CHURCH OF ST. HILDEBERT, AT GOURNAY.
[Ill.u.s.tration: Plate 38. COLLEGIATE CHURCH OF ST. HILDEBERT AT GOURNAY.
_West front._]
The town of Gournay is generally supposed to rival, in point of antiquity, almost any other in this part of France. Tradition refers its origin to the days of Julius Caesar, during the latter part of whose government in Gaul, a dangerous conspiracy broke out among the Bellovaci, the Caletes, and the Vellioca.s.ses, a.s.sisted by the inhabitants of other neighboring districts. This confederacy is supposed to have given rise to Gournay.
The situation of the town is upon the frontiers of the territories of the two first tribes just mentioned, the present inhabitants of the Pays de Caux and of the Beauvaisis, in a marshy spot, subject to frequent inundations from two small rivers, the Epte and the St. Aubin, whose waters flow beneath the walls of the place. Hence, an inference has naturally arisen, that the necessity for communication between people so near in point of position, and yet so effectually separated, first suggested the advantages to be derived from a bridge over the Epte, in a place otherwise impa.s.sable; and that the bridge was shortly afterwards followed by a cause-way, which, in its turn, held out inducements to settlers, so that the town imperceptibly grew out of the traffic thus occasioned.
The historical celebrity acquired by Gournay, far exceeds what might have been expected from its size or importance, and has altogether arisen from the power and the high military character of its Norman lords. Rollo, at the time that he parcelled out the lands of his newly-acquired sovereignty, amongst his companions in arms, bestowed Gournay, together with the whole of the Norman division of the Pays de Brai, upon a chieftain of the name of Eudes, to be held as a fief of the duchy, under the usual military tenure; binding him and his successors to furnish to the prince, in times of war, twelve of their va.s.sals, and to arm all their dependents for the defence of the adjacent frontier.
Eudes had a son of the name of Hugh; and he it is who is reported to have first directed his attention towards making Gournay a place of strength. The ancient records ascribe to him the erection of a citadel in the immediate vicinity of the church of St. Hildebert, surrounded with a triple wall and double fosse; and farther secured by a tower, which was called after his name, _la Tour Hue_, and which continued in existence till the beginning of the seventeenth century. Such was the reported strength of this fortress, that Brito, a chronicler, but, it must be remembered, a poetical one, declares that it was able to resist an hostile attack, even without a single soldier within the walls! His whole account of the place, in the time of Philip-Augustus, and of its capture by that monarch, in the sixth book of his _Philippiad_, is curious and interesting.
A second Hugh de Gournay, born after a lapse of about a century from the death of the son of Eudes, is usually accounted the head of the family, because it is from him that the regular series of their descent is to be traced. He was a man of whose military prowess many instances are recorded: among his other exploits, he is supposed to have been the chieftain, who, carrying his arms into the district of Beauvais, made himself master of the four villages there, which, from their subjection to him, have retained the name of _Les Conquets_ and which continued for many centuries under the administration of the lords of Gournay. He also attended the Conqueror to England, where he was rewarded for his services by a grant of land which he held from that prince _in capite_.
Upon a former occasion, he had been employed by him in a place of high trust, having been appointed to command, in conjunction with Taillefer, half-brother to the duke, and three other Norman n.o.bles, the fleet sent to the protection of Edward the Confessor, against the claims of Harold.
His name is also found in 1059, among the leaders of the Norman army, which defeated the French forces at Couppegueule, near Mortimer. At last, disgusted with earthly affairs, he retired to the abbey of Bec, and there, in the monastic robe, ended a life which had been devoted to pursuits of the most opposite tendency.--This Hugh de Gournay had a son of the name of Girald, who married the sister of William, Earl Warren, and accompanied Robert, Duke of Normandy, to the Holy Land.--The third, and last Hugh de Gournay, grandson of Girald, was in the number of those who followed Richard Coeur-de-Lion in a similar expedition, and was appointed his commissioner to receive the English share of the spoil after the battle of Acre. He was also among the barons who rose against King John. But his attachment to the English cause ultimately lost him his possessions in Normandy; for no sooner was Philip-Augustus master of Gournay, than he declared him a traitor, and banished him from France.
Philip added to the fortifications a new castle, in the direction of Ferrieres. This, however, has been long since destroyed; and indeed the probability is, that the walls and towers of Gournay were neglected and suffered to fall into decay, shortly after the annexation of the duchy to France. There can be little doubt but that the town originally owed its importance, as a fortress, to its position upon the frontiers of France and Normandy; and the consequence would therefore naturally follow, that, as soon as the ducal and regal crowns were united on the same head, it would cease to be maintained as a place of strength.--About a hundred years after the capture of Gournay by Philip-Augustus, Philip the Bold, great grandson of that monarch, bestowed the town and lordship upon his youngest son, Charles of Valois, at whose death it became a part of the dower of his widow, Matilda of Chatillon. Again, in like manner, on the decease of Philip of Valois, in 1350, Gournay was separated from the Crown, and a.s.signed to the widowed queen, Blanche of Navarre. By this princess it was held for forty-eight years, when it once more reverted to the royal domains. But early in the succeeding century, the town fell, together with the rest of France, under the victorious arms of our sovereign Henry V. and upon his demise, it was a third time selected as a portion of the dower of the royal widow, Catherine, daughter of the French monarch, Charles VI. Her death, in 1438, restored it to England: but only to be held for the short term of eleven years, at which time, the reverses sustained by the British troops, occasioned the expulsion of our monarchs from their continental dominions.--From that period to the revolution, the lordship of Gournay, with the t.i.tle of count, was constantly added by the French kings to the dignities of some one of the princ.i.p.al families of the realm; and in this manner, it successively pa.s.sed through different branches of the houses of Harcourt, Orleans, Longueville, and Montmorenci.
[Ill.u.s.tration: Plate 39. COLLEGIATE CHURCH OF ST. HILDEBERT AT GOURNAY.
_View across the Nave into the North transept._]
The church of St. Hildebert,[69] the subject of these plates, was, previously to the revolution, both parochial and collegiate. Its foundation is supposed to be of very high antiquity. There is, however, no proof of the precise period of the establishment of the chapter here.
The earliest records upon the subject, bear date in the year 1180, and merely mention it as being then in existence; but, according to tradition, it was first fixed at the neighboring village of Brefmoutier, and was removed to Gournay by Hugh, the last of the Norman counts. The same Hugh is generally reported to have commenced the erection of the present church; but it is sufficiently known with how little accuracy the early historians are wont to express themselves on these subjects.
The term, "to rebuild," often means no more than to repair; so that it is in many cases more safe to judge from the style of a building itself, than from the records preserved to us respecting it. The architecture of the church of St. Hildebert would lead to the supposition, that a considerable portion of it was standing in its present state, at least one hundred years anterior to the time of Hugh; and, even admitting such to have been the case, there is still sufficient discrepancy in the rest of the edifice to account for the well attested circ.u.mstance, that, at the close of the thirteenth century, the church yet remained incomplete.
The imperfect state of the building did not prevent its receiving the honor of a dedication: this ceremony was performed in one of the last years of the twelfth century, by Walter, Archbishop of Rouen, in person, attended, as commonly happened, by a great concourse of the n.o.bles and clergy of the province; and, in the first year of the following century, Herbert, Archbishop of Canterbury, pa.s.sed over from England for the express purpose of doing honor by his presence to the translation of the reliques of St. Hildebert. The banishment of Hugh de Gournay and confiscation of his property, which took place shortly after these events, deprived the canons of their liberal and powerful benefactor.
Poverty caused the progress of the building to be suspended; and it was only by the aid of repeated indulgences, granted by the popes and archbishops,[70] that it was finally brought to a state of completion.
The two western towers are of a considerably more recent period: they were erected in their present state, of wood, roofed with slate, in the middle of the seventeenth century. The timber was supplied by the d.u.c.h.ess of Longueville, whose husband was at that time Count of Gournay; and the rest of the charge was defrayed by the sale of the materials of a ruined chapel, dedicated to St. Julian, and of a small central tower, the only one originally attached to the building.
The church is in the form of a cross; consisting of a nave with aisles, choir, and transepts. The west front (_plate thirty-eight_) is in the earliest style of pointed architecture, and evidently of the period of the same Hugh de Gournay, by whom the whole edifice is said to be raised. If compared with the same portion of the churches known to have been erected at a similar period in England, the closest resemblance will be traced between them. That of Salisbury cathedral, the most n.o.ble instance of the kind in Britain, is later, and infinitely more richly ornamented. But in this at Gournay, the windows are the only portion that have altogether escaped mutilation or alteration. The side portals were evidently, in their original state, fronted with porches, which have now disappeared. Such has likewise been the case with the arches of entrance; and mention has already been made of the posterior date of the tower.
The _thirty-ninth plate_ exhibits a portion of the older part of the interior of the church, and displays a style of architecture considerably prior to the period a.s.signed for its rebuilding; so that no one can well doubt but that, as has been hinted above, though it may be said to owe its existence to Hugh de Gournay, this a.s.sertion is to be taken only in a qualified sense. This plate contains the last compartment of the north side of the nave, and also admits a portion of the transept. Flanking the nave, on either hand, is a row of seven columns, supporting six arches. It is scarcely possible for the most casual observer not to be struck, immediately upon entering the building, with the extreme ma.s.siveness and solidity of the piers. They are for the most part square, and only varied with a semi-cylindrical shaft attached to each of the four sides. Similar piers are to be found in many of the village churches upon the coasts of Suss.e.x and Surrey, the part of our island which, from its situation nearest to Normandy, is most likely to retain genuine specimens of the earliest and purest Norman architecture. But the most remarkable character attending the piers at Gournay is, that the sculpture upon them, instead of being confined as usual to the capitals of the pillars, is also continued over the flat intermediate surface of the piers, extending to the same depth as the capitals, as if intended, by forming a band round the whole, to connect it more closely in a kind of architectural unity. The pattern, however, in general varies as applied to the flat or circular sides. The arches of the nave of the church are of a shape between what is generally termed the semi-circular and the horse-shoe arch; their centre being somewhat higher than the spring, but not remarkably so. The clerestory windows above are all Norman; and the same is the case with the great arches, originally intended to support the central tower; excepting, indeed, in that to the north, which has evidently undergone an alteration.
[Ill.u.s.tration: Plate 40. COLLEGIATE CHURCH OF ST. HILDEBERT AT GOURNAY.
_Capitals._]
[Ill.u.s.tration: Plate 41. COLLEGIATE CHURCH OF ST. HILDEBERT AT GOURNAY.
_Capitals._]
_Plates forty_ and _forty-one_[71] are devoted to the capitals, the most characteristic feature of the building. A more remarkable or a more interesting set, is not to be seen in any church throughout Normandy.
Their character is by no means altogether the same as that of those at St. Georges, or in the abbatial church of the Trinity at Caen. There are indeed monsters among them, but they are of unfrequent occurrence; and, if the expression may be allowed, they are not equally monstrous. Nor are they of a description to appear to bear any reference to mythology, or to history. On the contrary, the sculpture on them is for the most part of great beauty; and the patterns display a fertile, and an elegant, if not a cla.s.sical, taste on the part of the architects. The greatest peculiarity among them, and one that is believed to be wholly confined to this church, is, that seven or eight of the pillars have, by way of capitals, a narrow projecting rim, carved with undulating lines.
So frequent a repet.i.tion of the same ornament, and of an ornament so very singular, removes the idea of accident. It has therefore been supposed, that the intention of the sculptor was to exhibit a kind of hieroglyphical representation of water. "Perhaps," as has been observed elsewhere,[72] "it is the chamber of Sagittarius; or, perhaps, it is a _fess-wavy_, to which the same signification has been a.s.signed by heralds.--If this interpretation be correct, the symbol is allusive to the ancient situation of the town, built in a marsh, intersected by two streams."
The aisles of the church are in all parts ancient: their vaulting resembles that of Norwich cathedral, an arch springing from each capital.--Large windows of the decorated English style, and consequently comparatively modern, have been inserted, at the east end of the church, and at the extremity of the south transept; but, in both these parts, sufficient is left to shew the original design of the architect. In the latter, it is evident that there once were, as there still remain in the opposite transept, four semi-circular-headed windows, disposed, to speak in heraldic language, 1, 2, and 1; while, in the former, were seven, placed 1, 2, and 4. Of the four lowest of these, the two outermost gave light to the aisles. Each window was separated from the rest by a shallow undivided Norman b.u.t.tress, built of squared freestone, and interrupting the herring-bone masonry, which occupies the rest of the east end, to the height of about five feet from the ground.
NOTES:
[69] St. Hildebert is a name of rare occurrence in hagiology. He was bishop of Meaux in the seventh century, but was not honored with a place in the calendar, till about three hundred years after his decease; at which time his reliques were carried to different parts of France, and finally interred at Gournay. The church, on this occasion, changed its patron, an event which commonly happened in those ages, and placed itself under the protection of the new saint, instead of the proto-martyr, to whom it had been originally dedicated.--Peter de Natalibus, in his _Catalogus Sanctorum_, says, that St. Hildebert ended his life as Archbishop of Tours; and that he died in that city, and was there buried, "_ibique jacens in miraculis vivit_." He speaks of him likewise as an elegant scholar, and the author of a work, _de contemptu hujus vitae_, written partly in verse, and partly in prose.
[70] Of the last of these, which bears date in 1278, a copy, translated from the Archiepiscopal Archives, is printed in the _Concilia Normannica_, (II. p. 85,) and is here inserted, not only on account of the information it affords concerning the church, but as a curious specimen of similar compositions:--
"GUILLELMUS DE FLAVACURIA INDULGENTIAS ECCLESIae GORNACENSI CONCEDIT ANNO CHRISTI MCCLXXVIII.
"Guillelmus permissione divina Rotomagensis Archiepiscopus, universis praesentes literas inspecturis, salutem in Domino Jesu Christo. c.u.m, sicut accepimus, Ecclesia de Gournayo nostrae Diocesis, in qua Corpus B. Hildeverti requiescit, ita graviter sit oppressa, qud ad sustentationem pauperum Clericorum ibi deservientium, necnon et ad reaedificationem dictae Ecclesiae propriae facultates non suppetant nisi fidelium subventionibus adjuvetur, maxime c.u.m praedicta Ecclesia amiserit redditus quos in Anglia solebat percipere annuatim. Nos de omnipotentis Dei misericordia et B. Mariae semper Virginis genitricis ejus, beatorum Petri et Pauli, ac beatorum Confessorum Romani et Audoeni, et omnium Sanctorum meritis et intercessione confisi: Omnibus vere poenitentibus et confessis, qui ad dictam Ecclesiam causa peregrinationis Dominica in qua canitur: _Isti sunt dies_, et die Sabbathi et die Veneris immediate praecedentibus accesserint, vel praenominatae Ecclesiae manum suam porrexerint, adjutorium dictis diebus vel aliis eleemosynas largiendo, 40 dies de injunctis sibi poenitentiis misericorditer relaxamus. Datum Gournaii anno Domini 1278, die Veneris ante Festum B. Dionysii."
[71] The capitals in the former of these plates are all selected from the nave; in the latter, those marked E, H, M, are taken from the columns placed at the intersection of the transepts; and G, I, K, and O, from the choir. L and N represent consols to ribs in the aisles.
[72] _Turner"s Tour in Normandy_, II. p. 44.
PLATES XLII. AND XLIII.
CHAPEL OF THE HOSPITAL OF ST. JULIEN, NEAR ROUEN.
[Ill.u.s.tration: Plate 42. CHAPEL OF THE HOSPITAL OF ST. JULIEN, NEAR ROUEN.
_South side._]
The chapel figured in these plates is all that now remains of a monastery, which, at the period of the revolution, was one of the most magnificent in the vicinity of Rouen. It was then likewise almost altogether new: Farin, in his history of the city, printed in 1731, states that, at the time when he wrote, the monks of the order of the Chartreux, the then occupants of the priory, had just began to rebuild the great cloister, according to a very simple and magnificent design.[73] But the revolutionary commotions levelled the whole with the ground, sparing only the una.s.suming chapel, which has since served as a wood-house for the neighboring farmer.
The convent itself underwent many changes of owners. It was originally founded in 1183, by Henry II. King of England and Duke of Normandy, as a priory, under the invocation of St. Julien, for the reception of unmarried females of rank, who, having the misfortune to be affected with leprosy, devoted themselves to a religious life. That terrible disease, happily almost unknown except by tradition, in our days, was in those times of so frequent occurrence, that legislative enactments were repeatedly necessary to restrain its ravages. In the history of the councils of the Norman church, allusions to the subject are often to be found. Lepers were forbidden to migrate, even from one lazar-house to another; they were not allowed to set their foot in any city or fortress; and, in the event of their transgressing this order, and being ill-treated in consequence of such disobedience, no redress was to be afforded them. They could take rest in no inn, even for necessary refreshment.[74] By an especial order of the church of Bayeux, no one could give alms to a leper, under pain of excommunication;[75] and the church of Coutances went still further, enjoining them never to appear without a particular kind of cope, by way of distinction, and never to attempt to dispose of the hogs which they were in the habit of fatting, except to such as labored under the same disease. Disobedience to this last order, exposed both buyer and seller to a punishment, which sounds rather strange at this time, being _ad boni viri arbitrium_.[76] In another case, and nearly at the time of the foundation of the priory of St. Julien, it is upon record, that lepers were charged as engaged in a horrible communion of crime with Jews. The latter were expelled from France in 1321, upon the plea of their having been guilty of administering to the people potions of a poisonous quality; and the lepers were accused of having lent themselves as instruments in aiding and abetting.[77]
In the foundation-charter of the priory of St. Julien, Henry endows it with an annual rental of two hundred livres, for the clothing and maintenance of the nuns; and he gives them, in addition, the meadow of Quevilli, in which parish the convent was situated, together with the privilege of cutting their fire-wood, and feeding their cattle, in the forest there. Hence the monastery was indiscriminately known by the name of _Salle du Roi_, _Salle des Pucelles_, _Notre Dame du Quevilli_, and _St. Julien du Parc_.
In the year 1366, Charles V. King of France, being then at Rouen, transferred, by his letters patent, the convent of St. Julien, with all its appurtenances, which had by that time considerably increased, to the great hospital of the city, called the Magdalen. The prior of the latter establishment was enjoined to take charge of the nuns, and to visit them daily, for the purpose of recommending the soul of the king to their prayers, in commemoration of the great benefits bestowed by him upon the monastery. Even down to the time of the revolution, this custom was to a certain degree maintained. The priest on duty during the week was bound to p.r.o.nounce daily, with a loud voice, at the close of the evening service, "_Ames devotes priez pour Charles V. Roi de France, et pour nos autres bienfaiteurs_;" and this was followed by the one hundred and twenty-ninth psalm, and an appropriate prayer. The same ceremony was at the same time performed by one of the nuns, among the females.
After the union of the convent of St. Julien to the Magdalen, the superior of the hospital was in the habit of keeping a monk at the priory, as a superintendant over the religious duties of the occupants and temporal possessions of the foundation; and this state of things continued till 1600, when, upon the destruction of the abbey upon Mont Ste Catherine, the friars of the latter establishment obtained from the hospital the cession of the deserted monastery, and occupied it for sixty-seven years. They then also in their turn resigned it, and it fell into the hands of the Carthusians of Gaillon, who, uniting with their brethren of the same order at Rouen, formed a very opulent community, and resided here till the period when all monastic inst.i.tutions ceased throughout France.
Architecturally considered, the chapel is a building of great interest.[78] A more pure, or more perfect specimen of the Norman aera, is perhaps no where to be found. Without spire or tower, and divided into three parts of unequal length and height, the nave, the choir, and the circular apsis, it resembles one of the meanest of our parish churches in England. In its design, it is externally quite regular, being divided throughout its whole length, into small compartments, by a row of shallow b.u.t.tresses, which rise from the ground to the eaves of the roof, without any part.i.tion into splays. Those on the south side, (see _plate forty-two_) are all, except the most eastern, still in their primeval state; but a b.u.t.tress of a subsequent, though not very recent, date, has been built up against almost every one of the original b.u.t.tresses on the north side, by way of support to the edifice. Each division contains a single narrow circular-headed window; beneath which is a plain moulding, continued uninterruptedly over the b.u.t.tresses as well as the wall. Another plain moulding runs nearly on a level with the tops of the windows, and takes the same circular form; but it is confined to the s.p.a.ces between the b.u.t.tresses. There are no others.--The entrance was by circular-headed doors, at the west end and south side, both of them very plain; but particularly the latter. The few ornaments of the western are as perfect and as sharp, as if the whole were the work of yesterday. This part of the church has, however, been exposed to considerable injury, owing to its having joined the conventual buildings.
[Ill.u.s.tration: Plate 43. CHAPEL OF THE HOSPITAL OF ST. JULIEN, NEAR ROUEN.
_Interior. Choir and part of the Nave._]
The interior of the chapel, however degraded from its original purpose, continues, like the exterior, almost perfect; but it is much more rich, uniting to the common ornaments of Norman architecture capitals of great labor. The ceiling is covered with paintings of scriptural subjects, which still remain. This discrepance of style between the outside of the building and the inside, might lead to a suspicion that they had been erected at different times; but there really seems to be no sufficient ground for such an opinion. Those who attempt to decide upon the dates of Norman edifices, judging from the character of their ornaments, or the comparative profusion of their decorations, will do well to reflect, that almost every building contains in itself a medley of what is barbarous and cla.s.sical, while no two can well vary more in the quant.i.ty of their ornaments, than the two abbatial churches of Caen; and yet they were both of them, beyond dispute, productions of the self-same aera.--It deserves remark likewise, that two theories of directly opposite tendency, both of them perhaps equally plausible, have been started upon this point. The partisans of one of these maintain, that the Normans, on their arrival in the more southern parts of Europe, found highly ornamented buildings, and, being themselves altogether ignorant of art, were content with copying what already existed; so that their progress in art was in a retrograde direction, from a cla.s.sical style, to one comparatively barbarous. On the other hand, it is averred, that these reputed savages really imported with them the kind of architecture now generally known by their name; and, in proportion as they improved in wealth, luxury, and refinement, drew nearer and nearer to the Roman model, either by dint of their own observations, or by the importation of Italian artists. The balance of probability appears at the first glance to incline in favor of the latter of these opinions, as most consonant to the general march of human affairs. Perhaps, however, upon a more attentive consideration, the former may appear nearer to the truth: it is certain, that the style in architecture, which immediately succeeded what is commonly called Norman, is still farther removed from the Roman or the Greek; and it is equally certain, that the Norman itself has different characters in different parts of Europe. That of England varies to a certain degree from what is seen in Normandy: the latter still more so from the German, and the German from that of the south of France; while, in the north of Italy, and in Sicily, it is again found with features unlike those of other countries, and equally unlike those of each other. In all, the discrepancies most probably arise from the styles peculiar to the several nations, previously to the irruptions of the northern hordes. The subject is, at all events, deserving of investigation and reflection.
NOTES:
[73] Vol. V. p. 370.
[74] _Concilia Normannica_, II. p. 72.
[75] _Ibidem_, p. 239.
[76] _Ibidem_, p. 545.