early normandy and the emergence of norman romanesque architecture

Early Normandy and the emergence of Norman R omanesaue architectuke

Lauren Wood Breese

The beginnings of the Romanesque style can be linked to the expulsion or incorporation of Viking and other pagan invaders beginning in the tenth century, but the date of the origins of a distinctive

Norman Romanesque style as at Caen in the period of William the Conqueror is not clear. The impact of northmen on northwestern France was severe, even the church there virtually suspending activities.

But the earb ducal leadership led the way to a general cultural reuiual and to the revitalization of ecclesiastical functions and building. On the basis

of a survey of Norman architectural remains of the period - particularly the recently restored abbey church at Bernay - and of a comparison of those

remains with contemporaneous Romanesque patterns, certain conclusions can be drawn. Possibly under the guidance of the reforming Lombard architect-abbot, William of Volpiano, Norman struc-

tures (950-1050) generally paralleled the advances on the continent and in England, but there is little evidence, except in the case of experimentation with tribune galleries, of a distinctive or advanced Nor- man Romanesque style emerging even this late in its evolution.

Norman architecture had its origins during the First Romanesque in the late tenth and the first half of the eleventh centuries. By the twelfth century Norman architecture had emerged as a regionally distinct and creative style, one which contributed sub- stantially to the realization of the pos- sibilities within Romanesque. Our under- standing of the advance from Merovingian and Carolingian buildings with their typically rough stonework and wooden roofs to the lofty structures of ashlar-cut stone and vaulted ceilings of the late eleventh century has been much widened by recent art historical studies.’ These studies have also re- sulted in a more careful definition of the earliest architectural style of the post- Carolingian age, a style dominant prior to the mid-point of the eleventh century and known as First Romanesque.

Regardless of the late eleventh-century achievements, little attention has been paid to the question of how far back in time a distinctive Norman style of architecture is to be projected. In some areas, specifically eleventh-century sculpture and manuscript illumination, the Normans have been de- monstrated by art historians to have been largely or completely dependent on de- velopments elsewhere, particularly Britain and Ireland, the Rhineland, and other parts of France.’ Was the same true in the field of architecture, or was Norman Romanes- que already a distinctive and advanced style prior to the beginning of work on Saint- Etienne and Sainte-TrinitC at Caen? This study is an investigation of that question. It is, moreover, an attempt to place the origins and development of Norman architecture in the broadest possible historical matrix. In investigating this question the approach

Journal of Medieval History 14 (1988) 203-216 0304-4181/88/$3.50 0 1988, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (North-Holland) 203

will be to consider evidences in comparison to the general state of European stone architecture in the tenth and first half of the eleventh centuries and also in comparison to the accepted characteristics of the First Romanesque style. On the basis of these comparisons it is possible to draw some conclusions about novelty and creativity in the evolution of Norman tectonics prior to the founding of William the Conqueror’s great abbeys at Caen.3

It is perhaps helpful to recall that in the early decades of the tenth century there were few massive Roman or post-Roman buildings anywhere in Europe north of the

Table 1. Large Carolingian structures in northern

Europe before the death of Charles the Bald (877)

740

754

775

780

782

790

792 799

800

c.802

805

c.810

814

post-814 819

821

822 836

847 858

872 873

885

Saint Emmeran at Regensburg begun

Saint-Denis, Paris, begun

Saint-Denis, Paris, dedicated

Saint Emmeran at Regensburg completed

Aniane begun

Saint-Riquier reconstruction by Abbot

Angilbert under way

Aachen, Palatine chapel, begun

Saint Peter at Niedelzell (Reichenau

group) begun Saint Justin at Hijchst under way

Lorsch gateway begun

Fulda rebuilding under way Aachen, Palatine chapel, dedicated

Ingelheim Palace group under way Saint-Philibert-de-Grandlieu begun

Cornelimiinster-on-the-Inden under way Fulda dedicated

Minster at Mittelzell dedicated Steinbach under way

Corvey under way Saint George, Oberzell, under way Saint-Philibert-de-Grandlieu completed

Chartres begun Hildesheim under way

Corvey westwork begun

Corvey westwork completed

Mediterranean littoral. Less than twenty large structures survived there from before the death of Charles the Bald in 877: eleven from Charlemagne’s time (including Saint- Riquier, the Aachen Palatine chapel, and the monasteries at Lorsch and Fulda); live from the period of Louis the Pious (including Saint-Philibert-de-Grandlieu near the mouth of the Loire, Corvey-on-the-Weser, and Mittelzell Minster); and three from the reign of Charles the Bald (particuIarly Hil- desheim) (Table 1).4 Thereafter, the three- pronged attacks - Viking, Saracen, and Magyar - on the frontiers of western Chris- tendom in the ninth and tenth centuries produced a drastic slowdown in construction.

It was only in the mid-tenth century, when pagan assaults had begun variously to be turned back or the attackers converted and incorporated, that a reviving Latin Europe resumed the raising of large stone buildings. The program at the center of the Ottonian Empire between the 930s and about 1000, with its lofty basilican structures terminating in westworks, or double- apsed, is the most familiar one of this revival, clearly observable in Saint Cyriakus at Gernrode (founded between 959-63)) Saint Panteleon, Cologne (966-80), the original cathedral of Magdeburg (967 on), and in Mainz Cathedral (begun 987).5 And the early eleventh-century dynasts carried on this dynamic new building program with constructions at Limburg on the Haardt, Paderborn, Speyer, and Strasbourg.

The architectural revival was not re- stricted to the center of the Empire. In northern Italy Sant’Ambrogio, . Milan (under reconstruction from 940 on), was one of the many churches built in the

204

emerging Lombard style, a’style which was characterized by skillful ashlar building, the basilican plan with side-aisles, apses, vaulting, and decorated wall construction, but without much development of wide vaulting at heights. Similar structures and techniques were found in Burgundy at Tournus (Saint-Philibert, begun about 950), Charlieu (Saint-Fortunat), Chatillon- sur-Seine (Saint-Vorles) , Auxerre (the cathedral Saint-Etienne), Dijon (Saint-Bi- nigne), and Cluny II (begun 955, dedicated 98 1) . The same influences can be discerned in French Catalonia at Santa Maria, Rip011 (under construction from the 960s completed 1020-32)) and Saint-Martin-du- Canigou in the Pyrenees (1001-26). Other centers of reviving architectural construction in the tenth and eleventh centuries were northern France, the Loire valley, and England. In northern France in the vicinity of Paris there were, for example, constructions at Reims (Saint-Remi, 1005)) Chartres (Fulbert’s church, 1020)) Beauvais (the Basse-Oeuvre, 987-88)) and in Paris (Saint- Germain-des-Pres, from 990 on). In the Loire valley there were building programs at Loches (Beaulieu), Tours (Saint-Martin, rebuilt 903-18), Poitiers (Saint-Hilaire), and at Orleans (Saint-Aignan and the cathedral of Orleans, before 1016). In En- gland, late tenth-century and early eleventh-century construction included large structures at Glastonbury (known as Glastonbury II), Winchester (New Min- ster), Ramsey Abbey, and Gloucester (Saint Oswald’s minster). The English tradition was an independent mixture of monastic and Germanic elements and was marked by the persistence of earlier traditions of construction and a continuation of the use of

quality masonry and ashlar.6 These characteristics are particularly notable in the smaller churches of the first half of the

eleventh century such as Barton-on- Humber, Breamore, and Earls Barton.

It was the increasing military security, urbanization, and prosperity which made possible the revival of large-scale building in stone. For a frontier part of France like Normandy, the recovery of military and political stability, a reorganized church, and some degree of commercial progress were particularly important. The ninth-century raids and immigrations had so seri- ously disrupted ecclesiastical life that of the ten major abbeys already established in northwest Frankland by the mid-seventh century,’ none had a continuous existence from Merovingian times, and episcopal chairs often went unoccupied.

At the beginning of the tenth century, then, when most monastic and many secular clerical communities were abandoned or destroyed, the arrangements of 9 11 between Hrolf and King Charles with their religious stipulations were a necessary precondition to the revitalization of ecclesiastical order in the new duchy. And Hrolf himself set his dynasty on its future course when the first monastic church was re-established at Rouen (Saint-Ouen) in about 920, the monks returning with their relics and Hrolf endowing the monastery with its former estates (Bates 1982:12; Lauer 1949:20; Fauroux 196 1:20).

Almost a generation passed before the next step was taken in the reopening of the abbeys of Jumieges and Corbie and a con- vent at Montivilliers in the later years of the reign of William Longsword (933-42) (Musset 1965:321; Gall. Chr. 1874:col. 127).

205

1

206

Only by the last decade of the tenth century was an evolving policy of ducal patronage, generous endowment, and the vigorous in- volvement of the dukes in religious matters beginning to reestablish vitality in the duchy’s monastic communities and thus make possible the advances of the eleventh century.

By this time also the military security of northern France vis-a-vis both the neighboring Frankish territories and the peoples of the northern seas was reasonably well established, and this new stability was reflected in a variety of major secular building projects. Urban development was under way at F&amp by the 990s with improved harbor facilities and construction of a for- tress residence;’ and shortly before 1027 the first bridge to span the Seine at Rouen was completed (Boyer 1976:63).

The reigns of Richard I (942-96) and Richard II (996-1026) were a particularly important period. The duchy’s economic growth and increasing prosperity are evidenced in part by the existence of a mint at Rouen from the mid-tenth century and by a F&amp treasure of some eight thousand coins buried sometime in 980-990 (Dumas- Dubourg 1972:3, 7, 14-16). New towns, particularly in the west, such as Dieppe, Falaise, Argentan, Alencon, and Cherbourg began to develop (Musset 1965:321; 1966:3 12). The burgeoning commercial activity of the duchy is further suggested by records of the presence of travellers, not only the predictable visitors from the region of the northern seas - Scandinavia, Anglo- Saxon England, Ireland - but also from Italy via Burgundy and, by the mid-1020s, from as great a distance as the monastery of Saint Catherine’s at Mount Sinai

(Lalanne 1845; de Freville 1857:92; Mabil- lon 1668-1702; Fawtier 1923). It is signifi- cant that the earliest datable visit of Nor- mans to southern Italy was in 1016 (Prent- out 1929:86-7).

Four new monastic houses were founded or reconstituted under Richard I’s patronage: Saint-Taurin, Evreux, founded about 980; La Trinite, F&amp, originally a con- vent for women, first consecrated a collegiate church in 990 and then in 1001 converted to an abbey for regular clergy:’ both Saint-Wandrille (the former abbey of Fon- tenelles destroyed by Vikings in 858) and Le Mont-Saint-Michel (earlier transferred to the regular clergy) were revived sometime before 991 (Gall. Chr. 1874:cols. 176, 474, 512, 513). The tenth-century ducal charters mention the names of forty-four ecclesiastical buildings, most located in Upper Normandy, the area hardest hit by ninth-century attacks (Fauroux 1961:66-7). In addition by 990 the cathedrals of the seven dioceses (Rouen, Evreux, Lisieux, Sees, Bayeux, Coutances, and Avranches) were again filled - albeit in the case of Cou- tances with a bishop in absentia.10 By the end of the reign of Richard II in 1026 the four dukes had sponsored eight abbeys.” By 1035 fourteen abbeys existed, including two additional ducal foundations, Cerisy-la- For-et and a re-established Montivilliers (Bertaud 1955:39),‘* and three others. Le Bet, Preaux, and Conches (Bates 1892:219, 274). The total had reached eighteen by the mid-point of the century (Fauroux 1961:35ff.).

Few material remains of these structures by means of which we might detail the earliest stages of Norman architectural history exist, a fact for which the Normans them-

207

selves are partly to blame. Unlike contem- porary Anglo-Saxon masons who tended to retain what was there and to ‘edit’, the Nor- mans had the more modern habit of completely demolishing older edifices in order to construct from the ground up.13 Today only fragments of the original fabric of nine Norman structures prior to 1050 are available to us. l4 For the years 91 l-1000, there still survive part of a nave wall and westwork at Jumieges, the foundations of a church and ducal residence at Fecamp,15 a section of the crypt of the cathedral of Rouen, and the small subterranean chapel at Le Mont-Saint-Michel.‘6 From the first fifty years of the eleventh century there remain sections of a small parish church at Vieux-Pont-en-Auge (Musset 1965:44), part of the crypts at Bayeux and Rouen, some uncovered archeological evidences in the nave of the cathedral at Coutances (Herschman 1983), and the nave and choir of the abbey church at Bernay. Of all these artifacts from the period prior to 1050, only the recently restored Bernay still stands largely intact, with five of the seven original bays of the nave and side aisles, plus the south transept and the choir. For this reason, Bernay figures as the centerpiece of any investigation of the connections between Norman and general European architecture in the first half of the eleventh century.

The construction of the abbey at Bernay provides evidence for the study of several aspects of early eleventh-century Normandy in addition to its architecture: marital arrangements; alliances; the beginnings of religious reform; the earliest representative of the long series of influential religious leaders from Lombardy; and even the roles of

women, or at least of aristocratic women. For example, ducal assets at the turn of the century were sulhciently great to enable the fourth duke, Richard II, to provide from his lands a dower of extensive estates in the heartlands of Normandy for his bride, Judith of Brittany, a marriage alliance de- signed to bring the two western duchies into closer relation.” It was on lands of this dower that the new structure at Bernay had its origins.

In the ten years of Judith’s marriage (from about 1007 to 1017), she bore Richard at least six children: three sons (two of whom became the future dukes Richard III and Robert I) and three daughters. She died before her thirtieth birthday on 17 June 1017 and was buried in the cloister of the abbey church at Bernay which she was sponsoring (Duchesne 1619: 1017). The greater part of the lands and goods which constituted her dower were donated as the basis of Bernay’s endowment. In the Dotalitium Judithae (996- 1008) we are told of the abbey’s dependen- cies, of the fifty-three churches, forty-nine mills, of ploughs, persons, and other fur- nishings which were included in Judith’s gift to the new monastery.‘* But, although construction began around 1015, Judith probably saw little, if any, of its progress. Under typical circumstances, only the foundations and the piers of the choir would have been under way by the time of her death in 1017.”

Eight years after his wife’s death, Richard II in a F&amp charter Diuina propiciante (1025) reaffirmed the close ties between F&amp and Bernay, mentioned the establishment of monks at Bernay, and entrusted completion of the work to the abbot of

208

F&amp, William of Volpiano, and to his

successors (Fauroux 196 1: 133). William is

for us the most famous architect of the day - a man in turn involved in the revival of

major stone construction and in Romanes-

que innovation at Ivrea and San Michele di

Sacra in Lombardy and at several French

houses. His association with Bernay contri-

butes further to its importance.

William, the first of three great Lombard

immigrants to Normandy - more famous

are Lanfranc and Anselm - did not arrive

there until 1001 when he was nearly forty.*’

By then, his monastic career, which had

begun near his birthplace north of Milan,

had already connected him to the Burgun-

dian abbeys at Cluny, Saint-saturnin-on-

the-Rhone, and Saint-Benigne, Dijon. In

990 he had been sent from Cluny to Dijon.

As abbot there, he brought reform and laid

the plans for and possibly directed the

building of an important new edifice, Saint-

Benigne, construction of which was begun

in 100 1, just at the time that he also became

active in Normandy (MPL 1880: 142, 707).

Once in Normandy, William’s labors

were prodigious. At F&amp he is credited

with establishing the first scriptorium, the

first schools of grammar, architecture, and

medicine, and the first brotherhood of

jongleurs. He is said to have restored the

Gregorian chant there to its traditional

form, composed new liturgical music, and

introduced alphabetic notation in written

scores (Herval 1942-44:3 14-15; LeMaitre

1958: 196). Toward the end of his career, he

was abbot over some forty monasteries

spread across Europe from the English

Channel to northern Italy (MPL 1880:700),

a sort of Cluniac system, albeit on a smaller

scale. He retained his post as abbot of

F&amp (of which Bernay was a depen-

dency) until 1028 when the position was

given to his nephew.*’ William then made

one final trip to Italy, returned to Nor-

mandy, and died there 1 January 1031 .22

Regretably the role of William in Ber-

nay’s planning and construction cannot be

precisely defined. We have extensive evi-

dence (and considerable speculation) about

the dates, dimensions, and decoration of the

original building, now recently restored to

a much closer approximation of its

eleventh-century appearance. We lack the

data necessary to specify precisely which

decisions about its plan and construction

were William’s, which ones were his disci-

ples’, particularly those of Thierry of

Dijon,23 which ones were imported with the

craftsmen who accompanied William from

Burgundy, and which decisions originated

with local masons.24 William was active in

Normandy from 100 1 to 103 1, and he is cre-

dited with the organizing role in the plan-

ning and construction of Saint-Benigne, but

we have no clear picture of the frequency

with which he traveled between the two

duchies, nor do we know precisely when he

came to play the dominant role at Bernay.

Bernay was a new structure,25 erected not

on any traditional site of worship but on

virgin ground. No existing plan influenced

or constricted the new building. Construc-

tion continued through at least two cam-

paigns before its completion in about 1050-

55.26 The plan of the new building at Ber-

nay may have closely paralleled that of

Cluny II (955-81).27 The more sophisti-

cated achievement at Saint-Benigne, Dijon,

with its important features of a triple-tiered

rotunda and its vaulting,** was probably

beyond the resources available in Nor-

209

mandy at the time. Although Dudo’s de- scription of the earlier church at F&amp suggests vaulting, neither a rotunda nor evidence of original vaulting is found at Ber- nay. ” Still, there are evidences of correla- tions between the Burgundian and Norman edifices. Both Cluny II and Saint-Benigne connect to Bernay in their treatment of choir and nave aisles - the choir aisles being slightly reduced in each case (Decaens 1982: 100). Certain considerations about the thickness of the walls at Bernay likewise connect it to Saint-Benigne, as do the twinned colonnettes on the socles in the south transept (Bay16 1982:3). Certainly, it is difficult to imagine that a man of William’s experience and prestige had no voice in the building, but, as noted, inference is all that is possible at present.

The Norman ecclesiastical rebuilding program of the tenth century was conserva- tive. Those few structures for which there is evidence, prior to the construction of Ber- nay, employed the basilican plan, had flat wall surfaces, contained little ashlar, termi- nated in westworks, had blind galleries, and, only in the case of F&amp, described by the chronicler, Dudo (Lair 1865:291), had large dimensions. Bernay clearly represents a breakthrough in terms of size3’ and sophistication, but any judgment about what might be called the “modernity” - or lack of it - of Bernay’s new abbey church and the other surviving parts of contempo- rary Norman structures depends in part on their relation to, First Romanesque.

The concatenation of newly-invented or newly-emphasized architectural features which constitute this style include the following (not all of which, of course, occurred on any single site or at the same time): (1)

improvement in the handling of masonry; (2) decoration by means of horizontal courses laid with irregularly shaped stones; (3) a prominence given to the west end of the church; (4) the addition of an eastern tower or a tower at the crossing of the transept and nave; (5) novel treatment of crypts; (6) experimentation with supporting columns and compound piers; (7) the use of attached half-columns on support structures with the addition of capitals; and (8) the occasional treatment of nave and transept wall systems with vertical buttresses (responds) and with the addition of galleries. Some of these stylistic elements were innovations and some were elaborations on earlier devices, such as the use of the half- column which is Roman (Fernie 1983:81-

2). In reference to the first-mentioned fea-

ture, improvement in the handling of masonry, it should be noted that member- ing in ashlar (that is, square-cut stone) as well as in small brick-shape pieces of masonry was becoming more common as early as the tenth century. Often, as at Saint-Philibert, Tournus, these traditions were blended into the fabric of one building. In Normandy, as evidenced at Bernay, the cores of walls, piers, and pavement were often composed of rubble work with only ashlar facing stones. Where the use of stone in ceilings was concerned, vaulting was already known and in use at many European sites, as with the three tunnel vaults in the nave of Saint-Martin-du-Canigou in French Catalonia and the groin vaulting covering the three-stage rotunda at Saint-Benigne, Dijon (Conant 1978: 100, 115; Malone 1980:275). In N ormandy, by contrast, vaulting was not yet in use to span the broad

210

area of the nave but only over side-aisles and narrower spaces. According to Dudo (Lair 1865:291), F &amp’s tower was vaulted. Building design and aesthetic considerations were also influenced by a variety of other construction techniques. For example, a related masonry feature of First Romanes- que is the decorative use of stone laid in horizontal courses, an elaboration of the older ‘herringbone’ device so evident in the Merovingian-Carolingian period, examples of which are to be found in the stringcourse on the tower-nave at Earls Barton, North- amptonshire and at Bernay above the nave arcades.31

Another feature of First Romanesque was an outgrowth of Carolingian tradition, that is, the prominence accorded the western end of the church which came to be called the ‘westwork’ (a tower-like west block with a vestibule at ground level and chapel above, sometimes opening onto the nave, and distinguished from later practice by having the nave and side-aisles terminating on the east side of the block and not man- ifested on the west front). As early as the ninth century, structures such as those of

Saint-Remi, Reims, Corvey in Lower

Saxony, and Saint-Riquier on the Flemish

frontier, contained massive westworks,

and their use was routine in the Rhenish

homeland of the Empire. A repetition of this

feature on a much-reduced scale in Nor-

mandy was to be found in two late tenth-

century buildings: the small church of

Saint-Pierre, Jumieges, and the ducal

abbey-church at F&amp, both of which are

described as having had westworks with

side towers (Carlson 1966:27; Conant

1978:46). In the decades between 1030 and

1070, Coutances cathedral (built west to

east, beginning in 1030) and Notre-Dame, Jumieges (begun 1040, completed 1067)

had similar construction with west galleries

and flanking stair-towers (Herschman

1983:121ff). It was not until the late

eleventh century in Normandy that the

westwork was to give way to the so-called

faGade harmonique (the west front, with twinned towers, which was the termination of the nave and side-aisles in which the divi- sions between them were made externally evident by means of buttresses). The most distinctive surviving example of the Nor- man facade harmonique is that of the abbey of

Saint-Etienne, Caen, the model for which

appears to have been Lanfranc’s cathedral

at Canterbury, the facade of which was

completed between 1077 and 1089, at least

two decades prior to that at Caen.33 At Ber-

nay work has yet to be undertaken in the

area of the site of its two westernmost bays,

destroyed in the seventeenth century (De-

caens 1982:120, 16n; Charles 1973:8). Even-

tually the question of the appearance of the

west facade there may be put to rest.

The importance accorded the western

end of the church was frequently balanced

in First Romanesque by the addition of an

eastern tower over the choir. Even before

the basilican ground plan was normally ex-

panded to include transepts, eastern towers

were typical. Where early cruciform ground

plans were employed (as at Saint-Riquier

or even in the small Saxon chapel at Brea-

more) towers almost invariably crowned the

crossing of transept and nave. It is known

that F&amp had a vaulted central tower of

two stories (Lair 1865:29 1) and that the loft-

ier (and later) church of Notre-Dame,

Jumieges, had a two-staged lantern tower

roofed in wood (Conant 1978:447). Bernay

211

also possessed a crossing tower (Decaens 1982:106).

A fifth feature of First Romanesque was the novel treatment accorded crypts, particularly with the sharp increase in size and complexity of construction, as in the (restored) work of Volpiano at Dijon, and also in some cases with the addition of crypts styled to follow the curving line of the apse. The design of Norman crypts can only be inferred, however, since so few tenth- or early eleventh-century elements of those crypts have survived. A possible tangential relevance of the crypt at Auxerre, dated about 1023, is to be found in its compound piers and soffrt (roll)-mouldings, features used in other connections at Bernay (Fernie 1983:87).

Of particular significance in foreshadow- ing the mature Romanesque (and Gothic) style is the First Romanesque experimentation with compound piers, the use of attached half-columns on support structures, and the addition and elaboration of capitals.34 To be especially noted in this regard at Bernay are its rectangular piers with engaged half-columns and roll-mouldings on the arches which, as suggested above, may establish a direct link with Auxerre and the central Loire region. 35 Other features found in the structural and decorative components of Bernay are the twinned colonnettes on the socles in the south transept which may also connect Bernay to Burgundy, at Dijon (Baylt 1981:32), the interlace designs on some columnar bases which evoke Lombard metalwork and stonework patterns (Baylt 1982:3), the block capitals with foliate and scroll motifs and the single extant Corin- thian capital which tie Bernay’s sculptural traditions, respectively, to Ravenna (via Ot-

tonian Germany) and to the Loire valley and Poitou (via Dijon).36

Finally, a distinctive feature of First Romanesque is the treatment accorded the nave wall, the arcade, and the vertical support system. Here the Norman experiments, once again, illustrate the concurrence of several traditions and the completeness with which the new building program in the duchy had entered into the mainstream of European development. On the one hand, the flat wall surfaces without vertical articu- lation, the unusual height (for the France of its day) of the arcade, and the rectangular piers all at Bernay have been identified as Ottonian, as have the blind arches centered above the nave arcade spandrels (Kubach 1975:166, 86; Decaens 1982:106). On the other hand, the buttressing with responds (that is, engaged pillars) in the choir at Ber- nay may illustrate Norman adaptation of the vertical support system found across the Channel at Sompting (Aubert and Goubet 1965: 192). By the mid-eleventh century, Normans consistently used responds as features in strengthening thinner walls, as at Notre-Dame, Jumieges, Sainte-Trinite, Caen, and later at Le Mont-Saint-Michel. While the Bernay arcade might be termed Ottonian, the arcade of Notre-Dame, Jumieges, which contains alternating columnar and compound piers with rectangular cores (a system never to become common in Normandy) may have been inspired by the nave of Edward the Confessor’s abbey at Westminster begun about 1050.37

Perhaps the most important surviving architectural link in Normandy between the tenth-century beginnings and the achievements of the Conqueror’s day and later is to be found in the second stage wall eleva-

212

tion at Bernay. The use of a functional gallery between the arcade and the clerestory or ceiling - the tribune gallery -was already in use in the tenth century at such places as Gernrode near the middle Elbe (Fernie 1983:79). Its earliest Norman development is at Saint-Pierre, Jumieges (a restoration dating from 934 on), as a non-functional passageway in the nave and transept walls. The feature recurs at Bernay38 but was only fully realized in the abbey churches at Caen (begun 1067-68) and Cerisy (after 1100).

By way of conclusion, then, on the basis of the evidence adduced it would be mis- leading to say that Norman architecture by the middle of the eleventh century was either particularly distinctive or advanced. Insofar as it has survived intact it is largely harmonious with the First Romanesque style which had evolved and was still evolving in western Europe during the eleventh century. In detail it was most closely related to the Romanesque dominant in Burgundy, and this is predictable both on the basis of the dynamic cultural and religious develop- ments in the center of France and in terms of the possible influence of William of Vol- piano. The greatest surviving advance of Norman Romanesque with respect to the rest of Latin Europe was probably the tribune gallery which still exists at Bernay. Overall, Norman architecture, like Norman sculpture and Norman manuscript illumination, seems to be dependent both logi- cally and in terms of the surviving evidence on what had already been or was being achieved elsewhere.

Normandy’s exposed position in the tenth century and the near cessation of ecclesiastical organization and activity prior to the middle of that century seems adequate to

explain any backwardness. The rapid development of the duchy beginning with the two Richards brought the culture of the duchy into closer contact with vital centers on both sides of the Channel. The establishment of peaceful relations with Scandinavia and England, the encouragement of economic and urban growth, and the turn- ing to the reform ecclesiastics of Burgundy and the PO valley were critical factors in the rapid cultural growth of the tenth and eleventh centuries. And the role of the Nor- man rulers - even of Hrolf and William Longsword - would be difficult to under- estimate in accounting for the revival of Christianity and of the architecture which hardly existed in disassociation from it.

Acknowledgements

This article is an outgrowth of papers given at the Rocky Mountain Medieval and Re- naissance Association in Arizona and at the Haskins Society Conference in Texas. The suggestions offered at these meetings were most helpful in clarifying and developing ideas. Also, I am especially grateful for the encouragement and the editorial guidance given me by the late Professor Lynn White, jr., my mentor and friend. There is no one to whom I am more indebted.

Notes I Particularly the studies of Edson Armi, Maylis Baylt, Joseph Decaens, Eric Fernie, Richard Gem,

Louis Grodecki, and George Zarnecki. 2 The sources for Norman illuminations and fi-

gure styles appear to have been varied: Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, Merovingian, Carolingian, and Ottonian; Grodecki 1950, 1958; Zarnecki 1978; Alexander 1970.

213

3 Sainte-Trinitt, begun 1062; Saint-Etienne,

begun c. 1068. + Dates from Conant 1978.

See Fernie 1983:79, 83; Conant 1978:122, 123. 6 For a fuller discussion of architecture in En-

gland see Gem 1984. / Fontenelle (founded by Saint-Wandrille);

Jumieges and Montivilliers (both founded by Saint-

Philibert); Jerusalem (or Rebais); Corbie; Sithiu (or

Saint-Bertin); Rouen (later known as Saint-Ouen);

F& Pavilly; and Logium. R See Renoux 1979:5-35; Bates 1982: 12 places the

ducal residence earlier in the reign of William

Longsword (before 942). 9 Yver 1963-64: 199. The nuns of F&amp were

sent to Montivilliers. F&amp represents a rare in-

stance of the establishment of a community of canons

by a Norman duke. Collegiate churches in the tenth

century were more typically founded in connection

with local feudatories. Richard I tried to replace the canons of F&amp with monastic clergy and sought

the assistance of the abbot of Cluny, Mayeul, to this

end. The deaths of Mayeul (994) and Richard I (996)

and instability in the North Sea world put off the

establishment of a monastery at F&amp until 1001. IO Five successive bishops of Coutances resided in

Rouen, for example; Douglas 1942:433. II In addition to those at Evreux, F&amp, Saint-

Wandrille, and Le Mont-Saint-Michel were the ab-

beys at Jumieges, Rouen (Saint-Ouen), Montivilliers, and Bernay. 12 The nuns of Montivilliers became independent

of F&amp in 1035. 13 Westminster Abbey was an exception, see Gem

1980:46; 1984:251-2; Fernie 1983:172, 176-7. 14 There is, in addition, a pre-Norman chapel

standing at Querqueville (near Cherbourg in Lower

Normandy) dated about 900. 1s Two bays of the north nave wall and the ruined

westwork remain of Saint-Pierre, Jumieges. Of the

canonical church at F&amp, consecrated in 990, the

basement of the apse, recovered in 1927, remains;

Carlson 1966:27; Musset 1974:26; Renoux 1979. 16 The crypt of the Rouen cathedral was begun in

the later years of Archbishop Robert (brother of Duke

Richard II) who died in 1037. The chapel at Le Mont-Saint-Michel, later known as Notre-Dame- sous-Terre, was recovered in 1908 on the site of an

earlier structure. The chapel is dated to the mid-tenth century; BaylC 1982:3; Fernie 1983:86. 17 Marx 1914:xiii, 88; Douglas 1950:303. Judith

was the sister of Geoffrey, count of Rennes (Brittany). Her marriage c. 1007 to the Norman duke was prob-

ably part of an arrangement between the two houses

which had already seen the union of Richard II’s

sister, Hawisa, to Judith’s brother, and is early evi-

dence of a continuing Norman interest in westward coastal expansion. Shortly after 1008, Judith’s

brother Geoffrey died on pilgrimage; the children

were placed in the care of their uncle, Richard, and

Hawisa was named regent for her eldest son. The

death of Geoffrey paved the way for the Norman an-

nexation of the county of Brittany and nearly a half

century of Norman control of the northwestern coast

of France from the Bresle to the Loire. IR Fauroux 1961:82ff. Additional properties were

confirmed by Richard II in a F&amp charter of 1025. 19 Gem 1982: 126, 2n agrees.

That William of Volpiano was persuaded to

come to Normandy was the result of negotiations

(and gifts to Saint-Btnigne) which had been under

way since the time of Richard I; see Musset 1966:312. William arrived with twelve monks from Dijon. 21 Decaens 1982: 114. Bernay became indepen-

dent of F&amp and received its own abbot with

Vital, about 1055. John of Ravenna, theologian and

musicologist, was William’s nephew and successor at F&amp. 22 MPL 1880:720; William was buried inside the

church at F&amp, whereas dukes Richard I and

Richard II were buried outside the same building. 23 BaylC 1982:4 suggests that Thierry of Dijon’s

role might be as important as that of William of Vol-

R iano; see also Charles 1973:4-5.

The earlier notion of an ‘impact theory’ - that

all innovations spread outward from one source (par-

ticularly that of Cluny II, via Lombardy, throughout

Burgundy) has been most recently challenged by the

studies of Edson Armi. He (1983:121) states that ma-

sons “did not quarantine themselves”. 25 A stone block with a Latin inscription in the

wall of the south side aisle indicates that some stone

came from a Roman monument; Decaens 1982: 111. 26 Decaens suggests the following periods of

building: I. 1015-25; I bis: 1025-35; II. 1030-50. 27 Conant 1978:443; Decaens 1982:lOO. Armi

1983:155 cautions, however, that little is known of Cluny II; thus its importance should not be exagger-

ated. 2s Conant 1978:149 states that Saint-Benigne’s

“summed up the progress of church architecture in

the tenth-century...;” Armi 1983:130 advises that Saint-Btnigne was not the “idiosyncratic” work of

one person, namely William of Volpiano. 29 Dudo (Lair 1865:291) described the westwork

with flanking towers and a central tower containing

214

two vaulted stories. Although Bernay was never vaul-

ted, aesthetic preference may have dictated this deci-

sion rather than lack of technical ability. Vaulting

had become common in Burgundy both at Dijon and

at Tournus. 30 Length: approximately 67 meters (219 ft);

width of transept: 33.50 meters (110 ft); height of

nave walls: 16.50-16.75 meters (c. 55 ft); Charles 1973:3. II Fernie 1983:144-5. Baylt 1982:6 points out that

herringbone work can be found as late as the twelfth

century and does not always serve as “evidence of fyt antiquity”.

The westwork first appeared in fully developed

form at Saint-Riquier (Centula); Carlson 1966:30. 33 McAleer 1984:93-4. McAleer (87) writes that

Saint-Etienne has the feeling of a ‘westwork’; it is not

so advanced as a faGade hamonique. 34 Grodecki’s study (1950) of the block capitals at

Bernay can be used to demonstrate a wide prove-

nance (Byzantine, Carolingian, Ottonian, Lombar-

die) for the sculptural ornamentation. 3.5 Decaens 1982:106 suggests that the half-col-

umns, roll-mouldings, etc. were built from the begin-

ning; BaylP 1982: 12n disagrees. 36 For the uncovering of additional capitals at

Bernay, see Zarnecki 1978. 37 According to Gem 1980:50, 54 there appears to

be “no complete prototype” for Westminster Abbey,

but in its west phases of construction it is less indebt-

ed to Norman sources than previously thought. 3R Kubach 1975:84 states, “It is worth noting that

triforia seldom appear on the continuous walls of flat-

ceilinged basilicas; the exceptions, other than at Ber-

nay (Normandy), are mostly from the twelfth century... .”

Literature

Alexander, J. J. G. 1966. Manuscrits enluminPs du XIe siecle provenant du Mont-Saint-Michel. Art

de Basse-Normandie nos. 4&41:26-33.

Alexander, J.J.G. 1970. Norman illumination at Mont-Saint-Michel, 966-l 100. Oxford.

Armi, C. E. 1973. Saint Philibert at Tournus and wall systems of First Romanesque architecture in the Mhconnais. Columbia.

Armi, C. E. 1983. Masons and sculptors in Romanes- que Burgundy: the new aesthetic ofCluny III. Uni- versity Park, Pennsylvania.

Aubert, M. and S. Goubet 1965. Cathtdrales et ab- batiales romanes de France. Paris.

Bates, D. 1982. Normandy before 1066. London.

Baylt, M. 1979. La Trinitt de Caen: sa place dans

l’histoire de l’architecture et du decor roman.

Geneve.

Bayli, M. 1981. Review of Saint-Benigne in Dijon.

Untersuchungen zur Abteilkirche Wilhelms von

Volpiano (962-1031). Bulletin monumental

139:30-2.

Bayli, M. 1982. Interlace patterns in Norman

Romanesque sculpture: regional groups and their

historical backgrounds. Anglo-Norman studies 5: l-20.

Bertaud, E. 1955. Saint Philibert et les moniales:

Pavilly et Montivilliers. Jumiiges: Congres Scien-

titique du XIIIe Centenaire 1:33-40.

Boyer, M. 1976. Medieval French bridges: a history.

Cambridge.

Carlson, E.G. 1966. Religious architecture in Nor-

mandy, 91 I-1000. Gesta, International Center for

Medieval Art 5:27-33.

Charles, J. 1973. L’abbatiale et les eglises de Bernay.

Connaissance de I’Eure. Revue de la SociCtC Libre

de I’Eure no. 9:3-20.

Conant, K. J. 1978. Carolingian and Romanesque ar-

chitecture, 800-1200. Second revised edition. Har-

mondsworth. Decaens, J. 1982. La datation de l’abbatiale de Ber-

nay. Quelques observations architecturales et r-C-

sultats des fouilles recentes. Anglo-Norman studies 5:97-128.

Douglas, D. 1942. Rollo of Normandy. English histor-

ical review 57:417-36.

Douglas, D. 1950. Some problems of early Norman

chronology. English historical review 65:289-303. Duchesne, A. (ed.) 1619. Historia normannorum

scriptores antiqui, res ab illis gestas explicantes, ab

anno 838 ad anno 1220. Paris. Dumas-Dubourg, F. 1972. Le t&or de F&amp et le

monnayage en Francie occidentale pendant la se- conde moitii du XIe siecle. Paris.

Fauroux, M. (ed.) 1961. Recueil des actes des dues

de Normandie, 91 l-1066. Caen. Fawtier, R. 1923. Les reliques rouennaises de Sainte

Catherine d’Alexandrie. Analecta Bollandiana

421357-68. Fernie, E. 1983. The architecture of the Anglo-

Saxons. New York. Friville, E. de. 1857. Mtmoire sur le commerce

maritime de Rouen, depuis les temps les plus re- culis jusqu’a la fin du XVIe siecle. Rouen.

Gallia Christiana in provincias ecclesiasticas dis- tributa, compiled by the Benedictines of Saint

Maur. 1874. Vol. 11. Paris.

215

Gem, R. 1980. The romanesque rebuilding of Westminster Abbey. Anglo-Norman studies 3:33- 60.

Gem, R. 1982. The early romanesque tower of Sompt- ing Church, Sussex. Anglo-Norman studies 5: 12 l- 28.

Gem, R. 1984. L’architecture preromane et romane en Angleterre. Problemes d’origine et de chronologie. Bulletin monumental 142:233-72.

Grodecki, L. 1950. Les debuts de la sculpture romane en Normandie: Bernay. Bulletin monumental 107:7-67.

Grodecki, L. 1958. L’architecture ottonienne. Collec- tion Henri Focillon, 4. Paris.

Grodecki, L. 1973. L’architecture et decor monumental. In: Le siecle de l’an mil l-84. Paris.

Herschman, J. 1983. The eleventh-century nave of the cathedral of Coutances: a new reconstruction. Gesta, International Center for Medieval Art 22:121-34.

Herval, R. 1942-44. Guillaume de Volpiano, premier abbe de F&amp, et la renaissance romane en Nor- mandie du XIe sitcle. P&is analytique des travaux de 1’Acadimie des Sciences, Belles-lettres et Arts de Rouen 303-20.

James, E. 1982. The origins of France from Clovis to the Capetians, 500-1000. New York.

Kubach, H. E. 1975. Romanesque architecture. New York.

Lair, J. (ed.) 1865. Dudo of Saint Quentin. De moribus et actis primorum normanniae ducum. Caen.

Lalanne, L. 1845. Des pelerinages en Terre-Sainte avant les croisades. Bibliothtque de I’Ecole des Chartes 2: l-3 1.

Lauer, P. (ed.) 1949. Recueil des actes de Charles III, le Simple. Paris.

LeMaitre, J. 1959. Dix siecles d’orgue et de musique a l’abbaye de F&amp. In: F&amp. Ouvrage scien- tilique du XIIItme centenaire 2:193-216.

Mabillon, J. (ed.) 1668-1702. Eberwin. Vita S. Symeonis monachi. ASS 6:375ff.

McAleer, J. P. 1984. Romanesque England and the development of the facade harmonique. Gesta, In- ternational Center for Medieval Art 23:87-105.

Malone, C. M. 1980. Les fouilles de Saint-Benigne de Dijon (1976-78) et le probltme de l’tglise de l’an mil. Bulletin monumental 138:253-84.

Marx, J. (ed.) 1914. William of Jumitges. Gesta normannorum ducum. Rouen.

Migne, J. P. (ed.) 1880. Radulf Glaber. Vita Sancti Guillelmi. PL 142:697-720.

Musset, L. 1965. Les invasions scandinaves et l’Pvolu- tion des villes de la France de l’ouest. Revue his- torique de droit francais et &ranger 43:320-22.

Musset, L. 1966. Les conditions linancieres d’une rtussite architecturale: les grandes Cglises romanes de Normandie. In: P. Gallais and Y-J. Riou (eds.), Melanges offertes a RenC Crozet 1:307-13. Poitiers.

Prentout, H. 1929. Etudes sur quelques points d’histoire de Normandie: le regne de Richard II, due de Normandie (996-1027), son importance dans l’histoire. Memoires de I’Acadtmie Nationale des Scien- ces, Arts et Belles-lettres de Caen ns. 5:57-104.

Renoux, A. 1979. Le chateau des dues de Normandie a Ficamp. Quelques don&es archiologiques et to- pographiques. Archiologie mediivale 9:5-35.

Yver, J. 1963-64. Autour de l’absence d’avouerie en Normandie: notes sur le double theme du dtvelop- pement du pouvoir ducal et de l’application de la rtforme grigorienne en Normandie. Bulletin de la SociCti des Antiquaires de Normandie 57:189-283.

Zarnecki, G. 1978. Romanesque sculpture in Nor- mandy and England in the eleventh century. Anglo-Norman studies 1: 168-89.

216

early normandy and the emergence of norman romanesque architecture

Documents