng- land, his wars with the French, Bretons, Angevins, Scots, Manceaux, Flemings, Welsh, Norwegians, and Danes ; he relates how he had in Nor- mandy alone augmented nine abbeys of monks and one of nuns, and erected in the same duchy seventeen of the former and six of the latter. He makes * The place of the interment of these saints was, says the legend, revealed to St. Am- brose in a vision (a. d. 387). They were martyrs, brothers of gigantic size, who refused to sacrifice to the idols of Artesius, at Milan. F Mr. Forester’s translation. Bohn, 1854, vol. ii., p. 401. 12 Normandy for Eleven Hundred Tears . f division of his territories between his sons Robert and William — the last is mentioned as his most dutiful son ; he releases many prisoners confined for treason, reserving only the Bishop of Bayeux, Odo, his uterine brQther, who is stigmatized by one who knew him best a,s “a man not to be ** trusted, ambitious, given to fleshly desires, and of enormous cruelty.” He gave five thousand pounds of silver to Henjy, his youngeft son, with the assurance that he would succeed both his brothers.in their dignities and power and surpass them. “ At length,” says Ordericus, “on Tuesday, the fifth “ of the ides (9th) of September, the king, waking just when the sun was “ beginning to shed his rays on the earth, heard the sound of the great bell “ of the Cathedral of Rouen. On his inquiring what it meant, his “ attendants replied, f My Lord, the bell is tolling for primes in the Church “ * of St. Mary.’ Then the king raised his eyes to heaven, with deep “devotion, and, lifting up his hands, said, ‘I commend myself to Mary, the “ ‘ Holy Mother of God, my heavenly mistress, that by her blessed inter- “ ‘ cession I may be reconciled to her well-beloved Son, our Lord Jesus “ ‘ Christ.’ Having said this, he instantly expired.” Then began the disgraceful scramble of his attendants: the rich rode away to secure their possessions, and the poor ones, seeing the corpse unguarded, plundered the very garments, and stole all the mobilia which, according to the ancient custom, had been removed with the king when he went to St. Gervais. Arms, plate, robes, linen, furniture, were carried off. “ Observe then, I “ pray you,” says the chronicler, “ how little trust can be placed in hu- “ man fidelity. All these servants snatched up what they could of the “ royal effects, like so many kites, and took to their heels with their “ booty.” William, at an early period of his illness, made something like restitution to the monks of Mantes, whose churches he had caused to be burnt. How that happened may be briefly told when we come to speak of the city itself. The whole of Vitalis’s account of these events is not only graphic in the highest degree, but (being written probably within thirty years of their occurrence, and supported by other relations) almost unquestionable in the matter of authenticity. Ordericus Vitalis died in Having concluded this long digression, let us return to the history of the country, some of whose most famous leaders of a date later than that at which we parted from the main thread of the story have now been intro- duced to the reader. We left Rollo, or Rou, as the people of France styled him, just settled in his newly-acquired duchy. There was a little difficulty with regard to the ceremony of “swearing in” the new peer of France; the story given by some of the best instructed historians is that, after the act of investiture was completed, it was intimated to the Norman leader Normandy for Eleven Hundred Tears . 13 that he would be required to kiss the foot of the king, that being a climax to the ceremonies which had for their end the admission of a new member to the great estate of the kingdom. This slavish custom was doubtless intro- duced from Byzantium or the East, certainly it is not such as we should expect to find in use among the Franks, or their descendants, however degenerate. Rollo declined the act for himself, but commissioned a Norman soldier to perform it on his behalf. The deputy seized the foot of Charles the Simple with such vivacity of action that the king was overthrown, and the Franks scandalized by the laughter of their new allies. Charles, who had sense enough to belie his name, took the occurrence good-humouredly, as if it were the result of an accident. Trite as this incident has become, it is too characteristic of the state of affairs in France at this period to be overlooked. Having thus acquired Normandy, the gainers immediately set about dividing it amongst themselves; this was done in the simplest manner and by measurement with a cord, the ancient Scandinavian method of allotting land. Every Norman, according to his rank, received more or less of the conquered country, and the old inhabitants had to bear as well as they could the arrangement and its consequences. Not a few places in the province still retain the names of the lords to whose lot they fell at this division. Rollo, after the fashion of that day, made an admirable Duke, and many of the Frankish nation removed from other parts of France in order to settle under his protection. Although it was not long before the Normans were again at war with France, the experiment of naturalizing them succeeded well, better in fact than that similar one tried by Alfred the Great when he settled the Danes in the Five Burghs of Mercia and in East Anglia. Rollo fortified the towns more strongly than before; he provided for the defence of the coast against those who might be inclined to follow himself in invasion ; he rebuilt the churches, and, says Sismondi, by way of maintaining the martial spirit of his people, kept up the war on his frontiers. He subdued the Bretons, and forced their Count to submit to him. It does not appear, however, that Rollo’s province became known by the name of Normandy until more than a century later than his time. It was styled after Rouen, the capital. Rollo died in 931, and was succeeded by his son William Longue-epee, who died 942. Richard Sans-peur followed in the same line, and died in 996, In his time, so thoroughly had the Normans become acclimatized, so to say, in France, that they employed with but slight modification the very language of the French ; they obeyed laws of a similar character, and adopted the arts of the country, as we shall presently see, and in practice, if not in theory also, greatly improved them. The spirit of this people 14 Normandy for Eleven Hundred Tears. is shown most perfectly in their architecture: to the old materials they gave a new life, moulding them into new forms and to grander uses. Had they been in greater numbers, they would, in all probability, have ruined instead of restoring the land of France. Thirty thousand is the estimated number of Rollo’s men.* How rapidly the restoration of the great ecclesiastical buildings of the province went on is shown by the facts — i, that in 940 the great Abbey of Jumieges (which St. Philibert founded in the seventh century), having been destroyed by the Norman chief Hasting, was restored by William Longsword ; 2, that in 965, the Abbey of Mont St. Michel (in Peril- of-the-Sea) was restored by Richard the Fearless, who also founded at Fecamp a college for regular canons in the place of an older establishment founded in 658 ; and that Fontenelle (St. Wandrille) was restored in 950. About the year 1000, the church of St. Ouen at Rouen was restored. These are great houses, monasteries of the first rank, some of them famous throughout Christendom. More of considerable note might be named. A host of smaller religious houses sprang up. The strange story told by Vitalis of the discovery of the ruins of the old Abbey of St. Evroult, by means of a bull which had been lost in a wood that had grown up round the deserted place, is a very curious illustration of the state of the country before the Norman settlement. The story of the lost relics and of the overgrown abbey is effective and picturesque in the highest degree. We may be confident that if Mrs. Radcliffe had got hold of it she would have done her best, or worst, with the subject. These pious foundations were not the works of a time of peace ; on the contrary, we find not Normandy alone but all France ravaged by war. William Longsword defeated Ralf d’Evreux (ancestor of our English family of that name) under the walls of Rouen, in 933. The conqueror was himself assassinated in 942. In the course of the next year Louis d’ Outremer seized Rouen and took Duke Richard the Fearless prisoner; the same Louis, in conjunction with Hugh Capet (the Great), invaded Normandy. Two years later Duke Richard was free, and, by aid of Harold the Dane, in turn defeated Louis. Within the first thirty years of the eleventh century the following monasteries were founded or restored, St. Wandrille, Bernay, Holy Trinity at Rouen, Cerisi, Bee, Couches, St. Peter, and St. Leger des Preaux. All these were architectural works of importance, and, being produced under circumstances of occasional trouble and distress, their numbers show the intense vitality of the people who founded them, who fought, built and prayed with extraordinary Sismondi. JVest Front of Notre Dame , Mantes , Normandy for Eleven Hundred Tears . i 5 vigour. It will not be forgotten that between 1016 and 1038 the Nor- mans were establishing themselves in Italy. Within less than a century after the death of Rollo we have a Norman Abbot (Osbern) of Evroult, described as “eloquent in speech, with a lively genius for the arts, such as sculpture, painting, and architecture, copying manuscripts and many things of that sort.” This abbot had a monk who was a skilful musician and grammarian. It is not to be supposed that the energies of this race found vent only in what we may style virtuous or intellectual development. Against these long-standing enemies of France proverbs record all sorts of accusations of treachery and the crafty use of force. William the Conqueror, an unimpeachable witness, testified on his deathbed against them as litigious, unruly and fickle. If Ordericus Vitalis’s accounts (bk. viii. c. 4) of the vices of his own time are to be trusted, there wanted no iniquity to be practised among them. The pious of that day did not hesitate to attribute to a divine vengeance unnaturally provoked the destruction of the “ Blanche Nef” and the children of Henry I.* Henry of Huntingdon is explicit on this point. Such were the children and subjects of Rollo. Rollo, as was said, died in 931, and was succeeded by William Longue- epee, his son by Poppa, daughter of Berenger, Count of Bayeux, a noble whom he had slain, whose castle he had stormed, and whose child he had married, as if one transaction followed the other as a matter of course. The Cotentin was added to the domains of Normandy during the reign of this prince. William’s acts were principally the recalling of Louis d' Outr enter from the court of Athelstan of England, where, with his mother, Ogrvina, a sister of Athelstan, he had taken refuge. His second important action was to rebel against this very king and reduce him to dire straits. This was done in union with Hugh, Count of Paris, styled Le Blanc , who was the father of Hugh Capet, one of whose daughters Richard the Fearless, son of William Longsword, married. The life of Louis d' Outremer, who was by no means spiritless, gives us a valuable light on that of Charles the Simple ; it is evident that the great lords of France had, in effect, established themselves as independent princes, such * However this may be, the words of Ordericus with regard to the event itself are so affecting and so Homeric in their description of grief, that they should be better known than is the case. “ The sorrowful king mourned for his sons, the flower of his nobility, and his prin- “ cipal barons, and especially he deplored the loss of Ralph the Red, and Gilbert D’Exmes, u frequently recounting , •with tears in bis eyes , their deeds of prowess.” It will be remem- bered that Henry was still in the prime of manhood at this time, being little more than fifty years of age, and by no means a person likely to be moved to tears or to deplore, on slight occasion and with garrulous lamentations, the loss of friends. ] 6 Normandy for Eleven Hundred Tears . as none but the strong hand of a Capet could control. After leading a life marked by extremes of action, William Longsword was murdered (January 15th, 942) at a conference held on an island in the Somme — an incident more than once repeated in French history — by Arnold, Count of Flanders, and at the instigation, it is said, of the French king, who hoped by that means to recover the province of Normandy. The conduct of Louis cTOutremer gave colour to the accusation of complicity in this crime. He entered Normandy with an army and carried off, says Vitalis, “The Young Duke Richard to Laon (the strong “ place of his family, famous in the history of Charles the Simple). “ He promised the Normans on oath that he would bring him up as his “ own son, and have him fitly educated in his royal court for governing “ the state. But things turned out otherwise ; for King Louis, at the insti- “ gation of the traitor Arnold, resolved to put the boy to death, or at least “ to deprive him of the power of bearing arms by amputating some of his “ limbs. Osmund, the youth’s tutor, learning this from Ives de Creil, per- “ suaded Richard to feign sickness in order that his guards might be less “ vigilant. One day, when the king was at supper, and every one was “ engaged in his own concerns or those of others, Osmund brought a truss “ of green forage, and, ascending the castle, rolled it round the young duke. “ Then, descending the tower, he made all haste to his quarters with the “ truss of grass, and spreading it before his horse, concealed the lad.” By night Osmund fled with the child to Bernard, Count of Senlis, a descendant of Charlemagne, and cousin of the young duke’s mother. This imprisonment lasted three years ; meantime, Harold, king of Denmark, had been called in to aid the Normans, and, at the end of a long dispute, he seized Louis himself, shut him up in the tower of Rouen, and slew many of his lords. Among the latter was Herluin the Chancellor, Count of Montreuil, whose death Ordericus states, it may be with some gusto. It was this peer, to whom, with others, the monks of Ouche (St. Evroult, the chronicler’s own convent,) had, in the simplicity of their hearts, shown all their treasures and relics as they lay in their secret places. The visitors departed much impressed and gratified, and did not forget to add to those possessions gifts of their own ; “ but they returned shortly afterwards, like “ the Chaldeans to Jerusalem, and cruelly carried off the holy vessels of “ the church, and all its valuable treasures.” Conceive the dismay of the good folks at Evroult, in the latter end of the year 944, when they found themselves thus plundered. Louis was soon set at liberty, on giving as hostages his son Lothaire and the Bishops of Soissons and Beauvais.* * Chronicles of St. Evroult. Birth Chamber of IVilliam the Conqueror , in the Chateau de Fa/aise. Normandy for Eleven Hundred Tears . 17 Richard Sans-peur reigned until 996. He was engaged in a naval war with England, his daughter Emma married Ethelred the Unready, and was mother of Edward the Confessor. This lady was styled the “ Gem of “ Normandy she married King Canute for a second husband, plotted against her own son, and died in 1052. There is a curious resemblance between the history of Richard the Fearless and that of his descendant William the Bastard and Conqueror. His mother was Sprote, concubine of William Longsword ; he was carried off in youth as William was ; his marriage with the Duchess Gonnor,* after whom Richard was sometimes styled Gonnorides, is full of romance ; the manner by which William got Matilda of Flanders to wife ; how he rolled that haughty damsel in the mud in the streets of her own father’s city as she was coming home from mass, are matters of history which need not here be repeated. Sprote, mother of Richard, married a miller of Vandreuil, and bore him that dis- tinguished warrior Ralph, Count of Bayeux, whose sons were John, Arch- bishop of Rouen, and Hugh Bishop of Bayeux. f Richard Gonnorides, styled le Bon y or the Second, became Duke on the death of his father. Another Archbishop of Rouen descended from this Richard, by his second wife Papia ; “ he was illustrious,” says Ordericus, “ only for his birth, not for his actions.” Richard le Bon , a great founder of monasteries, died 1026 or 1028. He was succeeded by his son Richard III. who reigned about two and a half years, and was said to have been poisoned by his brother Robert — commonly surnamed the Devil. Robert followed Richard in the Dukedom, and reigned nearly eight years. At the end of this period he was seized with a desire to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, and, despite the remonstrances of his barons, departed on that errand. When these lords of Normandy demanded what was to become of the government during his absence, he replied that he had a little bastard son “ who will prove to be a gallant man, if it please God ; and I am “ certain that he is my son, receive him then as your lord, for I make him “ my heir, and give him from this time forth the whole Duchy of Nor- “ mandy.” The barons assented to this, because it suited them to do so, and Robert departed. He died, it is believed, of poison, J at Nice, in Bithynia, in 1035. His ghost is said to haunt the great castle of Mou- * W. of Jumieges, viii. c. 3. •J- Another son of Richard the Fearless and the Duchess Gonnor was Robert, Arch- bishop of Rouen (990 — 1037) and Count of Evreux. In this known capacity this prelate began to rebuild the cathedral of Rouen from its foundation, and was a great benefactor to the poor. In the latter he had for his wife, or concubine, Harleve, and three sons, who succeeded to his secular dignities. J William of Malmesbury, B. ii. c. 10, says this was administered by his servant Rulph, surnamed Mowen, in hopes of succeeding to the duchy. D 1 8 Normandy for Eleven Hundred Years. lineaux, his favourite residence ; what became of his bones is not known, but it is stated by William of Malmesbury that one of the last acts of his son William was to send a trustworthy person to Nice to bring them home, but that person — learning the death of the Conqueror while he was passing through Apulia on his return home with his charge, buried the remains of Robert where he was at the time, a place unknown.* When the Norman barons learnt the death of Robert, they broke into open revolt, and William’s heritage was torn to pieces by civil wars. By the aid of Henry I. King of France, he defeated the rebels at Val de Dunes, (1047). In 1053, was another war, which was carried on in the following year, when William defeated the French at Mortemer with great slaughter. Twelve years after this the Duke was strong enough to invade England. From that time his biography is well known to us. We shall have to speak of him again, when referring to Falaise, where he was born, to Bayeux, where the most remarkable record of his great adventure is pre- served, to Mantes, where he met his death so strangely ; we have already recounted the history of his death-bed, his burial-place is at Caen. With the death of Robert the Devil our account of Normandy for eleven hundred years closes, stretching, as it does, from b.c. 56 to a.d. 1053. Eouen. kLLO-ROMAN Rotomagus, the capital of its district of Neustria, whose Archbishops were for ages styled Primates of Neustria, and indeed held that title until the Revolution of 1793, f — joining with it the Primacy of Canada, while Canada was French, — has been, even externally, much changed by the lapse of centuries. In respect, however, to its being a lively and busy place, finely placed among pleasant hills, the descriptions of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries still hold good. At present the approach to Rouen is made pleasant by the passage of the visitors through a hilly country covered with verdure, by the aspect of the city itself, enlivened, as it is by the Seine, that is studded with merchandize-laden craft. Above the roofs of the houses rise the towers and spires of the cathedral and the churches of St. Ouen, St. Maclon and others ; and also, it must be admitted, many * Notes to Mr. Forester’s “ Ordericus Vitalis.’* f Their subordinate bishops were those of Bayeux, Avranches, Evreux, Seez, Lisieux and Coutances. Rouen C atbedral , Interior. — Normandy for Eleven Hundred Tears . 19 a tall chimney-stalk. The ugliest thing in the city is the iron spire of the cathedral. A nearer approach renders the city’s aspect less fascinating; it has been vastly changed within the last half century by being faced, so to say, with new quays and penetrated by new streets ; ancient buildings have been removed and new ones erected. If the student quits the line of the new thoroughfares he will, notwithstanding these changes, find remains of the old city in the denser parts of the town ; these comprise tall houses with many projecting stories and high gables, narrow rough ways, old churches entire and in fragments, fountains, quaint carvings and other marks of ancient prosperity. The explorer will add to these characteristics some of more modern date, such as the squalor of a thronging population engaged in ceaseless labour, tall chimneys to the houses and manufactories, shafts which smoke after the pattern of those in our own manufacturing cities, and which alone justify the application of the title “ Manchester of France” to Rouen. Looking closely into the heart of the city, the greatness in the change it has of late undergone becomes apparent. Mr. Ruskin, in eloquent words, lamented the destruction of the last of the ancient houses on the quays and the removal of the noble Gothic portal of the Church of St. Nicholas in order to admit of the enlargement of the court-yard of an hotel ; many of the old churches are used as smithies or warehouses. Worse evils than these have befallen the ancient buildings of the city. Where they are still employed in their proper functions the hand of the restorer has been upon them, and, as the photographs before us show, not even the exquisite north portal of the Cathedral, nor the exteriors of the churches of St. Ouen and St. Maclon have escaped the spoiler. These buildings share the fate of the great Church at Bayeux, and have been, with some exceptional parts, made to look as good as new. Our modern carvers have exercised their apprentice hands upon the works of their ancient brethren, so that what time and the heedlessness of generations spared has been completely “ recut” — we know no word more expressive of destruction than this — and much that was venerable for its age and glorious for its history has been deprived of honour in order to make it fresh and clean. The out- come of all this may be a noble school of architects and a race of perfect carvers, let us hope the best from them. Meantime, what they have not yet touched deserves consideration. 20 Normandy for Eleven Hundred Tears . Cl )t Catfjetiral HE first Cathedral of Rouen was built, says Pommeraye, in his History of that Church, in the year 270, and by St. Nicasius, a good man sent by Pope Clement to preach the Gospel to the Velocasses. It does not appear, however, that this saint ever got to Rouen, at least with his head upon his shoulders, for the legend goes that he proceeded on his journey but so far as Roche-Guion, where he was captured by a certain pagan governor of the land, named Fescen- ninus, and, remaining constant in the faith, was beheaded with others his companions. “ Their bodies were left to be devoured by birds of prey, “ dogs and wild beasts, but by command of Almighty God angels pre- “ served them untouched ; the night following the holy martyrs miracu- “ lously arose by God’s help, and, having replaced their heads, crossed the “ Epte by a ford unknown to man, and reposed themselves in a pleasant ** islet in that river.” Why they stopped there is not explained. The party wrought miracles both before and after death, destroying dragons, of which Normandy was prolific of old, curing the sick and performing other good works. Probably to St. Mellon, who is, by the best authorities, styled the first Archbishop of Rouen, the building of a church on the site of the cathedral is to be attributed. He was an Englishman, who, early in the fourth century, being appointed to bear the tribute of our island to the Emperor, and finding favour with the Bishop of Rome, was, by the aid of an angel, not only converted to Christianity, but made a bishop, nay, archbishop, and dispatched into Neustria. He was eminently fortunate in converting the pagans of his see, one of the principal citizens of Rouen gave up his own house for a church, on the site of which part of the cathedral is said to stand. From Mellon to the present day an uninterrupted line of arch- bishops is traced. Among these were St. Avician, of whose burial-place and that of St. Mellon himself we have already spoken, St. Godard (545)* St. Pretextat (550), St. Romaine (638), St. Ouen (640), Remigius, son of Charles Martel (75 5), and others, to the number of nearly a hundred, some of whom have been before named. Fredegonda caused St. Pretextat to be murdered before the altar ; he was the priest who wedded her rival Brunnehaut to Merovig ; St. Ouen was Chancellor to Dagobert, St. Ro- maine destroyed the great dragon Gargonille, the horror of Rouen, and, in acknowledgment of that benefit to the city, obtained the privilege, as it is styled, for the chapter of his cathedral. Portraits of late date of St. Romaine appear in the stained glass of St. Godard, where the criminal for whose benefit the privilege was exercised was taken ; his shrine, not Rouen Cathedral , North Porch, 21 Normandy for Eleven Hundred Tears. the original one, remains, and some of the nave piers of the cathedral are supposed to bear a resemblance to the dragon. The legend of this privilege contains a noble moral, and may well be recounted here. By this it appears that the neighbourhood of Rouen had been for years infested by a horrible dragon, who ate the young women and children, and killed of men more than he could eat; his waste of the corn- fields was like that of a great army, for he made nothing of flapping his vast wings, the “ wind” of which would lay a crop level with the earth as if a storm had passed over it ; he leaned against trees, and they broke off short at the roots ; he rubbed himself against a church, and spire and tower came tumbling down ; he lay across the Seine, and so dammed the river that the city was flooded ; he cast offensive things over the walls ; he worried the workmen of St. Romaine so grievously that they dared not carve a monster on the tower then building — this is why that part of the cathedral has no carvings on it; — he chased the acolytes of the saint along the roads, and left nothing but the Leper’s Hospital on the Mont Malade untouched. At length St. Romaine, his own acolytes being meddled with, saw that it was time to interpose ; he was not inclined to go alone to the monster’s den, probably he desired to show how easily a saint deals with dragons ; no one would go with him on this quest, all stood out, some on one pretence, some on another ; at last a condemned criminal was induced to go on promise of his life if the dragon spared it ; there was a chance at least — rascal as the fellow was, he evidently had more faith in the Archbishop than any of his fellow-citizens possessed. The pair sallied out together, St. Romaine, conscious of the importance of the event, and the criminal, inspirited by the fresh air and hope ; the affair was soon over ; the sainted Arch- bishop made the sign of the cross over the monster, tied his stole round its neck, and Jed it into the city ; here the legend leaves him, a guest difficult to dispose of. In gratitude for the attention of his companion, the prelate stipulated that every future year, on the fete of the Ascension, the Chapter of his cathedral should have the privilege of redeeming a criminal, not a traitor, from death.* The way in which the selection was made was as follows: — The Chapter’s agents heard the confessions of all the condemned culprits, wrote them down and laid them before their employers, who determined as to the person to be saved, and named him to the Parlement , which assembled for the purpose ; the man chosen was produced to the assembly with many cere- * The Abbots of Bartle were authorized to save criminals from death it they should meet them in any part of England ; they exercised the power of life and death within their own demesnes, and their representatives are, to this day, independent, in some respects, of the bishop. 2 2 Normandy for Eleven Hundred Tears . monies, conducted to the Old Tower — part of the palace of the Norman Dukes, there admonished by the Archbishop, and thence led to the cathedral, bearing a garland on his head and the shrine of St. Romaine in his hand, until he reached the high altar, where he deposited the latter ; a mass was then performed, and, after serious exhortation, the redeemed man was led to the boundary of the city and released, not without provision for his tem- porary wants. Thus far let us carry the history, true or false, of the origin of the cathedral ; its present condition and remaining history will best appear while we describe its existing state. The Cathedral as it is* HE rich effect of the west front of Rouen Cathedral arises rather from the diversity than the harmony of its parts ; these differ exceedingly in character, origin, and state of completion. Some portions are left in the block, the details not carved ; in others the process of undercutting, as in the florid mouldings over the central door, has been carried to its highest degree of finish. In respect to character, we have some parts, as in the round arches over the side doors, to which it would be hard to deny a Romanesque origin ; and others, such as the upper part of the centre, which are known to have been completed in 1538. In this front then all that diversity of styles which has rendered this building * The following measurements, borrowed from Dawson Turner, will — if compared with those which follow them and relate to Westminster Abbey, an edifice best known to Englishmen — give to most readers a fairly correct idea of the size of Rouen Cathedral : — Rouen. Feet Westminster. Feet Length of the interior . . 408 Length of the interior .... 515 Width of the interior . . 83 Width of the interior (nave) 77 Length of the nave . . . 210 Length of the nave 223 Width of the nave . . . 27 Width of the nave 42 Width of the aisles . . IS Width of the aisles (each) . . • I 7 i Length of the choir . . . no Length of the transept .... 204 Width of the choir . . . 8 5 i Width of the transept .... 74 Width of the transept . . *5 i Length of Henry VII. Chapel, with Length of the transept 164 the vestibule 129 Length of the Lady Chapel . 88 Width of the chapel, with aisles . 75 Width of the Lady Chapel . 28 Height of the (old) spire 380 Height of the west towers . 238 Height of the nave . . . 84 Height of the aisles . . . 42 Height of interior, central tower 152 The whole length of the cathedral is visible from the west doors ; 129 feet of that of the abbey is not visible from the corresponding point in the English work. The piers of the crossing at Rouen are, says the same authority, 38 ft. in circumference j there are 44 piers in the nave and choir, those of the former are clustered, of the latter circular; there are 135 windows, 25 chapels, most of the latter have been architecturally ruined by the intrusion of rococco work. Rouen Catbedrnl t IVest Front. Normandy for Eleven Hundred Years . 23 famous is represented, except so far as regards the extremes of age and character, of which the earliest exists in the lower parts (east side) of the north tower, or that of St. Romaine, which is seen on the right of the photograph, and, with regard to the most recent, the rococco works of the interior. The grave and comparatively severe forms of the north tower serve to set off the splendid, if not always pure, exuberance of the neighbouring part of the fa9ade, enriched, as these latter are, by a traceried pediment of that stone-lace work of which so many of the French cathedrals exhibit specimens. To these elements of decoration are to be added the niched archivolt in the centre, with its multitudinous statues and canopies, that stand three rows deep, and are separated by splendidly-wrought bands of mouldings, the sculptured tympans, the many buttresses — each statued and niched, the decorated jambs of the doors, the slender turrets, pierced work prodigally displayed everywhere, the gorgeous rose window with its deeply-set opening, the galleries, and last, but perhaps most in contrast to its graver neighbours, the tall Tour de Beurre with its open stages, huge tower lights, projecting upper divisions, and the octagon on its summit. The flying buttresses of this octagon reach to the angle pin- nacles of the tower itself. To these effective features add, by way of climax to the strange composition, the topmost stage of St. Romaine’s Tower, a rich fragment coeval with this Tour de Beurre f and its aspiring, double-vaned pyramidal roof. Thus we have an example of splendid confusion and prodigality of labour, showing elements combined with singular skill. Thus much will be admitted by all who consider the circumstances under which those elements were brought together: they were the work of periods removed from each other, and express diverse convic- tions in art. These features make a fa9ade in respect to which the building, although it cannot compare in many important points with some of the other great churches of France, is one of the most picturesque and beautiful in that country. It cannot be ranked with Chartres for grandeur, nor docs it approach Beauvais in gigantic height; the fa9ade of Rouen is but 180 feet wide, while that of Bourges is 210, and no less distinguished for unity of composition than for vastness of expanse. The almost perfect design of the front of the Cathedral of Amiens has no rival in that of the capital of Normandy, nor does the metropolitan cathedral compete with that of Soissons in elegance of proportion — a quality which alone renders the last- named building one of the most glorious works in existence. Lacking the mighty simplicity of Rheims, the majestic gravity of the Cathedral of Paris, the classic grace and grandeur of the west front of Peterborough 24 Normandy for Eleven Hundred Tears . which last is the most truly architectural work of this kind our country possesses, — Rouen Cathedral has excellencies of its own which render it worthy to be mentioned with great honour. Although the enormous roof of the nave of Amiens is but twenty-two feet lower than the Tour de Beurre at Rouen, that very vastness throws all other parts out of propor- tion, and lamentably reduces the effect of the whole. It is contended, for the honour of Rouen, and upon unchallengeable authority, that this facade is wholly the work of native architects. The folly which attributes all good work to Italians is now exploded, examples after examples prove that each nation possessed its own able men. To complete our survey of the west front of Rouen Cathedral, it will be needful to enter into descriptions of its detail. The central portal, which was erected by Cardinal George D’Amboise, projected boldly before the rest. The south tower was begun in 1485 and finished in 150 7. The central portal was begun in 1509. The photograph of this portion of the cathedral will enable the reader to identify the leading features of this work, and to follow our descriptions. The tympan of the middle door, which was wrought by Pierre Desaubault, is part of D’Amboise’s building, and very florid in its character. The sculptures it bears repre- sent a “ Jesse,*’ or genealogy of Christ ; Jesse sleeps at the foot of the composition, from his side issues the stem of a tree, whose branches sustain statues of Jesse’s descendants, at the summit stands the Virgin Mary with the Divine Infant in her arms. The archivolt inclosing this carving has three lines of statues standing under canopies of pierced work ; these figures represent the chief personages in the history of the Christian faith, and are intended to suggest to the worshipper, on his entrance to the church, the sufferings and sacrifices which have been made for him ere that church was prepared and made stable. Lines of stone-lace work and elaborate carv- ings of the most minute kind, fill the spaces between these rows of figures ; the outer line of the archivolt formerly had an edging of delicate cropings, which is now much injured. At the apex of the archivolt was the figure of an angel, the summoning or announcing angel. The sides of the portal bear statues on a larger scale than that of those above, with canopies not less exuberant in style. Equally rich are the advanced buttresses, both of the central opening and of the sides. It will be needless to enlarge upon the super-delicacy and elaboration of the minute details of this west front. The facade is a mass of ornament. The tympans of the north and south doors deserve, however, special attention. They are of much earlier date than the central one. That over the north door represents the history of the decapitation of John the Baptist ; Herod and Herodias are seated at table with two companions, and St. Ouen , from the South East , Rouen , Normandy for Eleven Hundred Tears . 2 5 are distinguishable by their coronets, Herodias seems to whisper to Herod respecting the performance of her daughter. The table is raised upon a dai's, the feastersare served upon the knee by their attendants, one of whom offers a cup. At the foot of the table, poised upon her hands, with her knees in the air, dances Salome, her performance is not one of those slow-timed and voluptuous displays of the oriental sort, for which she was probably famous, but rather such a one as we find represented in ancient occidental drawings ; she is literally “ tumbling,” as the Anglo- Saxon version of the event has it. For some very curious remarks on this subject, see Strutt’s “Sports and Pastimes,” (Book iii. c. 5), where the author quotes several illuminations which display a similar comprehension of the text to the above, and engraves figures almost identical with this one of Salome. This notion of the matter prevailed in the west during several centuries, the illuminations referred to, and other examples known to us, constantly treat the subject in this way. A little removed from the dancing Salome we have Herodias receiving the head of John the Baptist on a charger, and from the hands of her daughter ; and, further on still, the scene of his decapitation. The saint in this last design leans out of the window of a tower, half his body is thrust forward ; before him stands a gigantic executioner, apparently a negro, for his hair is crisped and curled. It may be that this characteristic is intended to suggest the vast strength of the fellow, a practice which obtained among the Romans and the Greeks. The representation of the execution is peculiarly interesting, inasmuch as it probably shows the mode of such proceedings in the thirteenth century. We have before us a castle, with heavily ironed windows, in the centre is a large opening with a wooden door on hinges, out of this leans the victim. The floral carvings in the archivolt of this portal and in that of the south side of the west front, are in far nobler and purer taste than those of the central door. They are richly undercut, and comprise two rows of leaves, of fine conventionalized forms, and are separated by masses of pierced work. The scroll work on the jambs of the doors is very beauti- ful and bold in design. The subjects represented in the tympan of the south door are, apparently, the “ Scourging and mocking of Christ ” (this work is much injured), and in the compartment above this, Christ seated in Glory, inclosed by the vesica piscis or mandorla, and adored by angels and men. The statues which are placed in three ranges on the facade itself, represent bishops, abbots, the twelve apostles, and male and female saints. Those upon the Tour de Beurre comprise Moses, Adam, Eve, and others. Some of the tympanal carvings of periods approaching to that of the side-doors above described, display quaint fancies. At Amiens is a 26 Normandy f or Eleven Hundred Tears. well-known example, in which the condemned are being placed in a large cauldron by devils of all sorts of horrible and grotesque forms. This cauldron stands upon a tripod, beneath it is a fire, which a bellows-armed devil urges with all his might, while a second fiend adds fuel to it with a pair of tongs, and touches with a red-hot iron the out-thrust tongue of a miserable wretch who leans over the edge of the pot. The carvings just described as at Rouen, and the tower of St. Romaine itself, are probably part of the work which was consecrated by Archbishop Maurice in the early part of the thirteenth century. Some portions of the walls, the round arches over the side-doors and a part of the base of the tower just named, belonged, in all probability, to the old cathedral which was consecrated by Archbishop Maurilius, in 1063, having been begun by Archbishop Robert, son of Duke Richard the First, some years before. The first of these edifices was burnt in 1200; it appears that the foundations of the old work were, for the most part, again used in erecting the new one. Part of the choir and the north transept belong to the second cathedral ; all these remains are fine examples of the style known as Early French. We may add here, that the pinnacles of the four turrets appear to have been swept away by a great storm, June 26, 1683. The south transept front is a superb specimen of French Decorated work, and one of the most beautiful compositions of its kind in existence ; it has greater dignity than its size would promise. It is flanked by a tower at each side ; these towers are square in plan, and nearly one-third of their entire height is filled by a single opening or light of noble and beautiful proportions; these lights are divided respectively by a single circular banded shaft, the head of which on dividing forms a double light with a pointed head. These openings appear on each face of the towers, and, being wholly open, have a superb effect. The heads of the openings are richly moulded, the summit of each tower is square and flat, but relieved by a fine cornice. Two turrets are placed against the inner faces of the towers ; these are octangular and surmounted by lofty pinnacles, which are richly croketted and bear images of saints at their apexes. The turrets are moulded at their angles ; these mouldings have canopy-work at the junctions of the spires with the turrets, and on the summits of the canopies are images. The central space between the towers of this front far surpasses the corresponding portion of the west front in true beauty and art ; it is marvellously rich in decoration, but much less florid in style than its western neighbour. Two boldly advanced masses fill the sides of this space with lines of carvings which reach nearly as high as the before-mentioned towers ; under each pinnacle is a canopy inclosing an image, the lower portions are divided to receive two such statues. Three Convent of the Benedictines , Rouen, mm — Normandy for Eleven Hundred Tears . 27 rows of mouldings with canopied niches, as before, form the archivolt, three large statues on each side fill the jambs, the tympan has three lines of sculptures, their subjects are taken from the History of Joseph. A hanging figure of the chief butler of Pharaoh, comprised in this part of the work, has probably given rise to the legend which avers that this entrance was paid for by the confiscated goods of a corn merchant who was hanged for using false measures. Above the archivolt is, as before, a pediment of pierced work, differing in its details from those of the west and north portals. Between the so-called buttresses of the central portion of this front, at the upper stage, rises a richly sculptured and croketted pediment with more canopies and a finial. This pediment incloses spandrils that are splendidly carved, and between them is the deeply-recessed rose window, and, in front of the last, a gallery passes behind the pediment which rises over the door. Such galleries exist in many edifices of this character, and were used by spectators of processions, by singers who welcomed processions to the church, &c. This general description will answer for both transept fronts,* the great hollow towers were magnificently effective, and either of these facades, except in mere bulk, far surpasses that of the west end. That on the south is styled the Portail de la Calende ; its companion, the Portail des Librairies, The latter title is derived, it is said, from the court leading to it being frequented by the calligraphists and other literary folks of the city. If the reader turns to our photograph of the north portal he will recognize some of the elements of the above description. On the * These fronts differ in detail, as if the artists chose to show that they possessed invention enough to enrich at least two such works. The modern classic system is to make parts of a building resemble each other as much as possible, and to save invention by every means. In general, the portals at Rouen satisfy the laws of composition by their broad resemblance, which is all that is required for symmetry; mere repetition of parts dis- plays poverty of invention. In nature, opposite and symmetrical parts of a structure differ in their details. It is impossible to describe the minute carvings on either of these splendid fronts ; they comprise oak-leaves exquisitely wrought and woven round the mouldings, corbels of angels’ heads, delicate geometrical tracery — into which are inserted groups of figures, flowers, pedestals with bas-reliefs of admirable workmanship and full of humour and thought. The leading differences between these portals are, — I, in the mouldings placed between the lines of statuary of the archivolts; 2, in the parapets, with regard to their decorations ; 3, by the use of elegant tracery, instead of statues, for the tympan of the window canopy of the north front ; 4, in the buttresses, which on the north side are plainer than those in the other ; 5, in the pierced work of the door pediments and the traceries of the rose windows. The subject of the tympan carvings on the north side is the Last Judgment ; in the lowest line the dead rise from the grave at the sound of the trumpet, the separation of the evil from the good appears in the line above this, the top- most line has contained, no doubt, the Saviour on the throne, with St. John and the Virgin at his side. The last work, as the photograph shows, has been destroyed. This subject was probably appropriated to the north side of the building, because the Angel of Judgment was expected to come from the north. The same subject appears over the great door of Amiens. 28 Normandy for Eleven Hundred Years. side of this entrance, the cathedral is very closely approached by buildings ; that on the left of the photograph is part of the old library of the i cathedral; it was erected in 1420, and is a room about 100 feet in length and 25 feet wide. The entrance is in the north transept. The / staircase leading to the library was built by Cardinal d’Estuteville, 146c and is splendidly wrought in the flamboyant taste of that day in Fran * Our view of the Convent of the Benedictines shows a considerable pon of the cathedral, and was taken on the west side of the north transe 'J The lowest stage of the western tower of this transept shows itt above the old house, the roof of the transept is visible also; on » left of the photograph is the central tower ; at the side beneath this 1. appear the windows and parapet of the north aisle. A sort of pedimem rises from each window and pierces the parapet, having its apex above it. Such an arrangement appears at Metz, Amiens, Cologne and elsewhere in buildings of this age.* We may now turn to the interior of this cathedral. From the extent of view obtainable at that point one of the most striking aspects of the building is to be studied from the western doorway. The eye passes without interruption to the extreme end of the Lady Chapel, a distance of four hundred and eight feet. In lightness and elegance the interior of Rouen Cathedral does not equal those of many others in France and England. It has, however, several remarkable points. Rouen possesses no triforium passages, the arcade immediately above the nave piers opens into the aisles. The same characteristic occurs in the Church of Eu, Normandy, in the twelfth century part of Rochester Cathedral, and at Waltham Abbey. In the last, the floor of the gallery has been cut away, so that the resemblance is but accidental. Above the open triforium arcade are two lines of arches, one above the other ; over these appears the clerstory, so that we have five horizontal lines of arches in this interior. The screen is the most objectionable part of the work, it is a barbarous semi-classic structure of the seventeenth century, com- prising figures of Faith and Charity, urns and other absurdities of the period in which it was erected. It- allows us to see the whole extent of the building, an extent of view not always to be had in England. The high altar being very low, that of the Lady Chapel is visible from the west end. The vaulting is good of its kind ; it has not the central rib so often found in Gothic roofs, the vaulting-shafts descend from their caps at the spring of the roof to the floor, as is common in France, and rest on the bases of the piers ; they have a sort of band, which De Caumont, Abecedaire d'Archeologie. La Halle , Rouen. Normandy for Eleven Hundred Tears . 29 is something like a capital, at the level of the capitals of the great piers, the effect of this break in their length is excellent. The east window con- tains some stained glass, circa 1480. The three rose windows are superb, although different in character. The lantern of the central tower is magnificently elegant. The pillars of the coping are about forty feet in circumference, and clustered. The choir was once separated from its aisles by a brass grille richly wrought with arabesques. This was given by the first Cardinal d’Amboise, and broken up at the Revolution. The Lady Chapel was begun early in the fourteenth century, but not com- pleted as it at present stands until 1538. Some intermediate injuries pro- bably suggested a partial reconstruction of this section of the edifice. The first Lady Chapel was taken down in 1302 ; it was much smaller than the present one, which remained unfinished until Cardinal d’Amboise took it in hand and, at the same time, restored the roof of the choir. Few cathedrals contain monuments the characters of which are more diverse than those of Rouen ; from the grave-mark of Rollo to that of his latest fellow citizen, here are ample stores of memorials. The rage of the Calvinists, which spent itself with terrible force upon this cathedral, destroyed the greater part of the more ancient tombs, and the spots where some of the most illustrious dead lie buried are marked by lozenges set in the pavement. What ravages were committed on thi s occasion may be told in the words of Pommeraye ; he says, that in the middle (third quarter) of the sixteenth century the Calvinists broke into the place and seriously damaged it, an outrage which God permitted for the chastisement of bad Catholics, and as a punishment for their great vices and ignorance. Also, we may add, in consequence of the burning, in 1559, of Jean Cotier, a Reformed preacher of great note. Plate was smashed, statues thrown down, tapestries rent and burnt, carvings dashed to pieces, relics scattered and destroyed, tombs broken open, and the ruin of one of the towers attempted with gunpowder. Because he was buried there, it has been assumed that some parts of the cathedral of Rouen are as ancient as the time of Rollo (917); as, however, it is admitted that the grave now marked as his is not the original one, the assumption goes for little. None doubt that the existing edifice occupies the site of the most ancient one. The bones of Rollo and of William with the Long Sword (944) were placed near the high altar, but in the eleventh century they were removed, by Maurilius, to the side chapels. The effigies now in the cathedral are of late thirteenth-century style or in that of the early part of the fourteenth century ; they lie upon stone coffins (said to contain the ducal bones and to have been the original sarcophagi,) placed under arches in the wall of the church. That of Rollo represents 30 Normandy for Eleven Hundred Tears . him in the prime of life and in robes of peace; a coronet with flowers is on his head, his hair hangs half way down his neck in rich masses and is disposed with great skill, a loose cloak on his shoulders is lined with vair, an under-garment reaches to the ancles, and is held to the waist by a finely- wrought band, the end of which hangs to the mid-leg ; this work cannot be a likeness but its face is handsome and sculpturesquely noble. It was characteristic of the ignorance and rashness of the “ restorers ” of ancient edifices in the last century — of whom the infamous Wyatt, the destroyer of Salisbury Cathedral, is the blackest example — that the tombs should have been removed from the nave of Rouen Cathedral at that period. Among many so shifted were those of Charles VI. of France (October 22, 1422), the tomb of the heart, the Lion Heart, of Richard I. King of England, which he bequeathed (1199) to the city of Rouen, in token of love; the tomb of his elder brother, Henry (1 183) ; and of William, son of Geoffry Plantagenet. The first-named of these was sent to the Lady Chapel, and was probably destroyed in the Revolution. The other tombs have been destroyed. They are engraved in Montfaucon. The elder brother of Richard Cceur-de-Lion , rebelled, after the fashion of his family, against^iis father. The history of this prince is one of the most extraordinary displays of insolence, rapacity, and disobedience it is possible to conceive. By the consent of his father he was crowned in Westminster Abbey, July 13, 1 170. After this event Henry II. is styled by the historians, “ our lord the king,” or, “ the king, the father,” as the younger Henry is spoken of as, “ the young king.” Joined or disjoined, as the case might be, with Richard, the young Henry almost worried “our lord the king” to death ; see the singularly picturesque relations of Roger de Hoveden and others. At last the state of his affairs was such that he became a thief of the sum of fifty-two marks of gold and twenty-seven marks of silver, “as estimated by worthy men;” he got this by plundering the shrine of St. Martial, at Limoges ; his next act was to strip the shrine and tomb of St. Audemar, and take the treasures of the Church of St. Mary de Roche Audemar. It is evident that the chronicler believes the Evil One soon overtook this disobedient son and sacrilegious man. Hoveden thus relates the catastrophe : — “ In the course of a few “ days after this, the king, the son, seeing that he could not do any material “ injury to the king, the father, or in consequence of indignation and “ rancour of mind, was attacked by a sudden malady at a village called “ Martel, near Limoges. He was at the point of death when he sent for “ our lord the king, his father, who refused to come, fearing treachery (for “ which he had good reason). The king, the son, having summoned the “ bishops who were there into his presence, at first secretly, and afterwards Palais de Justice , Rouen. Normandy for Eleven Hundred Tears. 3 1 “ before them all, made confession and received absolution and remission “ of his sins, and gave to William Marshall, one of his household, his cross “ to bear to Jerusalem in his own place. He then set aside the ensigns of “ his birth and dignity, put on hair cloth and fastened a rope round his “ neck, and said to the bishops who were standing round about him, * I give “ myself up to you as the representatives of religion with this rope, as a “ most unworthy sinner and a very guilty wretch, and beg that the Lord Jesus “ Christ, who remitted the sins of the thief on the cross when he confessed, “ will, through your prayers, and His own infinite goodness, have mercy “ on my soul.* All those who were near him said, * Amen/ He went “ on, ‘ Drag me out of this bed by the cord, and place me upon a couch of “ ashes;’ — he had previously ordered one to be prepared. They did as he “ required them to do, and placed stones one under his head and one be- “ neath his feet. He then desired to be buried at Rouen ; he received the “ viaticum , and died.” When the king, the father, heard of this event he was distressed and bemoaned his son. “ The servants of the younger “ king, having extracted the brain and the entrails of their dead master, “ buried them at Martel, but the body they sprinkled with much salt and “ wrapped it in bulls’ hides and lead,” and set out towards Rouen. At Le Mans, where they rested for the night, the corpse was deposited in the Church of St. Julian the Confessor, and its attendants sang hymns and psalms round about it. In the morning, however, when they wished to depart, the bishop and the clergy of the city would not permit them to take away the corpse of one who had made so earnest a confession of repentance ; the common people joined in this, and it required threats from the folks of Rouen, and the peremptory orders of Henry, to compel them to take it out of the grave in which they had placed it. Of the burial of the Lion Heart all men know how “ the lion by the “ ant was slain,” and how, as Hoveden says, “ Valour, avarice, crime, “ unbounded lust, foul famine, unscrupulous pride and blind desire having “ reigned for twice five years ; all these an archer did with art, hand, “ weapon, strength, lay prostrate.” Few give a thought to the fact hinted by Gourdon when he spoke of the injuries Richard had inflicted upon him in slaying his father and two brothers, that here is one of those strange gleams that fly across the pages of history and reveal to us the terrible, although cowering hate — the very heart’s hate — of the people for their masters. From the days of the Bagaudes to those of Wat Tyler, and even later, this desperate hate burst forth, sometimes in furious flames, as with the Jaquerie, and, at others, in wild acts of individual ferocity. It is a strange fact that this feeling, so deeply planted in some bosoms, but so slightly in others, seldom found its vent in treachery or assassination. 3 2 Normandy for Eleven Hundred Tears . If any one wishes to know how Richard I. appears when divested of his theatrical decorations, let him read Hoveden’s “ Annals.*’ As to Gourdon, Richard — having hanged all those defenders of Chaluz who had done him no direct injury — with characteristic perversity ordered his slayer to be released and rewarded. His amiable sister. Queen of Sicily, so tortured Bourdon that he died. Richard I., like Queen Eleanor, had three tombs ; his heart was deposited at Rouen in a silver vase, which was (1250) melted to aid in ransoming St. Louis from the Saracens. The heart itself was found in 1838, “ still perfect, but much shrivelled, and inclosed in a “ case of lead ; it is now in the Museum,” so says Murray’s “France,” 1858. John, Duke of Bedford, was brother of Henry V. of England and Regent of France ; he married (1423) Anne of Burgundy, sister of his ally Philip ; with the latter he had to deal respecting the even now mysterious matter of Jeanne Dare. Pommeraye, speaking of this prince, says that he begged to be received among the monks of the Cathedral of Rouen, “ re$eu parmy eux comme une deux leurs freres, et d’avoir tous les jours “ distribution de pain et de vin.” The ceremony of his admission was performed with much feasting, the duchess and he received shares of the provision for the monks, eight loaves and four gallons of wine. The tomb of the Regent was destroyed by the Calvinists, who were less mag- nanimous than King Louis XI. of France, who, when asked to allow it to be defaced, replied, “ What honour should it be to us, or you, to “ break this monument, and pull out of the ground the bones of him whom, in his lifetime, neither my father nor yours, with all their puis- sance, could make flie a step backwards?” A tomb which calls for special remark is that of the Cardinals d’Am- boise, uncle and nephew, who were so intimately connected with this cathedral and city. The first died in 1510, the second about thirty years later. The uncle built the central doorway of the west front, at least in his time (1509) the foundations were laid, although the work was not finished before 1530.* The south-west tower, which is named after this prelate, was begun in 1485 ; it was finished in 1507. The nephew restored the roof of the choir, which had been injured in 1514 by the burning of the wooden spire of the great central tower. In order to complete this work, the Pope (Leo X.) granted indulgences, the Chapter of Rouen contributed much of its plate, and the King of France aided by gifts. The younger cardinal erected the archiepiscopal palace which stands at the east end of the cathedral. The tomb of these men is a Pommeraye. Normandy for Eleven Hundred Tears. 33 splendid piece of Renaissance work, it displays their kneeling statues placed one behind the other, and dressed in ecclesiastical robes. These figures have the hands pressed together, and they are raised on an altar tomb, which is surmounted by an elaborate canopy ; this canopy is deco- rated with sculptured panels and statuettes of the Apostles. On the front of the tomb itself are six statues of the Virtues, separated one from the other by pilasters, on the faces of which are eight minor statues. Acces- sorial figures and carvings surround the work, and the whole is splendid in appearance. On looking at such a composition as this, one is led to imagine that its designers intended to secure for their employers a pew, so to say, in perpetuity, wherein they might kneel in stone, as they did in life when, surrounded by the insignia of office, they came to the cathedral to see and be seen. Splendid they were, and splendid they wished to appear for ever. If there is a suggestion of mortality about the tomb, it is in the contrast of death with splendour. There is little enough of what we find so pathetically expressed in monumental sculptures of the Gothic period, i.e. hope, resignation, and contrition. It is hard to guess what the cardinal virtues have to do with a Christian church, still more so to dis- cover their relation to the elder D’Amboise, who was an eager seeker of the Papal throne, the minister of Louis XII. in the Italian war, and an able man of the sixteenth century stamp, who accumulated, somehow or other, a monstrous fortune, and left to one nephew a cup which cost twenty thousand crowns, thirty thousand livres to a niece ; “ et a tous ses neveux des riches sans nombre." He left much to the poor, but much more to his family. This Cardinal produced one thing which was amusingly inefficient, and that was an enormous bell, styled after himself. This bell was so much prized that the success of the casting so affected the moulder, one Jean le Masson, with joy that he died. This very weak vessel, the moulder, was buried in the nave of the cathedral, with a bell carved on his tomb and a suitable commemorative inscription. On the great bell was placed the following rhyme : — “ Je suis nomme Georges D’Amboise, Qui bien trente-six mille poise j Et cil qui bien me poisera, Quarante mille y trouvera.” There were sixteen other stanzas much of the same order. At this time “ Georges D’Amboise ” was the largest bell in the world * which had been hung in a tower ; it was a failure, and was ultimately cracked, — a # Its diameter was nearly eleven English feet, the monstrous clapper weighed 1838 lbs. Part of this clapper was recently to be seen in Rouen. F 34 Normandy for Eleven Hundred Tears . sinister omen, by an attempt to ring it on the arrival of Louis XVIII. at Rouen, in 1786. In the Revolution “Georges” was melted into cannon, and in that way made a noise in the world ; some medals which are now rather rare were made from the metal, these bear a jeering inscription, referring to their origin. The bell was hung in the Tour D’Amboise, or the Tour de Beurre, as it is called, from the circumstance that the country folks who had contributed to its erection received permission to sell their butter during Lent, in the market-place of Rouen. In 1793 the tomb of the Cardinals was rifled, and the lead coffins taken away. There is something peculiarly apt to the nature of the corrupted Renais- sance taste in the sentiment which led to the designing of a tomb which stands on the left of the altar and commemorates no less a personage than Louis de Breze, Grand Seneschal of Normandy, Constable of Rouen, and husband of the famous Diane de Poitiers, who died 1531. This monu- ment is, nevertheless, a fine composition of its kind and has some very effective elements. At the top, above a sort of cornice, appears the baby De Breze in his nurse’s arms ; below this, a wide arch incloses an eques- trian statue of the Seneschal in all his pride of war and the prime of manhood. Lower down, and lying upon a sarcophagus, naked, lean, aged, and with his hands upon his stomach is the man in death. The execution of the whole is imitative of life, and though enriched by caryatides, amorini, shields, supporters, festoons, columns, cartouches, gadroons, and what not, it is anything but an example of good art. We must judge such works rather with regard to the pomp of their many T coloured marbles, gilding, and rich sculptures, than as we should prize the conceptions of artists who were great in severe design. Monumental they were not, but they were so far sincere that their effigies rarely exhibit signs of the Christianity of the tenants they inshrine. There is an erie story told of the exemplary punishment inflicted by her husband (Jaques de Breze, who died 1494) on the faithless mother of this man, it may be found in the “ Cbronique Scandaleuse ” of Jean de Troyes, and is to this effect: The woman was surprised in guilt, and the husband slew her and her companion by the side of the bed whereon her children were sleeping. “ He took her by the arm and threw her down, and as he threw her down, he struck her with the said sword over the shoulders, and she being down on her knees, he thrust the said sword into her paps and stomach, and sent her to the other world.” For this act, Louis XL, who was not the man to allow such an opportunity to pass unseized, fined the husband heavily, and took away part of his estate. To those who believe in the descent of crime from parent to child, the story that this woman was one of the daughters of Agnes Sorel by Normandy for Eleven Hundred Tears . 35 Charles VII. of France, may offer apt reflections. The Louis de Breze whose monument is before us, was not so high-minded as his father. He married, for his third wife, the famous Diane de Poitiers, Duchess de Valentinois, to whom, amongst other things, France is believed to be indebted for that remarkable faience known by her name, or, in this country at least, by that of her royal lover, “ Henri Deux.” The ware in question, it may be well to say, is worthy of its popular title ; it is worthless in art, and its examples are merely fantastic and costly follies. In considera- tion of this union it is averred that the Sieur de Breze got back the estate his ancestor had forfeited. He died before Diana, and, witl\ an exuber- ance of affection which does him infinite honour, she erected this costly, but not very cheerful monument, and in the inscription she caused to be placed upon it, vowed that as she had been faithful to him during his life- time, so she would share his couch of death. The declaration was not by any means an act of supererogation, but, with regard to her promise to her husband’s ghost, it was not kept. The superb Duchess was buried at Anet, a place which, being twenty miles off, is invisible even from the towers of the cathedral. Her statue is, at any rate, on the tomb of her husband, and stands contemplating the lugubrious spectacle his corpse affords. With regard to the restoration of the estate, it is right to say that one version of the legend respecting it, which slurs to the fair Diana’s re- putation ere she married the Seneschal, does not seem fully established, so that the motive for the restitution is not proved to exist. Not far from the tomb of Louis de Breze is the much-injured monu- ment of Pierre de Breze, his grandfather, and father to the Jacques just mentioned. This man was slain at Montlhery (1465) ; he was Grand Seneschal of Anjou, Poitou, and Normandy, and Count of Maulevrier. A few words on the history of this Cathedral will complete our account. Of its origin we have already spoken. It was enlarged by St. Ouen in 650; Charlemagne visited it in 769 ; Rollo was baptized in it 915, and buried 931 ; Richard I. enlarged it 950; St. Maurice’s tower built, 1035 ; Archbishop Robert’s buildings were consecrated in 1065. It was struck by lightning in 1 1 10; burnt in 1200 ; the north transept end commenced in 1280; struck by lightning 1284; Lady Chapel taken down 1302, the new Lady Chapel finished 1360 ; spire blown down 1353 ; choir win- dows enlarged 1430; upper storey of north-west tower added 1477; gable of the north transept finished 1478 ; south-west tower begun 1485 ; the same finished 1507 ; central door, west front, begun 1509 ; the same finished 1530; parapet added 1580; struck by lightning 1625, again 1642; hurricane damaged it 1683; wood-work of choir burnt 1727; bell broken 1786; spire destroyed by lightning 1822. 36 Normandy for Eleven Hundred Tears . Church of sJDuen at Eoucn. T has been truly said that this edifice is one of the most admi- rable of its date and kind, and superior to the Cathedral of Rouen in everything but historical interest. It does not, how- ever, illustrate so many phases of architecture nor of history ; more complete, it is less interesting. On this account our examination must be brief. Founded in the time of Clothaire I. King of Soissons (the Merovingian, 558 — 561), it bore the name of St. Peter until the remains of St. Ouen the Archbishop (683) were translated to its sacred walls. It was burnt by the Northmen, as before described, in 841, on which occa- sion the relics of the saint were removed to Gani, a priory attached to the house and the site of the martyrdom of St..Nicaisias, as already related. It was one of the abbeys that Rollo restored.* In 1001, temp. Richard II., further works were executed. f It was entirely rebuilt by Abbot Nicholas (1056 — 1092), son of Richard III. Of this building the now remaining work known as the Chambre aux Clercs, a fine Romanesque fragment, is believed to have formed the apse of a north transept. This edifice was designed by Gilbert, a monk of the abbey, who, says Vitalis, made large donations to it out of the fortune left him by Alberede la Grosse, “ who died on the holy pilgrimage.” Abbot Nicholas was compelled by his brother Robert the Devil to become a monk, lest he should interfere with the succession to the duchy. His church was consecrated in 1126. Well might the chronicler cry out “ Alas!” when he related the next event in its history. The monks of St. Ouen had not been settled in their noble house more than ten years, when, in 1 136, it was burnt to the ground. It is probable that the extent of this injury was exaggerated : we cannot believe that the building re- mained in ruins until the date which next appears. The present church was commenced in 1318 by Abbot Marc t. amadou at Eottcn. edifice is of later date (1432 — 1500) than those we have examined ; it has the expression proper to French archi- ure of the period which produced it. Its western front triumph of the Flamboyant style, the Ogival tertaire of M. De Caumont : that of St. Ouen may well represent the Ogival secondaire. The characteristics of the former appear at their best in the tracery of the pediments our illustration displays as rising above the door- ways ; some of its luxury is shown in the stone-work of the buttresses. The tower was finished in 1512. As is the case with many Flamboyant churches, the interior of St. Maclou does not rival the exterior in beauty. The north portal is a remarkable fine example of this style. €f)C Palais Dc justice, Eouen. HIS building, which may compare with most of the fine examples of its age and civil office, was begun in 1493, and finished in 1500. In the former year, the Salle des Procu- reurs , or left wing, was commenced to serve as an exchange. At the latter date the body of the building was erected to form the Cour d' Ecbiquier, or high court of Normandy. The edifice forms three sides of a parallelogram, the central fa£ade of which is two hundred feet in St. M a clou, Rouen , Normandy for Eleven Hundred Tears . 39 length. The left wing has been reconstructed by M. Gregoire, the architect who completed St. Ouen’s church. At the ends of the right wing are gables, decorated at their angles with turrets and campaniles ; its interior comprises a magnificent hall, one hundred and fifty feet long, and fifty feet wide. In the centre is the octagonal turret, or tower, seen in the photograph. The surface decorations are of the richest kind, com- prising garlands placed above the windows, niched buttresses, a delicately- finished cornice, slender pinnacles, which are elaborately wrought, and have an arcade connecting them above the parapet, gargoyles of dragon’s heads, and a high pitched roof. In front of the last appear dormer windows, that are loaded with carvings and enriched with pinnacles, crockets, and pierced flying buttresses. C&e Jport Dc ia <55tosse it>otlo 0 c, Eouen. HE Rue de la Grosse Horloge , Rouen, is one of the most picturesque streets in the old part of the city. It takes its name, says “ Murray,” from an antique clock gate-house, built in 1527, by which it is spanned. Adjoining this is the tower of the Beffroi, whence the curfew is still rung every evening. The clock-face and the neighbouring building are by no means estimable in art, nor do they display any consciousness on the part of their designer that his business should concern itself mostly with the intelligent expression of function in the use of ornament. Its cumbrous picturesqueness poorly compensates for the lack of grace or elegance. It is interesting, never- theless, as showing the decadence of art which followed on an attempt to impart classic forms to Gothic buildings, and to substitute decorative for constructional expression. Ics ©alles, Eouen. HIS building, which is now used as a hall for the convenience of merchants, shows how completely not only the spirit of Gothic design but its very forms had departed when it was erected. Nevertheless, the tower before us is well pro- portioned, and has something of grace in its columns and the pedi- ments they seem to support ; the lantern above these gives elevation 40 Normandy for Eleven Hundred Tears. to the structure. The tower answers the purpose of a porch to the building, and covers part of the landing stage by which entrance is given above the level of the street. On this spot stood the Old Tower ( Vieille Tour) and ducal palace of Normandy ; here the murder of Prince Arthur is said to have taken place. The ancient history of Normandy is full of references to the prison and palace. e©antc 0 “ Ha 3[olie.” ANTES is thus styled from the prettiness of its situation, and it is best known through William the Conqueror having “ met his death ” in an attack on it. William laid claim to Mantes on account of a grant from Henry I. of France, of the whole of the Vexin to Duke Robert the Devil in return for aid given to that monarch in the recovery of his kingdom. The claim being resisted by King Philip, the Conqueror attempted to enforce his right in a way which, as related by Vitalis, gives a glimpse at the old time. “ King “ William made his appearance before Mantes at the head of an army “ in the last week of July (1087), and his troops entered the city mixed fi with the garrison ; for the town’s-people had stolen out of the place to “ observe the devastation which Ascelin Goel had made with the Norman “ troops the day before the king’s arrival by burning the standing-corn “ and rooting up the vines. The royal army then rushed in pell-mell with “ the garrison, passed the gates, and in their fury set fire to the castle, “ which was burnt, with the churches and the houses.” The story of King Philip’s bitter jest upon William’s inactivity and obesity is well known ; the latter swore to make that jest a woeful truth, and made that vow “ with such an oath as, by the very form of his mouth, would strike “ terror into the minds of his hearers.” * Men’s indignation against the king for the burning of Mantes was terribly deepened by the destruction of the churches, and still more by the burning alive of two nuns, who thought that even the burning of their cell did not justify their quitting its precincts. Malmesbury speaks of one nun, Florence of Worcester of two. * William of Malmesbury refers to an oath of the most awful description. The asse- verations of William and his spouse, as they are carefully retailed by the chroniclers, are full of force, and astonishing in the inventive blasphemy they display. Notre Dame, from the South , Mantes. mmmm Normandy for Eleven Hundred Tears . 41 This indignation is curiously illustrated in Vitalis’s account of the destruction of Evreux by Henry I. (mg), whence we learn that that king actually asked and obtained permission from the bishop to destroy the churches and cathedral. This was granted on pledges being given for the perfect reconstruction of the buildings ; in this case no complaint was uttered. They were restored, and part of the nave of Evreux Cathedral attests in what manner Henry kept his word. William, after the successful assault on Mantes, injured himself in the way which was ultimately fatal, as stated when we spoke of St. Gervais at Rouen. He made ample repa- ration for the burning of the churches at Mantes. The churches William’s repentance constructed were given to Odo of Bayeux, in consideration of his share in that frightfully scandalous transac- tion, the marriage of Bertrade of Anjou to King Philip.* The Cathedral of Notre Dame, Mantes, was probably built in the middle of the twelfth century, and some of its most interesting portions are good examples of the transition from the later Norman style to the earlier phases of pointed architecture. About the same time the Cathedral of Laon was erected, some points of resemblance are distinguishable in these works. The choir of St. Germains des Pres, Paris (consecrated 1163), and that at Mantes were built at the same time (Parker). Cbe C&utcb of agaclou, panics. HE tower of this edifice which was built in 1344, is in- teresting as a fine example of French fourteenth-century work. On this account it has been preserved, and may here serve the purpose of comparison with the west front of the cathedral. Philip Augustus died at Mantes, July 14, 1223. * The history of this affair is most characteristic of the manners of the time. William of Malmesbury says Bertrade died, still fair, a nun at Fontevrault. G 42 Normandy for Eleven Hundred Tears . €&e Cat&eDral at TBageur- AYEUX remained the most Norman part of Normandy until long after the settlement of the race in the province. Its inhabitants were accused of paganism while all the rest were zealous Christians. The Dukes of Normandy sent their children there in order that they might obtain the best Danish accent. Turbulent, its people were blessed with the rule of that most turbulent of bishops, Odo, half-brother of the Conqueror, who, “ like a dragon “ struck to the earth, and vomiting flames, and full of rage ” against Rufus, kept the province in a turmoil for years, being unwarned by his lengthy imprisonment by William I. To him the townsjnen are said to owe the earliest existing portion of the cathedral, this is the crypt beneath the choir, wherein are twelve bold pillars with carved capitals. We confess an inclination to put an earlier date to this crypt, and, with M. Le Prevost, to assign to Odo the six finely-decorated Norman arches which form the west end of the nave. To such a work as this Vitalis’s description, that Odo’s buildings were beautiful in style, will apply. The carvings on the caps of the crypt-piers appear too rude for the date of Odo’s work (1077). It may be said that the sculpture on these piers is apparently too much advanced in style for the eleventh century. We are by no means sure of this ; and there is no reason why the decorations should not have been executed at a period later than that of the building. The lower parts of the western towers are attributed to Odo. In the crypt are some curious tombs, and on its vault some ancient paintings remain.- The first church built in Bayeux was by St. Exuperius, circa 260. His successor, St. Regnobert, rebuilt the edifice on a greater scale. It was burnt by the Normans, and was among the most splendid of those edifices with which Rollo replaced the ancient churches destroyed by his nation. In 1046, fire consumed the Romanesque cathedral ; but it was almost immediately recommenced by Hugh the Bishop. This work Odo completed, or at least dedicated, in 1077,* with splendid ceremonies and gifts. August 1 105, brought Henry I. in arms before Bayeux; the garrison deserted the * The Conqueror’s daughter Agatha, who is said to have been in love with Harold, was buried at Bayeux, 1068. Bayeux Cathedral , Interior. Bayeux Cathedral , from the South. Normandy for Eleven Hundred Tears . 43 walls, and fled to the cathedral, which was attacked and again burnt. It is said to have remained in ruins until 1159, when Bishop Philip de Harcourt rebuilt it, and the existing structure is, for the most part, no doubt, of this period ; it may have been re-decorated at a later age. This work was finished in 1 183. An argument dating the erection of the choir between 1238 and 1259, has been founded on the burial of Bishop Guido in that place in the latter year. Such a privilege of interment generally infers that the recipient was a restorer, if not founder, of the edifice which received his bones. The argument is, so far as it goes, a good one ; but, as we do not know what amount of work would entitle a bishop to the privilege in question, it is of uncertain application. The chevet, which took the place of the ancient east end, dates from the time of Bishop Philip, and is one of the most exquisite examples of early Gothic art in France, far surpassing, says Mr. Fergusson, the famous Abbaye aux Hommes , built by the Conqueror at Caen. Praise must be given to the manner in which the flat wall-spaces over the nave arches have been filled with diapers of curious patterns, which admirably enrich the surface. Some of these diapers resemble basket-work or interlacements of leather; others are geometrical. They were originally filled in with black mastic. The nave arcade is one of the finest of its period, and deserves all praise for the sobriety and elegance of its form and decoration. The enormous clerestory is less beautiful — less strictly architectural — than the lower arcade. The outside of the nave is in a highly Decorated style, but is fine in its way. The south transept has an elegant gable : the tracery of the windows is later than the openings containing it. The parapet is one of the most characteristic parts of the structure, being a complete arcade. The central tower, a Flamboyant work, is octangular above the first stage ; the latter is of Decorated character. The recent “ restoration ” of the Cathedral has been so far beneficial as to cause the removal of a hideous “Grecian” screen from the choir, and of a copula from the top of the tower. The original use of the famous tapestry of Bayeux was to hang round this church. Among other trea- sures, the church possesses a splendid armoire of thirteenth-century origin. There are some curious medallion portraits of bishops of the see on the roof of the choir. The stalls are superbly carved. Built, as the clerestory of this church was, to display stained glass, but little of that splendid decoration remains in it. A great number of curious stories relate to Bayeux. Among these is one which affirms that the boys of the choir, like those of Rouen and Salisbury, elected a boy-bishop, who ruled on Ascension-day. At matin 44 Normandy for Eleven Hundred Tears, service, when the verse in the Magnificavit , “ He has put down the “ mighty from their seats, and has exalted the humble and the meek,” was sung, the youngster took the episcopal crosier in his hands. At vespers, on the same day, he resigned the office when the same verse recurred. The strangest story connected with the place is this, which we condense from Dawson Turner’s amusing book. The canons of Bayeaux, being as turbulent as their fellow citizens, murdered their bishop, and by way of penance — for the deed seems to have been committed in chance-medley, so that no single person could be convicted — were condemned annually to send one of their number to Rome when the day of crime came round. They did so for ages, and, no doubt, profited by the annual reminder. At last the holder of the canonry of Cambremer had it in turn to go to the Eternal City : he lingered ; and when the very last minute had arrived — being moved, it seems, by the reproaches of his brethren — rushed into his cell, called up an evil spirit he had at command, mounted him, and before the candles round the altar could be relighted — they had been blown out by the fiend — was at Rome, where he performed his office; he returned ere the mass w'as concluded by his brethren, who forbore to remark upon the question- able nature of the proceeding. By way of tempting the monk, the fiend proposed the following distich to him, as they were passing over the sea. Although ineffectual, it is ingenious, because it reads both ways : — Signa te, signa, temere me tangis et angis j Roma tibi subito modbus ibit amor. The west front of the cathedral, with its lofty spires, composes finely : the spires have spirelets surmounting open turrets at the angles, beautiful spire-lights are placed between them ; the upper two stages of the towers have lights with semi-circular heads; those below and those in the spire, are pointed. The tower buttresses rise higher than the gable, and are skilfully proportioned ; they give grace and grandeur to the whole design of the west front. The five porches are of different dates : that in the centre is later than its neighbours on either hand ; the latter bears some interesting sculptures in their tympans, and some other points which are peculiar. The north and south doorways of this front have never been pierced, but are extremely elegant in form. * k Normandy for Eleven Hundred Years. 45 Cfjc Cfturcfc of %t. €tienne Ic ftteur, Caen. HIS structure dates from the early part of the fifteenth century, and is principally remarkable for the grace of its tower and the rich reveals of its windows. On the wall of the choir is placed an equestrian statue said to represent William the Conqueror; this work is, like the church, in a sadly dilapidated con- dition. Antiquaries have disputed as to its meaning. It is doubtless a work of the twelfth century. The action of the figure was stated by those who spoke of its nearly perfect condition, to be that of listening to the complaint of a man and a woman, concerning the death of their child. M. de Caumont observed a similar design on one of the capi- tals of the Cathedral at Autun, and engraved them both in his valuable “ Abecedaire d' Archeologie” p. 212, without, however, we are bound to say, proving more than a general resemblance of style to exist between them, and putting out of the question — if the old prints from the work at Bayeux are to be relied upon — any identity of subject. €fre Cfjurcb of ^>t, Pierre, Caen. HIS edifice is rightly famous for the extraordinary beauty of its spire and tower. Few such works are more admirably deco- rated, or more perfectly proportioned. The composition is complete, whether we consider the simplicity and sobriety of the base, or the stately grace of the spire. The disposition of the wall- space is worthy of careful study. The spire, with its bands, little crockets, eylets, and the elegantly grouped pinnacles that enrich its union with the tower, has, in our eyes, no superior in Europe of the same style and period. The founder of this noble work was Nicholas l’Anglois, steward of the church, supposed by Ducarel to have been an Englishman ; it dates from 1308. The architect’^ name, we believe, is unknown. The choir and nave are somewhat earlier in date than the tower, circa 1280. This part of the work serves to illustrate the early French pointed style, but it is rather late in the practice of the same. The north aisle is later than the above-named portions (1410); the south aisle is later still. 4 6 Normandy for Eleven Hundred Tears . Some fine tracery, cotemporary with the last, is in the windows, and much sadly-injured sculpture in the interior. The exterior of the apsidal chapels and the semi-detached building at the east end are “ Italianized ” to such an extent, as to have wholly parted with the Gothic character ; they are sixteenth-century constructions, and, with their rococco decorations and gew-gaw carvings, contrast strangely with the chastity and dignity of the tower. Thus these eastern parts of St. Pierre’s Church appear, with regard to the rest of the structure, like tinsel on the garments of a gentleman. Cfje Chateau tie jfalatse. iHE Castle of Falaise derives its chief interest with us moderns from a romantic source ; from the window represented in the photograph it is said, and not without probability, that Robert the Devil first caught sight of Arlette, mother of the Conqueror ; in a little chamber, the entrance of which is shown close to the window, it is further said that William the Bastard was born. Looking from that window a man whose sight was good might possibly see that one woman was prettier than another. One version of the story asserts that the duke met the maiden on his return from hunting, that he was at the moment in a towering rage with the tanners of Falaise, because they were accused of slaying his beloved deer, and, as the story goes on to relate, that he was so moved by the beauty of the tanner Verplay’s daughter, that he forgave the transgressions of the townsmen on her account. Either of these stories may be true, suffice it that the window yet opens above the tan-yards of Falaise, and that none of the remaining chambers of the castle have so good a chance of deserving the title of “ Birth-place of the Conqueror.” Falaise has sterner, if sterner there can be, claims on men’s attentions than the above. This castle sustained no fewer than nine sieges, of varied fortunes ; the first siege had Robert the Devil on the part of the defenders, the next was in Duke William’s time, when he fortunately arrived in time to relieve his birth-place ere the French king took advantage of a treacherous surrender. In 1106 the castle successfully, on behalf of Robert Court- hose, opposed Henry I., and, twenty-five years later, the forces of Geoffrey Plantagenet. The defender on the second of these occasions was Robert Marmion, who held the place for Eustace, Count of Boulogne, son of King Stephen, against Henry I.’s daughter, fhilip Augustus was the \ t 4 Chateau de Falaise, Normandy. Normandy for Eleven Hundred Tears . 47 next, and a successful assailant. Henry V. of England cannonaded the place in 1417, and took it by famine. Talbot’s Tower — the round shaft that stands prominent in the photograph — was built by the English, and took its name from one of Shakespeare’s and England’s heroes. Except Cherbourg and Domfront, which surrendered soon after its fall, Falaise was the last place in Normandy which held out for the English. The Duke of Monpensier vainly assaulted the castle in 1589, on behalf of King Henry and his ally. The King himself, in the end of the same year, took the place, and hung seven of the garrison.. Since this period it has fallen slowly to decay . — Dawson Turner . me Cfrurcfc of lilies, Caen. HIS illustration will, serve to display the application of Gothic architecture to comparatively unimportant services ; the build- ing is a good example of Early French design, with Geometrical traceries in the windows and parapet ; it was probably erected circa 1240 — 1280. The pinnacles of the buttresses may be a little later in their origin. The buttresses of the tower show the simplicity of the me^ns employed for their decoration, e.g. the disposition of the set-offs break the long vertical lines into spaces of varied lengths, accordingly as they are wholly exposed, or partly concealed by the church itself. The French practice of filling up the space between the buttress by aisles, or side-chapels, is shown here. The portion of aisle roof nearest to us is, of course, a modern addition, and springs, ruinously to the design, from the top of the parapet. Beyond this lean-to roof the ancient construction appears. The extremely graceful lines of the traceries in the east window ought not to be overlooked ; the mullions form three lancets, whose exqui- site outline shows the feeling of the designer to have been chastened by long study ; the three circles in the head of the window — cunningly pro- portioned to each other as they are, and the marvellous elegance of the slender tracery-bars which connect them, no less than the lovely outline of the window itself, all display the purest art. \ CHISWICK PRESS : PRINTED BY WHITTINGHAM AND WILKINS, TOOKS COURT, CHANCERY LANE. GETTY CENTER LIBRARY