PLATES LXII.-LXV. CHaTEAU OF FONTAINE-LE-HENRI. CENTRAL COMPARTMENT OF FONTAINE-LE-HENRI. HOUSE IN THE PLACE DE LA PUCELLE, AT ROUEN. HOUSE IN THE RUE ST. JEAN, AT CAEN.

It neither falls within the scope of this work to attempt any thing in the form of a dissertation upon the ancient domestic architecture of Normandy, nor, supposing such an object to be desirable, would the present state of the duchy afford materials for the purpose. The lover of researches into architectural antiquity no sooner directs his attention to that branch of his subject, which, as tending to elucidate the habits of his forefathers, would be peculiarly interesting, than he finds an insuperable obstacle opposed to his progress. The zeal of churchmen and the pride of barons, have preserved us many noble relics of ecclesiastical and castellated buildings; but the private residence of the more humble individual has, in no portion of the globe, been able to secure to itself any thing approaching to a durable existence. What was raised for comfort alone, was not in itself designed for perpetuity; and the varying tastes of successive occupants, the changes of fashions, or, what operate even more powerfully than all, the changes of fortune, have conspired to subject this portion of human labor, in an eminent degree, to that mutability which is the general lot of human undertakings. In early times, also, the state of society operated powerfully towards the production of the same destructive effect. When even the monarch could no otherwise provide for the safety of his palace, than by encircling it with the fortifications of the castle, a life of continual alarm afforded his subjects no encouragement for the cultivation of the arts of peace. Society knew no other classes than the lord and his vassals: the former, enthroned in military state; the latter, too poor to raise his aim beyond the necessaries of life; or, where riches existed, too depressed by servitude to dare to let them appear. Hence, during the prevalence of the feudal system, very little, if any thing, more is known of domestic architecture, than is to be collected from the rude illuminations of missals, or the unsatisfactory descriptions of chroniclers. The monuments themselves have disappeared from the face of the earth; or, if any instances can be adduced, tending to disprove so comprehensive an assertion, they are few in number, and worthless in quality. The utmost to be hoped for are such mutilated remains, as Winwal-House, in Norfolk, lately figured by Mr. Britton, in his Chronological and Historical Illustrations of the Ancient Architecture of Great-Britain; remains that are calculated to excite no other emotions than regret, and to awaken, without being by any means able to satisfy, curiosity.—Nor indeed have Mr. Cotman's extensive researches enabled him to meet with any of this description, all poor as they are, within the limits of Normandy.

At the same time it has appeared right, conformably with the plan that has been adopted in this work, as to ecclesiastical edifices, to lay before the reader some specimens of the domestic architecture of the duchy, which, though far removed from Norman times, are almost equally so from our own days. Even these are rapidly disappearing; it is more than possible, that the three subjects here selected for publication may, in the course of a few years, be recorded only in these plates. One of them is already levelled with the ground;[129] while the more interesting house in the Place de la Pucelle, at Rouen, though it has been suffered to continue in existence, has been so much injured in its exterior, and is degraded to so mean a purpose, that its demolition would at no time be matter for surprise.—Specimens, like these, are curious in the history of the arts: they shew the progress which architecture had made in Normandy, at one of the most interesting epochs in French history; they also shew its relative state, as respectively applied to civil and religious purposes. And, if they be all three productions of nearly the same Æra, they are sufficiently characterised each from the other, by marks of distinction.

“A history of the civil and domestic architecture of the middle ages, is yet a desideratum; and unless this task is soon accomplished in England, the opportunity will be lost for ever.” The very sensible author, from whom this sentence is quoted, goes on to say, “The halls of Elizabeth's days are almost worn out. The mansions of the time of Charles I. are falling apace, and in every quarter of a century a class must disappear, by the conjoined operations of repair and decay. The towns of England perhaps afford the worst and poorest specimens of the dwelling houses: the best and richest are found in the Netherlands. We can hardly qualify this assertion by recollecting the magnificent range of palaces which bordered the Strand, in the reign of Henry VIII. Our own dwelling-houses are usually composed of timber frames filled in with plaster. Troyes, in Champagne, is built entirely in this fashion, every street is the perfect ‘counterfeit’ of old Cheapside. Beauvais is built in the same manner, but the houses are profusely varied with carving, and a good artist might employ himself there for a twelvemonth. Many of the ancient houses at Caen are of chesnut timber. The AbbÉ De la Rue supposes that they were built by the English, after the place was taken by Henry V. in 1417. His ‘bombards’ destroyed a great part of the town during the siege; and after he had regained possession, he granted the sites of the demolished tenements to his English subjects. In choosing this material, they may have been guided partly by choice, as being a domestic fashion, and partly by necessity; for the use of stone was restricted by Henry, to the building and repairing of ‘eglises, chasteaulx, et forteresses.’ The king, by letters-patent, declared that the ‘quarries of white stone’ were to remain to him and his heirs for ever: this monopoly proves the value in which the Caen stone was held.”

Some account has already been given, under the preceding article, of the changes of proprietors which the domain of Fontaine-le-Henri underwent, during the reigns of the Norman Dukes, and down to the conclusion of the fourteenth century. The estate then passed into the possession of the Harcourts, in whose hands it continued a considerable length of time: it has since been subject to various owners, and has now finally become the property of the Viscount de Canisy. The ChÂteau (see plates sixty-two and sixty-three) is a noble building, and a very characteristic specimen of the residences of the French noblesse, during the latter part of the fifteenth century, at which period there is no doubt of its having been erected, although no records whatever are left upon the subject. Fontaine-le-Henri was then still in the possession of the family of Harcourt, whose fortune and consequence might naturally be expected to give rise to a similar building.—As compared with the mansions of the English nobility, the chÂteau at Fontaine-le-Henri may be advantageously viewed in conjunction with Longleat, in Wiltshire,[130] the noble seat of the Marquess of Bath. The erection of the latter was not commenced till the year 1567, thus leaving an interval of at least half a century between them; a period, probably, much the same as may be presumed from other documents to have intervened between the introduction of the Italian style of architecture in France and in England. Longleat was built by John of Padua, who is stated by Mr. Britton, “to have been an architect of some note at the time; as is evinced by his being termed Devizor of his Majesty's buildings, and by the grant made him by Henry VIII. and renewed in the third year of Edward VI.” Fontaine-le-Henri was also the production of trans-alpine architects. Both of them bear decided marks of the nation to which they owe their origin; but in the English mansion, the Italian features are most decidedly enounced; while, in the French, they are strikingly modified by the peculiarities of their adopted country.

The central compartment (plate sixty-three) has been selected by Mr. Cotman for publication, as being the portion of the structure which is in the purest taste. This also most resembles Longleat. But it is on the other hand by far the least ornamented. The rest of the front of the building is covered with the richest profusion of medallions, scrolls, friezes, canopies, statues, and arabesques, in bas-relief, worked with extraordinary care, and of great beauty. Their style is that of the Loggie of Raphael; or, to compare them with another Norman subject of the same Æra, of the sculptures upon the mausoleum raised to the Cardinal d'Amboise, in Rouen cathedral: indeed, for delicacy of workmanship, they may almost compete with the ornaments upon this far-famed monument.[131]

For the drawing of the second of the houses here figured, that in the Place de la Pucelle, at Rouen, (see plate sixty-four,) Mr. Cotman has to acknowledge himself indebted to the pencil of Miss Mary Turner. Rouen abounds in buildings, whose fronts are ornamented in a somewhat similar manner, but none among them will bear a comparison with this for the sumptuousness of its decorations.[132] In another and more important point of view, the house in question stands still more decidedly unrivalled; for a wing of it, which is not shewn in the present plate, exhibits a series of representations, illustrative of different events connected with the chivalrous meeting in the field of cloth of gold. These figures have been already engraved: they were first published by Montfaucon; then copied by Ducarel; and, very recently, two of them have again appeared in the publications of Mr. Dibdin[133] and Mr. Turner.[134] The latter of these gentlemen has been copious in his description of this building; and the following account of it is borrowed nearly verbatim from his pages:—

“In the square which has acquired an ill-omened celebrity by the barbarous execution of the Maid of Arc, stands a house within a court, now occupied as a school for girls, of the same Æra as the Palais de Justice, and in the same Burgundian style, but far richer in its sculptures. The entire front is divided into compartments by slender and lengthened buttresses and pilasters. The intervening spaces are filled with basso relievos, evidently executed at one period, though by different masters. A banquet beneath a window in the first floor, is in a good cinque-cento style. Others of the basso-relievos represent the labors of the field and the vineyard; rich and fanciful in their costume, but rather wooden in their design: the salamander, the emblem of Francis I. appears several times amongst the ornaments, and very conspicuously. I believe there is not a single square foot of this extraordinary building, which has not been sculptured.—On the north side extends a spacious gallery. Here the architecture is rather in Holbein's manner: foliaged and swelling pilasters, like antique candelabra, bound the arched windows. Beneath, is the well-known series of bas-reliefs, executed on marble tablets, representing the interview between Francis I. of France, and Henry VIII. of England, in the Champ du Drap d'or, between Guisnes and Ardres. They were first discovered by the venerable father Montfaucon, who engraved them in his Monumens de la Monarchie FranÇaise; but to the greater part of our antiquaries at home, they are, perhaps, more commonly known by the miserable copies inserted in Ducarel's work, who has borrowed most of his plates from the Benedictine.—These sculptures are much mutilated, and so obscured by smoke and dirt, that the details cannot be understood without great difficulty. The corresponding tablets above the windows are even in a worse condition; and they appear to have been almost unintelligible in the time of Montfaucon, who conjectures that they were allegorical, and probably intended to represent the triumph of religion. Each tablet contains a triumphal car, drawn by different animals—one by elephants, another by lions, and so on, and crowded with mythological figures and attributes.—A friend of mine, who examined them this summer, tells me, that he thinks the subjects are either taken from the triumphs of Petrarch, or imitated from the triumphs introduced in the Polifilo. Graphic representations of allegories are susceptible of so many variations, that an artist, embodying the ideas of the poet, might produce a representation bearing a close resemblance to the mythological processions of the ‘mystic dream.’—The interior of the house has been modernized: so that a beam covered with small carvings is the only remaining object of curiosity. On the top, a bunch of leaden thistles has been a sad puzzle to antiquaries, who would fain find some connection between the building and Scotland; but neither record nor tradition throw any light upon their researches. Montfaucon, copying from a manuscript written by the AbbÉ Noel, says, ‘I have more than once been told, that Francis I. on his way through Rouen, lodged at this house; and it is most probable, that the bas-reliefs in question were made upon some of these occasions, to gratify the king by the representation of a festival, in which he particularly delighted.’ The gallery-sculptures are very fine, and the upper tier is much in the style of Jean Goujon. It is not generally known that Goujon re-drew the embellishments of Beroald de Verville's translation of the Polifilo; and that these, beautiful as they are in the Aldine edition, acquired new graces from the French artist—I have remarked, that the allegorical tablets appear to coincide with the designs of the Polifilo: a more accurate examination might, perhaps, prove the fact; and then little doubt would remain. The building is much dilapidated; and, unless speedily repaired, these basso-relievos, which would adorn any museum, will utterly perish. In spite of neglect and degradations, the aspect of the mansion is still such that, as my friend observed, one would expect to see a fair and stately matron standing in the porch, attired in velvet, waiting to receive her lord.”

To the house at Caen[135] (figured in plate sixty-five) are attached no historical mementos; nor is any record preserved as to its founder or possessor. It is not even honored by the slightest mention in the AbbÉ De la Rue's recent publication, or in those of De Bourgueville or Huet. In all probability it owes its existence to some wealthy citizen, during the reigns of Charles VIII. or Louis XII. as “it was principally at that period, that the practice prevailed in France, of ornamenting the fronts of the houses with medallions. The custom died away under Francis I.”[136]—According to this theory, the houses at Caen and at Fontaine-le-Henri may be placed in exactly the same Æra, and about forty years anterior to that at Rouen.

Caen can show another remarkable instance of domestic architecture, a castellated building, which, it has been remarked, might easily mislead the studious antiquary. This building, commonly known by the name of the ChÂteau de la Gendarmerie, but more properly called the ChÂteau de Calix, is generally believed by the inhabitants of the town to have been erected for the purpose of commanding the river, while it flowed in its ancient, but now deserted, bed. According, however, to the AbbÉ De la Rue, no fortification of any description ever existed in the same place; but the structure, however martial in its appearance, was in its character altogether pacific, and was built during some of the latest years of the fifteenth, or earliest of the sixteenth, century, by Girard de Nollent, then owner of the property.[137] Two statues, apparently intended to represent heathen divinities, but now absurdly called Gendarmes, frown over its battlements, which, like those of the adjacent wall, and like the face of the principal tower, are still charged with medallions, though the ebullition of revolutionary enthusiasm has destroyed the arms of the Nollents.

Previously to dismissing this subject, it may be worth while to remark, that the ogee canopy, surmounting the window placed between the two medallions in the house in the Rue St. Jean, at Caen, is nearly a fac-simile of that which is still seen over the door that led to what was once the great hall in the Conqueror's palace, adjoining the abbey of St. Stephen. The resemblance between them is so great, that it would be difficult to believe that they are of very different dates. But the palace was unquestionably the production of more than one Æra; and in the scarcity of materials for the forming of a correct opinion upon the subject, it is impossible to say, whether the door in question may not have been inserted some time after its erection, or even whether the ornamental part may not have been added to it at a period subsequent to its formation.

---