370
NOTES AND QUERIES. [ii s. i. MAY 7, 1910.
Many people are under the impression that
these date from mediaeval times, but, as a
matter of fact, the creatures are little older
than the venerable-looking, tall, crocketed
pinnacles upon the exterior of Exeter
Cathedral, the oldest of which is, as a
matter of fact, fully a quarter of a century
younger than myself !
Indeed, the Notre Dame gargoyles are not French workmanship. Most of these cleverly manipulated nondescripts, full of quaint conceit some doing duty as water- spouts, but in many instances simply curious creations perched over the battlements, &c. are exact reproductions of the old decayed original ones, removed by Viollet-le-Duc, the eminent architect, when he restored a great portion of the fabric about the middle of last century. At that time " Georgie " Myers a Yorkshireman by birth, and then one of the largest and best-known London contractors was engaged in building a large mansion for a member of the Roths- child family near Paris. One of the men employed there by him was an expert worker in stone named Frampton, a native of Beverley. After the work was completed at the Chateau, Viollet - le - Due secured his services, and Frampton was the man who, under the architect's personal super vision, carved by far the greater part of the gargoyles in question. I knew him per sonally, and am perhaps one of the few left alive who are aware that they are his work.
Gargoyles or gurgoyles often took the human form, although almost invariably as caricatures. Mr. H. S. Marks's picture, exhibited at the Royal Academy many years ago, entitled ' The Franciscan Sculptor/ cleverly illustrated an elderly server in that Order standing in position as a model for a gargoyle, whilst a younger brother is seen busily engaged in making an exaggerated facsimile of him in a block of stone which projects from an aisle then in course of con struction. Leaning over the parapet, and standing upon the lead flat just above, are half a dozen fellow monks looking down with interest at the progress made in his work by their more artistic brother.
The REV. C. W. A. PBESTON further inquires whether books exist treating upon the grotesque figures to be found in eccle siastical architecture. I would refer him to ' The Grotesque in Church Art/ bj Tindall Wildridge, published by Willian Andrews & Co., 5, Farringdon Avenue, E.C (1899). HABBY HEMS.
Fair Park, Exeter
I question whether much information on
he subject of gargoyles can be found
utside the pages of technical journals or
omprehensive architectural works like
31oxam's ' Principles of Gothic Ecclesiastical
Architecture/ Fergusson ? s * History of Archi-
,ecture in all Countries/ or Cates's ' Dic-
ionary of Architecture/ Ruskin's writings,
)f course, might be consulted. MB. PBESTON
s no doubt aware of the chapter headed
Grotesque Renaissance l in ' The Stones of
Venice/
Adorning the walls of the old palace at Stirling Castle are a number of uncouth igures, now sadly defaced by ' ' the hungry }ooth of time/ 1 some of them "gargoyles" n the most literal sense of the word. A ?rief reference to these figures is made in Camden's * Britannia/ enlarged by Richard Grough, London, 1789, vol. iii. They are also mentioned and partly described in some of the local Stirling guide-books.
W. SCOTT.
Stirling.
The reference to gargoyles in Huysmans's ' La Cathedrale ' may be noted :
'Ces creatures hybrides materialisant les vices vorais, rejetes du sanctuaire, rappelant au passant qui les voit expumer a pleine gueule les lies des gouttieres, qu'hors de 1'^glise, ce ne ^ont que gemonies de 1'esprit et cloaques de I'ame."
BENJ. WALKER. Gravelly Hill, Erdington.
See The Architectural Review, vols. xi.-xiv. for a series of illustrated articles entitled
- Mediaeval Figure-Sculpture in England. 1
G. S. PABBY.
RICHABD HENRY ALEXANDER BENNET
(11 S. i. 189, 238, 311). MB. A. F. BOBBINS,
who is a native of Launceston, and writes
with authority (the value of which I can
fully appreciate) on Cornish elections, pre-
faces his reply to me with the remark that
I am " assuredly too positive ?i in stating that
the R. H. A. Bennet who was a captain in
the Navy and sat for Launceston and Ennis-
killen between 1802 and 1812 never repre-
sented Newport. MB. ROBBINS'S facts about
the M.P. for Newport (with which I am
perfectly familiar, and was so when I wrote,
ante, p. 238) are correct in the material
points : his inference that the Bennet of
1770 was identical with the captain of the
same name who was M.P. in 1802, is im-
probable and can be proved to be incorrect,
as I now proceed to show.
