Stateof Research
RECENTLITERATUREON THE CHRONOLOGY
OF CHARTRESCATHEDRAL
JANVANDERMEULEN
Presented to MejuffrouwDr. J. D. Hintzen
and Professor Dr. I. Q. Van Regteren Altena
in gratitude
In the introduction to his first study on the chronology of Chartres cathedral in 1951, Louis Grodecki correctly pointed out that "recent studies
devoted to the transept sculptures have not ... brought us much nearer
to the problems involved."I Recognizing that purely stylistic considerations with regard to the sculpture, unsupported by material evidence,
will never provide an incontestable relative chronology for the building
itself, he suggests an "archaeological analysis of the architecture" as a
new point of departure.
There is indeed little doubt that since the passing of the generation
of architect-historians of the last century the development of the study
of aesthetics based on the comparative history of art has tended to lead
the individual scholar further and further away from an immediateor unmediated-acquaintance with the actual building under consideration. The new discipline necessary to the creation of a historical science
of aesthetics has, in the field of architecturalhistory, long been reluctant
to consider the measured drawing as a legitimate necessity; in fact it
seems to have been largely dismissed tacitly as a specifically nineteenth
century affair. It is now, however, necessary to ask whether the very
basis of a pragmatic architectural history has not been unwittingly
destroyed by this neglect.
It is significant that the simple basic research principles of Hans
Kunze, the one living scholar who could have bridged this period, have
never been fully evaluated,2 and (with regard to the Cathedral of
Chartres) that the most recent observations of another scholar of
Kunze's generation, Canon Yves Delaporte,3 have not served to halt
the "private war" resulting from Paul Frankl's contradiction of Gro-
NB A bibliographyof frequentlycited sources, given short titles in the footnotes,
will be found at the end of this article.
1 Grodecki,TranseptPortals, 156-64. To Grodecki'ssurvey of studies of Chartres
sculpture(p. 156 n. 1-4) must be added the subsequentstudies of Adolf Katzenellenbogen, The SculpturalProgramsof ChartresCathedral,Baltimore, 1959, and
Peter Kidson, Sculptureat Chartres (photographsof the CourtauldInstitute by
UrsulaPariser),London,1958.
2 Hans Kunze, Das Fassadenproblemder franzasischenFriih- und Hochgotik,Leipzig, 1912. The art historian Kunze, althoughhimself not an architect,accepts the
fact that a complete plan of a new cathedral was designed before work was
commencedat the cornerstone.Surprisingas it may seem, occasional remarksby
reputedart historians show that this circumstanceis not always present in their
minds. Various subdependentobservationsof Kunze's have naturally not proved
to be incontestableover half a century,but the fact that his original study seldom
receives more than isolated recognitionor negative footnotes, indicates (as indeed
does the present state of cathedralresearchas a whole) the extent to which his
obvious basic principlehas been misunderstood.Kunze reportedon his principles
as applied to the Cathedralof Chartres (supplementedby more recent observain Trier, 1958 (see KunstchronikII,
tions) at the GermanKunsthistorikertagung
1958, 293f., explained in further detail with regard to the west choir of Worms
Cathedralin the ZfK, 14, 1960,81-98).
decki's suggested chronology4-although Grodecki's original point of
departure is confirmed by Delaporte's method: "Mais .... les textes ne
sont pas tout. Le monument lui-meme, en effet, revele quelques-uns de
ses secrets a qui sait I'interroger."5This fact itself indicates that Grodecki's laudable intention of remaining within the bounds of "material
evidence," which we may interpret as a warning to return to an exact
study of the building itself, failed to provide a consistently valid approach. On the contrary, the arguments of the essays primarily under
consideration-which, due to the relative inaccessibility of Delaporte's
study, tend to be widely accepted as representing the state of our knowledge (or, at least, to reflect the clear fronts of opinion) on Chartres
cathedral-often diverge so far from the available material evidence,
occasionally even from descriptive accuracy, that the reassertion of
Grodecki's original principles as a satisfactory basis for future research
first requires an analysis of the method of his original study and of the
articles following it. The wealth of exact observation contained in Delaporte's study appears to have been regarded merely as another individual opinion, precisely because a clear assertion of the principles involved in previous recent research has been lacking.6 An extensive
study of the building chronology of the Cathedral of Chartres, based on
the publication of available measurements and detail forms, is in preparation for the Societe Archeologique d'Eure-et-Loirby the author.7
Both Grodecki and Frankl, although they deny the style of the sculpture as a legitimate means of dating the architecture, substitute for this
uncertain method an equally contestable one based to a large extent on
the stained-glass windows and on documentary evidence. Delaporte,
one of the foremost figures in research on Chartres stained glass, though
he himself holds the opinion that the parts of the building may be dated
by reference to the dates of donation of certain windows, in actual fact
rejects this method by not referring to the windows in discussing matters of relative chronology,8 and, with regard to the documentary
sources, sets exemplary limits on permissible interpretation (his views
paralleling those of Marcel Aubert).9 With regard to the documentary
3 Delaporte, "Chartres,"1959, 299-320.Importantconclusions drawn by Delaporte
in this study appearedpreviously,but without detailedproof, in his text to a popular monographNotre-Dame de Chartres, Paris, 1957, a publication, however,
"dont le caracterene comportaitpas de discussionarcheologique"("Chartres,"312
n. 2).
4 Paul Frankl, "Chronologyof Chartres,"33-47; Grodecki,"Chronologiede Chartres," 91-119;Frankl,"Reconsiderationsof Chartres,"51-58.
5 Delaporte,"Chartres,"301.
6 And perhapspartly because Delaporte avoids direct referenceto the basic points
of differencebetweenhis observationsand those of Grodecki.
7 "Die Baugeschichteder KathedraleNotre-Damede Chartres."A preliminaryreport on this study, indicating the method and initial results, appeared in the
Mkmoiresde la Societe arche'ologiqued'Eure-et-Loir,23 (Bulletin, No. 18, 1965),
79-126.
8 In discussing the absolute chronology on p. 319, Delaporte, "Chartres,"does,
however, imprudentlysuggest that the final terminationof the works must be
related to the postulatedroyal donation of the northerntranseptfaqade windows
and that this must consequentlybe dated about1234-37.
9 Aubert, Chartres,10 A. This is a popular work, giving no sources, but serves to
summarizeAubert'sfinal opinions.
LITERATURE
evidence, both Grodecki and Frankl rely too often on intermediate
sources.lo
Only a few of the "documents" prove even conditionally useful in
dating the course of construction, and as such are less liable to overinterpretation:
1. The destruction by fire on June 10, 119411of the greater part, or at
least the nave, of Fulbert's cathedral (begun in 1020),12 is accepted by
all scholars as the terminus post quem for the commencement of the
Gothic superstructureseen today. The exact extent of the damage to the
older building remains uncertain and controversial: the crypt and the
western towers, including the stained glass of the west faqade exist
today.13
2. By about 1220 the vaulting was completed far enough to elicit the
praise of the contemporaryroyal historian Guillaume le Breton.14
10 The original
diate studies:
sources
appear
to have
been
taken
over largely
from
two interme-
Les architectes
et Ia construction
des cathkdrales de
a) Eugene Lefevre-Pontalis,
Chartres, Paris, 1905, and Chartres, 1906, apparently
offprints or reprints from
Mdmoires
de Ia SocietW nationale
des Antiquaires
de France, 64, 1905, 112ff.,
and the Archives historiques
du diockse de Chartres, 1906, which latter appeared
in 1908 bound as Volume XV, which again forms the fourth volume in a subseries
titled EgIises et chapelIes du diocese de Chartres, published
by the Abbe Ch.
Metais; or, at best,
b) the Abbe Bulteau's monograph.
entitled Description
Bulteau's first publication
de Ia cathsdraIe de Chartres, Chartres and Paris, 1850, was to be followed in 1873
by a Grande Monographie
de la cathedrale
de Chartres, which, however,
reand unpublished
mained
incomplete
quotes from this
(Delaporte
occasionally
de Chartres,
Chartres/Cambray,
Ms). The Petite Monographie
de la cathldrale
1872, was then followed by the so-called 2nd edition, Monographie
de Ia cathedra2e de Chartres, Chartres, 1887-1901. This posthumous
publication
was completed by the Abbe Brou, whose unedited correspondence
is often referred to by
Delaporte.
Most of the documentary
evidence has in the past been taken from the CartuIaire de Notre-Dame
de Chartres, E. de Lepinois and L. Merlet, eds., Chartres,
1862-65, from which we can in fact, as Delaporte "Chartres," 300, points out, only
incidentally obtain useful information related to the chronology of the building.
11 The exact date is given in the Miracula Beate Marie Virginias in Carnotensi
a collection compiled about 1210 and which formerly formed
ecclesia facta
....
e Sernaio, a manuscript
Sancte Marie
from the neighboring
part of the Liber
Abbey of Vaux-de-Cernai
but which is now bound out of context as fols. 55-69
of the Vatican ms Regina 339 (described by Bethmann,
in the Monumenta
Germaniae historica journal Archiv (Pertz), xII, and by Reifferscheid,
Bibl. patrum
by Antoine Thomas, "Les
latin, italica, I, 408-10). The Latin text was published
de Chartres,"
miracles de Notre-Dame
Bibliotheque
de I'ecole
des Chartes, 42,
1881, 505-50, the relative passage is reprinted below as Appendix
A. (Jehan de
Marchant's
French translation
in verse, dating from 1262, was published
by G.
Le livre des miracles de Notre-Dame
Duplessis,
de Chartres, Paris, 1855.) The
discovery and first publication
of this date is wrongly ascribed by Frankl, "chronology of Chartres," 33 n. 1, to Bulteau, who, while quoting the passage in full,
1, 97 n. 1, does not refer to the previous publication
Monographie,
of the text by
Thomas eight years earlier. The fire in 1194 is recorded by well nigh all contemcf. (1) Lefevre-Pontalis,
porary historians:
in Archives de Chartres, 27 n. 1; or,
MemAntFr, 100 n. 3; (2) Bulteau, Description, 17 n. L.
12 See Harry H. Hilberry, "The Cathedral at Chartres in 1030," Speculum, 34, 1959,
561-72. Hilberry ignores too much of the local literature and the precise circumstance of the existing remains of the pre-Gothic
structure for his own conclusions to be accepted. This question is treated at length in the first volume of my
forthcoming
study. The full extent of the so-called
Fulbert building
reflects in
fact the pre-Romanesque
cathedral which Fulbert merely converted into his famous crypt by partly filling it in and building over it.
vaulted and therefore not de13 The sanctuary and chevet were in all probability
stroyed in the fire. With regard to the chevet it must be mentioned
that it has
recently been possible to establish that the three deep radial chapels of the older
building were already unified by the addition of the intermediate
chapels in the
early part of the 12th century. The unification of a seven-chapel
choir with double ambulatory has thus its genesis in Chartres, not in Saint-Denis.
The proof of
these observations will also shortly be published.
14 Oeuvres de Rigord et de Guillaume
le Breton, Historiens
de Philippe-Auguste,
H. Franqois Delaborde,
ed., Paris, 1882, I, 196, Gesta Philippi Augusti,
GuiIIeImi
Armorici Liber, ?73: In fine sequentis
junii, ecclesia
beate Marie Carnotensis
(casuali)
incendio
consumpta
est, (sed post a fidelibus
incomparabiliter,
miro
[muro change en miro par le correcteur de Chr.] et miraculoso
tabulatu tapideo
ON
CHARTRES
3. On January 1, 1221, new choir-stalls had just been installed . . . in
choro nostre ecclesie .... 15 Taken together with the report of the existence of high vaulting, there seems, therefore, reason to believe that at
least the choir or, depending on the course of construction, that the
choir also had been completed at this early date. But, at best, this can
only be termed a secondary source because it only concerns church
furniture and not the architecture as such. The possibility of erection in
a temporary choir cannot be excluded. If other circumstances should,
in the course of future research, point to a vaulting of the choir later
than 1220, then we must admit that there is nothing in the text to compel us to accept the choro nostre as the architectural, and not merely
the liturgical choir.
4. On October 17 or 24, 1260, the general consecration of the cathedral was celebrated.16 Although mediaeval churches were often con-
that Guillaume le Breton writes of a visit to
reparata est). There is a consensus
the cathedral in about the year 1220; the Philippide by the same author was written between July 14, 1218 and July 14, 1224 (see Delaborde,
ed.cit., I, 49f.), and
therein the circumstances
are described as follows (Delaborde,
II, 121f.): Liber IV,
598-612 Configit . . . haud multo decurso tempore post hec, / Virgo Dei mater, que
verbo se docet et re / Carnoti dominam, laudabiliore
paratu / EccIesiam reparere
volens speciaIiter ipsi / Quem dicat ipsa sibi, mirando provida casu / Vulcano
furere ad Iibitum permisit in iIIam / Ut medicina foret presens exustio morbi /
Quo Domini domus ilia situ Ianguebat inerti, / Et causam fabrice daret ilia ruina
future, / Cui toto par nuIa hodie spIendescit in orbe; / Que, Iapide exciso surgens
decore, / Judicii nihiI usque
nova, corpore toto / Sub testudineo jam consummata
salus iIIo provenit ab igne, / Quorum
diem timer igne nocere; / MuItorumque
subsidiis operis renovatio facta est.
Rigord, on the other hand, who wrote before 1206, only reports the fire (see
Delaborde,
Liber, ?98: Eodem anno
I, 128), Gesta Philippi
Augusti,
Rigordi
(1194), ecclesia beate Marie Carneotensis incendio conflagravit.
Bulteau, Descripdraws attention
to the earlier publication
in RecuteiI des
tion, 20, furthermore
Gauies
et
de
la
France,
Paris,
1818,
171
and
translates:
"EnHistoriens des
xvII,
ti"rement rebstie A neuf en pierres de taille, et termin6e par une vote
que e'on
peut comparer a une ecaille de tortue, la Cathdrale
de Chartres n'a plus rien A
craindre du feu, d'ici au jour du jugement dernier, et
e elle sauvera du feu pternel
son r "tablissement."
les nombreux chrwtiens qui par leurs bienfaits ont contribuh
15CartuIaire, 11, 95: see appendix B. Such detailed recording in the church books may
well seem to indicate
a permanent
installation
in the new choir; Delaporte,
"Chartres," 300 n. 1, interprets the words nova stalle formae insoIitae as referring
to misericords
of the type shortly afterwards
illustrated
by Villard de Honnecourt. The conflicting hypotheses
of Grodecki and Frankl based on this text only
serve to prove the dangers of overinterpretation.
16 Instrumenta
eccesiae
Carnotensis,
CI, in Gallia Christiana,
viii, Paris, 1744, 370,
see appendix C (French translation
with avant instead of suivant in Bulteau,
dated
Monographie,
I, 131f.), records the granting of a papal bull of indulgences
March 23, 1260, in which the date of the consecration of the new cathedral is fixed
for the Sunday following St. Luke's day--in 1260, October 24. Grodecki, "Transept
Portals," 157, No. 7 and Aubert, Chartres, 10, following Delaporte,
"Notes sur la
fete de la dedicace de Notre Dame de Chartres," La voix de Notre-Dame
de Chartres, 1920, 143, accept this date literally, while Rene Merlet, Chartres, 51, adheres
to the traditional date, October 17. Frankl never mentions the consecration of 1260,
and Delaporte himself also attaches no importance to the final consecration
for the
purpose of establishing
the chronology
(see above, note 8)-however,
he treats the
question again in detail as an independent
preamble to his study in the Me'moires de la Societe' Archeologique
21, 1959, 296-98 under the title
d'Eure-et-Loir,
"
Chartres en octobre 1260?" The difference of one week
"Saint Louis, est-il venue
is indeed of historical importance only from the point of view of the king's presence and the question of royal patronage related, perhaps, to donations in general.
error (of the word suiIt is, however, necessary to point out that a transcription
vant for avant) may, in spite of what Delaporte says, quite legitimately
be postulated in view of the combined evidence: a) that the consecration
"avant le f te
saint Luc," would have fallen on the date of the consecration
of the Fulbert cathedral in 1037, the crypt of which was still in regular use for services and pilgrimages and had evidently never been profaned; and b) that the consecration
is
and has, in fact, always been celebrated on October 17--at least since the 16th
century (cf. the historian
J. B. Souchet
[1588-1654],
de diocese et de
Histoire
la ville de Chartres, Chartres, 1868). The exceptional nature of the building, which
synthesizes
an upper and lower church as one work, demanded a single consecration; thus there was no legitimate reason to replace the existing consecration of the
lower (or "inner") parts. This allows us to interpret the intention
of the correspondence of March, 1260, contrary to the preserved transcription of the document.
153
154
The Art Bulletin
secrated according to circumstance (e.g., the coincidental visit of a
pope) and, consequently, in various stages of completion, the fact of
the consecration at Chartres remains unquestioned.
Other contemporary sources referred to in recent literature on
Chartres cathedral cannot be effectively related to the progress of the
construction of the building.17
The important discovery of the date of the donation of the cranium
of St. Anne-1204-by Louis, Count of Chartres and Blois, via his wife,
Countess Catherine18concerns primarily only the terminus post quem
for the commissioning of the trumeau in question, and has no immediate value for the building chronology, although its retrospective value
for associated hypotheses may be very great.19 The other source, used
by both Grodecki and Frankl to date the parts of the building, comprises the donations and the themes of certain of the stained-glass
windows.
As a fundamental principle, however, it must be stressed again that
the date of the death of the person depicted most certainly does not
provide a terminus ante quem for the execution of stained glass, and
still less for the completion of the part of the building where it is situated.20 Even where donation by the depicted person himself is certain,
we may still be concerned with a testamentary legacy actually executed
at some period subsequent to his decease. On the other hand, the donation may in certain cases even be the act of beneficiaries wishing to
express gratitude by the execution of a monumental window. If we seriously wish to achieve a scientific basis for the chronology, unprejudiced by hypothesis and speculation, then it is essential to admit that
the only terminus to be gained from the donor signatures for the dating
of the windows is an approximate terminus post quem, a date after
which it would be reasonable to suppose that the person depicted was
influential enough (morally, publicly, or financially) to have caused
the donation.21
Furthermore, even in those cases where the date of donation may
closely correspond to the date of the execution of the glass, a second
fundamental principle prevents this information from contributingwith anything approaching scientific exactness-to our knowledge of
the course of the building construction: the windows, in spite of their
integral importance to Gothic architecture, do not form an integral part
of the construction; they can be donated at any time previous to the
construction of their intended site, in anticipation of the completion of
their final architectural framing or, conversely, at any time subsequent
to the completion of the building (or its parts), whereby they would
replace earlier grisaille windows or, as far as we know, even temporary
wooden shuttering. Lastly, they can be moved from place to place, or
interchanged with each other within the very broad limits set by the
size of the decorative glass borders-such re-emplacements only being
evident when the architectural frame necessitates either obvious enlargement or reduction of the glass area. In Chartres alone there are
examples of all the above-mentioned conditioning factors, the most
obvious being No. 14, the famous Notre-Dame de la Belle Verriere, a
twelfth century window preserved from the Fulbert cathedral and
placed in the southern ambulatory by means of thirteenth century borders. In spite of such cases, the stained glass has recently been treated
repeatedly as a legitimate criterion for dating the parts of the building.
Nevertheless, a summary of the state of research regarding the Chartres
stained glass cannot be avoided if we wish to extract the residual
knowledge to be gained, even though none of the stained glass in the
17 a) There is no justificationfor relating two recordsof royal patronagespecifically
to the north porch, viz. Cartulaire,11,59, see appendixD, and Cartulaire,III, 138,
see appendixE. Bulteau's over-interpretationof these passages (Monographie,I,
119)was apparentlydue to the current19th centuryopinion that the statues on the
outer supports of the north porch represented royal benefactors (cf. Merlet,
Chartres,50: "Ces hypothesesn'ont aucunfondement").
b) The Cartulairetexts, 11,56, 59 (see appendixD), referringto the house of the
Dean Willelmus being in, or connectedwith, the cloister que in claustro BeateMariesita est and to PhilippeAuguste looking at this house from the steps of the
church,ex gradibusecclesie, frontemejusdemdomus . . . prospiciens,neither allow
the deductonthat the stairs in questionled to the present portals of the transept
and that the porches themselves were completed or under constructionas Grodecki, "TranseptPortals," 156, correctly points out, nor permit the unqualified
assumption (ibid., 156f. and Frankl, "Chronologyof Chartres,"45f.) that stairs
existed "on the flank" of the cathedralat all: Delaporte,"Chartres,"300, points
out that the use of the word claustroin this context does not refer to a particular
quadrangularcloister, but indicates more specifically "tout le quartier clos qui
renfermaitla cathedraleet les maisons capitulaires,"i.e., the cathedralclose. Delaporte assumes with equal plausibility that the stairs in question were probably
those of the existing portail royal. This source is invalid for questions of relative
chronology.
c) The donation, at an unknowndate prior to the death of the donor in 1214 or
1215,of a column of unknownlocation, indicates solely that a new cathedralwas
in the course of constructionat some relatively recent date, Cartulaire,nI, 45f.,
see appendixF, February18, cf. Grodecki,"TranseptPortals," 157, No. 2, and
Dalaporte,"Chartres,"300.
d) Lefbvre-Pontalis'interpretationof the Cartulairetext, 11, 103, see appendixG,
to mean that protectivewooden porcheswere removedin 1224 to enable the construction of the present stone porch, is a subjective hypothesis which does not
warrant its recent unlimited acceptance (see Grodecki,"Transept Portals," 157,
No. 5). On the contrary,Delaporte,"Chartres,"300f., with referenceto Maurice
Jusselin's "La mattrise de I'oeuvreA Notre-Damede Chartres,Mkmoiresde la
Sociftg archbologiqued'Eure-et-Loir,15, 1922, 233-347,points out that the capitelli in questionwere kiosks for the sale of merchandise,of which there were several in various parts of the cathedralclose. ChristianeNestle is at present reap-
praising the relevant documentsin co-operationwith the author; in this regard
see Van der Meulen,"Baugeschichte,"119f.
e) None of the recordsof acts beforevariousaltars can be interpretedas indicating
the completionof any particularpart of the building; recent researchis agreed on
this (see Grodecki,"TranseptPortals," 157 n. 15; Delaporte, "Chartres,"302).
In general, the categoricalstatement is permissiblethat altars as such must be
consideredas churchfurnitureand not as part of the building;they can be moved
from place to place at various times and, even when remainingin the same location, can be consecratedanew to differentsaints. So unless a text contains very
clear indications, the contemporarymention of an altar can scarcely ever be related to the progressof constructionof the building.
f) Recent additionsto the list of original sourcescontributelittle that can be constructivelyinterpretedwith regard to the relative chronologyof the parts of the
actualbuilding.
18 As in many other cases, this fact was currentknowledgein the 19th century (see
VincentChevard,Histoire de Chartreset de t'ancienpays chartrain,etc., Chartres,
1800-02,11,37) but is nowadaysusually creditedto more recentauthors,cf. Aubert,
Chartres,23 (see also idem, Gotische Plastik, 109). The source is printed in the
Cartulaire,Il, 89 (also printedin Recueil des historiens de la France,Obituaires,
ii, Obituairesde la provincede Sens, ii, Diocese de Chartres,Auguste Molinier,
ed., Paris, 1906, 58, 178). Delaporte,"Chartres,"301, gives the date of the donation as between April, 1204 and April, 1205. The Cartulairestresses the duke's
alms to the poor of Chartres,from which we do not hesitate to identify Louis of
Blois and his wife instead of PierreMauclercde Dreux as the figures depictedon
the trumeauof the central south portal, cf. "Baugeschichte,"120f. The references
pertinentto Louis of Blois and his wife are both to be found in the necrologue,
Cartulaire,IlI, 89f. and 178, see appendicesH and I. In additionsee vol. I, 60 n. 4;
vol. ii, Iff., 14f., 17, 147f., and the repeatedmentionof his name in the various inventoriesetc. PierreMauclercis not mentionedat all.
19 The iconographicalcontentof the centralnorth portalis, with the exceptionof this
figure, that of a regularMother of God program.As such, this could have been
commencedat any date priorto the donationof the relic of St. Anne.
82-100.
20 Cf. "Baugeschichte,"85f. Also the author's"Logos-Creator,"
21 The donationitself merelyreflectingthe (from the point of view of the chronology,
or person depicted.
the
donor
of
coincidental)death, victory, or state of conscience
LITERATURE
Cathedral
dence.22
of Chartres is conclusively
datable on documentary
evi-
The facts related to the stained-glass windows which have been cited
in recent literature as pertaining to the chronology of the building
construction, are all contained in Merlet's Petite monographie23 and
Houvet's little paper-back monograph, which contains an extrait of the
four-volume standard work by Y. Delaporte.24 In addition, Paul Frankl
submitted an article to The Art Bulletin shortly before his death in
1961, in which the dating of the windows referred to in his earlier publications is confirmed in more detail.25 Frankl's conclusion will have
to be considered at the close of this survey, in Appendix J.
A closer examination of the circumstances reveals that the proponents
of the method of dating the windows by the supposed facts of their
donation tend to omit much of Delaporte's equally relevant chronological information. It is unnecessary to refer to all cases in which this occurs, however, because, as well be seen, even the few popularly published
examples cited here lead to a chronological succession which cannot accord topographically
with the execution of the respective parts of the
building.
The following windows can be related to personages about whose
lives datable facts are known (as has been said, this represents only
those facts generally drawn on, and not all available information).
They are listed in their accepted chronological order and numbered
according to Delaporte.26
A No. 133 (pilgrims to Santiago), in the northern clerestory of the
choir, has retained a complete text identifying the signature portrayal
as that of Robert de Berou, chancellor of Chartres from before 1213
until his death in 1216.27 Delaporte quotes the opinion of tmile
Mile, who considers this window, not as the donation of Robert de
Berou at all, but rather a monument to him dedicated by a fraternity
of pilgrims to Santiago.28
B Nos. 16 (life of the Virgin) and 17 (signs of the zodiac and labors of
22 A pragmatichistory of art does not allow the argumentthat the "weight of evidence" of more or less concurrentdonationscan counterbalancethe very evident
doubtswhich must be raised in each of the individualcases.
23 La cathedralede Chartres(Petite Monographiesdes grands edifices de la France),
Paris,1960.
24 Houvet's Monographie,Delaporte, Vitraux, respectively.The Index Plan of Delaporte, Vitraux,526, is repeatedwith the identical numbering(with the exception
of the windowsof the sacristy)by Houvet,Monographie,126f.
25 Frankl,"StainedGlass," 301-22.
26 Delaporte,Vitraux,122.
27 Delaporte, Vitraux, 484, pls. ccxxxxx, ccxL, ccxLII.The text reads ROBERTVS
DE BEROV: CA/RN[OTENSIS]:CANCELLARI[VS].
Grodecki, "Transept Portals," 157, (No. 6), and Frankl,"StainedGlass," 313, both interpretthis information as indicativeof the completionof the correspondingarchitectureat this date.
Frankl,in support,draws on the dating of the oppositewindow No. 105 which, he
asserts, quotingDelaporte,"can be dated 'between1215and 1218.'" In fact Delaporte does not date No. 105 at all, and of its adjacentwindow, No. 106, says only
(pp. 444ff.):"il a dGetre ex6cut6. . . probablemententre 1216et 1218,comme ceux
qui garnissentles autres fenAtresdu choeur"-so that this date cannot be inversely
drawnon to date any of "les autres fenetres du choeur."In fact the signatureportraysa man who died in 1226(Bouchardde Marly).
28 EmileMale, L'artreligieuxdu XIII sikcle en France,5th ed., 1923,329f.: "N'est-ce
pas 1Ale vitrail d'une confrbrieanalogueA celle de Paris, dont Robert de Berou
aurait le doyen?"If this is indeed a memorialdonatedby the St. Jamesbrothert~t
hood, then of course its probable execution subsequent to decease excludes an
accurate dating.
29 Merlet, Chartres, 42, and Grodecki, "Transept Portals,"
157 (No. 6). Delaporte,
discusses
Vitraux, 227ff. and pls.
the incomplete
text in
dedicatory
XLVII--Li,
de
cette
donation?
Est-ce
great detail: "Mais quel est
le vitrail lui-meme?
I'objet
ON
CHARTRES
the months), in the southern ambulatory, are stated by Merlet and
Grodecki to be the donation of Thibault VI, Count of Chartres (d.
1218) at the request of his friend Thomas, Count of Perche (d. May,
1217), although Delaporte is of the opinion that the window itself
was not Thibault's donation at all, but once again a memorial to
him erected by the clerics depicted in the signature, recipients of his
donation of vineyard property-a donation which, he stresses, could
have been made before or after the death of the Count of Perche.29
C Nos. 92-98, the southern transept fagade windows and those in the
clerestory of the adjacent bay, all bear the arms and signatures of
the house of Dreux-Bretagne. Again Merlet and Grodecki maintain
that these windows were donated between 1217 and 1221, without
reference to Delaporte's contradictory opinion that these must also
be seen as memorial windows of a date "qui ne peut etre de beaucoup posterieure a l'ann'e 1221."3o Even this date is too early,
however, and Frankl has correctly pointed out that the window can
only have been commissioned after 1224.31
D No. 26 (scenes of Sts. Margaret and Catherine), in the southeast
chapel of the chevet. Marguerite de Friaize, deceased after 1240, is
shown kneeling before the enthroned Virgin and Child; apparently
she was the donor of the window.32 Adjacent to her are two knights
in armor, conclusively proved by Merlet to be Guerin de Friaize,
her husband (d. before 1231), and Hugues de Meslay (d. 1227), the
husband of her sister Mabile (still living in 1220, d. before 1227).33
Because Mabile is not portrayed, the window is considered by almost
all scholars to have been commissioned at some date between 1220
(the last documentary evidence of her being alive) and 1227, at
which date she is known to have been deceased-the window being
so late, Grodecki does not relate it to the respective architecture.
This appears to be an acceptable dating, but strictly speaking there
is no reason why the donation could not have been made by Marguerite as a memorial to her husband and brother-in-law at any
30
31
32
33
Cela parait bien douteux . . . (p. 229) Le vitrail pourrait avoir WtCdestinb A perp6tuer le souvenir,
Le vitrail aurait Wtd
d'une propridt6 plantbe de vignes.
....
donne, non par le comte Thibault, agissant au nom du comte
du Perche, vivant ou
mort, mais par les religieux representes devant lui" (p. 230). The subject matter of
the iconography
of the two windows may be quoted in support of Delaporte's
theory. Frankl, "Stained Glass," 310, tacitly discounting
sees 1217 as a
Delaporte,
terminus ante quem, and dates the window 1213-14 on grounds of comparative
style discussed later in the present study, cf. Appendix J.
Merlet, Chartres, 42 and Grodecki, "Transept Portals," 157 (No. 6): 1217-21, although in 1217 the girl depicted was not yet born and in 1220 there were already
three children. Delaporte,
Vitraux, 433: a date "qui ne peut etre de beaucoup
postbrieur a l'anee 1221"; according to this dating by Delaporte, the mother, Alix
de Bretagne, was "without doubt" already buried, i.e., before the execution of the
window bearing her portrait. Delaporte therewith accepts the principle of a memorial window. In the case of all three of the above windows, Grodecki relates the
date of the death of the individuals portrayed to the execution of the window "in
position"
(p. 158); in so doing he refers, as if in confirmation,
in each case to
Delaporte,
without, however, quoting the latter's opinion that all three windows
are probably memorial donations.
The date of the death of the third child. Cf. Frankl, "Stained Glass," 321, who
states further that it may have been finished in 1229. A study, already referred
to in van der Meulen "Baugeschichte,"
120 and idem, a "Logos-Creator,"
is in
a complete donation of these windows
preparation;
in the third decade of the
13th century is very questionable.
Vitraux, 254ff. and pls. LXVII-Lxx. St. Margaret was not worshipped
Delaporte,
in Chartres cathedral during the first half of the 13th century, and the inclusion of
the medallion devoted to her legend can only be explained as the request of the
donor for her patron to be portrayed.
Merlet, "Vidames de Chartres," 80so.
155
156
The Art Bulletin
time between 1231 and 1240, or later. Frankl's dating of this window
in 1206 is untenable.34
E Nos. 149-154 (scenes from the life of the Virgin) in the western
clerestory of the north transept. A matron and a young girl of the
house of Boulogne are portrayed in the signature panels and the
father as a knight in one rosette; there is reason to suggest that
Delaporte's dating between ca. 1225 and 1233 may be revised to
1234.35 Frankl rejects Delaporte's dating without reason and suggests 1223.36
F No. 102, in the eastern clerestory of the south transept, St. Denis
presenting the oriflamme to the donor, a knight of the house of
Clement whose shield appears as the signature: a unique window in
that the two figures are not simply paired but grouped in a scene.
The two members of the family with whom the donor figure might
be identified were both still alive in the seventh decade of the thirteenth century but there is good reason to take 1228 as a reliable
terminus post quem.37 This accords with Frankl's dating in 1230.38
G No. 54 (scenes from the life of St. Germain d'Auxerre) in the northern ambulatory above Notre-Dame du Pilier, donated by the Canon
Geoffroy Chardonel, who died on October 21, 1236.39 A fact not
generally mentioned, however, is that the stained glass of the neighboring lancet window was probably donated by a relative of his,
34 Frankl, "Stained Glass," 305 suggests that the window was donated before Mabille
de LUves married Hugues de Meslay. This would account for his portrayal and her
reason could be given for his
however, some plausible
being omitted-provided,
inclusion in a De LUves/De Friaize memorial prior to his marriage into the family.
before Hugues' marriage is suggested
An apparent close connection
by Frankl's
article but is based on three errors: a) he is termed without reason the "Friend
of Gubrin de Friaize"; b) it is suggested that the two knights both took part in
de Chartres,"
neither Merlet ("Vidames
the fifth crusade although
86f.), nor
in contrast to Gudrin
Delaporte (Vitraux, 256, "un seigneur du pays chartrain,"
de Friaize "un des crois6s de 1199") nor Souchet (Histoire du diockse et de la ville
de Chartres, il, Chartres, 1868, 535, 538, 550) give any reason to assume that Hugues
ever took part in a crusade, as was the case with Mabiles' first husband, Guillaume III de Ferrieres (cf. Souchet, op.cit.) and Gubrin de Friaize; c) Geoffroy
de Sens, the stepfather of Marguerite and Mabile (Merlet, "Vidames de Chartres,"
87 n. 2) is called by Frankl in error Geoffroy de Meslay ("Stained Glass," 305 n.
Hugues de
12) whereby the De Meslay family appears in an earlier generation.
of the name
connection
Meslay's marriage with Mabile is the first documented
of this house with that of De Leves or De Friaize. The errors caused by the confusion of names makes it difficult to follow Frankl's further arguments
(Marguerite is called Mabile in the major text; in n. 12, Geoffroy de Meslay is at one
and the same time the husband of Mabile's daughter and of her mother), which
of the marital ages of parents and
are based on purely hypothetical
postulates
of the suggested marriage of Hugues de Meslay in 1206
children in confirmation
must remain, is made clear by looking through
(how inaccurate such hypotheses
record of the marriage dates
the first documentary
any 13th century genealogy!);
from 1218. Finally, as to the basic method it must be pointed out that Frankl's
"certain terminus post quem" is based on a sliding date earlier than
suggested
1201 (Merlet, "Vidames de Chartres," 86 n. 1-apparently
referring to the docuin n. 3 on the same page, but nowhere explained or quoted in
ment mentioned
full) and the terminus ante quem is based on a sliding date later than 1205,
namely, the fact that "Mabile could marry Hugues de Meslay at the earliest in
1205 or 1206." Even if Hugues de Meslay could be related to the family so as to
justify his portrayal by a De Leves before his marriage, the only documentary
terminus ante quem remains 1218. Finally, it must be remembered that the major
theme of the window is the history of St. Catherine, of whom Delaporte, Vitraux,
256f. says, "le fete de cette sainte etait encore inconnue a Chartres vers 1200."
with Chartres missals of the first half of the century, Delaporte
By comparison
considers the liturgical cult only to have been taken up "a peu pres a la meme
epoque (1220-27)."
35 Delaporte,
Vitraux, 499ff. and pl. CCLIX. The present matron of the signature of
window No. 149 is a false restoration of 1880; the original young girl, recorded by
is reproduced by Delaporte,
Vitraux, 500, fig. 66. Philippe Hurepel,
Gaignibres,
Duke of Boulogne, born 1200, engaged to Mahaut, 1201 (cf. Anselme, Hist. gen., I,
later king
47), married 1216, died in 1233. His wife remarried in 1235 (Alphonse,
of Portugal) and died in 1258. The birth of the daughter Jehenne is not recorded
Canon Etienne Chardonel of Paris, who was, however, still alive in
1249.40 This case in itself proves the futility of trying to bring the
date of the death of supposed donors into direct relationship with
the architecture. Frankl ignores the respective dates of death and
considers both windows to have been executed in 1222.
H No. 145, the whole ensemble of the north transept
Four
facade.41
of
stained
the
alternate
in
the
panels
glass filling
apertures
spandrels between the rose window and the lancets below are filled
with the decorative motif of the arms of Castille.42 No particular
heraldic order is recognizable in the ornamental disposition of the
castles (nor in the fleurs-de-lis of the house of France which appear
in the alternate openings). Delaporte, unchallenged by subsequent
publications, places the commissioning of the whole ensemble of the
north transept faqade and, in fact, also the terminus ante quem for
the completion of the interior architecture of the cathedral, in the
period during which Blanche of Castille was queen and afterwards
regent of France, 1223-1226 and 1226-1236 respectively; it is even
suggested that the terminus can be narrowed to 1234, the date of
St. Louis' marriage to Marguerite de Provence. However, according
to Delaporte himself, the "armoiries des maisons royales de France
et de Castille ... ont ete frequemment reproduits, surtout au cours
et en
de la deuxi'me moiti' du
XIIIe siecle, sans intention
sp~ciale,
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
but she was only engaged to be married at the end of 1236, married in 1245, and
died without offspring in 1251. Delaporte,
502f., concludes from the portrayal of
Jehenne (five or six years?) that the window could scarcely have been commissioned before 1225 (and in no case later than 1233). This would, however, mean
that she was only engaged at sixteen and the marriage postponed until she was
late for the nobility of the 13th century. If we consider
twenty-five-unusually
the window a monument commissioned
by the mother at the death of her husband
in 1233 or 1234 before her remarriage in 1235, then the daughter would have been
or
born in 1227-28, engaged at age seven or eight and married at seventeen
of a donation of the window as a memorial by
eighteen. Finally, the possibility
either the daughter or the clergy makes it necessary to point out that the only
strict terminus ante quem is provided by the portrayal of the daughter as an
unmarried woman up to 1245.
Frankl, "Stained Glass," 320, "Being the son of King Philippe Auguste, he had
the money to make this donation as a young man in 1223 or later." See Frankl's
n. 39 on the same page.
Delaporte, Vitraux, 439ff. and pls.
Jean Clement was marshal of France
ccwii-ccx.
as early as 1225 but still living in 1260, and his son, Henry II Clement, who acSt. Louis to the Holy Land in 1249, died in 1265. Jean Clement's
companied
of Rouen
in 1228 (and later Archbishop
brother, Eudes, was abbot of Saint-Denis
before his death in 1245) and his son Jean a canon of the Cathedral of Chartres.
for a terminus post quem 1228. In
This constellation
provides firm indications
rejection of the ascription to the father Henri I Clement,
support of Delaporte's
it can be pointed out that although he was marshal at the battle of Bouvines in
the year of his death 1214 (Anselme, I, 491 B) he did not carry the oriflamme on
that occasion (Anselme, II, 1106 B).
Frankl, "Stained Glass," 321, points out that Jean Clement played a decisive part
in putting down the revolt of the barons against the Regent Blanche of Castille,
capturing the stronghold of Pierre Mauclerc de Dreux, Duke of Bretagne, in 1229.
Vitraux, 370ff. and pls. cxtvI f. With regard to the remarks on p. 372
Delaporte,
n. 4, it must be pointed out that in the 6th edition of A. Clerval's Guide Chartrain
ses Monuments),
Chartres, 1948, 155, the date in ques(Chartres, sa cathedrale,
that it is
tion is correctly given as 1236. Delaporte says of Clerval's publication:
de
pure et simple de la Petite Monographie
"en grande partie une reproduction
Bulteau (1872)."
Delaporte, Vitraux, 366ff. Frankl, "Stained Glass," 319.
Delaporte, Vitraux, 493ff. and pls. ccLIV-CCLVI.
section by Lassus, MonoThe present openings are shown on the longitudinal
de Chartres, Chartres, 1842-75, as blind windows,
i.e.,
graphie de la cathedrale
without any glass at all. Durand, in his Explication des planches, Paris, 1881, 118,
but, in spite of this, this section,
does not refer to this as being a discrepancy,
drawn by Adams and cut by Guillaumot, is in other respects (e.g., the subdivision
and
of the choir clerestory) more inaccurate than is usual in Lassus' monograph,
not too much weight can be given to this disparity.
LITERATURE ON CHARTRES
raison seulement de leur valeur decorative"; there is no justification
to assert that "tel n'est pas le cas ici."43 It has been pointed out
elsewhere44 that the heraldic emblem of Castille was also used
decoratively (almost blasphemously) in the adjacent rosette window, No. 144; the present condition of all the glass of the transept
clerestories is a deterrent to evaluations of stylistic development. But
it can be stressed that the appearance in four panels of stained glass
of the arms of Castille, as a purely decorative design, without any
direct heraldic reference, is far too tenuous a point of evidence for
us to accept the reign of Blanche as the only period when the ensemble of the north transept faqade could have been commissioned.
In conclusion it is necessary to point out that the main hinge of Paul
Frankl's chronology of the clerestory glass-and consequently, according to Frankl, also of the vaulting-is absolutely without foundation:
No. 134 is not "a gift of Bishop Regnault de Moucon, who . . . died in
1217,"45and there is no reason to believe that "the stained glass . . .
was installed in 1216."46The uncertain provenance of window No. 133,
also drawn on by Frankl, has been discussed under (A) above. Finally,
Frankl's remark that "none of the recorded dates of the donors contradicts the tentative chronology of [the choir clerestory glass] beginning
about 1205," and the assertion that other dates confirm the "belief that
the series was finished in 1216" do not stand closer scrutiny.47
To summarize the situation: apart from a few erroneous exceptions
no proponent of an absolute chronology for the execution of the stained
glass has published a reasoned refutation of the identifications and
genealogies contained in Delaporte's standard work, on the contrary, it
is repeatedly cited as being authoritative. However, a large degree of
the indisputable information published by Delaporte has ben omitted
43 Delaporte,Vitraux,499.
44 van derMeulen,"Logos-Creator,"
95.
45 Frankl, "Stained Glass," 313. Delaporte says specifically, Vitraux, 486, "tout ce
qu'on peut dire sans crainte d'erreur,c'est que le vitrail a etWoffert par un proche
parent de Regnault de Mouqon."On this evidence alone, there is no reason to
presupposethe executionof this windowpriorto the death of the bishop.
46 Ibid., 320 G. Franklalso bases the chronologyof the transept clerestoryglass on
this error.
47 Ibid., 314 F.The windows of the first bay, Nos. 133 and 134 as well as Nos. 105
and 106 have been discussed above under (A) and note 27. We start with the rosette window No. 107 and proceed then to all datable informationoverlookedby
Frankl.
No. 107 (Delaporte,Vitraux,448f.) probablyRobert de Beaumont,mentionedin
1226 and 1239 and deceasedbefore 1250; a noblemanof the vicinity, he had various connectionswith the chapter.
No. 108 (Delaporte,450) Guillaumede Tanlay, Robertde Champignelles'brother,
also a Courtenay(see the following windows, Nos. 109 and 110), was Lord of
Cloyes, throughwhich he had connectionswith Chartres;died "before1248."
No. 109 Frankl ("StainedGlass," 314 D) says "the donor was probablyRobert
de Champignelles"with referenceto Delaporte(p. 454), who, however,says "nous
pensons qu'il plutbt. . . Philippe,"who died in 1226 (Anselme,1, 227 D)-but only
because he believes the window must be dated in this generation.Earlierscholars
were unanimousin ascribing the portrayalto Pierre, his nephew, died 1250. The
heraldry appears to speak against Delaporte. Frankl points out that Robert de
Champignelles,who died in 1239, only marriedin 1215. Because his wife is not
portrayedhe suggests dating the window 1213. But it must be pointed out that
in none of these windows are the spouses portrayed-not even Blanche of Castille
in windows 124 or 125 (see below).
No. 110 Delaporte
or Guillaume
de
(p. 455) suggests Robert de Champignelles
The flag borne appears to be
Tanlay, died 1239 and "before 1248" respectively.
the oriflamme, which would seem for reasons later to be published
to indicate
Robert.
Nos. 111 and 112 remain unknown.
Nos. 113 and 116, two knights De Montfort.
Without reference to Delaporte,
Frankl (pp. 313 r and 314 B) calls both of them Simon and dates the windows in
1211 and 1209 respectively
"because since his son Amaury was knighted in 1213,
his father must have been old enough about 1209 to donate. . ." Delaporte pp.
or, worse, incorrectly quoted, particularly the fact that in the three earliest cases A, B and C he considers the possibility of memorial donations of the glass having been made subsequent to the date of death
of the person portrayed. Finally, even if the conclusions summarized
above from A to H allowed anything like a scientifically acceptable absolute chronology for the execution of the glass to be postulated, the
succession of these few windows, i.e., those generally drawn on, certainly cannot be related topographically to a concurrent execution of
the parts of the building, since the sequence jumps erratically from the
choir clerestory to the ambulatory, to the transept faqade, then to a
chevet chapel, various transept clerestories, back to the ambulatory,
and finally to the other transept faqade. The facts speak for themselves
without it being necessary to draw on examples beyond those put
forward by the proponents of the method themselves. If we exclude the
first three windows A, B and C, from an absolute chronology related to
the death of the donor (the memorial nature providing only a terminus
post quem), then all remaining windows (and the majority of those not
generally drawn on) are concerned with personages or facts which can
be placed from the fourth decade to the second half of the thirteenth
century.
The Architecture
The foregoing short survey of the possible sources of information on
the absolute chronology of Chartres proves how necessary it is to approach the problem instead from the aspect of a relative chronology
based on the material evidence. Whereas the earlier interest of art historians in questions of the exact building chronology was occasioned
458ff.), on the other hand, comes to the conclusion that No. 113 is Simon de Montand
fort, died 1218, who supported the bishop of Chartres against the Albigenses,
that No. 116 is either Simon or his son Amaury. The Montfort property lay in the
in the Albigensian
bishopric of Chartres. The son, also a knight participating
war,
presented a deed (?) to the cathedral in 1234 and died in 1241.
Nos. 114 and 115. Frankl says (p. 313 r) "the donors have been identified,
al-
though it is not possible from their dates to determinethe years in which the
lancets were made. But at least the date for the group as a whole [see above,
No. 116, De Montfort] can be given as 1209." Delaporte (p. 461 c), however,
points out that Etiennede Sancerre,of window No. 114, cousin of ThibaultVI of
Chartres,was still bouteillerde Francein 1248. Guillaumede la Fert6-Ernaud,of
windowNo. 115, died between1221and 1231,his brotherwas dean of the chapter
in 1221,bishop in 1234,and died in 1236.
Nos. 124, 125, and 126, a knight of the house of Francebut uncrowned,therefore
in all probabilitydonated by Prince Louis of France,later Louis VIII, before his
coronationin 1223 (Delaporte,p. 476 A). It cannot be St. Louis because he was
crownedat eleven years of age before being knighted. In spite of general acceptance of this, Frankl (p. 313 G) suggests that the prince was old enough-twentythree years-to donate the windows in 1210, a terminusbased, however, only on
the equallyunfoundeddating of the oppositewindows.
Nos. 127, 128, and 129. Thibault VI de Chartres.With reference to windows
Nos. 16 and 17 (see above, window B on p. 155, and note 29), Frankldates this
group in 1212 also (p. 314 c), but we have seen above that that donation may
have been made beforeor after 1217.
Nos. 130 and 132. A knight, king of Castille, "whom Delaporteidentifiedas Alphonso III" (Frankl,p. 314 E). Since Delaporte (p. 482 E) made this error, there
appears to have been little original reading up about the period-it should read
Alphonso VIII. But FerdinandIII is the more likely. Delaportedoes not identify
the king as Alphonso: "Si I'on se refuse A les attribuerA une date aussi reculbe
[1214], il faut admettre,avec Gaignieres,qu'ils ont etd offerts par FerdinandIII,
le Saint, le vainqueurde Cordouede Seville et de Cadix,neveu de la reine Blanche
et cousin germainde saint Louis." This king, who is often comparedto his cousin
St. Louis,died in 1252.
No. 131. A queen of Castille;Delaporteconfirmshis indecision as to the spouse
of which of the kings she is likely to be, but Franklterms her "obviouslyEleanor,
the wife of AlphonsoIII."
157
158
TheArtBulletin
primarily by the attempt to date the portal sculptures accurately, it
appears that the recent discussion of the sequence of the building operations springs not from a primary interest in the architecture as such,
but rather from two schools of thought regarding the dating of the
stained glass.
The controversial question of "west-to-east" or "east-to-west" was
indeed rather over-simplified by the respective proponents. Delaporte's
observations-which are being confirmed by present research-provided almost conclusive evidence of the general priority of the western
parts, so that this question can here be passed over without direct
reference to the precise arguments of the opposing sides. The intensity
of the controversy, however, demands that even a superficial survey of
the present state of research be undertaken with great care and precision; (it is particularly necessary to avoid the factiousness which either
through need or desperation seems to have threatened one side or the
other; for instance, counting up the names of scholars who are in agreement with a postulate is no substitute for material evidence and precise
argumentation). Therefore, although under normal circumstances the
analysis of form alone would suffice to prove the chronological precedence of the flying buttresses of the nave, particularly as transitional
forms are to be found on the east side of the transept, the objection that
the form of the flying buttresses does not indicate whether nave or
choir was built first is, in fact, valid: if it is accepted that originally no
transept towers were foreseen, then the eastern transept buttresses can
undeniably be interpreted exclusively as an optical expedient, leading
over from the forms of the nave to those of the choir. Aesthetic and
technical reasons can be quoted-at need-to explain the different design of the nave and choir buttresses, and the same arguments can be
drawn on to explain the differences in the vertical measurements of the
clerestory wall. What proves more decisive, however, is the fact that
up to the springing point of the vault, the heavy forms of the nave are
also to be found on the outer choir wall, and even the same vertical dimensions; secondly, the vault itself is appreciably thicker and heavier
in the nave. Unless the vaults and their buttressing in the eastern parts
are later, it is aesthetically difficult to explain why their lighter forms
are mixed with heavier work lower down-where optical considerations
scarcely come into play-and it is technically difficult to explain why on
the outer choir wall, where the lever-arm of the buttressing is shorter,
the vault web is lightened. Both problems are satisfactorily solved by
the hypothesis
of a consistent execution of the respective parts up to
the springing line, followed by a rapid vaulting of the nave but a postponement of the choir vaults until either a change of master or other
circumstance (such as a time lag) brought a change of taste and technical improvements.
Delaporte's observation that the form of the capitals on the west side
of the crossing proves that at the time of construction of these piers a
lantern or elevated vault was projected is unanimously accepted; also
his conclusion that the absence of similar forms on the eastern side
indicates that the proposed central tower had been given up by the
time the eastern piers had been erected. Not even this, however, could
be accepted by the east-to-west proponents as conclusive proof of the
priority of the nave: the observation, it has been said, only proves
which pier was completed, not which was begun first! Although the
fact that a building is constructed as an ascending block does often seem
to be overlooked in suggested bay-to-bay cathedral chronologies, this
explanation for the difference between western and eastern crossing
piers placed undue emphasis on the vertical progression. The central
tower was one of the decisive elements of the cathedral plan. Its technical demands determined almost everything from the plan upwards but
most of all, of course, the support it obtained from the vaults and buttresses. The renunciation of the central tower may well account for the
change in vaulting between west and east-a factor which in itself may
again be evaluated for the chronology: the omission of the tower dictates the use of lighter parts and a consequent change of plan. Changes
in form and volume which may otherwise justify the postulation of a
long interim period of development, can now be accounted for by the
fundamental exigencies of a change of plan. There need not necessarily
have been a long chronological break. Be that as it may, it is not the
precedence of completion of the individual piers of the crossing which
counts most here, but the basic conclusions which can be drawn from
the change of plan (omission of the tower) and which can be applied to
most of the other important questions of the building-and from there,
of course, applied to an accurate history of Gothic architecture as a
whole. Only the general relationships of long periods of development
can be established by the comparison of more or less dated buildings,
not the chronologies of the individual buildings. And at present there
are few if any Gothic structures of which the dating of the execution of
the parts achieves anything like accuracy-due to the faith placed by
scholars on mediaeval documentation and inter-topological comparison
of detail forms.
The four bays of the nave adjacent to the crossing have regular dimensions approximately corresponding to the bay widths of the Fulbert
building, the crypt windows of which appear framed by arched apertures in the new rising wall of the Gothic structure; the axes of the
crypt windows, however, are not aligned with those of the Gothic building; in the western bays the window jambs in fact lie hard against the
eastern flanks of the buttresses. The progressive reduction of the three
westernmost bays proves conclusively that this section of the building
bore the brunt of some change of plan which necessitated their compression into the remaining space between the last of the four regular
bays and the twelfth century western towers.48 The weight of evidence
which proves the chronological precedence of the nave has led to quite
unnecessary attempts on the part of the west-to-east proponents to explain this peculiarity of the building--the
argument again being condi-
48 The retentionof the olderwesterntowerswas only due to the renunciationof a new west faqadeoriginallyintendedto replacethem. Cf. the introductoryremarkson the confirmation
of this theoryof Hans Kunze'sin van der Meulen,"Baugeschichte."
LITERATURE ON CHARTRES
tioned by the tacit assumption of a more-or-less "segmental" procedure
of construction, bay by bay. Once it became apparent that the foundations of the older building could not account for the reduction in width
of the three westernmost bays of the new construction adjacent to the
towers, this anomaly was explained as having been caused by the desire
to retain the crypt windows for light. On the surface this appears to be
a reasonable argument, because the necessity of retaining the windows
of the crypt certainly did influence the design of the new building to a
certain extent-although no less than four windows on each side were
lost in any case by the construction of the transept. But even the proponents of the west-to-east theory (of the construction of the westernmost bays in this case) are at pains to stress the limited importance of
having to subject the Gothic plan to the eleventh century remains-and
furthermore what has apparently not been recognized is that if only the
westernmost crypt window in both the north and the south gallery of
the crypt had been given up (the northern one is a "normal" window
but the southern one contains only a little more than a square foot of
glass), the distance between buttresses could have been progressively
increased over all six respective bays with a total variation of only 40
centimeters, so that the unpleasant sharp break in bay width could have
been avoided. But even supposing the proponents of the west-to-east
theory had accepted the alteration of a regular design for the sake of
only one crypt window and a small glazed opening, there would remain
the problem that precisely between the regular and the reduced bays (at
the fourth axis from the crossing) the transverse dimensions are also
reduced, the southern wall of the new building running in closer to the
old masonry to enable a satisfactory juncture of the new work with the
clocher vieux. This entire question must be seen as an aspect of the
discoordination of axes, not only of the old to the new building, but also
within the new construction itself: the most obvious result of these
incongruities is the displacement of the west rose from the central axis
of the west faqade--but important, if slight, angling of the axes takes
place between the choir and the nave of the Gothic building also. The
fundamental problems raised by the differences between the setting out
of the original plan of a building and later changes of plan during the
course of construction often leave a clear trace in the form of breaks in
the axes of the building; these correctives can then be related retrospectively to the changes of the intentions of the master-builders or of
their patrons.49
Today, however, we know that, without in any way prejudicing the
clear chronological priority of the nave of Chartres, the correctives
which are evident west of the fourth regular bay-we think also of the
stepping up of the vaulting of the last two bays so as to accommodate
the rose, which was originally executed for the planned new fagade and
is too big for the present patched-up combination with earlier twelfth
century work--cannot really be explained convincingly as part of an
first four bays west of the transept represent that part of the nave which
falls within the extent of the eleventh century Fulbert building destroyed by the fire. To the west of this existed the later narthex and
twelfth century constructions, probably vaulted, but at any rate evidently still serviceable enough to justify construction commencing first
of all to the east to the old Fulbert faqade.
One of the most pertinent observations of the east-to-west proponents is that the chevet buttresses stand irregularly over the window
openings in the rising wall of the crypt. This they interpret correctly as
a change of plan between the crypt and upper levels in this region (cf.
note 13 above). The same criterion is, however, denied by the west-toeast proponents who see powerful beauty in this staggering of the elements-an original and laudable aesthetic intention. It is perhaps one
of the sublimest aspects of art history that in a technological culture
personal aesthetic perception can still assert itself in a strictly historical
discipline. As a subjective element it should, however, primarily be applied to the interpretation, not to the establishment of facts. The first
obligation of the art historian is to ensure that the material evidence has
been fully taken into consideration and only secondly to develop purely
aesthetic criteria. This succession in no way compromises the subjective
appreciation of beauty which necessarily motivates the history of art,
but it does enable us to combine a reasonable element of truth with this
beauty.
The Transept Portals
We have seen how both parties in the discussion of the building chronology of the cathedral are right: the nave vaulting is indeed earlier
than that of the choir, but the four eastern bays of the nave itself were
begun first, and only subsequently connected to the existing western
towers. That neither side has been able to find decisive criteria with which
to convince the other,o50is due simply to the over-simplification of the
basis of discussion, west-to-east, or east-to-west. Because of this basic
flaw in the approach to the problem, not all the respective arguments
have been mentioned in the present study, and those drawn on to demonstrate the situation have not been expanded with precise references to
the extensive literature.
With regard to the transept faqades, however, it is essential to return
to an exact exposition of the situation because, in spite of the bitter
controversy about the respective dates of nave and choir, here the opponents have met each other in the middle as it were: Frankl concedes
from the beginning that "Grodecki has analyzed [the addition of the
porches and the changes in the fagades] in an illuminating and convincing way."51 In fact, almost all scholars have met in the middle in this
way and, although all are agreed that the the upper parts of the transept
faqades were the last to be executed, the date of the reported presence
original design incorporating the old towers and the portail royal. The
of vaulting, 1220, is taken by all to be of fundamental importance for
49 A "textbook"example of this is providedby the Franziskanerkirche
in Salzburg,
where the late Gothic choir was built on to the late Romanesquenave as the first
stage of a completerenewalof the building which was never finished. The alteration of the central axis of the building allows the various stages of the change of
plan to be clearly read in retrospect.Cf. Jan van der Meulen, "Die baukiinstlerische Problematikder SalzburgerFrankziskanerkirche,"OsterreichischeZeitschriftfiir Kunstund Denkmalpflege,13, 1959,53-59.
50 Louis Grodecki, "La maitre de Saint Eustache de la cathedrale de Chartres,"
GedenkschriftErnst Gall, MargaretheKiihn and Louis Grodecki, eds., Munich,
1965, 187, is still of the opinion that "Les donnees que nous possedons sur la
de la decoration de Chartres . . . sont trop imprecises.
La conchronologie
.... pas encore
troverse sur les dates respectives de la nef et du choeur de Chartres n'a
eu de conclusion decisive."
51 Frankl, "Chronology of Chartres," 45.
159
160
The Art Bulletin
the dating of the portals. The aim of the history of art to arrive at a
broadly accepted chronology of style often seems to supersede the
means. Without the necessary intimate knowledge of the individual
buildings, convincing theories on the consistent development of style
and topographic constellations have achieved wide acceptance. The individual building-chronologies are then straight-jacketed into this preconceived development. But the absolute chronology of Chartres cathedral is certainly not clear enough to justify this approach, and what
applies to Chartres certainly applies to most other buildings of this period.52
The complicated procedure resulting from the sequence of changes
of plan which must be reckoned with, has been explained elsewhere.53
However, the "archaeological evidence" on which Grodecki based his
reconstruction of the transept facades "as they were before the porches
were added," cannot be ignored, because, in spite of Delaporte's fundamental analysis of certain aspects of the problems,54Grodecki's theses, which do not run counter to Aubert's opinions regarding the sculpture,55 are still currently accepted as valid.56 Grodecki's reconstruction
follows the lines "ingeniously indicated by Lefevre-Pontalis when he
observed [in 1905] that the addition of the porches made it necessary to
cut away the lower portion of the buttresses which still subsist in their
original form [projecting some 1.65m] above the level of the porch lintels."57 Before investigating Grodecki's arguments in favor of this popular theory, it is necessary to state categorically that, under normal
circumstances, structural masonry cannot be cut into, cut back, or be
chiseled through (whole portals!) as though it were a homogeneous
plastic mass. The bond of the masonry excludes this in all cases where
the depth of the cut approaches the average size of the stones used-even if the technical difficulties did not speak against it from the beginning. (Since earliest times, apparently incredible technical projects have
admittedly been achieved, such as the interchange of main arcade capitals: but this is, in fact, relatively simply done by temporarily walling
up the arcades on either side.) Most major retroactive operations in
completed masonry should be seen as a demolition (if need be after the
erection of temporary supporting masonry), then the reworking of the
stones and finally their re-erection. It can easily be seen that if the
buttresses were to be cut back 1.65m as suggested (or if the northern
transept facade wall should be cut through for new side portals) the
masons would find themselves not only in the irregular interior bond
Reims monograph
52 Reims is an importantexception. RichardHamann-MacLean's
is not yet published, but the main aspects of the building chronology are already available, cf. "Zur Baugeschichteder Kathedralevon Reims," GedenkschriftErnstGall, 195-234.
53
54
55
56
Van der Meulen, "Baugeschichte,"
passim.
Delaporte, "Chartres," 309ff.
Aubert, Gotische Plastik, 96ff.
on the transept faqades have
of Kunze nor of Delaporte
Neither the opinions
found a positive echo (acceptance or reasoned rebuttal) in the accepted art hisof Chartres," 57 and n. 21. Grotorical literature, cf. Frankl, "Reconsiderations
approach in his
decki himself does not diverge one degree from the traditional
Iv), Paris, 1963,
large popular work Chartres (Musee des Grandes Architectures,
48ff., esp. p. 74, for instance the statement that the south transept faqade "a 6te
decor'e aux frais de Pierre Mauclerc, comte de Dreux et de sa Femme" (p. 48).
Due to several errors in the text, the review published by the Bureau de la Socidte archdologique
d'Eure-et-Loir,
Chroniques de la Societe, 1, No. 12, 1964, 14-17,
with this work. Another recent summary which
should be read in conjunction
is
avoids all reference to possible controversies
regarding the popular chronology
Meilensteine
von Chartres,"
"Die Kathedrale
given by Willibald
Sauerlinder,
ed., Munich, 1965, 131-70. Sauerlinder's
Kunst, Erich Steingriber,
europiiischer
Von Sens bis Strassburg,
Berlin, 1966 is to a large extent based on Grodecki's
structure of the buttress but also faced with the problem of the short or
thin remains of the outer stones of the original bond;s58these facing
stones of 1/2, 1/3 or even 1/20th thickness could not be left in situ
(assuming of course that they had remained there in spite of the hammering and chiseling)59 and would have to be replaced in a new and
deeper corner bond-which would necessitate reworking the next stone
of each course. The limit and the appearance of such subsequent reworking of masonry in situ can be seen quite clearly at Chartres in the
case of the addition of the four outer jamb statues of the southern side
portals: the corners of the framing architecturehad to be chiseled away
because the original three-quartercolumns took less room and, furthermore, an additional colonette now accompanied each of the statutes.
The rough, unfinished surface and the inaccurate workmanship resulting
from in situ hammering and chiseling is evident.
The South "Porch"
But it is not only on the strength of such general considerations that
Lefevre-Pontalis'remarkablehypothesis must be rejected. In the case of
the south facade, Grodecki proceeds by "projecting the overhang [of the
buttresses above the porch roof] to the ground [apparently the paving
of the fore-portal, i.e. of the "porch," is meant], and reconstructing
the lower portion after the model of the lateral buttresses, still intact,
which face the east and west."'6 With the aid of specific measurements
not directly related to the schematic plans taken at the two respective
levels prior to and after the hypothetical cutting back of the front surface of the buttresses (his figs. A, B, C, and D), he comes to the conclusion that "the perfect correspondence that exists between the distance from one buttress to another and the width of the [side] portals,
." (All
when reduced to three statues in either jamb, is striking
...
of
scholars are agreed that the outer, fourth statues in the embrasures
the side portals were added later, see above.) In fact, Grodecki asserts
that the original "inner facing [i.e., the flanks] of the buttresses has been
preserved, near the ground [i.e., the paving of the fore-portal], in the
right hand portal [i.e., eastern], where mouldings have been rather clumsily cut out ....",61 (Why this observation is limited to the eastern
side portal remains unclear, because the identical circumstances, if in
somewhat altered form, prevail in the western side portal.)
In fact, however, there is no perfect correspondence at all, and (and
incorrect dating of the Chartres transept portals.
57 Grodecki, "Transept Portals," 159, referring to Lefevre-Pontalis,
MemAntFr, 112.
The far-reaching acceptance of this theory is also due to its having been taken up
earlier by Merlet in Chartres, 44.
58 This can easily be shown by drawing a vertical line at random on a photograph
of the flank of any buttress, or for that matter on any masonry. Or put in another way: at a corner, in coursed masonry, the thickness of a facing stone fixes,
as header on the adjacent surface, the relative bond of the respective course on
be cut back more than
that surface. If the front surface should then subsequently
the thickness of one stone, then (apart from the fact that in the interior of the
walling there may be no regular bond at all but merely a filling of irregular nature and as such no bonded structure to act as front surface) this structure is deof stone instead of a solid
stroyed. One is left with various remaining thicknesses
corner. Put in yet another way: it is for this reason that the corner of masonry
should be composed of solid, finely
work is erected first; even if the buttresses
coursed and bonded masonry, cutting back would leave no corner bond for the
new front surface.
59 Even small projections and repentirs were usually left intact to avoid unnecessary
disturbance of the masonry.
60 Grodecki, "Transept Portals," 159.
61 Ibid.
CHARTRES CATHEDRAL o SOUTH TRANSEPT FACADE
159,'
(=
x (=2025)
x (=203)
516
5400
Horizontal
Schematic
Section
Between
Roof of Fore-Portal
and Cornice
.22
22
I
!
!
,
~!
!
I
?
x•
218
109
t<
2165
521
9555 total
total 9585
axes 850 -,.
84725axes
73825
217
523
74075
--
2185
10925
Schematic Horizontal Section at Level of Fore-PortalPaving
247
4966
236
<- 9796 total
axes
1235
7381
+-
244
total
axes 8405
9625--
472
71725
8610
-Projection of the measurements of the upper level onto the paving of the fore-portal, i.e. -- or -44 cm. in each case.
~
&
h
2465
12325
= measurements given by Grodecki. X = error
=
deduction of correspondence at the two levels according to Grodecki
Fig.1. Chartrescathedral,south transeptfacade.Schematichorizontalsections:Above,betweenthe roof of the fore-portaland the cornice;below,at
the level of the fore-portalpaving
162
The Art Bulletin
this is the essential criticism of the method applied) the given dimensions-whether correct or incorrect-do not allow this claim to be made.
Only the projection and the width of the buttresses is taken into account, the width between their flanks, that is to say the width available
for the portal at paving level, is not given, and cannot be ascertained
from the measurements given because the center-spacing of the axes
has not been measured. Furthermore,in criticism of Grodecki's method,
if the inner facing of the original buttress socles has indeed been preserved, then a brief mention of the width between these inner faces
and that between the buttress flanks above the fore-portal roof would
have sufficed as proof of the postulated "perfect correspondence." In
the eastern side portal stressed by Grodecki, the space between the socle
flanks of the portal at the front corner is 523cm (text fig. 1); because
the space between the flanks of the buttresses above the roofs is already
only 516cm, and from this another 44cm must be subtracted for two
molded set-backs of 11cm each on each side, the present buttresses
projected down to paving level as suggested by Grodecki would only
leave 472cm, a difference of over half a meter (51cm). The corresponding dimensions of the western side portal are 540.6cm above the roof
(less 44 = 496.6) and 521cm between the socle flanks at the front corner
of the portal, leaving a difference of 24.4cm. For the "perfect correspondence" sought by Grodecki all the dimensions given by him are
superfluous (see text fig. 1); schematic horizontal sections of the sort
given in his article are too inaccurate to prove any point of this nature. As in practical architectural practice, only the figured dimensions
are valid-and for this purpose a rough sketch suffices.
Apart from the fact that no side portals with three-statue embrasures
could ever have been present between the buttresses as postulated by
Grodecki, it is of far greater importance to the basic question that the
axes of the buttresses above the roof of the fore-portal do not correspond to the axes of the buttress-like architectural framing of the
portals below the roof: this means that this roof cannot have been inserted into an existing faqade but separates, optically and structurally,
two otherwise incompatible faqade systems at the two levels.
In spite of his fundamental error of method, it is advisable to summarize briefly every point made by Grodecki in this connection, so that
no misunderstanding can arise. "The buttresses . .. project 1.20m beyond the lintels of the porch," evidently meaning that they project 1.20m
onto the lintels. (That recent measurements seem to indicate a considnot concern us
.102cm?-need
erably smaller overhang-approximately
here because the projection of the buttress does not affect the problem in
the least. In any case the impression must be avoided that we are here
plan for the southern corner buttresses in accordance with the adjacent
buttresses facing east and west: the projecting "shoulders"on the flanks
which give the Chartres buttresses their characteristic heavy plan, are,
in fact, in this region, already asymmetrical, about 88cm in the southern projections as against 104.5 in the east and west buttresses.)63 But
according to which of the lateral buttresses? The eastern lateral buttress projects 241cm in front of the flank projection (mentioned in
parenthesis above), the western one only 212cm. In fact, though, all
this does not affect Grodecki's reconstruction because, at least according to the quoted dimensions, there is never any attempt made to reconstruct the southern buttresses on a plan symmetrical to, i.e., "after the
model of," the lateral buttresses, as one is led to expect from the above
quotation. This would require nothing more than the measuring up of
the lateral buttresses at pavement level and their symmetrical reconstruction on the south faqade-quite independent of calculations of
the extent of the postulated cutting back. The procedureactually adopted
is (in full) as follows: to the 1.20m projection of the existing "preserved" part of the buttress above the roof are added "two set-offsone projecting 0.35m, at some distance below the porch lintels, the
other, projecting ca 0.10m, at the base"--giving "a total projection of
1.65m." That is all. But the text, as it stands, cannot be related to the
building: the profile below the lintel and the one at the base are identical, both measuring about 11-12cm; a dimension of 35cm could not be
found anywhere in this region. Lastly, the large projection of the
weather molding on the face of the buttress, some distance above the
two profiles described, has not been taken into consideration. It appears that grave misunderstandings have occurred perhaps in the translation, perhaps even in the taking of the measurements.64Be that as it
may, a correction of the theses based on the above confusing dimensions is unnecessary, because, as we have seen, the method itself is
wrong: the projection of the buttresses is of no consequence to the basic
question of the original presence of side portals on the south elevation.
As stated above, even the width of the buttresses, discussed next by
Grodecki, is only applicable to the width of the portals if related to the
axes. The widths above the roof are given as 1.50m, 1.92m, 2.00m, and
1.65m respectively from west to east (the last dimension is incorrect
and should read 159.5cm). Because the outer buttresses have been "cut
in width in order to permit the installation of the Gallery of Kings on
their lateral surfaces . . . their original width was 2.10m and 2.05m respectively." (Because the depth of the galleries on the flanks is 53cm in
both cases, it appears that final values of 203 and 202.5cm respectively
would be more correct for the outer buttresses.) No more measurements
larger organization tackles the problem systematically). Then follows
the reconstruction of the buttresses "after the model of the lateral but-
are given.
The measurements given thus obviously do not warrant the exposition of a reconstruction of the plan at ground level at all and still less
the conclusions drawn from it, namely, that the inner flanks of the
tresses."62 (There is actually no justification to postulate a symmetrical
original buttresses "were in line with the colonettes that separate the
trying to expose incorrect measurements: different dimensions will often
be arrived at by individual scholars in measuring a cathedral until some
62 This procedureis in accordancewith the facade theory of Kunze, although this is
not mentioned.
63 It cannot be meant that these projectionswere also "cut back": the measurement
of the supposed original projection of the buttress is taken from the present
southernface. It must also be mentionedthat the transept buttresses again vary
from those of the nave in spite of their similar form. Fully annotatedmeasured
plans are being preparedfor publicationby the Soci4te archeologiqued'Eure-etLoir.
64 In Grodecki, "Transept
in taking measurements
Portals," n. 51, R. C. Branner
and translating.
is thanked
for his assistance
LITERATURE
third and fourth statues in all the embrasures" or, finally, that there is
"material evidence that [all four outer embrasure figures of the side
portals] cannot have existed before the buttresses were cut back." And
even if everything were in fact as Grodecki has wrongly described it,
the latter conclusion still would not be permissible: the inner flanks
of the buttresses could have been carried on the archivolts of the outer
fourth figures of the embrasure (regardless of whether these archivolts
were encased in a block as at Reims, north portal, where similar circumstances occur, or simply covered by a gable roof).
In fact, Grodecki tacitly postulates an identical solution in his reconstruction of the central portal of the south transept, where the archivolts of the outer figures must have carried the projection which flanks
the buttresses on the central section of the wall. The proposed reconstruction of the central portal need not be dealt with in the same
detail because Grodecki himself admits that his reconstruction "of the
original buttresses" permits less positive conclusions. On the strength of
our exposition above, particularly regarding the Reims north portals, it
may be mentioned, however, that it is not clear why Grodecki here postulates a transposition of the respective outer sixth apostle statues: at
present, as well as in his reconstruction, they are directly under masonry
which would be carried on the arch or archivolt above the statues-whether the masonry carried by the figures is that of the rectangular
core of the buttress, or of the buttress projection flanking the central
bay, does not, in effect, allow the conclusion that they could not have
been in their present position. Finally, the wall- or buttress-projection
referred to above cannot be related to the outer pairs of statues as directly as Grodecki believes: the portal plan is exactly symmetrical, including these figures, whereas the wall-projection comprises 177 and
207.5cm respectively.
The North "Porch"
Although the superimposed plans published by Grodecki (his fig. A)
show the close relationship between the upper and lower levels in both
form and dimension (the cantilevered masonry only comprising "a little less than 40cm"; according to our measurements only about 34
cm),65 he is of the opinion that the transformation of this faqade was
even "more radical" than that of the south transept. According to Grodecki, the buttresses originally projected retangularly 85-90cm beyond
the splayed sides and were cut back in two stages: firstly, below the
roof line of the fore-portal at the time of the addition of the "porch"
and the side portals (there originally being only a central portal) and,
secondly, above the roof line after the lintels had broken in 1316.
Grodecki's major argument is provided by the double-tiered blind
arcades decorating the outer flanks of the outer facade buttresses, above
the level of the fore-portal roof. These arcades end flush with the front
65 Grodecki,
ibid., 162, also operates
with a dimension
of 35cm.
ON
CHARTRES
surface of the buttress. Grodecki is of the opinion that these are the
remains of arcades which ran round on to the front surface of the
originally rectangular projection of the buttress. The front surface of
the (originally similarly projecting) central buttresses is supposed to
have taken up this motif. With regard to the method of Grodecki's reconstruction it must first be pointed out that he does not clearly demonstrate which of the two arcade tiers he completes to ascertain the
original projection of the buttress. Furthermore, these arcades can be
seen to stand on the cornice profile of the roof of the fore-portal; they
can only be thought of in conjunction with this (their base), whereas
they bear no relationship to any motif of the facade itself. On the contrary, they would have borne a remarkable relationship to the archivolts of the portal. Grodecki does not elucidate his reconstruction in
elevation at all: what did the arcades stand on before the fore-portal
cornice was there, did they hang on the front surface of the buttresses
without any relationship to the flanks, how were they related to the
great splayed upper weather molding of the buttress? Grodecki's
technical explanation does not bear scrutiny either. He maintains 1)
that the arcades are bonded into the masonry, and 2) that "obvious
traces of re-facing are visible on the eastern buttresses," which "refacing" he interprets as the traces of the cutting back of the buttresses.
These two observations, taken together, themselves confute the theory:
the irregularities which he interprets as "re-facing" can clearly be seen
on the photographs of the Archives Photographiques des Monuments
Historiques Nos. MH74315, LP3361 (Lefevre-Pontalis) and 001-P-327 (Le
Secq, about 1850?), and of Photo Giraudon Nos. 9259 (AG), 208 (ND=
Neurdin) and 301 (ND), all taken before the restoration work at the
beginning of this century; all irregularities of the bond are obviously
due to the subsequent awkward bonding of the blind arcades into existing masonry. Grodecki himself recognizes that there is no sign of
"re-surfacing" on the central buttresses (there is, in spite of the similarly postulated cutting back, also no trace of re-surfacing on the south
transept faqade). The only irregularities to be seen are those where the
later insertion of the bonding stones of the arcades on the flanks are
visible on the front surface of the outer buttresses. The raw chiseling in
of the base blocks hard against the face of the buttress, resulting from
alterations undertaken at the close of the mediaeval period, will be referred to in our forthcoming survey of the building history of this
facade.
Lastly Grodecki says that the "cutting back" of the buttresses resulted
in the flattening of the aediculae (which correspond in form to those
on the choir buttresses) "by the removal of half their depth." This argument again is a two-edged sword: the corner buttresses as a whole are
irregular in form and relationship and require a study of their own, but
if we look at the eastern aediculae we see that the one on the facade
buttress is symmetrical with the one on the adjacent eastern flank but-
163
164
TheArtBulletin
tress; the western pair is also almost symmetrical. Now it is obvious
that if the four aediculae of the transept faqade are to align on their
northern faces, as they do at present, the middle pair have to be shallower, their depth being limited from behind by the presence of the
staircases in the central buttresses, which therefore project more than
the corner ones. If on the other hand these aediculae were all to be
extended by 85-90cm, as Grodecki suggests, then the outer ones on the
eastern and western facade buttresses, at present symmetrical with the
adjacent transept (lateral) aediculae, would be hyperthrophied out of all
proportion and out of the essential symmetry with their neighbors on
the flanks.
Grodecki then considers the width of the buttresses in plan, projected down to the ground, "for it is impossible to think of their enormous weight hanging in the air without support." His superimposed
plans, accurate enough for our purposes, show the side portal embrasure
sculptures to lie under the oblique flanks of the buttress, from which
Grodecki concludes that "it is evident that [the buttresses] encroached
upon the transept wall so as to make side portals impossible." We are
faced here with the same inexplicable error of deduction as with the
side portals: of course, as in all
outer figures of the southern
facade
normal contemporary Gothic portal schemes, this masonry could have
been carried on the archivolts of the underlying portals. The whole
front surface between the buttresses could have been blocked out up
to the face of the outer archivolts (as can be seen at Paris, Mantes,
Reims north, etc.), but because in fact the earlier condition, or plan, of
this facade may indeed have omitted a projecting fore-portal, the archivolts may have been covered only by shallow Wimperg gables.
Contrary to Grodecki's reasoning, the relationship of the upper and
indicates that the facade was
lower plans of the north transept
facade
only designed in this present form after all three portals had been
decided on. A cutting back of the buttresses is as impossible to construe here as it is in the south.
With regard to the central portal, Grodecki's suggestion that the outer
sculptures must here also have been moved in closer to the center is
the
even more unacceptable than it was in the case of the south
facade:
outer sculptures, it must be remembered, are corner-figures, turned in
semi-profile towards the center, so that if we add the ca.22cm of the
two set-backs (apparently again not taken into consideration by Grodecki) then they would have stood in an almost impossible close juxtaposition to their neighbors. But taken all in all, the extent of later
shows the
chiseling in the existing masonry postulated for this
facade
degree to which the masonry has been considered a homogeneous mass.
Finally, Grodecki's assertion that the side portals are not on axis with
does not agree with my own observations, althe bays of the
facade
is
difficult here than on the south, where it is
more
though measuring
comparatively simple to prove the axial irregularities (see text fig. 1).
In spite of the fact that the correspondenceof the buttresses above and
below the fore-portal roof on the north transept facade cannot be
proved in the present context, it is evident from Grodecki's illustrations
that the relationship of
and portal is far more regular in the case
facade
of the north than of the south facade.
We wish to say no more than that research into the planning and
execution of the transept facade of the Cathedral of Chartres is still in
its infancy. The obvious irregularities provide sufficient indications to
assure us ultimately of a satisfactory explanation of the circumstances
and of the relative chronology. But the prerequisites for such study include the strict clarification of legitimate methods and as careful and
complete a recording of all relevant dimensions and details as possible.66
Institut fiir Baugeschichte,
Braunschweig
66 This study was begun in the courseof researchinto the building chronologyof Chartrescathedral(cf. note 7 above), undertakenwith the aid of the RichardHamannStipendium
Bad Godesberg.
and a researchgrant from the AlexanderVon Humboldt-Stiftung,
of the Hessisches Kultusministerium
LITERATURE
APPENDIX A
Antoine Thomas, "Les Miracles de Notre-Dame de Chartres," Bibliothdque de l'Tcole des Chartes, 42, 1881, 508-11:
I. Anno igitur ab incarnationeDomini Mo Co nonagesimoquarto, cum ecclesia Carnotensis IIIo idus junii mirabill ac miserabilifuisset incendio devastata, [ita] ut conquassatis et dissolutis postmodumparietibus et in terram prostratis, necessarium
foret eam a fundamentisreparariet novam denuo edificariecclesiam, tandempia Dei
genitrixac perpetuavirgo Maria, que se urbis et ecclesie dominamCarnotensismultis
pridem miraculis quibusdam fidelibus visibiliter apparendo et colloquendo fuerat
protestata,manifestis iterum rerumindiciis et multis miraculorumargumentisid ipsum declararedignata est cunctis liquido et evidenter, ostendens quod locum illum,
quasi singulariterdiligeret(l)ac precipue,et eamdemecclesiam tanquamspeciale domiciliumsibi elegerat(2)in terris. Nec mirumsane si eam pre ceteris diligat ecclesiis,
que tanto dilectionissue ab antiquopignoreinsignita est, illa videlicet insigni et sacrosancta camisia, quam eadem virgo dum Dei filium suo gestaret in utero induit, et
quam ipsa in puerperio,juxta multorumassercionemfidelium,circa renes beatissimos
dicitur habuisse. Verum in primis arbitrormemorandumquod omnes Ca[r]notenses
tam clerici quam laici, quorumdomos et universa pene mobilia supradictumconcremarat incendium, destruccionemadeo deplorabantecclesie, ut de dampnis propriis
nullam prorsus facerent mentionem, summam infortunii, immo totum infortunium
reputantesquod aulam beate Virginis, specialemurbis gloriam, tocius regionis speculum, domum orationis incomparabilempeccatis suis exigentibus miseri et infelices
amiserant.Unde factum est ut quidamRomaneecclesie cardinaliset apostolice sedis
legatus, Melior nomine, qui provida Dei et genitricis ipsius dispensationepresens
aderat et casum tam mirabilempropriisconspexeratoculis, ita ut maximo conpateretur affectu, convocatis ad se episcopo et canonicis divine animadversionisvindictam
et a quanta cecidissent gloria plenius ostenderet,et eos postmodumad penitenciam
provocans eorumdemanimos suis sermocinationibusemolliret. Episcopus igitur et
canonici (et) Melioris exhortacione(m)in meliora conversi, partemreddituumsuorum
non modicamper trienniumconferendamad reparationemejus ecclesie absque ulla
contradictioneconcesserunt.Sane populus (vo) Carnotensis,cum sacrosanctumBeate
Marie scriniumob timoremincendii in locum secretioremdelatumdiebus aliquot non
vidisset, dolore incredibili ac merore confectus est, indignum judicans urbis vel ecclesie edificia restaurari,si tam preciosumthessaurum,immo tocius civitatis gloriam
perdidisset. Tandem die quodam sollenni, cum ex mandato cleri universus populus
ad locum in quo ecclesia fuerat convenissetet prolatumex(8)cripta scriniumsupradictum, episcopo et decano illud undique circonferentibus,prospexissent,quantas laudis
et exultationisvoces ediderint, quantasDeo ac gloriose genitrici sue egerint gracias,
non est facile dictu. Universi nempe et singuli tanta leticia repleti sunt ut pre gaudio
inestimabiliomniumin lacrimasoculi solverentur,et in terramprostratiDeum devote
et suppliciteradorarent,qui thessaurumincomparabilem,quo civitas celebris habebatur, sub tanto eis incendio conservavit.Nec pretereundumest quod cum scrinium
sepefatumin inferiorem(4)criptam,cujus introitumlaudabilis antiquorumprovidentia
altari Beate Marie proximumfecerat, temporeincendii a quibusdamfuisset delatum
et ibidem inclusi flagrantejam incendio regredi non auderent, ita demum a mortis
periculo sub beate Marie protectionesalvati sunt, quod hostium quoddamferreum
quo cripte superficiestegebaturnec lignorum ardentiumet ex alto cadentiumruina
quassavitnec liquefactiplumbi distillatio penetravitnec carbonumdesuperardentium
congeries violavit. Cumque post tanti ardoremincendii sani et incolumes regressi
fuissent, qui fumo jam vel calore nimio putabanturextincti, omnes qui aderanttanto
repletisunt gaudio, ut pie collacrimanteseis tanquama mortuisresurgentibuscongauderent, et viso genitricis Dei miraculo primam desolationis sue consolationemacciperent, liberatoremac salvatorem omnium collaudantes qui Noe condam de aquis
diluvii, Jonamde profundomaris, Danielem de lacu leonum, pueros de camino ignis
et hos tandemfamulos suos de tanto ac tali incendio liberavit et conservavitillesos.
Exillaratoigitur post tantum meroremCarnotensipopulo et de restaurationeecclesie
ultra quam credi posset sollicito, cum post ruinam parietum superius memoratam
novam edificari ecclesiam necessitas inperaret, tandem plaustris(5)ad attrahendos
lapides preparatis,omnes se invicem invitant pariter et hortanturut quicquid(e)ad
hujus operis fabricam necessarium
putant, vel artifices fieri precipiunt,
incunctanter
parent et absque dilatione perficiant.(7) Verum ad tanti structuram operis laicorum
munera vel a[u]xilia
nequaquam
sufficerent nisi (ut) episcopus
et canonici tantam,
ut supra dictum est, ex propriis redditibus tribus annis pecuniam contulissent;
quod
siquidem,
transa(u)cto
omnibus
manifestum
apparuit,
cum omnis
eodem triennio,
subito pecunia defecisset,
ita ut qui preerant operi quod daretur operariis non habe-
ON
CHARTRES
rent, aut quid dari posset de cetero non viderent. Memini vero quemdam eo temporis
articulo nescio quo prophecie spiritu dixisse(t) quod prius deficerent marsupia quam(s)
nummi ad opus Carnotensis ecclesie necessarii. Quid plura? humano penitus deficiente
cum necessarium
a[u]xilio,
(56a) esset adesse divinum, beata Dei genitrix novam et
ecclesiam sibi volens fabricari ad facienda ibidem miracula, ejusdem
incomparabilem
filii sui potentiam meritis suis et precibus incitavit, et ut major illuc concursus fieret
et a multis retro temporibus
miraculum
novum quoddam
inauditum
populorum,
cunctis primitus palam et evidenter ostendit, quatinus miraculi novitas longe lateque
Galliam et sequentibus
miraculis fides posset facilius adper totam diffunderet[ur]
etsi multa taceam, illud sub silentio
hiberi. Quocirca indignum reor et incongruum,
preterire,("> presertim cum idem miraculum ceteris premineat et quasi sydus exercituum
inter cetera splendidius elucescat.
(1) Ms.: ostenderet.
(2) Ms.: eligeret.
(8) Ms.: est.
(") Ms.: inferioram.
() Ms.: pluastris.
(e) Ms.: quicquic.
(7) Ms.: parant...
(8) Ms.: quod.
(9) Ms.: preteriit.
perficiunt.
APPENDIX B
Cartulairede Notre-Dame de Chartres,E. de Lepinois and L. Merlet, eds.,
ii, Chartres,1863, 95f.:
CCXXXVII.De jure cantoris super stalla ecclesie Carnotensis.
(1221, janvier)
B[artholomeus], decanus, et universitas Capituli Carnotensis, universis presentis
scripti noticiam habituris, salutem in Domino. Noverit universitas vestra quod nos,
in choro nostre ecclesie nova stalla forme insolite nova dispositione ponentes, jura
cantorisnostri per cuncta volumus salva et integra permanere,ex quibus unum duximus presentibuslitteris exprimendum,quod tale est: Cum tantum duos de ecclesia
nostra habeat Capituluminstallare, decanum scilicet et cantorem, cantor idem, de
jure propriedignitatis, omnes habet alios, tam personas quam simplices canonicos et
omnes non canonicosinstallare,sive installarede novo, sive a stallo in stallum, vel ab
una parte chori in alteramtransferantur.Quociens igitur cantor in choro nostro, secundumecclesie nostre consuetudinem,installat aliquem, sive de novo, sive, ut dictum est, transferendoa stallo in stallum, quandoei hoc licet de consuetudine,potest,
si sit persona inter personas, si simplex canonicus inter simplices canonicos, si non
canonicus inter canonicos, primum vel ultimum vel quorumlibetduorum medium,
pro sue voluntatis arbitrio,allocare, nonobstantesitu vel forma stallorumseu aliquo
quod ad situm vel formampertineat eorumdem,salvo tamen jure quorumdamcerta
stalla in choro habencium,videlicet decani, subdecani, succentoris, cancellarii, majoris archidiaconi,capiceriiet camerarii,quibus alia stalla cantor assignare non potest quam ea que ipsi obtinent de jure proprie dignitatis, videlicet quod subdecanus
semperdebet esse tercius a decano, qui primus est ex illa parte chori que est dextra
ingredientibus;major archidiaconussemper eorum medius; camerarius semper in
angulo ex eadem parte chori; succentor ex altera parte chori semper secundus vel
tercius a cantore, ita quod potest cantor, si voluerit, unam ex aliis personis locare
mediaminter se et succentorem;cancellariovero semperangulus ex eademparte chori,
et capicerio semper extremus in grandi statu locus debetur. Notandum etiam quod
bene licet cantori personam aliquam, si non sit dyaconus, installare in statu alio
quam in grandi, et tunc debet ei primum locum ante omnes canonicos assignare.
Pretereanotandumest quod non potest cantor inter duas personas immediateinstallatas aliquem qui non sit persona nostre ecclesie, nec inter duos canonicos aliquem
non canonicum,nec inter duos non canonicos aliquemcanonicumallocare:in hiis et
in aliis omnibusjus ipsius cantoris et nostrumomniumvolumus et concedimuspenitus esse salvum. In cujus rei memoriamet testimonium,presentes litteras eidem
cantori nostro dedimus sigilli nostri munimineroboratas.Datum anno gracie millesimo CCmo vicesimo,
mense januario.
(Vidim.
orig. en parch. de 1472; Arch. d'Eure-et-Loir,
fonds du Chap., C. XI ter, A, 2.)
165
166
The Art Bulletin
APPENDIX C
Gallia Christiana, viii, Paris, 1744, col. 370, Instrumenta ecclesia Carnotensis:
CI. Indulgentias in dedicatione ecclesiae Carnotensis largitur Alexander
IV.
Alexanderepiscopus, servus servorumDei, venerabili fratri episcopo & dilectis filiis
capitulo Carnotensi,salutem & apostolicambenedictionem.Licet is, de cujus munere
venit ut sibi a fidelibus suis digne ac laudabiliterserviatur,de abundantiapietatis
suae, quae meritasupplicumexcedit & vota, bene servientibusmulto majoraretribuat,
quamvaleant promereri,nihilominusmultumdesiderantesnos reddereDomino populum acceptabilem,fideles Christi ad complacendumei quasi quibusdamillectivis muneribus, indulgentiisscilicet & remissionibusinvitamus, ut exinde reddanturdivinae
gratiae aptiores.Cum igitur, sicut ex parte carissimiin Christofilii nostri regis Franciae illustris fuit propositumcoramnobis, ecclesia vestra, in qua multorumsanctorum
reliquiaepretiosissimaesub venerandacustodia conservantur,& ad quam de diversis
partibus ob reverentiamgloriosae Mariae sempervirginis causa devotionis innumera
confluitmultitudo,debeat in proximodedicari,nos cupientesut eadem ecclesia congruis honoribus frequentetur,omnibus vere poenitentibus& confessis ad ipsam ecclesiam accedentibus
proxima die Dominica post festum B. Lucae, qua dedicabitur,
sicut sertur, & usque ad proximum sequens festum Nativitatis Dominicae accedentibus
tres annos & totidem quadragenas,
illis vero qui ad ecclesiam ipsam in anniversario
die dedicationis
Doipsius ecclesiae, & usque ad sequens festum ejusdem Nativitatis
mini accesserint annuatim, annum unum & XL. dies de omnipotenti
Dei misericordia,
& beatorum Petri & Pauli apostolorum ejus auctoritate confisi, de injuncta sibi poentitentia misercorditer
relaxamus.
Datum Anagniae
X. calendas
Aprilis,
pontificatus
nostri anno sexto.
APPENDIX D
Cartulairede Notre-Dame de Chartres,11,56-62:
CCIII. Noticia de violationi domus decani et claustri Beatae-Mariae
(1210-1211).
Dirus antiqui hostis furor in ecclesia Dei, multiplici fraudis sue machinamento,non
desinit laicorumsemperin clericos odium incitare; conaturut per hoc ecclesia quasi
in se ipsam divisa desoletur, quia hii facilius a fidelium communionerecedunt qui
clericos, Christi caractereinsignitos, gratis habere odio, et eo solo quod clerici sint
vel verbo vel actione prosequinon verentur.Hac siquidemvetustissimihostis invidia
compellente, contigit in urbe Carnotensi, anno ab incarnationeDomini millesimo
CCXO,mense octobri, die quadamdominica,post prandium,quod vulgi pars maxima
in Willelmumdecanumejusquefamiliamviolenter insurgereet domumipsius, que in
claustroBeate-Mariesita est, violare presumpserit,eo scilicet quod unus ex memorati
decani servientibusausus fuerat in eodem claustro, sicut dicebatur,cuidam rustico
de villa, servo scilicet Comitisse,minis duntaxatet convitiis injuriamintulisse. Cumque ministri Comitisse qui civibus preerantuniversis, marescallusvidelicet et prepositus, requisiti fuissent a Capitulo, etiam ex parte Regis, quatinus furiosam vulgi
multitudinema claustro repellerent,vel eorum furorem pro tradita sibi potestate
comprimerent,noluerunt, sed impellere potius populum quam repellere, et augere
furoremmagis quam comprimereconati sunt, misso etiam per urbempreconequi per
vicos et plateas clamabatquatinusuniversi cum armis ad domum decani diruendam
irruerent.Unde factum est ut, irruentepopulo, alii fenestrasejusdemdomus lapidibus
obruere,alii postes, januas et stipites securibusexcidereconarentur.Sane decanus,ut
primumfurentis populi rabiemvidit increscere,ad ecclesiam confugit; qui autem in
clausis tandem januis et firmiter obseratis,
se
domo ejus ausi fuerant remanere,
ibidem tueri et deffendere strenue et viriliter laboraverunt:
nam alii ligna et lapides
per fenestras
deorsum mittebant,
alii, supra tectum ejusdem domus ascendentes,
jactu lapidum frequentissimo
turbam irruentis populi proturbabant.
Sicque multi ex
eadem sacrilega multitudine
vulnerati
sunt, quorum nonnulli
morte non immerita
corruerunt. Unde populus, majori repletus insania, uno ex plaustris Beate-Marie
accepto et ad prefate domus januas, cum clamore et strepitu, impetuose impulso, viam
omnibus domum illam intrare parantibus
patefecit;
quidam etiam fenestras
cellarii
ferreas et ostia pariter avellentes,
quicquid inde ferreum abstrahere poterant, asportabant: aulam tamen et thalamum, in quo jacebat decanus, et capellam, licet aggredi
presumerent,
ingredi nullatenus
potuerunt;
verum hii omnes, quia jam noctis non
modicum transierat spatium, discesserunt.
enim illa noctis tempore, canDepredatio
dellis accensis, facta est; et sic opus tenebrarum,
in
quod tempore lucis inceperant,
nocte consummaverunt.
Qua de re turbatus est clerus et admodum desolatus: si qui etiam sana mente erant
laici, si que religiose mulieres tanti sacrilegii facinus abhorrebant. Cessatum est igitur
in ecclesia Beate-Marie
seu monasteriis
in
penitus, et in ceteris similiter ecclesiis
Carnotensi banleuga constitutis,
excepto quod solis presbiteris parrochialibus
permissum est missas aliquando,
clausis januis, exclusis laicis, voce submissa
et humili,
et sine cantus modulatione,
scilicet hostias que in necescelebrare, ad conservandas
sitatis articulo nullis sunt penitentibus
cetera vero sacramenta
fuerunt
denegande;
penitus denegata, preter baptisma parvulorum, quod etiam non in ecclesiis, sed extra
est etiam altare
fieri concessum
est. Denudatum
ecclesias,
utpote in capitellis,(1)
et sacrosanctum
scrinium ab altari depositum,(2)
Beate-Marie,
et inferius ante altare
sed sicut poni solet a die Cene paspositum est, non equidem super pavimentum,
sionis dominice; capse vero Sanctorum reliquias continentes
similiter deposite, et incollocate sunt; imago quoque
ferius, ante sacrosanctum
scrinium, super pavimentum
Crucifixi ab alto deposita est,(3> et ante capsas super pavimentum
chori deposita.
Statutum est etiam a Capitulo ut sacerdotes ecclesie ejusdem, singulis diebus, pulin memoratos sacrilegos excommunicationis
et ejusdem
pitum ascendentes,
sententiam,
horrende maledictionis,
acque excommunicatio
magna(4) dicitur, verba proferrent,
censis candellis, et pulsatis eadem hora, non tam ejus ecclesie quam ceterarum ecclesiarum, campanis. Campanam vero, que singulis noctibus, etiam tempore interdicti,
ad horam que vulgo ignitegium
appellatur,
pulsari solet, hujus interdicti
tempore
pulsari prohibitum est.
Verum sacrilegi non ideo compuncti sunt, sed illorum amplius indurata sunt corda.
Quindena siquidem die a sacrilegio perpetrato, dum sacerdotum unus, sicut statutum
verba proferret, clamor vulgi astantis altus et irrisonus
fuerat, memorate maledictionis
in eadem ecclesia subsecutus
est. Unde Dominus,
magis ad iracundiam provocatus,
suam non distulit ultionem;
qui, proxime noctis tempore, anathematis
sententiam,
ut
quam ministri ejus verbo tenus tulerant sacerdotes,
per angelum exterminatorem,
est in furore suo, qui, a vico
credimus, executioni mandavit.
Ignis enim succensus
in urbem ascendit et omnium fere
quodam inferiore secus ripam Audure incipiens,
domos usque ad claustrum Beate-Marie,
non tam mirabili quam mirasacrilegorum
culoso incendio, devastavit, nullis penitus de ejusdem claustri domibus igne succensis.
Quod siquidem quibusdam
sacrilegii compunctionis
gemitum et timorem, aliis vero
majorem confusionis iram et invidiam generavit.
Accessit autem sepedictis sacrilegii major confusio. Decanus etenim et universi fere
cum eo canonici, ipsa hebdomada
post commissum
Philippi, Francorum
sacrilegium,
regis illustrissimi,
cujus etiam aures ejusdem jam sacrilegii rumor attigerat, presentiam adierunt. Cumque de ipsis sacrilegorum principibus,
marescallo scilicet et prepoet
sito, eorumque complicibus,
ipsi regi, utpote patrono et defensori suo, nominatim
libertatis
expresse, querimoniam
detulissent,
Rex, in hoc facto, non tam ecclesiastice
quam regie majestatis lesionem attendens, quid super hoc facturus esset cum aulicis
suis consilium habuit, consilioque
accepto, benigne respondit quod decano ceterisque
canonicis fidem plurimam adhiberet, sed rei veritatem prius volebat, sicut et debebat,
tanquam judex, inquirere, antequam eis se vindicem exhiberet; quod in proximo se
facturum promisit. Et ita factum est. In sequenti namque hebdomada,
peregrinationis
in eadem perspexiscausa, Carnotensum visitavit ecclesiam, et, cum signa desolationis
set ecclesia, sub sacrosancto
scrinio devote et humiliter transitum faciens, pannum
sericum ad ornatum ecclesie decentissimum
obtulit, et ducentas libras parisienses
ad opus edificationis
ejusdem ecclesie(5) contulit. Ad videndum quoque domum decani
et notanda sepefati sacrilegii signa exire dignatus est: qui, ex gradibus ecclesie, frontem ejusdem domus, partim securibus violatam, partim lapidibus concassatam,
prospiciens, domum illam, que sic violata fuerat, depredatam fuisse minime dubitavit; in
eadem vero civitate morari diutius noluit, sed, tanquam cives sacrilegos devitaret, vix
hore unius ibi morulam faciens, reditum maturavit; tribus tamen ex suis militibus,
viris fidelibus et prudentissimis,
rei veritatem
imperavit quatinus, ibidem remanentes,
per testes, tam ex parte Capituli quam ex parte adversa, producendos
inquirerent;
ad ipsum
examinatis,
quibus diligentius
scriptas et consignatas
eorum attestationes
referrent: diem quoque certam utrique parti prefixit, in qua Parisius super iisdem attestationibus
judicii sui proferret sententiam.(0)
Adveniente
Sanctorum-Omnium
igitur die illo, qui etiam festivus ob solennitatem
habebatur, cum multi, Parisius, e diversis partibus regni, ad regalem curiam, proceres
convenissent,
et decanus, cum suis canonicis,
regis expeteret et expectaret judicium,
ipse Rex, ore proprio, judicii sententiam,
publice et apertissime,
protulit vel pronunciavit regaliter, imperans quatinus prenominati
Comitisse ministri, marescallus
videlicet et prepositus, in ecclesia Carnotensi, publice, coram omnibus tam clericis quam
laicis, rectum facerent in manu decani super violatione
claustri omnibusque
injuriis;
prepositus quidem pro se et universitate
populi Carnotensis,
marescallus
vero pro se
tantum. Precepit etiam quatinus ipsi consequenter
ibidem decanum totumque Capi-
LITERATURE
aurea vel argentea, securos facerent
tulum, per pecuniam numeratam aut vadimonia
de restituendis
omnibus que in domo decani dissipata fuerant vel ablata, ita tamen
quod illi qui res suas ibi tunc amisisse
dicebant,
juratoriam propriis
probationem
manibus
exhiberent.
Precepit insuper quatinus ipsum decanum et quendam alium
fuerat viocanonicum,
cujus etiam domus per violationem
supradictam
aliquantulum
lata, securos facerent de suis domibus reparandis ad eumdem valoris statum in quo
Ad hec omnia facienda, idem Rex diem certum prefixit, et
prius fuisse videbantur.(7)
hiis omnibus exequendis
eximios fidejussores
accepit, utpote comitem Boloniensem<(8)
et quosdam alios, se ipsum vero decano et Capitulo fidejussorem
et unum
constituit,
preterea de suis militibus, virum fidelem et prudentissimum,
misit, qui, ex parte sua,
exequendis hiis omnibus interesset.
Facta sunt igitur omnia sicut Rex imperaverat.
Quibus peractis, clerus ad processionem se preparans,
quedam primum solemnia,
que ad sacrorum reconciliationem
locorum liber ordinarius fieri indicat, celebravit. Hiis expletis solemniis,
ad pulsandas
ecclesie campanas quorumdam
astantium
laicorum multitudo
cucurrit; responsorium
Gaude, Maria, ante altare gloriose Virginis, altissimis vocibus decantatum
est; altari
vero interim decenter ornato, sacrosanctum
scrinium super illud repositum est; capse
a terra elevate, ad loca propria cum gaudio et exultaSanctorum reliquias continentes,
tione et canticis reportate sunt; imago quoque Crucifixi in eminentiori
loco, sicut solebat, reposita est. Et sic facta est letitia magna in clero, in populo autem gravi adhuc
iniquitate et peccato confusio maxima.
Facta sunt autem hec omnia supradicta, absente Rege, episcopo et multis aliis Christi
fidelibus iter peregrinationis
ad debellandos
quos
arripientibus
quosdam hereticos,(9)
illustrissimus
comes, Simon, Montisfortis
dominus,(10) amicus scilicet et parrochianus
suus, strenue et fortiter impugnabat.
Verum quia Rex, sicut supradictum est, rectum
in manu decani fieri, domos reparari, ablata restitui jusserat, sed nondum fuerat exsatisfactionis
malefactores,
pressum
quantam
penam prenominati
pro tanto reatu
resacrilegii, pati deberent, memoratus episcopus,
qui jam a prefata perergrinatione
dierat, et decanus, cum quibusdam canonicis ab ipso Capitulo missis, ad Regem simul
et unanimiter
Decrevit
accesserunt,
ipsius super hoc judicium postulantes.
itaque
Rex eosdem malefactores,
qui in manu decani rectum fecerant, qui etiam, ex facto
verum etiam majestatem
suo, non solum Deum et ecclesiam offendisse,
regiam conter mille librarum parisiensis
monete solutione mulctandos;(t)
tempsisse videbantur,
de qua scilicet summa quingentas libras episcopo dari precepit, Capitulo autem mille
et quingentas
libras, ita tamen quod, de eadem summa Capitulo assignata,
decanus,
pro injuria sibi specialiter irrogata, sexaginta libras haberet; tertiam vero partem pene
Decrevit preterea Rex quod sepedicti malefacpretaxate fisco suo censuit inferendam.
tores et eorum complices,
de quibus Capitulum nominatim
et expresse querimoniam
fecerat, die quadam solenni, ad processionem
ecclesie, in conspectu totius populi, nudi
ante altare beatisapparerent, virgas portantes in manibus, quibus, finita processione,
sime Virginis Marie, flagellati, Deo et eidem gloriose Virgini pene corporali satisfactionem exhiberent.
Hec autem omnia, juxta Regis irrefragabilem
sententiam et ipsius imperium, oportuit
suis robarari sempenitus adimpleri. Sic igitur Carnotensis ecclesia in tribulationibus
per et crescere consuevit, meritis, ut credimus, et patrocinio gloriose genitricis Dei et
domini nostri Jesu-Christi, cui est honor et gloria in secula seculorum, amen.
(Arch. d'Eure-et-Loir, fonds du Chap., Reg. des Arrets, fo 101 rO.)
1> On entendait par capitelli des portiques exterieurs avec colonnes, comme il en existe
aux flancs nord et sud de Notre-Dame.
les autres chasses des
(2) C'6tait la chisse contenant la chemise de la Sainte-Vierge;
Saints se trouvaient, derriere le maitre-autel, a droite et A gauche de l'autel dit infe'rieur.
etait place au-dessus
(3) Ce crucifix etait celui qui, suivant les decrets des conciles,
de I'entr'e du choeur. Plusieurs des ceremonies de l'office divin ne pouvaient s'accomplir que devant ce crucifix.
ou mortelle etait infligee aux pecheurs et
(4) L'excommunication
majeure, solennelle
criminels endurcis, ou aux heretiques relaps, tandis que l'excommunication
medicinale s'imposait aux pecheurs repentants qui subissaient
volontairement
les pinitences. L'excommunication
solennelle s'appelait aussi anathbme, A cause de la malavec la mise en scene decrite dans le
ediction proferbe par I'excommunicateur
Nous ajouterons que, dans quelques eglises, a la fin de la lecpassage ci-dessus.
ture de la formule d'anatheme,
on souflait les chandelles,
on les jetait A terre et
on les foulait aux pieds. (Baluze, Capit., t. II, col. 663.-Martene,
Anecdot., t. IV,
col. 1121.-Mabillon,
anno 1210.-Voir
aussi du Cange, ed. Henschel,
Scheda,
verbis candela et excommunicatio,
et du Rousseaud de la Combe, Recueil de jurisprudence canonique, verbo censures.)
(5) M. de Lepinois a cite le premier, dans son Hist. de Chartres, vol. Ier, p. 120, note
si concluant, A I'appui de l'incendie
de la Cathedrale en 1194.
2, ce temoignage,
Voir a ce sujet, tome Ier, p. 15, note 1.
ON
CHARTRES
il resulte d'une lettre de Philippe-Auguste,
adressee au Chapitre en
octobre 1210, apre son voyage a Chartres, qu'il avait arringe l'affaire par un
compromis pendant se visite meme. On lit en effet dans cette lettre, inserie dans
un Recueil de formules de la Bibl. Imp., ms. lat., 8566, A, fo 120, et dans la collection Baluze, 128, fo 304, la phrase suivante: Et nos ad vestram ecclesiam acceoculata super quibus et quantis
dentes, in propria persona, fide prospeximus
vestra fuisset universitas vulnerata. Post compromissionem
vero factam in nos, arbitrati sumus quod memorati pretor et cives tali die vestro capitulo se presentent,
vobis secundum
vestrum judicium prestituri.
Le roi termine en
satisfactionem
engageant le Chapitre a user de moderation dans cette circonstance,
pour ne pas
etre tax' de cruaut'. La r'ponse du Chapitre, en date du meme mois, ins'ree dans
les memes recueils, assure Philippe-Auguste
tiendra d'autant
que la Compagnie
plus compte de sa recommandation
qu'attaches au service de la Mere des misbricordes, les chanoines sont portes par eux-memes a etre climents et a implorer la misericorde de Dieu pours leurs propres fautes. M. Delisle a donne in extenso ces
deux pibces dans son appendice au Catalogue des actes de Philippe-Auguste,
p.
516.
une copie d'une lettre de Philippe-Au(7) On trouve dans le Livre des Privildges
guste, du mois de novembre 1210, relative A I'amende due par le prev6t et les
principaux fauteurs de la sedition. (Bibl. Imp., cart. 28, p. 125, et 28 bis, fo 58 vo.
-L. Delisle, Catal. des Actes de Phil.-Aug., p. 287, n01249).
comte de Boulogne, quatribme mari de Ide, fille ainee de
(8) Renaud de Dammartin,
Mathieu d'Alsace et de Marie de Boulogne.
<() Renaud de Moucon, eveque de Chartres, et Philippe de Dreux, eveque de Beauvais,
avaient conduit une troupe de croises a Simon de Monfort, pendant les derniers
mois de 1210.
(10) Simon IV, comte de Monfort, second fils de Simon-le-Chauve,
comte d'Evreux, et
d'Amicie de Beaumont, comtesse de Leicester. Le nom de ce prince illustre, qui
fut tub au siege de Toulouse le 25 juin 1218, est ecrit dans l'obit de sa mere, au
sous la date du 4 des ides de septembre. 11 avait conNecrologe de Notre-Dame,
aux Lepreux
firme en fivrier 1198 toutes les donations faites par ses predicesseurs
de Beaulieu: parmi ces donations figurait la redevance annuelle d'un cerf et d'un
sanglier gras. (Bibl. de la ville de Chartres, cart. noir, no 44.)
(11) D'aprbs les calculs de M. Gubrard (Cart. de Sainte-PBre, prol6g., 187, 188), les
3,000 livres d'amende imposees aux gens de Chartres representeraient
aujourd'hui
plus de 30,000 fr.
(8) Cependant
APPENDIX E
Cartulairede Notre-Dame de Chartres,III,138f.:
II Idus Julii (14 juillet).
3.-Anno ab incarnationeDomini millesimo ducentesimovicesimo tertio, obiit Philippus, Francorumrex illustris, apud castrumMeduntam;qui sensus industriavir prudentissimus,virtute strenuus, gestis magnificus,fama preclarus,victoriosus in bellis
ac triumphismultis et magnis plurimumgloriosus, jus et potentiamregni Francorum
mirabiliterdilatavit et regalem fiscum ampliavit in multis; multos etiam preclaros
principes,terris, militibus, armis et opibus prepotentes,regno suo et sibi graviteradversantesdebellavitviriliter et devicit. Ecclesiarumquoquedefensor maximuset protector, istam precipue sanctam ecclesiam, speciali favoris gratia et quasi quodam
amoris privilegio, fovit propensius et protexit, et quem habebat erga ipsam dilectionis affectummultociensaffectu operis comprobavit.Porro ipse ab annis teneris zelator fidei christiane,vexillo crucis affixo humeris, in sua juvenili etate contra Sarracenos in manu valida transfretavit;ubi in obsidione Aconitane urbis usque ad ejus
consummatamdebellationemplenamquerecuperationempreclareet efficaciterlaboravit, ac postmodum,vergensin senium,propriofilio primogenitonon pepercitquin eum
mitteretbis adversushereticosAlbigenses, cum magnis sumptibuset expensis, et alias
tam in vita sua quam in suo decessu multa largitus est ad ejusdemnegocii Albigenslum subsidiumet juvamen.Pretereadando pauperibuset dona plurimacaritativeper
loca varia dispergendoelemosinarumfuit largissimus seminator.Sepultus est autem
in ecclesia Beati-Dionisiidigne et honorifice,sicut tall et tanto principi competebat.
Ad ipsius enim exequias, quod non sine nutu et prudentiaDei gestum esse videtur,
affueruntduo (archiepiscopi-4),videlicet RemensisWillelmuset SenonensisGalterus,
et viginti episcopi, videlicet de Romana curia Corradus,Portuensis episcopus cardinalis et sedis apostolicein terraAlbigensiumtunc legatus; de Anglia, PandulfusNorvicensis episcopus;de Remensiprovintia,KatalaunensisWillelmus,BelvacensisMilo,
Noviomensis Girardus,LaudunensisAnsellus, Suessionensis Jacobus, Silvanectensis
Gannus, AttrebatensisPontius, AmbianensisGaufridus;de provintiaSenonensi, Carnotensis Galterus,AltisiodorensisHenricus,ParisiensisWillelmus,AurelianensisPhi-
167
168
TheArtBulletin
lippus, Meldensis Petrus, Nivernensis Raginaldus;de provintia Rothomagensi,Baiocensis Robertus,ConstantiensisHugo, AlbricensisWillelmus,LexoviensisGuillelmus;
de provintiaNarbonensi,FulcoTolosanus.Qui prelati,de mandatodominipape, immo
de ipsa potius, ut credibileest, ordinationedivina, pro negocioAlbigensiumtunc temporis erant Parisius congregati.Missam autem exequialemcelebraruntsimul Portuensis episcopuset Remensisarchiepiscopus,una voce, ad duo altaria propinqua,ceteris
episcopis cum clericis et monachis, quorumaderat innumeramultitudo,assistentibus
et eis respondentibussicut uni: inter quos affuit Johannes,illustris rex Jerosolimitanus,
qui in Franciamveneratpro negociis et necessitatibusTerre-Sancte,presentibusad hoc
inclitis predictiregis Philippi filiis, Lodovicoprimogenitonato et Philippo. Sepedictus
autemPhilippusrex tale condidittestamentum:
legavitad subsidiumTerre-Sancte
trecentamilia librarumparisiensium,videlicet prefato regi Johannicentummilia, milicie Templicentummilia, hospitali Jerosolimitanocentummilia. Donavit etiam Amalrico, comiti Montis-Fortis,viginti milia librarumparisiensium,ad uxoremejus et li-
berosde Albigensiterraet manuhostiumreducendos.
Pretereadedit quinquaginta
milia librarumparisiensiumpauperibuseroganda.Magnam etiam summam pecunie
dicitur legavisse ad emendas si quas fecerat exactionesinjustas. Insuperinstituit viginti monachos presbiteros in ecclesia Beati-Dionisii, qui tenentur pro anima ejus
singulis diebus celebraremissas et orationes alias, sicut ecclesia orare pro defunctis
autemhujusecclesie,nolensei esse ingratum,sexCapitulum
fidelibusconsuevit.(1)
aginta solidos annui redditus de camera assignavit et statuit ad ejus anniversarium
celebrandum.Et superaddiditMilo de Croceio, canonicushujus ecclesie (et clericus
dicti regis--4), quadragintasolidos similiter annuos, ex quibus viginti solidi canonicis, quindecimnon canonicis qui anniversariointerfuerint,et quinquerestantes solidi
matriculariiset pulsatoribuscampanarum(in utraqueturre; habebunteciam matricularii clerici porcionemin summamque clericis non canonicis deputatur.-4). Totalis
autem summapecunie una deputabiturad vigilias precedentisdiei, et altera medietas
ad missam subsequentisdiei, quos assignavit super campipartemde Braiaco, quam
emit a Stephano,majorede Campo-Seru,(dictusMilo.-4).
(1>Les dbtailscontenus dans cet obit sont donnes, avec la chronique de Guillaume-leBreton, dans le Recueil des historiens de France.
APPENDIX F
Cartulaire de Notre-Dame de Chartres, III, 45f.:
XII Kalendas Martii (18 fevrier).
3.-Et [obiit] Robertus de Blevia, hujus sancte ecclesie camerarius, vir benignus et pauperibus misericorditer
compatiens,
qui hanc ecclesiam capa serica, dalmatica et tunica
et duobus urceolis argenteis decoravit, et antyphonarium
ad cotidianum
usum dedit.
Operi vero dedit cuppam et duos scyphos argenteos et VI coclearia argentea, et pro
uno pilari faciendo XXV libras. Pro anniversario
vero suo annuatim celebrando, huic
ecclesie perpetuo contulit stagnum et molendinum
de Brolio cum decima de Luceio:
quorum proventus, in die anniversarii sui, ita distribuentur quod canonici qui anniversario intererunt duas partes, non canonici terciam partem percipient.
Verumtamem
Robinus, ejus consanguineus,
quamdiu vixerit, predictum stagnum scilicet et molendinum et decimam ab ecclesia Carnotensi precarie possidebit,
ita quod in die anniversarii camerarii XII denarios canonicis, non canonicis VI denarios persolvet.
APPENDIX G
Cartulaire de Notre-Dame de Chartres, q, 103:
CCXLVI.Quod mercerii de capitellis sunt de justicia Capituli.
(1224, 26 mai)
Consentimus
nos universi et singuli, tam persone quam canonici Carnotenses,
qui ad
eligendum conveneramus
decanum, quod stalla merceriorum que solent esse in capitellis, collocantur in claustro, a parte meridiana, inter gradus ecclesie et majorem turrim,
ita quod omnis justicia stallorum et domus in qua collocata fuerunt et ipsorum merceriorum sit Capituli, nec ille qui electus fuerit in decanum valeat reclamare,(1) sed in
omni libertate possideantur
a Capitulo in qua erant, in loco in quo sunt hodie collocata, in platea que fuit archidiaconi Milonis. Actum anno Domini MO CC? XXIIIIO,
mense maio, in octabas dominice Ascensionis.
(Bibl. Imp.; Liv. des Priv., cart. 28 bis, fo 65 v?.)
(1) Il y eut en effet de nombreuses contestations entre le Chapitre et le Doyen pour la
police du cloitre Notre-Dame et pour les droits qu'on pouvait y percevoir. Dans la
suite, le maire de Loens intervint 6galement comme partie dans ces d~bats.
APPENDIX H
Cartulaire de Notre-Dame de Chartres, Iii, 89f.:
XVII Kalendas Mail (15 avril).
in serviqui ad partes transmarinas
3.--obiit
Ludovicus,(1) illustris comes Blesensis,
in mocium Dei iter aggrediens,
septem libras et dimidiam nobis dedit et assignavit,
lendinis suis de Carnoto annuatim percipiendas,
ad suum et matris sue Adelicie et
soluxoris sue Katerine anniversaria in hac ecclesia celebranda, scilicet quinquaginta
idos pro unoquoque.
Qui etiam caput sancte Anne, matris beate Virginis genitricis
et huic sancte ecclesie cum pallio precioso
acquisivit
Dei, apud Constantinopolim
transmisit. Unde ex tall presentatione
materni capitis in domo
thesauri et susceptione
filie, facta leticia magna in populo, clerus hujus ecclesie et comitissa Katerina, que
ex parte predicti comitis viri sui caput presentavit,
in id concorditer convenerunt,
pro
intuitu statuendo, ut singulis annis de oblationibus
factis predicto sancto capiti centum solidi in augmentum et ampliorem venerationem
anniversarii ejusdem comitis adsex denarii singulis non canonicis
et residuum
derentur; ex quibus distribuerentur
canonicis qui anniversario interessent,
et preterea conferrentur ex eisdem oblationibus
centum solidi, pro remedio prefati comitis, ejusdem die obitus, ad refectionem
pauperum de Elemosina Carnotensi. Et multa alia huic ecclesie bona fecit. (Item habemus
L solidos per argentarium
seu receptorem comitis Carnotensis,
et debent reddi in
medio mensis aprilis.---6).
(1) Voir vol. ler, p. 206, note 3.
APPENDIX I
Cartulaire de Notre-Dame de Chartres, Iq, 178:
XII Kalendas Octobris (20 septembre).
2.-Et
nobilis comitissa Blesensis et Clarimontis,
[obiit] Katerina,a)
que caput beate
Anne, matris beatissime Virginis Dei genitricis Marie, a viro suo, illustri comite Ludovico, apud Constantinopolim
acquisitum et huic missum ecclesie, cum precioso pallio
in
presentavit et tria alia pallia preciosa eidem ecclesie dedit; ad cujus anniversarium
hac ecclesia celebrandum dictus comes vir suus quinquaginta
solidos assignavit,
sicut
in obitu ejusdem comitis suprascripto
plenius continetur;
(et ad augmentum
ejusdem anniversarii
solidos superaddidit,
Theobaldus,
comes, filius suus, quinquaginta
sicut in obitu ejusdem comitis suprascripto plenius continetur.-4).
(1)>Voir vol. ii, p. 15 et 17.
APPENDIX J
A critical survey of criteria for establishing the chronology
armatures in the lower windows of Chartres cathedral.
of the
Paul Frankl's final views on the chronology of the stained glass of Chartres cathedral
were awaited with extreme interest (cf. note 25, above). A survey of the various crion one clearly defined group of windows of the importance
of
teria, concentrated
Chartres cathedral, promised to provide fundamental
indications
for the study of the
to find the criteria varying from
subject as a whole. It was therefore disappointing
window to window, occasionally
even appearing simply as criteria of convenience.
No
style of the figures or the drapery motifs; the structure
single objective criterion-the
of the pictorial fields within the window as a whole related to
of the composition
the borders or backgrounds;
the color values; the source material related to presumed
been consistently
donors, etc.-has
applied throughout the building as a whole, so as
to enable a synthesis of parallel factors on which to base a relative chronology.
Instead, taking the composition
of the armatures of the lower windows (in most cases
unrelated to the structure of the stained glass composition)
as a general criterion,
individual masters are postulated and their activity related to a paratactic sequence of
windows from the leading atelier (one window every six months, cf. p. 305 D and
312 D). The chronology thus arrived at is then placed in almost bay to bay relationship with the execution of the architecture-and
this is on the assumption
"that the
enormous number of square yards of glass required about four decades to complete"
(p. 305 c). In fact, of course, twice the number of workers and facilities would halve
this and half as many would double it. Important as a clear recognition of the actual
conditions on the site and of the requirements of the clergy may be, this cannot, in
LITERATURE
the absence of documentaryevidence, determineour art historical investigation; it
can only supplementit. We can quote alarminginstancesof an inversionof the pragmatic art historical foundationby Frankl'sapparentlypragmaticapproach.Speaking
of the choir clerestoryglass, Franklsays: 1) "Commonsense [my italics] demanded
that the first window to be filled with stained glass should be the central window of
the apse 2) It was always more importantto close the south and east windows because of the blindingsun. 3) It is also hard to believe that a bishop would ever have
been so lacking in modesty as to attend first of all to his own gift. 4) It is unlikely
that he orderedand paid for his window only when he felt that he was on the point
of death" (Frankl,"Reconsiderationsof Chartres,"52. The generalizationsquoted are
confirmedin his study, "StainedGlass," submittedfor publicationin the same year,
1961, pp. 312ff.). Frankl's insistence on the orientation ("blinding sun") does not
take into considerationthe fact that the cathedralis orientatednortheast/southwest
so that west sun, the strongest,in fact shines on the northernwindows.
That this approachis not feasible is shown by the contradictionswithin Frankl's
own study. For example,at first he says (p. 304 B): "The order in which the stained
glass was placed was certainly dictated by the demandsof the clergy" and on this
basis postulates the sequenceof the executionof the seven chapels of the chevet as
having been 4-6-2-3-5-7-1(the chapelsbeing numberedclockwisefrom north to south),
a sequencewhich he claims "is confirmedby the stylistic analysis of the compositions." However,on page 307 E he states that chapel No. 7 followed chapels 4-6-2,
remarkingthat "it is clear that the first chapel to be done was the one facing the
south"; on page 308 E the sequenceproceedswith numbers5-3-1 as "the next logical
step."
Frankl'sbasic criterionfor the chronologyof the aisles and chevet chapels is the
form of the armatures,which he describesas a developmentfrom "the additive principle" (p. 301 D), i.e., "the Romanesque. . . separationof the fields" (p. 302 E)
to a "greaterfreedomand Gothic division" (p. 309 A) of the compositionby escaping
from "the tyranny of straight bars" (p. 307 c). (This is quoted with reserve, and
only as a general aid to the reader. It is dangerousto summarizethe intention of
another author in this way, thereforeonly concreteexamples will be given.) Frankl
adheres so closely to the opinion that "the armature. . . is sufficient to establish
the real chronologyof these windows" (p. 308 a) that the windows Nos. 22 and 23
(respectivelythe ninth and tenth stages of the development)are considereddatable
even though their stained glass has not been preserved.And even more significant
is the hypothesis that the adjacent straight-barred(or "lattice") armaturesof the
similarly destroyedglass of Nos. 19 and 20 (in the twentieth and nineteenth stages
of the development)were originally curved (p. 310 B)-although the next but one,
No. 16, and also Nos. 53 and 54, executed subsequently,incontestablyhave straight
bars (Frankl,p. 310 D: "surprising"). (In fact, only two of the choir ambulatory
windows can be said for certain not to have had a simple lattice armature,but they
are placed by Frankl in the nineteenth and thirty-seventhstages of his postulated
development;it seems almost incrediblethat even a "2nd master" could remain so
behind the times.) The adjacent window, No. 17 (the twenty-firststage of the development),is identical to No. 23 (postulatedtenth stage; Frankl,p. 310 c: "about
the same," and on page 315 r he speaks of another window "combiningthe forms
of Nos. 23 and 17" although these two are identical).These interlopersin the postulated chronologycan only be explainedby recourseto other criteria-the background
pattern, structuralcomposition,and the groupingand movementof the figural compositions-to which, with a few exceptions, no previous mention is made (the main
examples:window No. 43, p. 306 D, "the borderband gives the impressionof continuity"; window No. 34, p. 303 c, "while in no. 59 the ground is filled with tendrils,
in no. 34 it consists
of a grill of . . . lines,
still
faithful
to the Romanesque
style"; window No. 59, p. 303 B, "the figuresare still Romanesquewith some details
suggestingByzantineinfluence";window No. 46, p. 309 F, "intensity of movement").
If such criteria are not systematicallyapplied, their use creates the impressionthat
they are merelycriteriaof convenience.
Anothersignificantcase in which the currentcriterionis droppedwithout comment,
is that of window No. 42 (p. 306 E), where the simple lattice armatureis not mentioned at all, although the bending of the armatureforms the only criterionin the
case of the adjacentwindow No. 41 and its predecessorNo. 39. Conversely,Frankl's
method allows him to derive the armatureof window No. 23 (in the tenth stage of
the development)from that of No. 22 (p. 308 A) without referenceto the far closer
analogy in No. 27, placed in the sixth stage of the development,
but still retaining
its glass. At this stage of his exposition
(window No. 23, p. 308 A) Frankl states,
after referring exclusively
to the armatures,
that "the sequence of these variations
seems so unambiguous
that one can scarcely imagine that it could have been reversed"; the intended sequence thus includes a "development"
from No. 27 (sixth
stage) via such complicated
armatures as Nos. 41 and 22 to the very similar No. 23
(tenth stage) or, to quote a sequence where the enrichment
of the armature is not
ON
CHARTRES
referred to in the text at all, from window No. 33, via No. 59, to No. 34 (the second
to fourth stages of the postulated sequence). And these examples are all taken from
the work of a single "Master I."
At the end of the survey of all the eastern windows Frankl repeats that "the stylistic steps and variations in the composition
throughout the series . . . are consistent"
itself the sequence
(p. 312 c). But even within this second section of the development
from No. 23 (tenth stage), via the totally different composition
of No. 37, to No. 17
de(twenty-first
stage), which is identical to No. 23, scarcely reflects a consistent
If we look back at the suggested sequence from the earliest windows in
velopment.
the eastern chapel we are confronted
which leads from No. 34
by a relationship
via Nos. 30 and 38 (thirteenth and fifteenth stages),
(fourth stage of the development),
to the very similar No. 10 (earlier filling window No. 50, the twenty-fourth
stage).
Once again all these contradictory sequences are chosen from the work of "Master I."
the
of the survey of all the lower windows (excluding
Finally, at the conclusion
two pairs in the ambulatory
adjacent to the transept), Frankl says (p. 315 G) that
windows
Nos. 61 and 4 "presuppose
the whole preceding
development,
beginning
with no. 32.
This development
is a persistent and logical progression
from Ro....
to
based
on
the
Gothic
He
asserts
that
sequence
manesque
style."
any chronology
2 to 4 and 61 to 32 and 35 is obviously mistaken.
Whether Grodecki or other proponents of a west-to-east
dating of the glass have actually proposed this sequence is
not said, but in any case the suggestion
obviously originates in the over simplified
or
of an absolutely
of the glass from west-to-east
consistent
execution
conception
east-to-west.
As much as one must agree with Frankl on this point, it is necessary
first to correct a grave error in the text and then to point out that equally unacFirst: although window
ceptable sequences are contained in Frankl's own chronology.
inNo. 61 certainly bears out his arguments,
the last window of the development
tended by Frankl (Noah, "opposite no. 4") is not No. 61, as it is repeatedly referred
to by him in this context, but No. 64. This error is not immediately
apparent because of an additional
error: No. 64 is wrongly numbered 44 in Diagram No. 3,
where it is now tucked away between windows of the eighth and eighteenth
stages
of development.
final stage of the deWith the correct diagram of the postulated
velopment, window No. 64, in front of us, we soon see that we are confronted with a
sequence which is just as untenable as that quoted by Frankl in his refutation of a
west-to-east
progression.
According to Frankl, Nos. 33 and 27 (the second and sixth
stages) are followed by Nos. 30 and 38 (the thirteenth and fifteenth stages) and the
and the last stages of
entire series terminated by Nos. 62 and 64 (the thirty-second
"carthe development),
from an essentially
although this implies both a progression
to larger unified interpenetrating
panels (Frankl's
pet" type of additive subdivision
and at the same time an inexplicable
and outright Gothic patterns")
"complicated
it is diffireturn to the earlier type. Or, taking only the armatures into consideration,
cult to account for No. 63 as the third last window, later than the complex forms of
Nos. 46 and 45 (seventeenth
and eighteenth stages), in spite of its obvious simplification of the early window No. 23 (tenth stage, which we saw to have been dated by
Frankl with reference only to the armature). Again all the windows quoted are taken
from the postulated oeuvre of "Master I."
and
(p. 309 F), both windows Nos. 46 and 45 (seventeenth
If, as Frankl suggests
can be derived from window No. 37 (fourstages of the development),
eighteenth
one case, the armature takes on the form of the painted field
teenth stage)-in
the armature form is reduced to a painted lineborders, in the other, conversely,
then it is obvious that the whole question can only be approached
through an intensive analysis of the structure of the window as such, i.e., the integral composition
to each other, the
of the abstract borders, fields, armatures etc. in their relationship
its surface values, character of reality, spatial quality and so forth.
background,
For example,
Alternation
of the individual criteria must inevitably lead to confusion.
of Frankl's Master I is described in window No.
the most important achievement
B
39 (pp. 306 r and 307 A,
and c) as the curving of the armature to "follow the outer
of amazthis became "the springboard for a development
contour of the quatrefoil";
.." in which the use of curved bars must be seen not in its techniing consistency.
If window No. 39 can thus be interpreted as
cal but in its aesthetic consequences.
of the contour of the quatrefoil and curved forms (of the foregoing
the transposition
windows Nos. 34, 25, and 27) onto the armature, then the question is justified as to
(twenty-eighth),
why window No. 60 is included in the last stages of the development
while its neighbor No. 59 is placed close to the beginning
(third stage): the armature
of the curved forms of No. 59, with the
of No. 60 is nothing but the transposition
major quatrefoil field divided into four quarters as in window No. 39.
The same use of unclear criteria can be followed
the aisle windows to those of the "earlier" parts
which is considered
by Frankl to be window No.
which was transferred from the ambulatory to the
only known from a sketch made by Pintard before
in the postulated
relationship
of
of the choir--the
most recent of
47 (the St. Lawrence window),
northern transept in 1259 and is
it was destroyed in 1791. (Frankl
169
170
The Art Bulletin
evidence given by Delaporte for the
(p. 311 D) refutes the important and convincing
date of the transfer. Frankl's arguments for an earlier transfer are untenable,
based
as they are on two observations
related to the neighboring windows [sic] and a terminus post quem [sic].)
Following window No. 47 Frankl (p. 315 c) considers the next stage of development
to be represented by window No. 9, thus the earliest of the aisle windows. Difficult
as it may be to judge the sketch, certain observations
rule against Frankl's interof No. 47 (discussed by Delaporte in its later position
pretation of the composition
as window No. 57 and illustrated as fig. 45 on p. 379). First of all it is necessary to
correct an error in Frankl's drawing: the small central quatrefoil does not contain
a scene, but is decorative,
and as such should be shaded the same as the background, as on the other diagrams. Furthermore we know that Pintard never recorded
the armatures, only the subdivisions
of the stained glass fields. Now the trefoils in
With these
the spandrel areas at the edge of window No. 47 are divided horizontally.
we are able to reconstruct the armature of the window with sufficient
observations
certainty: it must have been like that of window No. 37, which we saw to be closely
related to No. 46, or even of the kind represented by No. 10 (cf. Nos. 34 and 58),
from the adjacent bay (window No. 50 or 51) in the same
which was transposed
manner as No. 47 was. This is confirmed by a further analysis of the composition:
in the windows compared to this one by Frankl (Nos. 4 through 9) the major central
or the spandrel figures are deor they interpenetrate,
figures are either tangential,
to the large central figures.
veloped into full three-figure registers, again tangential
In the free play of armatures in the aisle windows, the quatre- or trefoils are never
a simple form of
as here. No. 47 reflects none of this; it is obviously
subdivided
alternating full and half figures like Nos. 37 or 34.
It is again disturbing in this connection to find No. 62, in the aisle, being derived
now on the strength of the painted panels, without
from No. 17, in the ambulatory,
(p. 315 r). No. 62 (the thirty-second
stage)
taking the armature into consideration
could, by this criterion, be equally well derived from No. 23 (tenth stage, which
has an armature identical to No. 17, which according to Frankl is, however, in the
from No. 27
and thus even more appropriately
twenty-first
stage of development)
(the sixth stage). Even accepting Frankl's criterion, however, a comparison of the full
p. 227 fig. 21 and p. 400 fig. 51)
diagrams of window Nos. 17 and 62 (Delaporte,
shows that the retention of the small flanking circles by the "later" design allows
the change to be described rather as the insertion of an additional register (the twin
circles of the armature); the postulated increased unity of No. 62 may well be seen
rather as a disruptive unrest when compared with the unified carpet of No. 17.
While we must agree with Frankl (p. 315 D) that No. 4 (thirty-fourth
stage) is
stage) can be
closely related to No. 30 (thirteenth stage), and that No. 5 (thirty-third
as that
latter in the same relationship
directly derived from No. 25 (fifth stage)-the
seems in fact rather to
seen between Nos. 37 and 46 or Nos. 59 and 60 above-this
can be seen over
call Frankl's method into question again: if such close relationships
to
the whole decade from 1205 (No. 25) to 1216 (No. 5), then is it really permissible
attempt a successive individual chronology for all the varying forms which appear in
between?
are explained away by the postulaMany of the above methodological
incongruities
a Master I, a Master II, and a grisaille-Master
tion of specific personalities-basically
if we realize that
III (passim).
This again appears as a criterion of convenience
Master II is not mentioned once between 1207 (window No. 42, eighth stage of deand 1216 (p. 320 G) when he completed the clerestory lights Nos. 136-8;
velopment)
after breaking off to do the ambulatory windows 14, 53 and 54 (p. 319=1220-1222,
lancets 149-153 as his last
the thirty-seventh
stage) he returns to the clerestory
work, 1223/4 (p. 320 G-321 A); if it is implied that he was not working independently
during the period of nine years, it still means that when he is again commissioned
of the intervening
he reverts to the earlier basic forms in spite of the developments
armature
thirteen years (p. 319). But even Master I, after executing the complicated
. . . [and] makes his
of window No. 13, "returns to his early type of composition
proud farewell"
(p. 320 B); the "new means" which Frankl ascribes to him-apparently a curvature of the armature is meant-can
certainly not be construed
from
Pintard's diagram. We are here obviously concerned with an armature of the same
kind as Nos. 40 and 10 (earlier in window No. 50); the irregularities
at the bottom
are obviously due to a later signature of the same type as in the latter case. A long
period of postulated unemployment
similar to that of Master II is only avoided in
the case of Master IV by chrono-topographical
shunting which, if looked at closely,
threatens Frankl's whole regularly arranged chronological
relationship
between the
stained glass and the architecture (p. 320 E). After completing window No. 16 in the
ambulatory in 1214, Master IV nowhere makes his (independent)
appearance in the
postulated
intervening
work in the choir clerestory or in the aisles. According
to
Frankl, all other traceable stained glass in the transept was only put in place either
in 1220 (the windows 10 and 57 being transferred from Nos. 50 and 47 in this year)
or 1221 (the final work of Master I in window 12). In spite of this, and in spite of
the compositional
between Nos. 12 and 58, this latter window is now
similarity
ascribed to Master IV and dated "almost contemporaneous
with no. 16." To explain
this, Frankl points out that "the stone frame of this window must date from the
time of the flying buttresses of this bay at the north of the crossing, that is, before
Bishop Regnault had installed his stained glass in window 134 about 1216." Now,
quite apart from the error related to the supposed donation of glass by the bishop
of the early presence of this section of the building
Regnault, even this explanation
is superseded previously in Frankl's own study (p. 303 B) by the postulate that the
window No. 50 was already in place ten years earlier, in 1204, for the
neighboring
same reason, "to counteract the thrust of the high vaults at the four sides of the
at which period "the crossing with its adjoining bays on all four sides
crossing,"
was finished." It must be stressed that the bays in which windows Nos. 58 and 59
described by
are placed perform the same technical function in the circumstances
the dates, (59=1204,
9=--1214,
Frankl as do also Nos. 10 and 11. If we recapitulate
and 10=--1220), then the fault of Frankl's method of procedure becomes
58=1214-15
apparent.
As has been said, questions of style are only raised sporadically by Frankl and not
of the abrelated to the chronology
followed as a clear development
systematically
stract compositions;
Frankl's approach to this question is not clear: the drapery
motif of the Caletric master is for instance said (p. 317 F) to "suggest the style of
the statues on the north porch . . . usually dated about 1220. (The statues, of course,
took some time to complete. The St. Modeste may have been finished before 1224),"
but referring to the same motif on the same figure in another context (p. 318 G), he
must be confined to stained glass because "the development
says that comparisons
of sculpture in the . . . 13th century cannot be taken as a reliable guide." His discussion of the style of No. 38 (the fifteenth stage of development,
p. 309 B) is equally
"the degree of development
[between this window and the earliest winconfusing:
of the single pictures. The
dows Nos. 32 and 33] is . . . very great in the composition
figures are still stiff and relatively isolated in . . . window No. 30, but animated
in . . . no. 38 and still more so in [the previous window] no.
and interconnected
37." One can only agree, but what is not immediately
apparent is that the compariof the armature sequence (thirteenth stage,
son is drawn with No. 30, the last-but-one
prior to No. 37!) and not with those winimmediately
supposedly
chronologically
dows considered by Frankl to be the earliest, namely Nos. 32 and 33. Judging by
Frankl's own criteria there is little to choose between the animation or stiffness of
of Nos. 32 and 38.
the individual compositions
If we interpret Frankl's resigned remarks in this connection
(perhaps "Master I
confined his role to that of head of the workshop and gave younger painters a free
hand in the design of the scenes") as a clear assertion of the precedence of imporas against the actual figure painting, then it seems
tance of the overall compositions
to extract from Frankl's study one aspect which in a rejustified in conclusion
of the armature
compilation
survey may prove to be most fruitful: the systematic
with other cria single criterion to form a basis for comparison
composition-as
teria when they should become available.
In the foregoing study it has emerged that, on the one hand, the armatures take up
but that,
the compositional
forms of the fields of the stained glass (and conversely),
on the other hand, there is an inherent danger in varying the criteria. The solution
forms of the stained
to this problem would appear to lie in giving the compositional
glass more attention up to the point where these forms are taken over by the armaof course, will be the final study of the complete structure of the
ture. Decisive,
ideas about an absolute
window, as remarked above, but by avoiding preconceived
be
criteria may perhaps legitimately
related to the building,
positive
chronology
The atof the lower windows.
gained from a study of the armature compositions
tempt remains tentative, in no way absolute. Frankl's starting point is certainly justified: the comparable twelfth century windows of the west faqade, Nos. 2 and 3 (in
spite of differences of size) have the earliest armatures. There can also be no doubt
of the windows of the eastern chapel with simple lattice armathat the composition
tures are very closely related to them. We have in this chapel not only the triple
of window No. 2 (in windows Nos. 32 and 33) but also a type,
vertical subdivision
only two panes in width, with a central vertical bar (No. 35), similar to the west
window No. 3. We shall see that this latter type plays an important role, although
at first the type with a triple vertical subdivision
takes pride of place in the axial
window; in this position it takes up forms which are important enough to justify
considering
it already representative
of the second stage of development.
Namely,
nine panes are united about the center by means of curved borders extending to the
periphery to form a quatrefoil. The spandrel areas on the edge of the window are
filled with semi-quatrefoils.
This type forms, apparently a standard model, appearing
with only slight variations in the northeast chapel (No. 40), in the ambulatory (Nos.
16; 50, now 10; in similar form No. 47, now 57), and in the transept (Nos. 58 and
LITERATURE
12). However, because, as we see, two of these windows at present in the transept
and be(Nos. 10 and 57) are known to have been transposed from the ambulatory,
cause a third (No. 12) has a disrupted signature area (as is the case with the transposed glass of No. 50 now in window 10), there is good reason to believe that it also
Future research may show that the remaining window
originated in the ambulatory.
the
of this type in the transept (No. 58) is also a transposition
from the ambulatory;
present armatures of Nos. 48 and 51 and also Nos. 19 and 20 suggest this (the hypothesis may be tentatively
protracted to Nos. 56 and II, about which we know
nothing). Finally, we know that the condition of the stained glass in the ambulatory
and transepts allows several hypotheses
on the dating of the grisailles
depending
that a conand fragments which now fill many of the windows,
and, furthermore,
siderable amount of glass was transferred from the ambulatory
to the transept and,
lastly, that most of the windows in the two eastern bays appear to have contained
of the second stage postulated here. This accords with our recent concompositions
that the transepts were for a long time shut off from the
jecture ("Baugeschichte")
rest of the completed inner volume of the building.
We must now turn to the important development
of the central bar type which
appeared in window 35 of the eastern chapel in the first stage of the development
in its original "Romanesque"
form taken from the west faqade. It still appears in
this form in window No. 42 in the northeast chapel but, apparently under the influence of the type discussed
above (or vice versa!), it also reaches its second stage
of development
in this chapel (No. 43) and, significantly,
also in the western bay
of the ambulatory
(No. 53): four panes are united in each case into a single large
central motif, separated by half-registers.
At the same time, however, windows apof the main motifs:
pear without the half register, allowing a tangential relationship
No. 54, the twin lancet of No. 53, and in the southeast chapel No. 26 and in hybrid
form No. 28, both flanking the axial lancet.
Up to now, as we have seen, the armatures have all been regular lattices. The next
leads to a disruption of this system. Before curved or diagonal
stage of development
bars appear, however, a pseudo stage of the development
is discernible,
which we
term pseudo-three.
The type originating
in three vertical subdivisions
appears in the
first aisle window
vertical bars and an additional
short
(No. 59) with displaced
horizontal bar, apparently in an attempt to increase the size of the scene-panels
or
to achieve greater unity of composition.
The central bar type reaches the pseudostage three in the southeast chapel again (No. 25), where a displacing and staggering
of the vertical bar is used to achieve a more decisive semi-register
as a development
of No. 53. It is not easy to explain the compositional
intention of this step, but its
added richness was to play an important part in the final stages.
The first curved armatures appear also in the central-barred
type, No. 39, in the
northeast chapel, symmetrically
opposite No. 43, a close variant of No. 53: No. 39
is nothing but the transposition
of the painted forms of Nos. 43 and 53 onto the
form of the armature with the omission of one horizontal bar in each major register.
The resulting mass of iron is reduced in the further development
of this stage since
the bars no longer intersect the central fields and the side or semi-register
fields are
omitted. At this stage (three) the axial windows of the south (No. 23) and southeast
latter now being the second chapel to be finished(No. 27) chapels are filled-the
and the ambulatory
also completed
window in the
(with No. 17). An additional
north aisle (No. 63) has the same armature composition,
but the complicated
structure of the stained-glass
warns against judging too early on the strength
composition
of only this one criterion. However, Nos. 62 and 64, which flank it, do seem to indicate the validity of the armature chronology:
although they show richer variations
of the armature, the scattered,
additive nature of the combined composition
shows
that we have not yet progressed out of stage three of the development.
But the fourth stage shows a determination
to surmount this purely decorative use
of variegated bars. The windows of the third stage were all of the central bar type.
Now the type with three vertical subdivisions
makes use of the new methods
to
achieve a new kind of overall unity. No. 24 is apparently a reduction of the type
of No. 40, the central circle being held only by the residual rectangles,
providing
of decorative
motifs between,
somewhat
large scene fields with a light scattering
reminiscent of Nos. 62 and 64. In No. 41 the circular and rectangular forms are simply
this window, adjacent to its antecedent
No. 40, fills the axial window,
transposed;
the northeast chapel with its richer forms. Conversely,
the very similar
completing
No. 22 flanks the simpler antecedent
No. 23, and together with No. 24 completes
the windows of the south chapel also.
At the close of the fourth stage of the development,
therefore, the entire choir, including the ambulatory but with the exception of the whole northern chapel and the
two shallow chapels flanking the central eastern chapel, appears to have been completed. In addition, four of the six windows of the northern aisle were already in
place.
Stage five, found almost exclusively
in the eastern chapels, initiates a violent play
ON
CHARTRES
of a young style. The rewith the newly achieved forms-the
typical manifestation
does not allow too rigid a development
sulting display of individual idiosyncrasies
to be postulated.
Cum grano salis, however, the following
appears reaprogression
forced attempt to
No. 38 derives from Nos. 41 and 62/63-a
sonably acceptable.
of the forms but still bound to the earlier additive decoarrive at interpenetration
rativeness.
No. 45 derives from Nos. 38 and 62, the forms jammed into each other;
the forced play results in harsh forms; the window is all iron and no feeling. No. 37
originates from No. 45 perhaps, but by reverting to pre-tested earlier forms it softens
the effect and achieves an overall unity of the major panels; the curved and diagonal lines have allowed the original attempt at unification to be achieved without
The horizontal
lattice-armature.
the binding net of the orthographic
major subdivision, however, still separates the individual fields from each other. This is overcalls for a
which automatically
come to a large extent with No. 46-a
composition
cross reference to No. 59, taking over as it does the curved bars of this pseudo-third
stage and omitting instead the orthogonal lattice.
With this window all the chapels are completed (excepting one window, No. 30).
there may have been graver doubts
Were it not for this topographic
consideration,
the almost identical window No. 60, in the northern aisle, as repabout considering
this is only justified by the omission
resenting the sixth and final stage-stylistically
of the last vestige of the horizontal armature, which allows the final free play of the
armature over the surface of the window, the decisive criterion for the last stage of
Here too, of course, even more than is the case with No. 46, the
the development.
window No. 59 must be seen as an important prototype. It is, in fact,
neighboring
only achieved the final balquite likely that the jagged fifth stage of development
and the
ance of No. 46 (via No. 37) under the influence of this superior composition
adjacent window No. 61. Although No. 61 has retained a complete horizontal armabecause of the tangential
ture, the powerful diagonal lines overplay it completely
the northern
of the main fields. With these two windows terminating
relationship
aisle the way is open for the full blossoming of this sixth and final stage.
From window No. 46 again (probably parallel to Nos. 60 and 61) the line of development to No. 9, the first window of the southern aisle, appears to pass through No.
must not be related too
13. (It is repeatedly apparent that the stages of development
strictly to the chronological
sequence. The lateness of this window (No. 13) in the
hard against the southern transept, would seem, however, to bear out
ambulatory,
windows in
the corresponding
the later completion
of this section of the building;
the north we saw to have been completed in the second stage of the development.)
due to earlier plans for an entrance
No. 30, the last window in the chevet-perhaps
to the chapter house at this point-would
appear to have general precedents in Nos.
9 and 13; No. 4 is, as Frankl says, merely a reduction of No. 30 due to the narrowness of its proportions.
On the other hand No. 5, like Nos. 60 or 46, may bear a
to the
somewhat earlier, but more probably a contemporary
relationship
retrospective
of the, albeit tanpseudo-third
stage of No. 25. This accounts for the reappearance
lines
It is, however, obvious that in omitting all orthographic
gential, half-register.
other than the radii (which, again, only stress the circular forms) this window is
in another stylistic category-in
fact, in a subgroup, all of which show
chronologically
is a synthesis of Nos. 5 and 9
similar large circles. No. 6, again with a half-register,
-but
these are, in fact, all a mere play with form, similar to that which we saw at
explained more or less chronologically-could
stage five, and the development-here
order of
equally well have been completed in the design stage. The chronological
erection may often have followed the sequence of the dedication of altars. The last
window of our study, No. 7, carries, for good measure, much of the original interlocking paratactic, 2:1-1:2, rhythm of the earliest windows. But in view of the foreit is evident that we are here dealing with a new system and
going brief observations
a new spirit.
It will be noticed that the suggested general sequence does indeed reflect broad topof
overlapping
ographic groupings according to chapels, aisles, etc. The topographic
without any apparent large break (excepting perhaps
the stages of the development
creates the
a slight pause after stage four, when three chapels were still unglazed)
the choir
that the work was carried out in one uninterrupted
impression
campaign,
with the nave-and
somewhat in precedence but broadly speaking concurrently
perhaps much more quickly than is commonly thought. In any case, if the suggested
sequence is correct, it is obvious that almost no correlation with the course of the
should be attempted:
although there appear to be more early
building construction
armatures in the eastern parts, and that larger sections like the ambulatory
were
finished sooner there, we see that the north aisle of the nave was already tentatively
started during the pseudo-third
stage (No. 59) of the development
and progressed
slowly over the third (Nos. 63, then 62 and 64) stages to then triumph (via Nos. 60
and 61, the sixth stage) in the final expression of the south aisle, at which time only
one more window (No. 30) was still being executed in the region of the chevet.
If tentative absolute termini are to be derived from the known facts and the rela-
171
172
TheArtBulletin
of the building,at presentall thatcan be said is thatit is unlikely
tive chronology
that any windows were inserted before the second decade of the thirteenthcentury
and that it appears likely that the great stained-glass "factories" had left Chartres
before the sixth decade of the century: when the northerntransept was completed
of, the dedication
and new altars erected in 1259 in preparation for, or expectation
in 1260, the more recently completed part of the cathedral was provided with glass
from the ambulatory, an undertaking necessitating
only repair and grisaille work.
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF FREQUENTLY CITED SOURCES
Aubert, Marcel, La cathkdrale de Chartres, 2nd ed., Paris, 1961.
- , Die gotische Plastik Frankreichs, 1180-1225, Munich, 1929.
Bulteau, Abb6 E., Description de la cathedrale de Chartres, Chartres and Paris, 1850.
, Monographie de la cathddrale de Chartres, Chartres, 1887-1901.
de Chartres, E. de LUpinois and L. Merlet, eds., Chartres,
Cartulaire de Notre-Dame
1862-65.
de la cathedrale de Chartres," MeDelaporte, Yves, "Remarques sur la chronologie
moires de la Socidt6 archdologique d'Eure-et-Loir, 21, 1959, 299-320.
Delaporte, Yves and Etienne Houvet, Les vitraux de la cathkdrale de Chartres, Chartres, 1926.
Frankl, Paul, "The Chronology of Chartres Cathedral," AB, 39, 1957, 33-47.
"The Chronology of the Stained Glass in Chartres Cathedral," AB, 45, 1963,
-,
301-22.
of Chartres Cathedral,"
AB, 43, 1961,
on the Chronology
"Reconsiderations
-,
51-58.
de la cathedrale de Chartres," BMon, 116, 1958, 91-119.
Grodecki, Louis, "Chronologie
,"The Transept Portals of Chartres Cathedral: The Date of Their Construction
Data," AB, 33, 1951, 156-64.
according to Archaeological
1962.
Houvet, Etienne, Monographie de la cathkdrale de Chartres, Nancy-Paris,
de Chardes cathedrales
Les architectes et la construction
Lefkvre-Pontalis,
Eugene,
tres, Paris, 1905, Chartres, 1906.
, Archives historiques du diockse de Chartres, 1906.
, Mimoires de la Socidte nationale des Antiquaires de France, 64, 1905, 112ff.
des grands 6difices de
Merlet, Rene, La cathkdrale de Chartres (Petites Monographies
la France), Paris, 1960.
,"Les vidames de Chartres au XIIIe sikcle et le vitrail de Sainte Marguerite,"
Memoires de la SocietW archdologique d'Eure-et-Loir, 10, 1896, 80ff.
de Chartres,"
der Kathedrale Notre-Dame
van der Meulen, Jan, "Die Baugeschichte
Memoires de la Socidte archdologique d'Eure-et-Loir, 23, 1965, 79-126.
- , "A Logos-Creator at Chartres and Its Copy," JWarb, 29, 1966, 82-100.