37246430 the Gothic Cathedral 1956

726.5

!*""*"'"*x'

S6lg2

6*4-07631

Simson

.,

THE

GOTHIC

CATHEDRAL

b^RpeR

_$

noRcbBooks

EDITORS'

NOTE:

A.

check-list

_of

_{Harper Torchbooks,}

Otto

von

Simson

THE

GOTHIC

CATHEDRAL

Origins of

Gothic

Architecture

and

the

Medieval

_Concept

of

Order

HARPER TORCHBOOKS

The

_{BollingenLibrary}

HARPER

_{& ROW, PUBLISHERS}

To

_My

Mother

THE

GOTHIC

CATHEDRAL

Copyright 1956

by

BollingenFoundationInc.,

New

York,

N.Y.

New

Material_copyright 1962

by

BollingenFoundation.

PrintedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica.

THIS

VOLUME

ISTHE FORTY-EIGHTHIN

A

SERIESOF BOOKS SPONSORED

AND

PUBLISHED

BY

BOLLINGEN FOUNDATION.

This

book was

_{originallypublished}

_by

_BollingenFoundationin

1956,witha second,revised,editionin 1962.Itishere

reprinted

by

arrangement.

FirstHARPERTORCHBOOK_{edition published 1964}

_by

Harper

&

Row,

Publishers,Incorporated

49 East 33rd Street

New

York,

N.Y.

10016

"VY

E

SPEAK

of

the

Middle

_Ages

asan

_{epoch of}

faith.

Within

thelastdecades,

the history

of

ideas_{has given}a

more

_precise

_meaning

to this

_{term by}

_clarifying

the extent to

which

faith anddoctrine have lefttheir_imprint

_upon

all _aspects

of

medieval thought, scientificaswellas_{metaphysical.}

Isthe

same

influence traceable inmedievalart, and,if so, can

we

definethe

manner

in

which

Christian_experience

_impinged

_upon

thevision, perhaps even

upon

the technique,

of

themedievalartist?

Medieval

writers derivethe

norms

of

_beauty

and

the lawsthat_oughtto_governartisticcreation

from

the

immutable

values

of

a transcendental order.

Are

_{such statements pious}

_{commonplaces,}

mere

theorythathasremained

remote

from

the practice

of

the

_workshop,

and

from

_{the living} experience

of

a

work

of

art?

Or

have

thehands

of

those

who

created the _masterpieces

of

medieval_{art actually been guided}

_by

_theological

vision?

And,

ifsuchisthecase, can

we, working with

the inadequatetools

of

historicalresearch

and

confrontedwiththe terse_testimony

of

medievalsources,

still determine the kind

of

_co-operation that existed

between

_{theologian and}

artist?

The

longerI studiedmedievalart, the

more

_{indispensable}it

seemed

to

me

tofind

answers

to theabove_questions.

For

_{an understanding}

of

ecclesiastical

architecture these questions

seem

to

have

a particular relevance.

Even

if

we

_{consider only} the architectural

_{system of}

the cathedral,

we

would

be

mistaken

in_viewingitasa

work

of

_{"nonobjective"} artinthestrict

modern

sense

of

this term.

The

cathedral, as

we

shall see,

was

designedasan image,

and

was

meant

tobe understoodasone.Itremains, nevertheless, quite

true thatecclesiastical_{architecture represents the reality}

of

which

it is

_symbol

or

_image

ina

manner

thatdiffersradically

from

that

of

paintingor sculpture.

Architecture isnotthe

_{image of}

objects thatour

eye

may

encounterin nature;

ithas

no

"content"that

we

coulddistinguish

from

architecturalstyle.

For

this

VI

PREFACE

very

reason, theimpact

of

ideas

upon

thelifeofartistic

forms

_appears, Ithink,

even

more

directlyinarchitecturethanitdoesintheotherarts,

and

theorigins

of

Gothic, perhaps the

most

creativeachievementin _{the history}

of

Western

architecture, can only be understood, as this

book

sets out to

show,

as the

singularly sensitiveresponse

of

artistic

form

to _{the theological vision}

of

the

twelfth century.

Parts ofthis book, in

somewhat

altered form,

have

previously appeared in

Measure, I _(1950), in _{the Journalof the Society of Architectural Historians},

XI

(1952), andinStudien

und

TextezurGeistesgeschichtedes Mittelalters, edited

by

J.Koch,

III _(1953).

The

appendix,in

which

Professor Ernst

Levy

reports

on

his

measurements

of

thetowers

of

Chartres Cathedral,offers, I think, a

most

valuable addition

to our

_{knowledge of}

the architectural _{proportions used} in the

_{Middle Ages.}

I

am

indebted to

Robert

M.

Hutchins and John

U.

Nef, founder

and

chairman, respectively,

of

the

Committee on

Social

Thought

of

the

Uni-versity of Chicago, the

framework of

which

has provided

me

with working

conditions that

any

scholar

_might

considerideal.

And

I

am

_keenly

aware of

the

advice andassistance I

have

received

from

_my

_colleagues andstudents in the art _department

and

otherunitsofthe_{University of Chicago.}

The

SocialScienceResearch

Committee

atthe_University

_{of Chicago}

has

generously extended to

me

thefinancial assistancerequiredfor

my

research.

For

anadditional _grantI

am

indebtedtothe_{Bollingen Foundation.}

M.

Jean

Maunoury,

chief architect ofthe

_{Departement of}

Eure-et-Loir

and

oftheCathedral ofChartres, assisted

me

ininnumerable

_ways,

_puttingat

my

disposal his architect's

knowledge

of the great edifice under his care.

M.

_{Jean Porcher, keeper}

of

theCabinet des Manuscrits

of

the_Bibliotheque

Nationale, has,

with

thatkindness

which

so

_many

scholars

have

_experienced,

made

available to

me

_manuscripts as well_{as printed} literature thatotherwise

would have

remained

_beyond

_my

reach.

M.

_Georges

Viollonis_{responsible for}

a

number

_{of photographs,}

including the color plates. Professor Ulrich

A.

Middeldorf,

of

the

German

Institute

of

Art

_{History, at Florence, kindly} pro-vided_{the print for plate7.}

I

am

_{also grateful for photographs}

and

other illustrations

made

available

by

the various institutions, authors, and firms to

_{which acknowledgment}

is

made

inthelists

of

plates andtextfigures.

I

am

_keenly

aware

thatthis

book

couldnot

have been

written withoutthe

help

of

my

wife, the

most

understanding critican author could

_hope

to have.

O.

S.

Chicago,

summer,

PREFACE

TO

THE SECOND

EDITION

THE

FIRST edition ofthis

book

_appeared five _{years ago. Scholarship} has not

stood still in theinterval. It

seems

to

have

reinforced ratherthaninvalidated

the thesesI

have

_presented.Nevertheless,inordertotakeintoaccountseveral

important recentstudies that bear

on

my

argument, I

have

availed

_{myself of}

the_opportunity to

make some

alterations andadditions.

These

are

_mainly

in

the

form of

a section

of

addenda, to

which

references

have

beeninsertedatthe

relevant pointsinthetext,

and

apostscripttochapter7,besides several textual

revisions

on

_pages 80, 154 , 203, 207 fF., and 214.

To

illustrate

some

ofthe

new

materialI

have

addedfour_{plates, 33, 34,}43, and44.

One

_major

_change in this editionis _{the omission,} at his _request,

of

Pro-fessor Ernst _{Levy's appendix}

on

_{the proportions}

of

the South

Tower

of

Chartres Cathedral.

He

felt that his conclusions

had

_{been superseded}

_by

the

findings

of

a distinguished architect

and

studentof

"Gothic

geometry," Colonel

Leonard Cox.

I

have

_{yielded to Ernst Levy's request}allthe

more

reluctantly

as I

do

_{not yet}

know

the results

of

Leonard

Cox's _study. I should _add,

how-ever, that I

am

much

indebted to Colonel

Cox

for a

number

of

criticisms

that

have

enabled

me

to

_improve

the text

of

the_present edition,

and

I should

also

add

thatErnst

_Levy,

whose

study remains availablebothin

_my

first

edi-tion

and

in a _{special printing} (inPublications in theHumanities [No.20]

from

the _{Department of}Humanities, Massachusetts Institute

_{of Technology,}

Cam-bridge, 1956), has put all students

of

Chartres Cathedral in his debt

_by

his

painstaking

and

exactmeasurements,

some

of

which

I

have been

able to use

inthe_presenttext.

O.

S. Paris, fall, 1961

NOTE

TO

THE TORCHBOOK

EDITION

IHREE

color

plates,

showing

stained-glass-windowsinthe nave and south

transeptof Chartres Cathedral, are omitted

from

this editionfor technical

Preface

v

Preface

to the

^econd

Edition

vii

Note

tothe

Torchbook

Edition

viii

List

_of

Plates

and

_{Text Figures}

x

Introduction

xiv

PARTI

Gothic Design and

the

_{Medieval Concept}

of

Order

1.

GOTHIC

FORM

3

2.

MEASURE

AND

LIGHT

2I

PART

II

The

Birth

of

the

Gothic

3.

SUGER OF

ST.-DENIS

6

1

4.

THE

NEW

CHURCH

9!

5.

SENS

AND

CHARTRES

WEST

142

PART

III

The

Consummation

6.

THE

PALACE OF

THE

VIRGIN

₁₅₉

7.

THE CATHEDRAL

OF CHARTRES

183

x

CONTENTS

Addenda

to theSecond Edition 235

Abbreviations 2

43

List

_of

Works

Cited 2

45

Index

26

5

LIST

OF

PLATES

PLATES

Followingpage12:

A. _Designfor a

monument

to_King

Edward

VI

of_England.

From

Gough

Maps

45,

no._{63,Bodleian Library,}Oxford

P:Bodleian Library

Following page150;

1. Christ inthe_{Heavenly City.}

From

theBible historiee_{of Jean de Papeleu, 1317.}

Bibliotheque de1'Arsenal,

MS.

5059,fol. i

P:Service Photographique dela_{Bibliotheque Nationale,}Paris

2.

_Abbey

ofSt.-feienne, Caen.

Nave

(1064-1120)

P:_{Archives Photographiques.,}Paris

3.

Abbey

ofSt.-feienne,Caen.Choir (c. 1200)

P:_{Archives Photographiques,}Paris 4.

Noyon

Cathedral

P;_{Archives Photographiques, Paris}

5. CathedralofNotre

_Dame,

Paris

P:_{Archives Photographiques,}Paris

60.

God

as architectoftheuniverse.

From

the_{Bible moralised,}Vienna. Austrian

Na-tional_{Library, cod. 2554,}fol. i P:_{Austrian National Library}

6&. ReimsCathedral.

Tomb

of

_Hugh

_Libergier (d. 1263)

7. Francesco di Giorgio.

Ground

planofa churchcorrespondingto the _proportions

ofthe

human

figure.

From

MS.

Ashb.361,c.10b,BibliotecaLaurenziana, Florence

P:GermanInstituteofArt_{History, Florence}

8.

The

mystical Paradiseofchurch doctrinein_analogyto thatoftheOld Testament.

From MS.

Arundel44,fol. ₁₃ r,British

Museum;

Hirsau, earlytwelfth century P:British

Museum

9.

The

mystical Paradiseofchurchdoctrine inanalogyto thatoftheOldTestament.

From

Clm. 14159,fol.5v,BavarianState_{Library; Regensburg,} 1_170-85

p:BavarianState_Library

10.

The

airasanelementof_{cosmic harmony.}

Pen

_drawingin

MS.

672,

Reims

Library,

thirteenth_century

P:_{Archives Photographiques,}Paris 11. _{FontenayAbbey. North}aisleandnave

P:_{Archives Photographiques,}Paris

12. Initial letter ofthe book ofGenesis.

From

the BibleofClairvaux,

mid

twelfth

century.Troyes

MS.

27, i,fol.7

p: _{Service Photographique de}la

Bibliotheque Nationale,Paris

130. Benediction oftheFairofthe Lenditbythe Bishop ofParis.

From

a

pontifical,

fourteenth century.Bibl.Nat.

MS.

Lat.962,fol. 264

P:_{Service Photographique de}la_{Bibliotheque Nationale,}Paris

13^. Initialletterofthebook ofLeviticus,withentwinedserpents.

From

theBibleof

Clairvaux,

mid

twelfth_{century.Troyes}

MS.

27, i,fol. 104

v

P:_{Service Photographique de}la_{Bibliotheque Nationale}

14.

Abbey

ofSt.-Denis.Westfacade

p: _GeorgesViollon,Paris

15.

Abbey

ofSt.-Denis. Vaultof_Suger'snarthex

P: _GeorgesViollon,Paris

16.

_Abbey

of_{St.-Denis. Suger'sambulatory}

P: _GeorgesViollon,Paris

17. ScenesfromthelifeofSt.Denis:hisconsecrationas_bishopand (below) his

work

as theologian.

From

a _{manuscript written}at St.-Denis, thirteenth century.Bibl.

Nat.

MS.

fr. nouv._{acq. 1098,}fol. 32

P:_{Service Photographique de}la_{Bibliotheque Nationale}

18.

_Abbey

ofSt.-Iitienne,

Caen

P:_{Archives Photographiques,} Paris

19.

Abbey

ofSt.-Denis. Reconstructionof_Suger'sfacade

Drawing byConant,fromStoddard,The WestPortals_ofSaintDenisandChartres

zoa.

_Abbey

ofSt.-Denis.Central

_tympanum

P:GeorgesViollon,Paris

20b. Beaulieu_Abbey.

_Tympanum

Xii

LISTOFPLATES

21. SensCathedral.

Nave

P:_{Archives Photographiques,}Paris

22a. St. _Augustine: initial letterfroman Alsatian (?) evangelistary.

Laon

MS.

550,

fol. 19,from Marbach-Schwarzenthann,Alsace P:_{Service Photographique de}la_{Bibliotheque Nationale}

22#. Chartres Cathedral. Statuefromthe_RoyalPortal

P:_{Archives Photographiques,}Paris

23. PalatineChapel, Palermo. Mosaic:St._{Gregory of Nazianzus} P: Anderson,

Rome

24. Chartres Cathedral

P: LucJoubert,Paris

25. ChartresCathedral.

West

facade

P: LucJoubert, Paris

26. ChartresCathedral.

West

facade,showingpartscompleted

by

c. ₁₁₇₅

P:LucJoubert, Paris

27. ChartresCathedral.RoyalPortal

P:_GeorgesViollon, Paris

28. ChartresCathedral._RoyalPortal, centraldoor

P: LucJoubert, Paris

29. Chartres Cathedral. _Royal Portal, _{right-hand door, archivolts:} the liberal _arts,

philosophers,andangels

P:LucJoubert, Paris

30. Chartres. Fulbert's cathedral, reconstruction

_by

Merletafterthe_{eleventh-century}

miniature

_{by Andrew}

of Mici

FromMerlet andClerval,

Un

ManuscritchartrainduXI*stick

31.

Abbey

of St.-Remi, Reims, Peter of Celled double_bay (left) and

_Romanesque

nave withlaterGothicmodifications

P:Archives_{Photographiques,}Paris

32. Chartres Cathedral._Systemofbuttressesandhorizontal sectionsof nave

DrawingbyGoubert. P.-Archives_{Photographiques,}Paris

33. ChartresCathedral.

Ground

_plan

FromLassus,_Monographicde

h

CathedraledeChartres

34. Chartres Cathedral. Transversesectionofchoir

Drawingby A. Mayeux. P;Archives

Photographiques,Paris

35- Chartres Cathedral._{Longitudinal andtransverse sections}

of nave

DrawingbyGoubert. P: Archives

Photographiques,Paris

of

37. Chartres Cathedral. Horizontalsection at triforium level p:Archives Photographiques, Paris

38. Chartres Cathedral. Flyingbuttressesof nave

P: _GeorgesViollon,Paris

39. Chartres Cathedral. Flyingbuttresses ofnave

P: _GeorgesViollon,Paris

40. Chartres Cathedral.

View

intonaveand south_transept

P:Archives_{Photographiques,}Paris

41. Chartres Cathedral.Northtransept portal, centerdoor:Johnthe_Baptist

P:LucJoubert, Paris

42.

Noyon

Cathedral. Longitudinalsection

P:Archives_{Photographiques, Paris}

43. Chartres Cathedral. Choir seenfromthesouth

P:Archives Photographiques,Paris

44. Chartres Cathedral. Choirseenfromtheeast

P: _{Archives Photographiques, Paris}

LIST

OF

TEXT FIGURES

Forfullreferences, see ListofWorks Cited

1. _PragueCathedral.

Ground

_planandelevation fora_{sepulchral chapel} 12

From

Kletzl,Plan-Fragmenteder deutschen Dombauhutte vonPrag.Courtesyof the

Municipal Archives,Stuttgart

2.

Ground

_plansandelevationsofGothic canopy_supports 15

Medieval drawings inthe Basel PublicArt Collection,from Ueberwasser,

"Spat-gotischeBaugeometrie"

3.

Matthew

Roriczer.

Ground

_planandelevationofa_pinnacle 1₇

From

Roriczer,DasBuchleinvonder Fialen

Gerechtigkeit

4.

Abbey

Church ofSt.-Denis.

Ground

_planof_sanctuary 100

From

Gall,DieGotischeBaukunstinFrankreichundDeutschland

5. Cologne. Reconstruction of

Roman

north gate 109

By

Rahtjens,fromRenard,Kb'ln

6. Church of_{St.-Martin-des-Champs.}

Ground

planofsanctuary

n6

FromGall,DieGotischeBaukunstinFrankreichundDeutschland

7. Chartres Cathedral.

Ground

plan 187

From

Merlet andClerval,

Un

ManuscritchartrainduXI'siecle

8.

_Abbey

ofSt.Michael, Hildesheim.Northwest_{transept, Galleries}of_Angels 213

FromBeselerand Roggenkamp,DieMichaeliskircheinHildesheim.

9.

Noyon

Cathedral.

Ground

_plan 229

INTRODUCTION

THIS

essay seeks to understand

Gothic

architecture as _{an image,}

more

pre-cisely, asthe representationofsupernaturalreality.

To

those

who

designedthe

cathedrals, as to their _{contemporaries}

who

_worshiped

inthem, this _symbolic

aspectorfunction

of

sacredarchitecture

overshadowed

allothers.

To

_us,ithas

become

theleast _{comprehensible.}

The

term Gothic

cathedralevokesinall

of

us amental

_image

as clearand8

definiteasthat

_produced

_by

_any

_{other type}

of

building.

No

other

monument

of

a

culture radically different

from

our

own

isas

much

a_part

_{of contemporary}

life

asisthe cathedral.

We

_may

feel

no

closer tomedievalcivilizationthan

we

do

to

ancient

Greece

_{or Egypt; indeed,} our

modern

world

came

into existence as a

revolt against the intellectual orderofthe

Middle

_Ages.

But

the

Gothic

ca-thedral, the expression

of

that order, is intact andin _{use today;} it is notthe

romantic ruin

of

_{a past}

_beyond

_{recovery, but} stillthe center

of

_nearly

_every

European

town

and,indubiousimitations,

of

_many

American

citiesaswell.

At

the

same

time

we

have

become

_{curiously blind to the cathedral.}

Gothic

has

become

aconvention becausethe cathedralshave beenaccessibletoo_long.

The

vision that

originally challenged the material resources, the technical

in-genuity, the

consummate

artistry of an entire age, has long since

become

a

commonplace of

respectable church building

and

an object

of

archaeological

classification.

This

statement

_may

_{appear exaggerated or even}false.

The

_Gothic

sanctu-aries of France

move

thethousands

who

visit

them

_{every year}as_deeplyas

do

few

other

works

ofart.

And

the_scholarshipofa_{century has}

yielded penetrat-inginsights into the aestheticandconstructive _aspects

of Gothic

architecture.

Yet

neitherthe_justdefinition northe sensitive_appreciation

of

_{styleand design}

can _{quite explain the cathedrals.}

_What

inspire inthose

who

worshiped jn

them?

And

what theme

did those

who

built

them wish

to_convey? Itwillbebesttolet

two

medieval witnesses

answer

these

questions.

In r₁₃₀the

new

choir

_{of Canterbury}

Cathedral

was

dedicated.

The

cere-mony, which

was

attended

_by

the_king as well asthe entire_hierarchy

of

his

realm,

seemed

to_{contemporaries}

more

_splendidthan

_any

other

of

itskind"since

the dedication

of

the

_Temple

of Solomon."

The

_{assembly chanted}the_liturgical

"Awesome

is_{this place.Truly,}thisisthehouseof

God

and_{the gate}of

Heaven,

anditwillbecalledthe court

of

the

Lord."

_Upon

_hearingthesewords,

and

be-holding the

new

choir, at that

moment

ablazewith innumerable _lights,

_King

Henry

I

"swore

with his _{royal oath 'by the} death

of

God'

_{that truly} [the

sanctuary]

was

awesome."

*

The

remark

was

_provoked

_by

_{the sight}of

one

of_{the great architectural}

masterpieces

of

thetimeand

sums up

theimpressionthatit

made

_{not only}

_upon

the_{king but}also

_upon

his_{contemporaries.}

The

cathedral

was

thehouse

of God,

this

term

understood not as a _pale

_commonplace

but as fearful _reality.

The

Middle

_Ages

livedinthe_presence

of

_{the supernatural,}

which

_impressed itself

upon

everyaspect of

human

life.

The

_sanctuary

was

the threshold to heaven.

In the admiration

of

its architectural _{perfection religious} emotions

over-shadowed

the observer's aesthetic reaction.It

was

no

different

with

those

who

built the cathedrals.

Fourteen yearsafterthe dedication

of

the choir

_{of Canterbury}

Cathedral

another choir

was

dedicated that

was

of epoch-making

significance for the

history

of

architecture: the choir

of

the

French abbey

ofSt.-Denis, theedifice

that

became

the _prototype

of

the

Gothic

cathedrals. Its builder, the

Abbot

Suger, sensedthe significance

of

his achievement;

he

attempted to defineits

meaning

for the benefit ofhis _{contemporaries}

and

of_posterity.

To

this end

he composed

atreatise in

which he

describedthe

new

_building

and

interpreted

the important elements

of

its _design.

The

little

work,

uniqueinits kind, is of

inestimablevalueforus

who

seektounderstand

Gothic

architecture;yetin the

sense

of

modern

art criticism it is _{anything but an aesthetic analysis. In} its

opening passages the author unfolds before us a mystical vision of

harmony

i. Luard (ed.), AnnalesMonastic*, IV, 19 England,p.366. (See ListofWorksCitedfor (JRB5S, XXXVI,4); cf.Salzman,Buildingin fullreferences.)

Xvi

INTRODUCTION

that divine reason has established throughoutthe cosmos.

The

treatise ends

with

the account

of

the consecration

ceremony

that _Suger

had

arranged

with

calculated_{splendor and} that he

now

describes as a _spectacle in

which heaven

and

earth,the angelic hosts in

heaven

andthe

human community

inthe

sanctu-ary,

seemed

tomerge.

What

hashischurchto

do

withthese

two

visions? _Obviously,itis

under-stood as their _image.

_Every

word

of

_{Suger's interpretation} seeks to battle

down

that

_very

sense

of detachment which

is characteristic

of

_purelyaesthetic

observation,

and

to leadvisitors to the

new

sanctuary

on

to the religious

ex-perience that art

had

revealed to Suger himself. Indeed, as

_my

_subsequent

analysis ofSuger's writings will

show,

thedesign

of

this church,Suger's

cre-ationof

Gothic

form,originated in that experience.

This

attitude

toward

sacred architecturediffers_widely

from

our

own.

The

two

testimonies, thefirst

_by

a visitor to amedieval _{sanctuary, the}second

_by

the builder ofone,

complement

each other

and

indicate clearly that the

ca-thedral

meant

tomedieval

man

what

itdoes not

mean

tous.

As

the

_"symbol

of

the

_kingdom

of

God

on

earth," the cathedralgazed

down

upon

the_city

and

its

population,transcendingallotherconcerns oflifeasittranscendedall its

physi-cal dimensions.

What

then

was

the vision in

which

_{the cathedral originated,}

and

what

_exactlyistheconnection

between

thatvisionand

Gothic

form?

These

are the questions I

have

triedto

answer

inthe_present

work.

_{Before doing so,}

however,

itwillbe_{useful briefly to consider}

what

_{distinguishes the}medieval

attitude

toward

art

from

our

own.

The

simplest

way

of

_definingthisdifferenceistorecallthe

_changed

mean-ing and function

of

the symbol.

For

us the

_symbol

is an

_image

that invests

physical reality

with

poeticalmeaning.

For

medieval

man,

the physical

world

as

we

understandithas

no

_{realityexcept}as a_symbol.

But

eventhe

_term

"sym-bol"is_misleading.

For

usthe

_symbol

is_{the subjective creation}of_{poetic fancy;}

for medieval

man

what

we

would

call

_symbol

is _{the only}

objectively valid

definitionof_reality.

We

findit_necessaryto_suppressthe_symbolicinstinctif

we

seektounderstandthe

world

asit isratherthanasitseems.

Medieval

man

con-ceived_{the symbolic}instinctas_{the only}reliable_guidetosuch an_{understanding.}

Maximus

theConfessor, a thinker

we

shall

meet

_again later, _{actually defines}

of

_{sense perception}theinvisible_realityofthe_{intelligiblethat lays}

_beyond

them.

Each world view

will _obviouslyascribe

_widely

_{differing functions to}

ar-tistic_activity

and

_experience.

The

modern mind

has _{severed the symbol,} the

image,

from

all _{metaphysical moorings;} for Nietzsche artis a lie, the

conse-quence of

theartist's heroic will to "flee

from

'truth'

"

and

to createthe

"il-lusion" thatalone

makes

lifelivable.

The

Middle

_Ages

_{perceivedbeauty}asthe

"splendorveritatis," theradiance

of

truth; _{they perceived}the

_image

notas

il-lusionbutasrevelation.

The

modern

artistisfree_{to create;}

we

demand

of

him

onlythathe

be

true to himself.

The

medievalartist

was

committed

to a truth

thattranscended

human

existence.

Those

who

looked at his

work

_judgeditas

an

_{image of}

that truth, hence the medieval tendency to praiseor

condemn

a

work

of

art interms

of

the ultimates

of

_{religiousexperience.}

This

standard

was

valid

above

allforsacredarchitecture.

Within

itswalls

God

himself

was

mysteriouslypresent.

The

medieval sanctuary

was

the

image

of

heaven.

_King

_Henry

Iand

Abbot

Suger bothdescribeitassuch.

The

Gothic

age, as has often been observed,

was

an age

of

vision.

The

supernatural manifested itselfto the senses. St. _{Hildegard of}

_{Bingen wrote}

a

quaint, Platonizing interpretation ofthe

cosmos

that both she and her

con-temporaries (including the

Pope

and

St. Bernard

of

_{Clairvaux) understood} to

have been

revealedtoherinner_eyes

_{by God.}

The

Abbot

_Suger

was

convinced

that the _{design of}his church

had been

_inspired

_by

acelestial vision.In the

re-ligious life

of

thetwelfthand thirteenth centuries, thedesire tobeholdsacred

reality

with

bodily eyes appears as a

dominant

motif.2

Architecture

was

de-signed

and

experiencedasa representationof anultimatereality.

But

in

what

sense

was

itan

_{image of}

that_reality?

The

medieval

answer

to this _questionis

essential to

our

_{understanding}

of

themedieval

mind

and of

medievalart.

Within

the last decade or so, scholars

and

critics

have

become

increas-inglyinterestedinthe symbolicsignificance

of

sacred architecture.

3

Professor

2. Cf. Dumoutet, LeDcsir de voir FHostie, and throughoutthisbook.Thesecondworkis and, for further literature, Sedlrnayr, Die R. Wittkower'sArchitecturalPrinciplesin the

Entstehungder Kathcdralc,p.541. AgeofHumanism.Theonlyflawin this bril-3.

Two

interpretationsofthis kind deserve liantexpositionofthesymbolism of Renaissance specialmentioninourpresent context.Thefirst architectureisthe author's belief that the idea

is_{Sedlmayr's Die Entstehung, a}work rich in of reproducingin_{the sanctuary theharmony}of

fruitful observations and yet, I believe, er- thecosmos_{by means}ofproportions correspond-roneousin its conclusions,withwhichI shall _{ing to the musical}consonancesoriginatedinthe takeissue in the_immediatelyfollowingpages Renaissance.AsIshallshow,thesame_idea

pre-INTRODUCTION

Sedimayr, in a _{felicitous apergu,} has insisted that architecture, like sculpture

andpainting,

must be

understoodasa "representational"art.

For

such an

under-standing

of

architecture,

however,

itisnotsufficientto

know

the

"what,"

the

theme

that is_represented;

we

have to graspas clearly aspossiblethe

"how"

by

which

a religious vision

was

translated into anarchitectural

form

or _style.

As

regards the

Gothic

cathedral,

much harm

has been

done by

theattemptto

get

from

thevisible

form

toits symbolicsignificance

by

akind

of

naturalistic

short cut. Since the

Gothic

_age in _general

was

_{interpreted questionably}

enough

asaneraofincipient "realism,"

4

the

Gothic

cathedral

was

described

as an "illusiomstic

_{image" of}

the Celestial _City as

evoked

in the

Book

of

Revelation.

As

ifthe illusionistic _rendering

of

sense experiences could

have

been

a concern of medieval art!

Had

itbeen, medieval art

would have

been

neither the childnorthe

_{mouthpiece of}

its_age.

The

medieval mind, as I

have

just recalled,

was

preoccupied

with

the

symbolic nature of the

world

of appearances.

Everywhere

thevisible

seemed

to

reflecttheinvisible.

What

made

_possiblethisco-ordination

of

the

two

_spheres

was

not the naive _vesting

of

the invisible

with

the attributes

of

_sense

phe-nomena,

but rather the relative indifference

of

medieval

man

to an _object's

sensuous appearanceif he, astheologian, artist,or "scientist,"soughtto under-standitsnature.

This

_tendency

toward

abstraction is as manifestin medieval

art asitisinmedieval_thought.

More

_{specifically,} the tiethat connects _{the great}order of

Gothic

archi-tecturewitha transcendental truthis _certainlynotthat

of

_opticalillusion.Ifit

were, the sanctuary could not also

have been

understood as an

_{"image" of}

Christ

and

even, asinabeautiful

_metaphor

ofSt.Bonaventure, oftheBlessed Virgin.5

Such

comparisons appearedridiculous and mutuallyexclusiveas _long

asit

was

takenfor_grantedthata_symbol,inordertobe_acceptable,

had

tobea

naturalistically convincing

image

ofthe _realityit

was

meant

_{to represent.}It vailed inthetheory andpracticeof medieval scholastic thought and Gothic art: Drost, architecture.In thetheory ofproportions as

m

RomtmischeundgotischeBaukunst^_{and Panofsky,} so_many other respects, a continued tradition Gothic ArchitectureandScholasticism.Neitherof linksthe"Renaissance" withthe_{Middle Ages,} thetwo worksisto

_my

mind_convincing,

the rediscovery and^imitationoftheclassical 4. SeeespeciallyMayer,"LiturgieundGeist ordersof_{architecture notwithstanding.} derGotik."

Within_{recent years,}twoauthorshaveagain 5. "De Purif. B. V. Mariae Serrno IV"

soughtto_{interpret the}Gothiccathedralinterms {Opera,omnia,Quaracchi,1801,IX, pp.649ff.).

may

well be that _{the general reaction against naturalistic}

reproductionthat

characterizes

modern

arthasalso

made

us

more

sensitivetothe delicate_process

by which

an experience of

mind

orsoul

_may

berealized ina

work

of

art.

The

way

in

which

the_{medieval imagination}

_wrought

the

_{symbols of}

its_visions

ap-pears,

more

clearly perhaps than in the conventional

_{imagery of}

Christian

iconography, inthe _{strange designs}

_by

which

an

_Avignon

cleric, Opicinus

de

Canistris, sought to represent the Christiancosmos.

When

he represents the

universal

Church

as "edificium _templi Dei,'*

he

blends thefemale _allegoryof

Ecclesia into a geometricalpattern that looks

much

like the

ground

plan

of

a

church

and

_helps

one

understand

how

themedieval

mind

_envisagedthe_symbolic

relation

between

the_temple

and

the _shape

of man.

6

Opicinus

was

aneccentric;

his

_drawings

can hardlyclaim to be

works

of

art.

_They

are nevertheless

char-acteristic

of

the

mode

_{by which}

the

Middle

_Ages

createdits _symbols. In the

pages thatfollow I havetried _{not only} to _explore the

_{meaning of}

the

Gothic

cathedralasa

_symbol

butalsoto_recapturethe

"how/'

the_process

_by

which

the

symbolic

instincttransformedvision into architecturalform.

This

_subjecthas

_imposed

a

number

of

limitations

on

this _study. I have

concentrated

on

the _analysis of_{architecture, discussing even such important}

parts

of

the

Gothic

cathedral as sculpture

and

stained glassonly

inasmuch

as

they belong to the architectural

system

or _clarify its _meaning.

_Moreover,

in

order nottoblur_{the understanding of}either_{the style}orits_message,I

have

con-fined

_myself

tothefirst_{period of}

Gothic

art,

which

begins

with

St.-Denisand

culminates

with

Chartres.

_Only

these

two monuments

are dealt

with

at_length.

Finally, I shall

have

to

meet

_{the objection that}

what

Idescribeasthe

main

aspects

of

the first

Gothic

art is

no

adequate definition of

what

we

are

ac-customed

tocall_Gothic,a_stylistictradition thatcontinuedtoexist,

with

count-lessramificationsin_{regional schools, for}

more

thanthree centuriesafter

Notre

Dame

of

Chartres

had

_{been completed.}

_May

the cathedral

of

thesecondhalfof

the twelfth century a _period

which

in so

_many

of

its manifestationsis still

Romanesque

reallybe considered the

embodiment of

Gothic,as I stateit to

bein_{the present}

book?

This

_objection

_may

be

answered

_by

_{a general observation.}

The

lifeofart

forms

is

_governed

_{by two}

_{conflicting principles,}

one

creative

and

original, the

XX

INTRODUCTION

other

bound

_by

tradition

and

conservative.

An

eminent

Spanish arthistorian,

J.

Puig

y

Cadafalch, has

on

occasion explained this

phenomenon

in terms of

the analogy

between

style

and

language.

Both

are

media

through

which

a

cul-ture, during several generations, expresses itself, a factthat accounts for the

static, retardatory character

by

which

the

imagery

of languages

and

the styles

of

arttendto limitthecreativescope

of

theindividualartist

and

poet.

This

en-during matrixis

broken only

ifauniversalexperiencereceivesexpressionatthe hands

of

a_greatartistor_poet.Inthat event,the poetcreates, as

T.

S.Eliothas remarked, a

new

language, theartist a

new

style. Inlanguageas in art, these

are the creative

moments,

when

both

become

_{transparently}meaningful

symbols

of

life.

But

_{the great} poet

and

artist

have

pupils.

The

echoes

of

their voices

will be heard for centuries to

come.

The

more

universally meaningful their

message, thesooneritwill

become

theproperty

of

all, thesoonerthepersonal

creation will

become

style, increasingly conventionalized until a

new

insight

demands

emancipation.

In

no

otherartisthetraditionalelement so powerfulas in religious

archi-tecture, the

work

of

entire

communities and

often

of

generations.

Here

a fresh

and

creativevision,inits formative impact

upon

society,

may

amount

toanact

of

state.

But

forthis

_very

reason suchvision will

have

tocontend

with

_the

par-ticular resistance

of

_ingrained traditions, as well as

with

the limitations

of

technical skills

and

material resources that

_happen

tobe available. It is

pro-foundly significantthat ittook a

man who

was

at

once

a great prelate

and

a

statesman

of

_{genius, Suger}

of

St.-Denis, to

overthrow

_Romanesque

archi-tecture

and

toestablish the

Gothic

inits_place.

Once

created,

Gothic became

the conservative "language"

of

Christian

architecturethroughoutthe

Western

world. Itis this language,

with

its local

dialects,that

we

think

of

if

we

_speak

of

Gothic.

What

concerns

me

here,

how-ever, is notthe structure

of

the _language, butthereason

of

its _origin

and

the

meaning of

its message.

The

Gothic

cathedral originated in the religious

ex-perience, the metaphysical speculation, in thepolitical

and even

the physical

realities,

of

twelfth-century France,

and

inthe genius

of

those

who

createdit.

I

have

triedto seize this_singularnexus

of

living forces in

Gothic form

thatis

PART

GOTHIC

DESIGN

AND

THE

MEDIEVAL

CONCEPT

GOTHIC

FORM

WH

A

T

isGothic?

The

decisive feature

of

the

new

styleisnotthe cross-ribbed

vault,thepointedarch,or_{the flying buttress.}Allthese are constructive

means

(developed or prepared

by

pre-Gothicarchitecture) butnotartisticends.

The

masters

of

the

_Angevin

schoolhandle the ribbedvault

with

a skill thatis

un-surpassed

by

their

Gothic

_{contemporaries; yet}

we

would

not call _{the great}

twelfth-century churches of

Angers

or

Le Mans

Gothic.

Nor

is_{soaring height}

the

most

_{characteristic aspect}

of

Gothic

architecture.

Whoever

has stood in

what

remains

of

the_great

_abbey

of

Cluny

epitome ofallthatis

_Romanesque

will

have

realized thatits effect

of

immense

_height is the

_very

_{thing that}the

Gothic

_{masters, during} thefirst _{century at least, deliberately abstained}

from

producing.1

Two

aspects of

Gothic

architecture,

however,

arewithout

prece-dent

and

_parallel: theuseof_light

and

the_{uniquerelationship}

between

structure

and

_appearance.

By

theuseof_lightI

mean more

_specificallythe relation

of

_lighttothe

ma-terialsubstance

of

the walls. In a

_Romanesque

church,lightissomethingdistinct

from and

_contrasting with the_{heavy, somber,} tactile substance

of

the walls.

The

Gothic

wall

seems

to _{be porous: light} filters _throughit, permeatingit,

merging with

it, transfiguring it.

Not

that

Gothic

interiors _{are particularly}

bright (althoughtheyare generally

much

more

luminous thantheir

_Romanesque

predecessors); infact,thestained-glass

windows

were

such inadequatesources

of

_lightthata_{subsequent and}blinder_{age replaced}

_many

of them

_by

_grisailleor

white

windows

that_today

_convey

a

most

_{misleadingimpression.}

The

stained-i."Atmox_surgitbasilica_ingcns 'and sud- St. Bernard in Cluniac architecture. Gothic

denlya giantbasilica_{surges up' says the chron-} architecture, as has been pointed out many

icierashepasseswiththevisitorfromthe nar- times,remainsinitsproportionscommensurable

thexat_Clunytothenave." Conant,Benedictine withthesizeofman.See,e.g.,Viollet-ie-Duc,

ContributionstoChurchArchitecture, p. 29. Itis Dictiormaire raisorme deVarchitecture

franfaisedu

4

THE

GOTHIC

CATHEDRAL

glass

windows

of

the

Gothic

replace the brightlycoloredwalls

of

Romanesque

architecture; theyare structurallyandaestheticallynot openingsin thewallto

admit_light, but_transparentwalls.2

_As

_Gothic

_verticalism

_seems

toreversethe

movement

of _gravity, so,

by

a similar aesthetic _paradox, the _{stained-glass}

window

seemingly denies the impenetrable nature

of

matter, receiving its

visual existence

from an energy

that transcends it._Light,

which

is _ordinarily

concealed

_by

matter,appearsasthe active principle;

and

matterisaesthetically

real_onlyinsofar as it_partakes of,

and

is _{defined by, the}luminous _quality

of

light.

We

shall see in a later chapter

how

clearly impressions such as these

convey

medievalspeculationsabout the nature

of

light, matter,

and

form.

Inthis_{decisive aspect, then, the}

Gothic

_may

be describedas_transparent,

diaphanous architecture.3

During

the first _century after its _emergence, this

aesthetic principle

was

developed

with

complete consistency and to its

ulti-mate

_{consequences.}

The

_{gradual enlargement}

of

the

windows

assuchisnotthe

most

_{important manifestation of}this_process.

No

_{segment of}

inner_space

was

allowedto

remain

indarkness, undefined

by

light.

The

sideaisles,thegalleries

above

them, the

_ambulatory

and _chapels

of

the choir,

became narrower and

shallower, their exterior walls pierced

by

continuous

rows of windows.

Ulti-mately

they appearas a_{shallow, transparent}shell_surrounding

nave and

choir,

whilethe

windows,

ifseen

from

theinside,ceasetobedistinct.

_They

seem

to merge,vertically

and

horizontally, into acontinuous sphere

of

light, aluminous foilbehindalltactileforms

of

the architectural_system.

We

find the

same

_{principles at}

work

evenindetails: inthe

_Romanesque

the

window

_openingisavoid surrounded

by

heavy,solidframing. Inthe

Gothic

window,

the solidelements

of

the_tracery float, as itwere,

on

theluminous

window

surface,its _{patterndramatically} articulated

_by

_light.

The

second _{striking feature}

of

the

Gothic

_style is the

new

_relationship

between

function

and

form, structure

and

_appearance. In

_Romanesque

or

By-zantine architecture structureis_{a necessary but}invisible

means

to

an

artistic

end, concealed behind painted or stucco ornaments.Ifan_earlymedieval writer

2. See the significant observation ofGro- their surfacesare_enlarged.

decki,"LeVitrail et Farchitecturean XII*et 3. Theterm "diaphanous"is first_{applied to} au XIII* siecle" (GBA, series 6, XXXVI, Gothic architecture _by Jantzen, "Ober den

1939), that stained-glasswindows,duringthe _gotischenKirchenraum." thirteenth century, arekept more somberas

5

describes achurch,

he

_speaksat_{great length}

of

its_paintingsbut_usuallyfailsto

say a

word

about thearchitecture.4

And,

indeed, the entireedifice

was

often

but_{a scaffold for the display}

of

_greatmurals or mosaics.

There

is

_good

reason

to _suppose that in the case

of

the

famous

church

of

St.-Savin, architectural

structure itself

was

actually modified for the sake

of

the murals.5

Quite

the

opposite is true

of Gothic

architecture.

Here

ornamentation is _entirely

sub-ordinatedtothe_{patternproduced}

_by

thestructural

_members,

the vault ribsand

supporting shafts; the aesthetic

_system

is determined

by

these.

With

the ad^

vent

of

the

Gothic

theart

of

the

mural

declines. Ithas

been

_suggestedthatits

flowering was, to

some

extent atleast,

owing

tothetechnical_imperfection

of

Romanesque

building; that paintings

on

walls

and

vaults vanished as such

imperfections that

had

to be covered

up

were

overcome.

6

And

Suger

of

St.-Denisactuallyspenta

good

deal

of

_money

on

_havingthe walls

of

the old

nave of

his church, the

masonry

of which

was

in

_poor

condition, painted over

with

murals.7

But

_{great art}is never_{just compensation} for

_poor

_workmanship

_{or poor}

engineering;

and

thebuilding skills even

of

the early

Middle

Ages were

far

more

highly developed than

was

longbelieved.

Even

the_Carolingian

mason

dis-played the

most

perfect craftsmanship

where

necessary, that is,

where

the

masonry remained

visible. Since,

however,

the walls were, in the interior

of

the _sanctuary at least, covered

with

murals or mosaics, a

much

cruder

tech-nique

was

usedinthese places.8

In

Gothic

architecture,

on

the other hand, the structure

of

the edifice

acquires

an

aesthetic dignity that

had

been

unknown

in earlier times.

The

wonderful

precision, for example,

with

which

everysingle block

was

cutand

4. Hubert,

U

Artfre-roman^p.199. That in the _{Gothic sanctuary} construction

5. Deschamps and Thibout, La Pemture takesoverthe aesthetic functionofthe

Roman-murale_{en France, pp.}75ff. _{esque mural}is

clearly stated inGervase's

com-6. Cf. _Duprat, "La Peinture romane en parisonoftheneweasternarm_{of Canterbury}

France,"II(BAf, CII, 1944),withreference to Cathedral thefirstGothicedificeinEngland the findingsof PuigyCadafalch and Folch_y withthe_Romanesquestructure that_preceded Torresregarding Catalonian wall painting. it:"therewasa ceilingof wood, decorated with

7.

"

. . . _{propter antiquarum} maceriarum excellent painting,but hereisa vault_beautifully vetustatem et_aliquibus in locis minacemdi- constructedofstone andlighttufa." Gervasii

ruptionem, ascitis melioribus quos invenire mmachi Cantuarensis opera historic^ p. 27.

potuidediversis partibus pictoribus, eos aptari Gervase's account is transcribed in Willis, et honeste _depingi tarn auro _{quam preciosis} Architectural Historyofthe_{Conventual Buildings}

coloribusdevotefecimus," Suger,Derebusin _oftheMonasteryof ChristChurchin_Canterbury,

6

THE

GOTHIC

CATHEDRAL

set in the

Gothic

vault leaving

no

ragged joints that

had

to be concealed

suggestsnot onlyperfectcraftsmanship (andtheavailability

of

equally perfect

building material) but alsoa noveldelightin

and

esteemforthe tectonic

system

for

which

the

_{Romanesque, by}

and_large,

seems

tohave

had

no

_eyes.9

_Gothic

wall_paintingneverconceals,but

on

thecontraryunderscores, the architectural

skeleton.

Even

the stained-glass

windows

submitin_composition

and

_design

in-creasingly tothe pattern ofthestone

and

metal armaturein

which

they are

em-bedded.10

This

development, tobesure,cannot be understood,as

was

once

believed,

as _{a triumph}

of

functionalism. Architectural

form

reveals function

inasmuch

asitreveals the actual physical interplay

of

weights (or thrusts)

and

support.

Such

_interplayis

_very

much

inevidenceinthe

Greek

_temple

and

notatallin a

Byzantine church.

The

pictureis

somewhat

ambivalentin

Gothic

architecture.

Here

itis_{not easy}todetermine

whether

form

has followedfunction, or func-tionform.

The

latter_actuallyseemstobetrue for the

most

_conspicuous

mem-bersofthe

Gothic

system, vault rib

and

_respond.

True,

the _aesthetic

possi-bilities

of

the vault rib

were

_fullyunderstood

and

utilized_onlyafterit

had

been used

_by

the

Gothic

builder as a technical device.11

But

a"false"rib,without

_any

practical function,

was

used forornamental purposes underthe half

domes

of

Romanesque

and indeed

of

Roman

apsesbeforeribs

were

usedinthe

same

place

as actual supports.12Similarly,responds

seem

atfirst_{to occur, in}

Norman

archi-tecture, without structural function.13

Moreover,

neither rib _{nor respond} is

9. Cf. Bond,

An

Introduction to English remains ofancient coloring suggesthow the ChurchArchitecture,I, 319ff. "fonctionspirituelle"ofthis"veritable daisde

10.Cf. Dyer-Spencer, "Les vitraux de la _pierre"whichroseovertherelicsofthetitular

Ste-ChapelledeParis" (BM, XCI, 1932),and saintwas_effectivelyunderscored_bydecorative Grodecki, Vitraux des_eglises de France^ Paris, means. Cf. also_{Sedlmayr, Die Entstehung}der 1947, pp. 12ff. _Kathedrale,

p.211.

n.

An

illuminating example of this dual 12._{See Formig6 (BM,LXXVII,}

1913),p.

functionofGothicribconstructionis thatof 26; Vallery-Radot(BAT, CII, 1945); alsoCA*

Morienval. The cross-ribbed vault over the _{Avignon, 1909,} I, 121ft*.,andII, 275ff. For

ambulatory (soonafter_{1122), the oldest}ofits furtherliteratureontheuseofribsinRoman

kindin existence,hadapurelytechnical func- _{architecture, see Sedlrnayr, pp.} 1₈₉f. don._{In the presbytery,}onthe other hand, as 13. Gall,DieGotischeBaukunstinFrankreich Ricome'sexcellent analysis reveals ("Structure tmdDevtschltmd,I,26ff.;Bony,"La Technique et fonction du chevet de Morienval," BAf, normande du mur 6pais" (BAf, XCVIII,

XCVIII,1939), the cross-ribbed vault hasbeen 1939);Sedlmayr,p.172. Insomecases atleast,

employedinthefullrealizationofitsaesthetic theNormanrespondsterminated_conicallyand and _symbolic significance. Forms are much thuscanhardlyhave hadany structural

7

ever purely"functional."

The

ribs_{certainlyhelp}maintainthevault,butareby

no meansso indispensable aswasonce_thought.14

_The

respondsare sofrailthat

without the bracingwallsbetweenthem

they could not support themselves,let

alone thevault.15

The

main_{weight of}thelatter rests, ofcourse,onthe_flying

buttresses that arenotevenvisiblefromthe insideoftheedifice.

Finally,even

the_shapeof_{the unequivocally}structural

members

inthe_{Gothic system}is

de-liberatelymodified,often atthe_{expense of}functional_efficiency, forthesake ofa certain visualeffect.

Thus

themassivethicknessofwallsand_piersisnever

allowedto_appear; whereit_{might becomevisible,}as_throughthe_{openings of} Plates 2,

gallery arcades, tympanaandcolonnettes _placedinthese_openings create the illusion,notofa wall,butofamembrane-thin surface._Again,the truevolume

ofthe_supportsisconcealedbehind,or seeminglydissolvedinto,bundlesoffrail,

soaringshafts.16

And

yet,

we

cannot enter a Gothic church withoutfeeling that every

visible

member

ofthe greatsystemhasajob todo.Therearenowalls butonly

supports; the bulkand weight ofthe vault seem tohave contractedintothe

sinewy

web

oftheribs.Thereisnoinert matter,onlyactive_energy.However,

thiscosmosofforcesisnotthenakedmanifestation of_{tectonic functions, but}

their_{translation into a basicallygraphic system.}

The

aesthetic valuesof Gothic

architectureareto a_surprising extent linear values. Volumes arereducedto lines, linesthatappearinthe definite configurationsofgeometricalfigures.

The

shafts_expressthe_{principleof supportingby}the_dynamicsoftheirverticallines.

The

ribs_representthe_{staticallyimportantridges}wherethetwo"tunnels"of a

groinedvault interpenetratebutare notessential to itsmaintenance. In fact,

itcan be

shown

how

the cross-rib

was

_{preceded and prepared}

_by

the

archi-tect's inclination to seeand conduct the _{ridges of a groined}vaultnotas the interpenetrationofcurvedsurfacesbutasthe intersectionofstraightlines.

At

this _{"intermediary"} stage sincec. 1080 the_ridgesareno_{longer allowed}to

14. Fora_summaryand_{bibliography of}the _respond, see_Choisy, HistoiredeI'

architecture, controversy over Gothic"rationalism,"which II,310ff.,349ff.;cf._{Seymour, Notre}Dame_of was started _{by Abraham's} Viollet-k-DucetIf _Noyoninthe_TwelfthCentury, pp. 134,ijdf.

rationalisms medieval, see Kubler, "A Late 16. Seethe analysisofNotre Dame,Dijon,

Gothic _Computation of Rib Vault Thrusts" _{by Abraham,}pp. 102ff.;notealso thereduced (GBA,XXVI,1944). volumes of_supportingmembersinthenave of

15.OnthetechnicalfunctionoftheGothic Notre Dame,Paris,comparedwith thoseofthe older choir:Aubert, Notre-Damede_Paris,

8

THE

GOTHIC

CATHEDRAL

describe the sinuous lines _prescribed

_by

the vault but are _{"arbitrarily"}

ad-justedsoas to

mark

astraightline.

An

architectural

member

as_conspicuousasis

the cross-ribbed vaultis _{thus largely}notthe cause butthe creation of_the

ge-ometrical

_{"graphism" of Gothic}

design.

17

It is

no

_{longer necessary}toinsist

on

the

_overwhelming

_importance

of

this

geometrical elementin

Gothic

design. It constitutes the

very

principle

of

its

order andaesthetic cohesion.

But

itisalso the

medium

_through

which

the

archi-tect

_conveyed

an

image of

the structural forces joinedtogetherinhis_building.

"Their

_design,"

Bony

has written

with

regardtothe configuration

of

lines

of the

Gothic

system, "transcribes,

with

some

freedom of

interpretation,

what

is_going

on

behind them,

and

expresses

what

was

believed

by

the architects to

bethe theoretical

framework

of_{the building."}1S

Inthissense,

however, Gothic

is indeedfunctionalist,especially so

when

we

compare

it

with Romanesque.

19

And

this_{singular"geometrical}functionalism,"as

we

_may

_perhaps callit, is all

the

more

remarkableif

we

recallthe idea to

which

theChristian_sanctuaryisto give expression.

The

churchis,mystically

and

Hturgically,an

image of

heaven.20

Medieval

theologians have,

on

innumerable occasions, dwelt

on

this _{correspondence.}

The

authoritative_language

of

the dedicationritual

of

a church_explicitlyrelates

the vision

of

_{the Celestial City,} asdescribedin the

Book

of

_{Revelation, to the}

building thatisto

be

erected.

As

iftostress this _{symbolic significance}

of

the

church edifice, the

Heavenly Mansions

are,in _{the representations}

of

theLast

Judgment on

Romanesque

portals, occasionally represented as a basilica

17. Bilson,"TheBeginnings of Gothic Ar- ersbezeichnendfur das'gotische'Denken, das chitecture: Norman _Vaulting in _England" alleFormennachdieser_Richtung hin

umbil-(RIBA Journal, VI, 1899; IX, 1902), "Les dete."

Voutesd'ogivesde Morienval" (BM, LXXII, 20. ThepassageinRev.21 :2-5 formsthe 1908); Frankl,Fruhmittelalterlicheundromani- _Epistle read during the dedication rite. See

sckeBauhmst, p. 106 (with reference to the Andrieu,LePontificalromain auX//

e siecle,pp. groined vaultsinthe sideaisles_{of Jumieges)}; 192f. Cf._{Sedlmayr, pp. 103}ff.,and Simson, Bony, "Gloucester et I'origine des voutes "Birth oftheGothic" (Measure,I, 1950), p. d'hemicycle gothique" (BAf, XCVII, 1938); 285.Thefirst_{historian to recognize the} sym-Sedlmayr,p.192. bolic relationbetweentheGothiccathedraland 18.French_{Cathedrals, p. 7.} the Celestial_CitywasDidron.

He

_pointedout

19. Gall, Niederrheinischeund normdnnische that_{the angels}onthe flying buttressesofReims

Architektur, pp. 9ff., similarly calls "Diese Cathedral "assimilent _{[the cathedral]} a la

Verbindungdes dekorativenmit demtekton- J6rusalem divine batie sur terre." Manuel