Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Space as a function of structure and form : the integrity of architectural vision in the cathedral of… O'Callaghan, Adrienne Patrice 1987

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1987_A8 O27.pdf [ 16.69MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0097100.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0097100-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0097100-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0097100-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0097100-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0097100-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0097100-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0097100-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0097100.ris

Full Text

SPACE AS A FUNCTION OF STRUCTURE AND FORM: THE INTEGRITY OF ARCHITECTURAL VISION IN THE CATHEDRAL OF ST. ETIENNE AT BOURGES By ADRIENNE PATRICE O'CALLAGHAN .A., The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1984 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of F i n e A r t s ) We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s as c o n f o r m i n g to the r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September 1987 ^ A d r i e n n e P a t r i c e O ' C a l l a g h a n , 1987 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of F i n e A r t s  The University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date September , 198 7 DE-6(3/81) Ab s t r ac t D e s p i t e i t s monumental s c a l e , i t s p o s i t i o n a t a t u r n i n g p o i n t i n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f G o t h i c a r c h i t e c t u r e and i t s v i s i o n a r y s p a t i a l c o n c e p t i o n , t h e c a t h e d r a l o f B o u r g e s has r e m a i n e d an anomaly of m e d i e v a l a r c h i t e c t u r a l h i s t o r y . C o n c e i v e d and b u i l t c o n c u r r e n t l y w i t h t h e c a t h e d r a l of C h a r t r e s , B o u r g e s has p e r s i s t e n t l y been v i e w e d as t h e l e s s e r o f t h e two b u i l d i n g s . T h i s t h e s i s a t t e m p t s t o c o n t e x t u a l i z e s u p p o s e d i r r e g u l a r i t i e s o f B o u r g e s ' d e s i g n and t o r e v i e w e x i s t i n g h i s t o r i o g r a p h i c a 1 n o t i o n s o f t h e b u i l d i n g i n o r d e r t o r e a r t i c u l a t e i t s a r t i s t i c c h a r a c t e r and r e d e f i n e i t s h i s t o r i c p o s i t i o n . H i s t o r i c a l l y , B o u r g e s has been o v e r s h a d o w e d by t h e g r e a t e r s u c c e s s o f C h a r t r e s as a model on w h i c h s u b s e q u e n t b u i l d i n g s were b a s e d . I n t u r n , t h e somewhat f r a g m e n t e d a c c e p t a n c e o f B o u r g e s ' i d e a l s has l e d t o an h i s t o r i o g r a p h y i n w h i c h t h e b u i l d i n g i s p e r c e i v e d as a s e r i e s o f i n d i v i d u a l e l e m e n t s r a t h e r t h a n as t h e embodiment o f a p o w e r f u l l y f o c u s s e d v i s i o n . These f a c t o r s , and t h e r e s u l t i n g i n s i s t e n t c o m p a r i s o n s o f B o u r g e s w i t h P a r i s as an a n t e c e d e n t and w i t h C h a r t r e s as a c o n t e m p o r a r y , have n u r t u r e d a s i g n i f i c a n t b i a s a g a i n s t B o u r g e s and a c o n s e q u e n t d i s p a r i t y i n s t u d i e s o f H i g h G o t h i c a r c h i t e c t u r e . I n s e e k i n g t o r e d e f i n e t h e r o l e o f B o u r g e s i n t h e h i s t o r y o f G o t h i c a r c h i t e c t u r e , i t i s e s s e n t i a l t o i d e n t i f y t h e u n i f y i n g f o r c e w h i c h m o t i v a t e d t h e f i r s t a r c h i t e c t o f t h e b u i l d i n g who e n v i s i o n e d t h e o r i g i n a l d e s i g n w h i c h was p r e s e r v e d , v i r t u a l l y i n t a c t , t h r o u g h o u t t h e b u i l d i n g ' s s i x t y - y e a r p e r i o d o f c o n s t r u c t i o n . A t B o u r g e s , i t was a f a s c i n a t i o n w i t h s p a t i a l a m p l i t u d e on a v e r y l a r g e s c a l e w h i c h f u e l l e d t h e b u i l d e r ' s e f f o r t s , a n d i t was t o w a r d t h e g o a l o f s p a t i a l e q u i l i b r i u m t h a t a l l e l e m e n t s o f t h e b u i l d i n g w e r e o r i e n t e d . The d e s i g n e r ' s h i g h l y i n t e g r a t e d s p a t i a l c o n c e p t i o n was c o n c r e t i z e d t h r o u g h h i s u s e o f f o r m a n d s t r u c t u r e , r e s u l t i n g i n a b u i l d i n g o f p o w e r f u l h o m o g e n e i t y . I n t h e c r e a t i o n o f i t s s p a t i a l c o n f i g u r a t i o n , a n d w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h o s e b u i l d i n g s i n f l u e n c e d b y i t , B o u r g e s ' e l e v a t i o n a n d s t r u c t u r e a r e i t s m o s t d i s t i n c t i v e f e a t u r e s . B o u r g e s ' e l e v a t i o n c o n s i s t s o f f i v e l e v e l s d i s t r i b u t e d o v e r t h r e e p l a n e s , r e s u l t i n g i n s i m u l t a n e o u s l y two a n d t h r e e d i m e n s i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The c o m p l e t e t h r e e - s t o r y e l e v a t i o n o f t h e i n n e r a i s l e i s a m p l y v i s i b l e t h r o u g h t h e v e r y t a l l m a i n a r c a d e s so t h a t t h e two e l e v a t i o n s f o r m a s i n g l e a e s t h e t i c u n i t . A t t h e same t i m e , t h e t h r e e p l a n e s d i f f e r e n t i a t e t h e v o l u m e s o f t h e b u i l d i n g w i t h o u t b e i n g s p a t i a l l y d i v i s i v e . T h e e l e v a t i o n ' s i n d i v i d u a l - i v -c o m p o n e n t s p r o v i d e an e l e m e n t o f v e r t i c a l c o n t i n u i t y w h i l e t h e m u l t i p l i c i t y o f i t s p l a n e s a s s u r e s an e x p a n s i v e n e s s o f s p a c e t h r o u g h o u t t h e b u i l d i n g . A l t h o u g h t h e e l e v a t i o n i s p e r h a p s a m o r e o b v i o u s f e a t u r e o f t h e b u i l d i n g ' s s p a t i a l c o n f i g u r a t i o n , B o u r g e s ' s i n g u l a r v i s i o n i s no l e s s a f u n c t i o n o f i t s s t r u c t u r e . T h e f l y i n g b u t t r e s s , w h i c h was i n t r o d u c e d t o w a r d s t h e e n d o f t h e t w e l f t h c e n t u r y , p r o v i d e d a p o w e r f u l s t r u c t u r a l t o o l f o r t h e b u i l d e r s o f b o t h C h a r t r e s a n d B o u r g e s b e c a u s e i t p r o v i d e d t h e t e c h n o l o g y n e c e s s a r y t o b u i l d v e r y h i g h , v a u l t e d b u i l d i n g s w i t h o u t u s i n g a c u m b e r s o m e , g a l l e r i e d c o n s t r u c t i o n . The a r t i s t i c e m a n c i p a t i o n r e s u l t i n g f r o m t h e u s e o f t h e f l y i n g b u t t r e s s p r o v i d e d a s t r o n g i m p e t u s , n o t o n l y t o r e - e v a l u a t e t h e E a r l y G o t h i c a e s t h e t i c , b u t a l s o t o d e v e l o p a n e n t i r e l y new a p p r e c i a t i o n o f s t r u c t u r e i t s e l f . T h e B o u r g e s a r c h i t e c t c a p i t a l i z e d on b o t h a s p e c t s o f t h e f l y i n g b u t t r e s s , a v a i l i n g o f t h e a r t i s t i c o p p o r t u n i -t i e s i t g a v e t o t h e b u i l d i n g a s a w h o l e , a n d o f t h e a e s t h e t i c p r o p e r t i e s i n h e r e n t w i t h i n i t . B o u r g e s ' f l y e r s m a n i f e s t a c l e a r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e s t r u c t u r a l d y n a m i c s o f m a s o n r y c o n s t r u c t i o n a n d a p r o f o u n d d e s i r e t o e x a l t t h o s e s t r u c t u r a l p r o p e r t i e s t o a p o i n t w h e r e t h e y v i s u a l l y c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e r e a l i z a t i o n o f t h e d e s i g n e r ' s s p a t i a l c o n c e p t . T h e y a r e d a r i n g l y s l e n d e r , s t e e p l y p r o f i l e d , s u p p o r t i n g members w h i c h t r a n s f e r t h e t h r u s t o f t h e m a i n v a u l t s t o t h e heads o f s i m i l a r l y s l i g h t p i e r b u t t r e s s e s . The d e s i g n e r a u d a c i o u s l y e m p l o y e d v e r y s p a r e s u p p o r t i n g members, n o t o n l y t o e c o n o m i z e on t h e amount o f m a t e r i a l u s e d , b u t a l s o t o r e d u c e t h e e l e m e n t s t o e s s e n t i a l v i s u a l m i n i m a . The f l y e r s c r e a t e t h e c h a r a c -t e r i s t i c a l l y e r e c t e x t e r i o r p r o f i l e o f t h e b u i l d i n g and p r o v i d e a u n i f y i n g e l e m e n t f o r i t s t h r e e t i e r s w h i c h c o r -r e s p o n d t o t h e i n t e r i o r v o l u m e s . They a r e not o n l y v i t a l t o t h e s t a b i l i t y o f t h e b u i l d i n g b u t a l s o t o i t s a p p e a r a n c e , b e t r a y i n g t h e d e s i g n e r ' s a w a r e n e s s o f t h e a e s t h e t i c p o t e n t i a l o f s t r u c t u r e w h i c h s e t s him a p a r t f r o m h i s c o n t e m p o r a r i e s . U n l i k e C h a r t r e s , B o u r g e s ' v i s i o n was r a r e l y r e f o r m u l a t e d i n i t s e n t i r e t y ; i t s s u c c e s s as a w h o l e was t o o h e a v i l y d e p e n d e n t on t h e b u i l d i n g ' s s i z e and p a r t i c u -l a r c o n f i g u r a t i o n . A l t h o u g h i t s e l e v a t i o n was r e a r t i c u 1 a t e d i n s e v e r a l b u i l d i n g s i n F r a n c e , S p a i n , and even I t a l y , and t h e b u i l d i n g ' s s t r u c t u r a l s y s t e m was e x t r e m e l y p r e c o -c i o u s , B o u r g e s ' d e s i g n n e v e r became an a r c h i t e c t u r a l f o r m u l a b e c a u s e i t was i l l - a d a p t e d t o t h e t h i r t e e n t h - c e n t u r y l i t u r g y . I t s l a c k o f a t r a n s e p t and t h e c o n s e q u e n t u n i f i c a t i o n of s p a c e f a i l e d t o r e f l e c t t h e s e p a r a t i o n o f l a i t y and c l e r g y w h i c h became i n c r e a s i n g l y marked i n t h e l i t u r g y f r o m t h e t w e l f t h c e n t u r y on. F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e b u i l d i n g d i d n o t p r o v i d e t h e v a r i e t y o f l i t u r g i c a l s p a c e s r e q u i s i t e t o t h i r t e e n t h - c e n t u r y w o r s h i p . A l t h o u g h B o u r g e s f a i l e d t o make as v i s i b l e a n d l a s t i n g an i m p r e s s i o n o n s u b s e q u e n t b u i l d i n g s a s C h a r t r e s , i t r e p r e s e n t s a p r o f o u n d l y u n i q u e a r c h i t e c t u r a l s t a t e m e n t w h i c h m a r k s a p a r t i c u l a r , c r e a t i v e moment i n t h e h i s t o r y o f m e d i e v a l a r c h i t e c t u r e . - v i i -T a b l e of C o n t e n t s Page A b s t r a c t i i L i s t of I l l u s t r a t i o n s v i i C h a p t e r 1: The T w e n t i e t h C e n t u r y P e r c e p t i o n o f Bourges 1 C h a p t e r 2: The I n t e g r i t y of Form, S t r u c t u r e , and Space i n the D e s i g n of Bourges C a t h e d r a l 15 C h a p t e r 3: The R o l e of S t r u c t u r e i n the V i s i o n o f Bourges 41 C h a p t e r 4: The L e g a c y of Bourges 54 C h a p t e r 5: Bourges as a F u n c t i o n a l House of M e d i e v a l W o r s h i p 72 C o n c l u s i o n 89 I l l u s t r a t i o n s 91 B i b l i o g r a p h y 125 - v i i i -L i s t of I l l u s t r a t i o n s F i g u r e Page 1 F r a n c e , map 91 2 Bourges C a t h e d r a l : p l a n 92 3 C h a r t r e s C a t h e d r a l : p l a n 92 4 Notre-Dame, P a r i s : p l a n 93 5 C o m p a r a t i v e c r o s s s e c t i o n s : Bourges c h o i r ( l e f t ) , Bourges C a t h e d r a l ( r i g h t ) 93 6 Notre-Dame, P a r i s : s e c t i o n of nave 94 7 C o m p a r a t i v e c r o s s s e c t i o n s , showing f o r m a t i o n o f volumes i n s e c t i o n : Reims C a t h e d r a l ( l e f t ) , B ourges C a t h e d r a l ( r i g h t ) 94 8 Noyon, B o u r g e s , B e a u v a i s C a t h e d r a l s : e x t e r i o r forms 95 9 P l a n s : Abbey of S t . M a r t i n , T o u r s ; T o l e d o , Le Mans, and C o u t a n c e s C a t h e d r a l s 96 10 Bourges C a t h e d r a l : nave and h e m i c y c l e 97 11 B o u r g e s C a t h e d r a l : nave to west, showing s o u t h f l a n k 97 12 Bourges C a t h e d r a l : v a u l t , bays 6 & 7 98 13 Bourges C a t h e d r a l : h e m i c y c l e and f i r s t s t r a i g h t bays of s o u t h s i d e from n o r t h i n n e r a i s l e 98 14 Bourges C a t h e d r a l : n o r t h f l a n k of nave, and h e m i c y c l e 99 15 Bourges C a t h e d r a l : n o r t h f l a n k o f nave from i n n e r a m b u l a t o r y 99 16 Bourges C a t h e d r a l : s o u t h f l a n k of nave 100 17 Bourges C a t h e d r a l : nave and h e m i c y c l e 100 - i x -L i s t o f I l l u s t r a t i o n s F i g u r e 18 B o u r g e s C a t h e d r a l : i n n e r a m b u l a t o r y , s h o w i n g s e c o n d a r y e l e v a t i o n 19 B o u r g e s C a t h e d r a l : n o r t h f l a n k o f n a v e , a n d h e m i c y c l e 20 B o u r g e s C a t h e d r a l : n o r t h i n n e r a i s l e t o e a s t 21 B o u r g e s C a t h e d r a l : f l y i n g b u t t r e s s , s o u t h s i d e o f n a v e 22 23 2 4 29 30 3 1 32 33 B o u r g e s C a t h e d r a l e a s t e n d f l y i n g b u t t r e s s , B o u r g e s C a t h e d r a l : e x t e r i o r o f e a s t e n d B o u r g e s C a t h e d r a l : n a v e e x t e r i o r , s o u t h e l e v a t i o n 25 B o u r g e s C a t h e d r a l : u p p e r t r i f o r i u m , a x i a l b a y o f h e m i c y c l e 26 B o u r g e s C a t h e d r a l : u p p e r t r i f o r i u m , b a y 6 o f n a v e 27 B o u r g e s C a t h e d r a l : l o w e r t r i f o r i u m , b ay 7 o f n a v e 28 B o u r g e s C a t h e d r a l : l o w e r t r i f o r i u m , b a y 5 o f n a v e B o u r g e s C a t h e d r a l : a n d h e m i c y c l e C h a r t r e s C a t h e d r a l C h a r t r e s C a t h e d r a l o f c h o i r s o u t h f l a n k o f n a v e n a v e a n d c h o i r n o r t h e l e v a t i o n C h a r t r e s C a t h e d r a l : n a v e v a u l t C h a r t r e s C a t h e d r a l : n o r t h e l e v a t i o n o f n a v e P a g e 10 1 1 0 1 102 103 103 1 04 1 04 105 105 106 106 107 107 108 108 109 - x -L i s t o f I l l u s t r a t i o n s F i g u r e 34 35 36 37 38 3 9 40 4 1 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 C h a r t r e s C a t h e d r a l : e a s t e r n m o s t b a y o f n o r t h n a v e e l e v a t i o n C h a r t r e s C a t h e d r a l e a s t e r n e l e v a t i o n C h a r t r e s C a t h e d r a l s o u t h C h a r t r e s C a t h e d r a l C h a r t r e s C a t h e d r a l C h a r t r e s C a t h e d r a l C h a r t r e s C a t h e d r a l N o t r e - D a m e , P a r i s : n o r t h t r a n s e p t , n o r t h t r a n s e p t f r o m e x t e r i o r , e a s t e n d e a s t e n d f l y e r e x t e r i o r n o r t h f l a n k e x t e r i o r s o u t h f l a n k e l e v a t i o n L e Mans C a t h e d r a l : v i e w o f h e m i c y c l e f r o m n o r t h i n n e r a i s l e o f c h o i r L e Mans C a t h e d r a l : s o u t h e l e v a t i o n o f c h o i r L e Mans C a t h e d r a l i n n e r a m b u l a t o r y s o u t h e l e v a t i o n f r o m L e Mans C a t h e d r a l : p i e r s a n d i n n e r a m b u l a t o r y v a u l t s f r o m i n n e r a m b u l a t o r y L e Mans C a t h e d r a l : v i e w t o s o u t h f r o m o u t e r a i s l e o f n o r t h s i d e o f c h o i r L e Mans C a t h e d r a l o f c h o i r L e Mans C a t h e d r a l o f c h o i r s o u t h e l e v a t i o n s o u t h e l e v a t i o n L e Mans C a t h e d r a l : n o r t h i n n e r a i s l e a n d a m b u l a t o r y o f c h o i r P a g e 109 1 10 1 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 14 1 14 1 1 5 1 1 5 1 1 6 1 1 6 1 1 7 1 1 7 - x i -L i s t o f I l l u s t r a t i o n s F i g u r e 50 L e Mans C a t h e d r a l : R o m a n e s q u e n a v e 51 C o u t a n c e s C a t h e d r a l : C o u t a n c e s C a t h e d r a l : C o u t a n c e s C a t h e d r a l : C o u t a n c e s C a t h e d r a l : C o u t a n c e s C a t h e d r a l : C o u t a n c e s C a t h e d r a l : C o u t a n c e s C a t h e d r a l : 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 6 1 62 e x t e r i o r e a s t e n d e x t e r i o r e a s t e n d n a v e a n d c h o i r h e m i c y c l e o u t e r a m b u l a t o r y s o u t h f l a n k o f c h o i r n o r t h f l a n k o f c h o i r B e a u v a i s C a t h e d r a l : n o r t h e l e v a t i o n o f c h o i r B e a u v a i s C a t h e d r a l a n d a m b u l a t o r y n o r t h i n n e r a i s l e S t . D e n i s , A b b e y : n a v e a n d c h o i r S t . D e n i s , A b b e y : n o r t h e l e v a t i o n o f c h o i r S t . D e n i s , A b b e y : n o r t h e l e v a t i o n o f c h o i r P a g e 1 18 1 1 9 1 1 9 1 20 120 1 2 1 1 2 1 122 122 123 123 1 24 1 24 C h a p t e r 1: T h e T w e n t i e t h C e n t u r y P e r c e p t i o n o f B o u r g e s M e d i e v a l man's p e r s i s t e n t q u e s t f o r a r t i s t i c a n d f u n c t i o n a l p e r f e c t i o n i n h i s h o u s e s o f w o r s h i p h a s c a u s e d t h e h i s t o r y o f r e l i g i o u s a r c h i t e c t u r e i n t h e M i d d l e A g e s t o be p u n c t u a t e d w i t h e p i s o d e s o f p r o f o u n d c r e a t i v i t y . C e r t a i n l y o n e o f t h e g r e a t e s t o f t h e s e o c c u r r e d a t t h e en d o f t h e t w e l f t h c e n t u r y w i t h t h e n e a r l y s i m u l t a n e o u s c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e c a t h e d r a l s o f C h a r t r e s a n d B o u r g e s . ( F i g s . 10, 30) A l i k e i n p h y s i c a l a n d a r t i s t i c m a g n i t u d e , C h a r t r e s a n d B o u r g e s r e p r e s e n t e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t a e s t h e t i c e x p r e s s i o n s o f m e d i e v a l r e l i g i o u s s e n t i m e n t s . T h e s t r i k i n g d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n t h e p h y s i c a l m a n i f e s t a t i o n s o f t h e d e s i g n e r s ' a r t i s t i c , s t r u c t u r a l , a n d l i t u r g i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s a p p e a r e v e n m ore a s t o n i s h i n g i n ' l i g h t o f t h e common g r o u n d t h e b u i l d i n g s s h a r e . T h e c a t h e d r a l s o f C h a r t r e s a n d B o u r g e s w e r e b e g u n o n l y a y e a r a p a r t , i n 1 194 a n d 1 195 r e s p e c t i v e l y , i n c l o s e p r o x i m i t y 1 2 t o e a c h o t h e r . T h e y a r e s i m i l a r i n s i z e , b o t h d o m i n a t i n g 3 t h e s i g n i f i c a n t m e d i e v a l t o w n s w h i c h t h e y s e r v e d . T h e d e s i g n e r s o f C h a r t r e s a n d B o u r g e s b o t h a v a i l e d t h e m s e l v e s o f t h e r e c e n t l y i n t r o d u c e d s t r u c t u r a l t o o l , t h e f l y i n g b u t t r e s s , t o e f f e c t c o m p r e h e n s i v e a r c h i t e c t u r a l r e f o r m u l a -t i o n s o f E a r l y G o t h i c p r i n c i p l e s a n d b o t h b u i l d i n g s a r e - 2 -r e m a r k a b l y h o m o g e n e o u s i n d e s i g n , n o t o n l y b e c a u s e o f 4 t h e i r b r i e f c o n s t r u c t i o n t i m e s , b u t a l s o due t o t h e c l a r i t y a n d i n t e n s i t y o f t h e o r i g i n a l d e s i g n e r s ' v i s i o n s . C o n s i d e r i n g t h e s e i m p o r t a n t s i m i l a r i t i e s b e t w e e n t h e b u i l d i n g s a n d t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s s u r r o u n d i n g t h e i r c o n s t r u c t i o n , t h e i r d i s p a r a t e t r e a t m e n t i n t h e h i s t o r i o g r a p h y o f G o t h i c a r c h i t e c t u r e s e e m s i n e x p l i c a b l e . S i n c e t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h i s c e n t u r y , s c h o l a r s h a v e e x a m i n e d t h e c a t h e d r a l o f S t . E t i e n n e a t B o u r g e s , a t t e m p t i n g t o d e f i n e t h e c h a r a c t e r o f t h e b u i l d i n g a n d i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p t o o t h e r m e d i e v a l s t r u c t u r e s . P r e d i c t a b l y , d i f f e r i n g v i e w s h a v e b e e n e x p r e s s e d , b u t a common p r e c o n c e p t i o n t h r e a d s t h r o u g h t h e m ; a l l a r e b a s e d on t h e p r e m i s e , o v e r t l y s t a t e d o r i m p l i c i t l y s u g g e s t e d , t h a t B o u r g e s o c c u p i e s a p o s i t i o n o u t s i d e t h e " m a i n s t r e a m " o f G o t h i c a r c h i t e c t u r e a n d t h a t i t i s , i n some w a y s , b a c k w a r d i n r e l a t i o n t o o t h e r b u i l d -i n g s , t h i s v i e w i s d u e i n p a r t t o B o u r g e s ' l i m i t e d s u c c e s s a s a m o d e l a n d , i n t u r n , t o C h a r t r e s 1 f a r g r e a t e r s u c c e s s i n t h i s r e s p e c t . T h e f a i l u r e o f s c h o l a r s t o p e r c e i v e t h e u n i t y o f t h e w h o l e , h a s l e d t h e m t o a s s e s s e l e m e n t s o f t h e b u i l d i n g as i n d e p e n d e n t a r c h i t e c t u r a l f e a t u r e s r a t h e r t h a n i n t h e i r o r i g i n a l l y i n t e n d e d c o n t e x t , a s c o n -s t i t u e n t s o f a t o t a l v i s i o n . A s a r e s u l t , t h e s p i r i t o f B o u r g e s ' s t a t e m e n t a n d t h e g e n i u s w i t h w h i c h i t was - 3 r e a l i z e d h a v e b e e n n e g l e c t e d . T h i s t h e s i s w i l l p u r s u e a c r i t i c a l e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e h i s t o r i o g r a p h y o f B o u r g e s a n d an a n a l y s i s o f t h e b u i l d i n g i t s e l f i n an a t t e m p t t o r e - e v a l u a t e i t s s i g n i f i c a n c e i n t h e h i s t o r y o f m e d i e v a l a r c h i t e c t u r e . B o u r g e s i s l o c a t e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y 120 m i l e s s o u t h o f P a r i s i n t h e p r o v i n c e o f B e r r y . ( F i g . 1) D u r i n g Roman t i m e s i t was a l a r g e , we 1 1 - f o r t i f i e d c i t y i n a f e r t i l e a r e a . T h r o u g h o u t t h e M i d d l e A g e s , a l t h o u g h s o mewhat r e d u c e d i n s i z e , i t m a i n t a i n e d t h i s s t a t u s a n d b e c a m e t h e s e a t o f a p o w e r f u l a r c h b i s h o p r i c . F r o m t h e t w e l f t h c e n t u r y , t h e a r c h b i s h o p o f B o u r g e s a d m i n i s t e r e d a l a r g e d i o c e s e w h i c h e n c o m p a s s e d H i g h a n d Low B e r r y " * a n d g a v e h i m c o n t r o l o v e r t h e b i s h o p r i c s o f L i m o g e s , C l e r m o n t , C a h o r s , L e P u y , M e n d e , A l b i , a n d R o d e z , as w e l l as t h a t o f B o r d e a u x . ^ He was a v a s s a l o f t h e C r o w n , ^ a n d h e l d a p r i v i l e g e d s e c u l a r p o s i t i o n o f c o n s i d e r a b l e a u t h o r i t y a n d p r e s t i g e . B e g u n i n 1 195, B o u r g e s 1 a m b i t i o u s b u i l d i n g p r o g r a m s e t o u t t o i m p r o v e on t h e e x i s t i n g e l e v e n t h - c e n t u r y c a t h e d r a l w h i c h was d e c i d e d l y m o d e s t c o m p a r e d t o t h e s t a t e l y g s t r u c t u r e w h i c h w o u l d be b u i l t i n i t s p l a c e . T h e new c a t h e d r a l was c o n s t r u c t e d i n two m a j o r c a m p a i g n s : on e f r o m c . 1 1 9 4 - 1 2 1 4 d u r i n g w h i c h t h e e a s t e n d was b u i l t , a n d a n o t h e r f r o m c . 1 2 2 5 - c . 1255 when t h e w e s t e n d a n d f a c a d e - 4 -9 were v i r t u a l l y completed. H i s t o r i c a l l y , this rebui ld ing came at a time of enormous arch i t ec tura l eff lorescence. By the la ter 1 160 ' s the great cathedral of Paris was r i s i n g , with the e a r l i e s t exposed f ly ing buttresses added as con-s truct ion progressed . A smaller, transeptless v a r i a t i o n on the design of Paris was begun at Mantes C . 1 1 7 O ' ' and, northeast of P a r i s , the cathedrals of Laon and Noyon were 1 2 standing at d i f ferent stages of construct ion. In 1194, the town of Chartres had embarked on an ambitious bu i ld ing program immediately following the old cathedral 's destruct ion 13 by f i r e . Much construction was ongoing within c lose ly defined chronological and geographical l i m i t s , creating a f e r t i l e environment for the exchange of ideas and, as a r e s u l t , an acce lerat ion of a r t i s t i c growth and change. It was in this mi l ieu that Bourges was conceived and b u i l t under a series of strong and i n f l u e n t i a l arch-bishops. From 1 1 8 3 - 1 1 9 9 , Henri de Sul ly was archbishop of Bourges. The son of the seigneur of Su11y-sur-Loire , Henri brought prestige and administrative a b i l i t y to his o f f ice and i t was during his term that the rebui ld ing of the cathedral was undertaken. He was succeeded by the blessed Guillaume ( 1 1 9 9 - 1 2 1 0 ) , son of the Count of 1 4 C o r b e i l , a man whose greater concern for s p i r i t u a l than temporal matters infused the bui ld ing project with a piety - 5 -which emphasized the fundamental reason for i t s existence; to erect a sui tably glorious ed i f i ce for the worship of God. Seven years after Guillaume's d e a t h , S i m o n de S u l l y , a nephew of Henr i , was elected to the archbishopric and was succeeded in 1236 by Phi l ippe Berruyer, a nephew of Guillaume. From 1183 u n t i l 1260 the archbishopric of Bourges was occupied pr imari ly by two noble fami l i e s , one of which brought secular authori ty , and the other profound sanct i ty to the seat. These elements were equally important in the r e a l i z a t i o n of Bourges Cathedral since one assures f i n a n c i a l security for the program and the other sparked re l ig ious fervour, both necessary to sustain the en terpr i se . '^ Evidence of the strength and importance of the archbishops' personal i t i e s is the fact that the French monarchy appears to have played a r e l a t i v e l y minor role in the Bourges project despite the archdiocesan a f f i l i a -t ion with the monarch (see n.7); the archbishops and the powerful cathedral chapter were pr imari ly responsible for the rebu i ld ing . ' ^ Circumstant ia l s i m i l a r i t i e s between Bourges and the cathedral of Notre-Dame in Paris have often led observers to overemphasize the p a r a l l e l s between the two bu i ld ings . When Bourges was begun in 1195, Maurice de Sul ly was bishop of Paris and i t is to him that the o r i g i n a l - 6 -project of Notre-Dame belongs; the cathedral of Paris 1 8 was begun c. 1 163 and by the time he died in 1 196, much of i t was standing. Both Maurice and Henri de Sully came from the town of S u 11 y-s u r -L o i r e but they were unrelated; Maurice's family were serfs while Henri was of noble b i r t h . However, Maurice's successor, Eudes de S u l l y , was Henri 's brother, a re la t ionsh ip which has prompted much speculation concerning the importance of the Paris design to that of Bourges. In his monograph on Bourges, Amedee Boinet states , based only on the f ra terna l re la t ionship between Eudes and Henri and some general design p a r a l l e l s between the two bu i ld ings , that Henri probably consulted his bro-1 9 ther's a r c h i t e c t . Although h i s t o r i c a l l y undocumented, this suggestion has established the comparative tenor of much of the discussion of Bourges. Separated by more than t h i r t y - f i v e years of s i gn i f i cant change in bu i ld ing technology and design, Paris and Bourges represent vast ly d i f ferent arch i t ec tura l concerns, despite s u p e r f i c i a l s i m i l a r i t i e s between the two bu i ld ings . S i m i l a r l y uninterrupted outl ines in plan, and f ive a i s led configurations have led to a host of p a r a l -l e l s being drawn between Bourges and P a r i s . In fact , Paris straddles two stages in medieval s t ruc tura l design and Bourges marks a precociously mature use of the f l y ing buttress . Paris was begun as a standard, g a l l e r i e d structure - 7 -with a concomitant four-story e levat ion , but f l y i n g but-tresses were la ter added, and the e levat ion was modified to three stories in much of the b u i l d i n g , making i t appear more s imi lar to Bourges than i t is in fact . In addi t ion , without the f l y e r s , the exterior of Bourges 1 east end would look much l ike an elaborated version of P a r i s ' 20 tribune church formula or a perpetuation of the Burgundian 2 1 Romanesque, epitomized by the design of Cluny I I I . However, the employment of the f l y ing buttress from the outset of construction at Bourges made possible an en t i re ly revised conception of arch i t ec tura l space which funda-mentally dist inguishes i t from these e a r l i e r designs. Perhaps a more s ign i f i cant contrast to Bourges than P a r i s , both because of i t s contemporaneity and i t s greater renown, is the cathedral of Chartres which was begun just a year before Bourges, in 1194, with construction 2 2 nearly completed within f i f t y years. The town of Chartres 23 was t r a d i t i o n a l l y an important pilgrimage centre, a d i s t i n c t i o n which e a r l i e r bui ldings on the s i te had r e f l e c t -ed. The thirteenth century bui ld ing not only perpetuated, but even augmented the town's renown. The cathedral of Chartres was immediately imitated in other important centres and continued to increase in popularity and eminence - 8 -throughout successive centuries . The bui ld ing has a three-a i s led nave, a large transept, and a f i v e - a i s l e d choir ; a double ambulatory with radiat ing chapels surrounds the eastern terminus. Chartres 1 plan is more complex than that of Bourges, cons is t ing of a greater var ie ty of shapes and configurations and a more d i s t i n c t functional d i f f e r e n -t i a t i o n of i t s parts . (F ig . 3) The nave, for the general pub l i c , is separated from the more sacral choir and east end by the transept whereas at Bourges, without a transept, the entire length of the bu i ld ing is continuous. As with P a r i s , one of the most remarkable d i f -ferences between Chartres and Bourges concerns s tructure . Although both Chartres and Bourges were conceived with f l y ing buttresses and their designs were profoundly affected by the use of this recently introduced s t ruc tura l t o o l , the aesthetic and physical properties of the two bu i ld ings ' s t ruc tura l systems are markedly d i s s i m i l a r . Bourges is supported with a s i g n i f i c a n t l y smaller amount of masonry, re su l t ing in a v i s u a l l y l i gh ter ex ter ior . The designer of Bourges appears to have had a greater understanding of the s t ruc tura l behaviour of the f l y ing buttress, and was consequently able to rea l i ze s ign i f i cant material economy and v i sua l spareness in the design of his b u i l d i n g . - 9 -Despite the technical super ior i ty of Bourges 1 s t ruc tura l system, Chartres has remained dominant in the historiography of Gothic arch i tec ture . Whereas Chartres ' novel features are frequently discussed prominently in the l i t e r a t u r e , those of Bourges are most often noted either a f ter , or in conjunction with, i t s purportedly backward q u a l i t i e s . For example, in his survey of French Gothic arch i tec ture , Jean Bony outl ines a l l the "conserva-tive" features of BSurges before he very eloquently describes the bu i ld ing ' s exquisite i n t e r i o r spat ia l conf igurat ion . 24 E n t i t l e d "The New Statement of Chartres ," the following section is immediately set up as a discussion of a more revolut ionary bu i ld ing and, although i t remains objective for the most part , i t has a decidedly more pos i t ive thrust 2 5 than does "The World of Bourges." In order to refresh our perception of Chartres and Bourges, the two bui ldings must be seen as p a r a l l e l moments in the h i s tory of arch i tec -ture, i so lated from these subsequent perceptions of their successes or f a i l u r e s . C l e a r l y , both Chartres and Bourges made remarkably eloquent a r c h i t e c t u r a l statements and, despite the ir d i f -ferent appearances, each embodies a s p i r i t of ebul l ience and arch i t ec tura l ingenuity. Indisputable, however, is the fact that Chartres was h i s t o r i c a l l y more successful - 10 -as a model and that this has generally biased h i s t o r i o -graphers in i t s favour. Buildings based on Chartr ian pr inc ip l e s were not only more numerous than those modelled after Bourges, they were also more prest ig ious and renowned; being l oca l i z ed in France to a great extent, they c o l l e c t -ive ly epitomize French High Gothic arch i tec ture . Bourges' followers are numerically small and geographically scattered 2 6 over France, Spain, and possibly even I t a l y , and i t s influence is confined to ind iv idua l arch i t ec tura l features. This has relegated Bourges' influence to a pos i t ion i so lated from the mainstream and has biased historiographica1 percep-tions of High Gothic architecture against Bourges and in favour of Chartres . George Henderson summarizes this att i tude as follows: "The erect ion of Chartres Cathedral is perhaps the single most important event in the h i s tory of Gothic arch i tec ture . It brought about a basic revolut ion in design. . . Even where the strength and d i s c i p l i n e of the design was not comprehended, Chartres was regarded 2 7 as a standard which good archi tects should acknowledge." With Chartres held in this regard, Bourges has natura l ly suffered, not, as we sha l l see, because i t s designer lacked ingenuity or knowledge, but largely due to h i s t o r i c a l factors beyond his c o n t r o l . - 1 1 -NOTES - Chapter 1 'Bourges, d i r e c t l y south of P a r i s , is approx-imately 120 miles from Chartres , southwest of P a r i s . 2 Bourges is s l i g h t l y t a l l e r than Chartres (122' from f loor to vaults compared to Chartres' 133'), and Chartres' nave is narrower than Bourges' (53.5' compared to Bourges' 87' width throughout i t s length) but east of the chevet, i t s width is s imi lar to that of Bourges'. 3 Both Chartres and Bourges were important towns during the Middle Ages. Chartres was a prominent pilgrimage s i te and a centre of learning (see n. 23). Bourges was the cap i ta l of Berry and the cathedral chapter possessed extensive lands throughout this province. 4 Chartres was b u i l t from 1194-1220, a remarkably short bu i ld ing period of less than t h i r t y years. Bourges, although somewhat slower, was also completed in a reasonable period of approximately s ixty years (1195-1255). ^Although the extent of the diocese is not prec ise ly known, the province of Berry probably corresponded roughly to the present departments of the Cher and the Indre and i t was within these l imi t s that the chapter of St. Etienne possessed i t s lands. See Genevieve Boutault^ Les domaines du chapitre de Bourges au d^but de XIII—  s iec le (Par i s : Edit ions Proba, 1942), p. 16. ^Robert Branner, La cathedrale de Bourges et sa place dans 1 'archi tecture gothique (Par is : Edit ions Tardy, 1962), pp. 15-16. A deta i led summary of the h i s tory of Bourges is contained in pp. 13-24 of the above mongraph of the b u i l d i n g . ^ I n the twelfth century Berry was r e - a l l i e d with the crown having been the f i e f of a powerful baron. It was the f i r s t province reunited with the royal domain and by 1230 i t was completely within the dependency of the king; there were only a few small seigneuries remaining and these paid tr ibute to the king as feudal l o r d . Boutault , p. 15. 8 Robert Branner and Robert Gauchery, "La cathe-e e drale de Bourges aux XI et XII s i ec l e s ," B u l l e t i n monu- mental , CXI (1953), 106-107. This a r t i c l e gives a deta i led archaeological discussion of pre-Gothic structures on the s i te of Bourges Cathedral . - 12 -Branner and Gauchery have concluded that the pre-1195 cathedral did not extend beyond the Gallo-Roman wall which l i e s beneath the ex is t ing s tructure , crossing the bui ld ing at the f i r s t s traight bays west of the hemicycle, because royal consent to construct beyond the wall was only granted 1 n 1 18 The cathedral of Bourges was rebu i l t in the eleventh century and, in 1172, plans were made to aggrandize the west facade; these may or may not have been f u l l y rea l i zed when the decis ion to rebui ld was made in 1195. 9 Robert Branner's monograph on Bourges is the most comprehensive to date; in i t , Branner has c l e a r l y and convincingly outl ined a sequence of construction at Bourges which has not been s i g n i f i c a n t l y challenged. An abbreviated summary of the progression of work follows; for greater d e t a i l , see Branner, La cathedrale de Bourges, pp. 29-72; a lso , Robert Branner, " ' F a b r i c a , ' 'opus, ' and the Dating of Medieval Monuments," Ge s t a, 15 (1976), 27-30. Campaign 1: Chevet -c.1195-c.T205: crypt , ambulatories, and f i r s t s traight bays of the choir up to the l eve l of the middle vau l t s . -c.1202-c.1208: exterior and i n t e r i o r a i s les of the choir up to the middle vau l t s , including a l l middle vaults of the choir . -c.1209-c.1214: high t r i f o r ium, high windows, and main vaults of the cho ir . Campaign 2: Nave and Facade - c . 1225: beginning of work on the exterior a i s les . -c.1228-c.1230: beginning of facade, - c . 1235 a i s les . -c . 1245 vessel . -c . 1255 beginning of work on the i n t e r i o r beginning of work on the central completion of the major part of the nave and facade. '^Al lan Temko, Notre-Dame of Paris (London: Seeker and Warburg, 1956), p. 142. ''whitney Stoddard, Art and Architecture in Medieval France (New York: Harper and Row, 1972), p. 147 . - 13 -12 Laon was b u i l t in several campaigns from the late 1150's through the beginning of the thirteenth century. Stoddard, Art and Archi tec ture , p. 120. Noyon was b u i l t from c.1145 - c.1205. Charles Seymour J r . , Notre-Dame of Noyon in the Twelfth Century:  A Study in the Early Development of Gothic Architecture (New Haven: Yale Univers i ty Press, 1939), p. 67. 1 3 John James, Chartres : The Masons Who Bui l t a Legend (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul , 1982), p. 5 . 1 4 Guillaume's background is uncertain but, according to Baluze and the compilers of the G a l l i a C h r i s t - iana, he was a brother of Guy and Pierre de Dongeon, and a son of the Count of C o r b e i l . See Branner, La cathedrale  de Bourges , p. 18, n. 4 . '^From 1210 - 1217, Gerard de Cros was archbishop of Bourges but very l i t t l e is known of him and his period in o f f i c e . Branner, La cathedrale de Bourges, p. 19. '^Branner, La cathedrale de Bourges, p. 20. - 23 . '^Branner, La cathldrale de Bourges, pp. 22 Stoddard, Art and Archi tec ture , p. 137. 1 9 Amedee Boinet, La cathedrale de Bourges (Paris : Pet i tes Monographies des Grands Edi f i ce s de la France, 1952) , pp. 6 - 7 . In his monograph, Branner considered a master common to Paris and Bourges but u l t imate ly abandoned the theory since he f irmly bel ieved that the Bourges Master hai led from the Aisne Val ley and not from P a r i s . (Branner, L a  cathedrale de Bourges, p. 23.) I believe that a re la t ionsh ip between the two archi tects as close as that suggested by Boinet is highly u n l i k e l y . The Paris archi tect of c. 1180 - 1200 had to deal with the problem of unstable upper reaches of the b u i l d i n g ; he did so by adding exterior f l y ing buttresses in a somewhat hes i tant , although successful manner. The confidence with which the Bourges s t ruc tura l system was executed suggests that someone with an acute engineering ins t inc t looked at P a r i s , then proceeded to create his own design, f u l l y explo i t ing the potent ia l of the f l y i n g buttress and improving on i t s form as a supporting member. - 14 -20 In the twelfth century, t a l l bui ldings were supported by a tribune construction method. Vaulted g a l -l e r i e s atop the side a i s les provided support for the nave vau l t s . P a r i s , Laon, and Noyon were a l l b u i l t with vaulted tribunes . 2 1 Bourges as part of the ancient t r a d i t i o n of stepped section bui ldings is discussed in Pierre H e l i o t , "La famil le monumentale de la cathedrale de Bourges," Gedenkschrift Ernst Gal l (Deutscher Kunstverlag, 1965), pp. 143-170. 22 For a complete and detai led descr ipt ion of the progression of work at Chartres , see John James, Th e  Contractors of Chartres (Wyong: Mandorla Publ i ca t ions , 1981). 23 For a discussion of Chartres as a pilgrimage and scholast ic centre, see Otto von Simson, The Gothic  Cathedral: Origins of Gothic Architecture and the Medieval  Concept of Order (New York: Pantheon Books, 1962), pp. 160-166 & 188-210. Chartres has been viewed as an important centre of learning as well as a pilgrimage s i te but this has also been disputed. See R.W. Southern, "Humanism and the School of Chartres ," Medieval Humanism and Other Studies (Oxford: Bas i l Black-well , 1 970 ) , pp. 6 1-85 . 24 Jean Bony, French Gothic Architecture of  the 12th and 13th Centuries (Berkeley: Univers i ty of C a l i f o r n i a Press, 1983), p. 220. 25 Bony, French Gothic Arch i tec ture , p. 202. H e l i o t , pp. 143-170. 2 7 George Henderson, Chart res (Penguin Books, 1968) , p. 1 1 1 . - 1 5 Chapter 2: The Integri ty of Form, Structure and Space  in the Design of Bourges Cathedral Passing through any of Bourges' entrances, the viewer is assaulted, not only by the enormous height and breadth of i t s i n t e r i o r but, above a l l , by the pronounced homogeneity of i t s space. ( F i g . 17) Bourges embodies a uni f ied spat ia l conception which is simple in i t s overa l l v i sua l e f fec t , but complex in i t s in t erre la t ionsh ip with the bu i ld ing ' s formal and s t ruc tura l elements. This i n t e r -dependence of components supports a global view of the bu i ld ing in which each element is considered, not for i t s ind iv idua l q u a l i t i e s , but as part of a comprehensive arch i t ec tura l scheme. The f loor plan, e levat ion , pier design, vaul t ing system, and exterior massing have often been viewed i n d i v i d u a l l y and consequently overlooked as r e l i c s of the past or as design inconsistencies when, in fact , each has a s ign i f i cant role in creating the b u i l d -ing's spat ia l complexion. In plan, Bourges is deceptively simple and uncluttered, cons is t ing of a transeptless central vesse l , flanked by double a i s les which extend around the east end as a double ambulatory.' (F ig . 51) The or ig ins of Bourges' plan have most frequently been traced to Paris - 16 -since both bui ldings are f i v e - a i s l e d and have no s ign i f i cant 2 project ions beyond the ir continuous out l ines . (F igs . 2, 4) Amedee Boinet correc t ly states that the two bui ldings 3 "offer certa in analogies, e spec ia l ly in p lan ," but one major feature separates the two plans, the importance of which Boinet neglects to note: Paris has a transept (a lbe i t non-projecting) and Bourges does not. Boinet says of Bourges, "the double side a i s les reign throughout 4 the length, as at Notre-Dame . . . in Paris" when, in fact , the double a i s les at Notre-Dame are broken mid-length by the transept, a s i gn i f i cant feature in an otherwise homogeneous f loor plan. The fact that the designer of Bourges omitted a transept from his scheme reveals his interest in an uninterrupted progression from end to end which i s , in turn, related to his concentration on spat ia l u n i f i c a t i o n in the bui ld ing as a whole.^ As impressive as the s i m p l i c i t y of the plan is i t s d i s t i n c t i v e spareness which re f l ec t s the material economy of the ent ire b u i l d i n g . The piers are round and slender,^ and they alternate between major and minor to accommodate the s ix -part vau l t s . Furthermore, the lack of a transept obviates the need for large crossing p i er s , so the pier cadence is continuous along the length of the b u i l d i n g , contr ibut ing to the marked regu lar i ty of the plan. The exterior buttresses are extremely l i g h t , e spec ia l ly compared to a contemporary bu i ld ing such as Chartres where the more massive pier buttresses contrast with the r e l a t i v e l y l ight i n t e r i o r p iers .^ The proport ional re la t ionship between mass and space in the plan of Bourges indicates a preponderance of voids which is c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the bui ld ing as a whole. It does not, however, reveal the complexity of i t s spat ia l in terp lay . As is apparent in plan, Bourges is composed of three p r i n c i p a l spat ia l volumes with those of the nave nested within the successively shorter inner and outer 8 a i s l e s . Perceptible only in three dimensions, however, is the manner in which the volumes communicate. Each unit of space is open to i t s neighbours by way of the ample arcades which separate the a i s les from each other and from the nave. The towering main arcade reveals the volumes of the very t a l l inner a i s l e which, in turn, are open to the shortest volumes of the outer a i s l e . The gradation in height from outer a i s l e to inner a i s l e , to nave, coupled with the cont inuity of the bu i ld ing from end to end, means that a l l volumes are both phys ica l ly and v i s u a l l y contiguous, creating an effect of spa t ia l amplitude and homogeneity. - 18 -The extent to which the Bourges arch i t ec t ' s concern for space inspired his design has been large ly neglected, p a r t i c u l a r l y by early historiographers of the bu i ld ing who^ instead, emphasize the influence of Notre-Dame in Paris on Bourges. In the f i r s t ed i t ion of his monograph on Bourges, Boinet suggests that the designer of Bourges should have attempted to make more proport ional the r e l a t i o n -ship between the width of the inner ambulatory and i t s height. He feels that the hemicycle bays are too narrow, creating a compressed effect in the t r i for ium and c l eres tory . (F igs . 10, 25) Furthermore, due to the inevi table wedge shape of the bays, the intercolumniation of the piers between the ambulatories is greater than that of the hemi-cycle p i er s , proh ib i t ing an enlargement of the depth of the inner ambulatory. The Paris design represents for 9 Boinet a "much more elegant and clever solution" to the problem of the wedge-shaped bay since by doubling the number of piers between the two ambulatories, the designer was able to give the bays of the hemicycle the same width as those of the n a v e . ( F i g . 4) Although the Paris arrange-ment is indeed ingenious, i t was not compatible with the Bourges designer's object ives . Boinet neglected to consider the spat ia l implicat ions of doubling the number of piers between the ambulatories, suggesting instead that the - 19 -designer was obl iv ious to possible d i f f i c u l t i e s with his choice of d e s i g n . ' ' In fact , the introduct ion of a second set of piers would disrupt the close re la t ionship between volumes which was central to Bourges' spat ia l conception. S i m i l a r l y , Bourges' rounded east end was a function of the designer's spat ia l conception and not, as Paul Frankl suggests, a sign of the bu i ld ing ' s a f f i l i a t i o n with Paris and with t r a d i t i o n . Frankl states that "by comparison with the polygonal choir at Chartres , i t (Bourges 1 1 2 rounded east end) is d e f i n i t e l y conservative." Certa in ly with respect to the var ie ty and arrangement of spat ia l volumes, Bourges represents a sharp contrast to Chartres where the greater number of spat ia l types and their more elaborate configuration emphasize the east end of the b u i l d i n g . From the transept eastward, Chartres' simple, three-a i s led nave expands into a complex arrangement of f ive a i s les and three sizes of chapels, arranged in an A - B - C - B - C - B - A pattern around the outer ambulatory. The round e1eventh-century crypt chapels were transformed into polygonal chapels in the thirteenth-century upper cho ir , resu l t ing in a faceted choir outl ine which has been viewed as highly innovative in contrast to the somewhat d r i e r , more austere rounded east end of Bourges. In fact , Chartres ' chapels represent a firm gesture towards t r a d i t i o n - 20 -1 3 since they echo those of Bishop Fulber t ' s b u i l d i n g , c.1020, although the ir polygonal form represents a s i gn i f i cant modif icat ion of the e a r l i e r rounded design. Furthermore, the Bourges designer's se lect ion of a continuous semi-c i r c u l a r out l ine resulted from his envisioning the i n t e r i o r of the bu i ld ing as a care fu l ly orchestrated arrangement of three spec i f i c volumes, enclosed within the continuous, rounded contour of the east end. The complexity of the design of Chartres provided more varied l i t u r g i c a l spaces than that of Bourges and, because of the more spec i f i c separation of i t s spaces, the bu i ld ing may be described as funct ional ly h i e r a r c h i c a l ; the nave, which normally housed the l a i t y , is separated from the arch i t ec tura l choir of the bu i ld ing by a prominent zone of t r a n s i t i o n cons is t ing of the transept and crossing bay. Although the a r c h i t e c t u r a l and l i t u r g i c a l choirs of a bu i ld ing did not necessari ly correspond, formal elements such as a transept provided a v i s u a l , i f not an actual funct ional d i s t i n c t i o n between the lay and c l e r i c a l portions of the b u i l d i n g . Due to the absence of a transept at Bourges and to i t s general lack of d i s t i n c t spaces, the assigning of function to the various areas of the bu i ld ing is more d i scret ionary and even arb i t rary than at Chartres . Since there is no a r c h i t e c t u r a l choir at Bourges, and space in the bu i ld ing is consequently open throughout i t s length and breadth, congregational and l i t u r g i c a l zones are phys ica l ly undi f ferent ia ted , the ir de l imi ta t ion being determined sole ly by actual use. The ease of communication between one area and the next at Bourges is a function of the bu i ld ing ' s i n t e r i o r e levat ion which is t echnica l ly three-s tor ied , consis t ing of a main arcade, a t r i f o r i u m , and a r e l a t i v e l y 1 4 short c l eres tory . In accordance with the lo f ty inner a i s l e , Bourges' main arcades are extremely t a l l (approx-imately 18 metres'"*), f i r s t l y to allow complete v i sua l access to the a i s les and secondly, to frame what i s , in e f fect , another three-story e levat ion of the inner a i s l e . ( F i g . 14) In this way, the e levat ion acquires five separate levels in three planes for an effect of simultaneous m u l t i -p l i c i t y and uni ty , the importance of which has been neglected by observers such as Robert de Las teyr i e , who c r i t i c i z e the proportions of the e levat ion . De Lasteyrie suggests that the main arcades of Bourges' e levat ion are dispropor-t ionate ly high and that the t r i for ium and c lerestory are 1 6 d isproport ionate ly short . Although further on, he q u a l i -f ies his statement by admitting that the high main arcades allowed the bui lder to create a secondary e levat ion in the inner a i s l e , he completely ignores the spat ia l impl i ca -- 22 -tions of the arrangement of the e levat ion . In fact , he is not so much concerned with the e levat ion as part of the macrocosm, but as a microcosm with several diverse components, a character izat ion bel ied by i t s integrat ion into the ent irety of the b u i l d i n g . In fact , i t is the multiplanar effect of the e levat ion which most profoundly affects the configuration of space in the bu i ld ing by es tabl i sh ing the cont igui ty of i t s volumes. This staggering of the e levat ion also creates an element of tension between i ts planar and spat ia l aspects. The re la t ionsh ip between the two elevations and the spaces which they del imit is not immediately apparent Ass i s t ing in the comprehension of the e levat ion is i t s r e p e t i t i o n of elements; a l l three s tories of the nave e levat ion are repeated in that of the inner a i s l e , f a c i l i -tat ing the concurrent reading of space and mass by ind icat ing the presence of two complete e levat ions . P a r t i c u l a r l y important in this respect i f the t r i for ium since i t repre-sents a compound zone of masonry and space'^ which acts as a point of reference in the e levat ion . As the dark intermediate zone in both e levat ions , the presence of the t r i f o r i u m in two planes is made readi ly apparent by i t s a l ternat ion with the three l ight zones. ( F i g . 17) As a band of space e n c i r c l i n g the bu i ld ing at two l eve l s , - 23 -i t also provides an element of long i tudina l cont inuity in the b u i l d i n g . ( F i g . 16) Each t r i for ium bay consists of a narrow corr idor of space sandwiched between an outer wall and a band of arches and covered by a broad longi tudina l r e l i e v i n g arch which s t a b i l i z e s the length of the b u i l d i n g . The t r i for ium bays are connected throughout the perimeter 1 8 of the bui ld ing by passages through the main p i er s . The designs of the i n t e r i o r t r i for ium column screens correlate the spat ia l and aesthetic roles of the t r i f o r i a by making v i s i b l e the passage behind and underl ining the v i sua l effect of the mu1ti-storied e levat ion . In the nave e levat ion of the hemicycle, the t r i f o r i u m consists of four t a l l , narrow arches beneath an even t a l l e r r e l i e v i n g arch ( F i g . 25); between the summits of the lower arches and the r e l i e v i n g arch is a blank tympanum. Due to the narrow wedge shape of the hemicycle bays, the bays of the a i s l e e levat ion are wider, and each t r i for ium has six arches surmounted by a r e l i e v i n g arch. ( F i g . 18) From the nave and cho ir , only the four central arches of the secondary t r i for ium are v i s i b l e , the outer two being obscured by the hemicycle p i er s , so that the nave and a i s l e e levat ion t r i f o r i a in the hemicycle appear more s imi lar than they are in fact ( F i g . 17); this r epe t i t i on of seemingly i d e n t i c a l components unites the two elevations - 24 -and simultaneously sharpens the viewer's awareness that indeed the e levat ion exists in mult iple planes. The straight bays of the nave e levat ion are somewhat d i f ferent since they are the same width as the a i s l e bays, and the inner a i s l e e levation is consequently more v i s i b l e from the central space of the bui ld ing than the inner ambulatory e levat ion . The t r i for ium of the nave e levat ion consists of four central arches of equal height, flanked by two shorter ones and surmounted by a r e l i e v i n g arch. ( F i g . 26) With a to ta l of four arches, the t r i f o r i u m of the a i s l e e levation repeats only the central port ion of the nave e levat ion t r i f o r i u m design, omitting the shorter side arches. ( F i g . 27) As with the other elements of the a i s l e e levat ions , this represents a reduction in the proportions of i t s counterpart in the nave in order to accommodate the smaller scale of the second e levat ion . Both the choir and nave t r i f o r i a have large areas of unornamented wall in their designs. In the ear l i e s t portions of the bu i ld ing (the hemicycle and f i r s t straight 1 9 bays), the spandrels of the r e l i e v i n g arches are blank, suggesting a f i l i a t i o n with the o r i g i n a l e levat ion of Notre-Dame in P a r i s , in which murality played a s ign i f i cant 2 0 r o l e . ( F i g . 41) In fact , the mural treatment of the - 25 -t r i f o r i u m spandrels at Bourges is quite unl ike that of P a r i s , and i t is s t r i c t l y confined to this zone of the e levat ion . Whereas in the cathedral of P a r i s , sections of unadorned wall separate the s tor ies of the e levat ion , the three levels of the Bourges e levat ion are very c lose ly spaced with the summits of each of the f i r s t and second leve l arches almost reaching the base of the story above. Further , the mural zones in the Paris e levat ion give a greater impression of thickness , suggesting a considerable 2 1 amount of stone in the wal l s . At the ga l lery l e v e l , the r e l i e v i n g arches of the openings are deep and their spandrels are recessed, causing the arch to cast a heavy shadow and the thickness of the wall to be readi ly apparent. The treatment of the t r i for ium designs at Bourges d i f f er s in both role and appearance from the gal lery zone at P a r i s . Whereas the Paris ga l l e r i e s are necessari ly massive due to the ir v i t a l role in the s t a b i l i t y of the 22 b u i l d i n g , the Bourges t r i for ium is less c r u c i a l s t ruc tur-a l l y and could be made much l i g h t e r . The r e l i e v i n g arches are v i s u a l l y no more than heavy moldings and the thinness of the wall i t s e l f is apparent so that the t r i f o r i u m arcade acts simply as a screen. Augmenting the screen- l ike effect of the t r i for ium - 26 -walls is the treatment of the r e l i e v i n g arches in r e l a t i o n 23 to the p iers ; in most cases, the pier overlaps the r e l i e v i n g arch as i f i t were grasping the t r i for ium w a l l . ( F i g . 25) The inner torus of the r e l i e v i n g arch is received by a narrow colonnette, while the outer torus of the arch runs d i r e c t l y into the side of the pier colonnette, appearing to go behind i t ; this design gives the entire t r i f o r i u m zone a membranous appearance, l ike a web of 24 stone stretched between the p i e r s . The v e r t i c a l and spat ia l coherence provided by the repe t i t i on of t r i f o r i a in the e levat ion is comple-mented by the ir a l t ernat ion with three glazed areas. The nave e levat ion c l eres tory , the inner a i s l e c l eres tory , and the outer a i s l e windows are separated by the two t r i for ium zones, producing an a l ternat ion of dark and l ight and a pronounced rhythm in each elevation bay. Light is admitted through the three glazed levels and is diffused in shafts throughout the bui ld ing due to the openness of volumes. ( F i g . 29) This results- in a d i v i s i o n of the volumes into blocks of a l ternate ly i l l u m i -nated and dark space, stacked one atop the other and makes clear the presence of the f ive stories of the eleva-t ion in three planes. - 27 -This marks a d i s t i n c t difference from some e a r l i e r elevations which are, by comparison, largely removed from the spat ia l aspects of the bu i ld ings . For example, the elevation of Paris is composed of moldings, shafts , and openings but i t s impact on the spat ia l aspects of the bu i ld ing is l i m i t e d . ( F i g . 41) The e levat ion obscures the l ight from the peripheral glazed areas so i t reaches 25 the nave in a highly diss ipated form, contr ibut ing very l i t t l e i l luminat ion to the central space of the bu i ld ing to model the elements. Although the form of the piers and shafts affects the character of the space, the elevation as a whole del imits and contains the nave, segregating i t from the outer zones of the b u i l d i n g . In contrast , Bourges' t r i p l a n a r , care fu l ly modulated e levat ion is an integral element of the bu i ld ing ' s spat ia l conf igurat ion . It establishes a complex interpene-t ra t ion of spa t ia l volumes by i t s d i s t r i b u t i o n over several planes, by i t s being pierced with large openings, and by the height of i t s very slender p i er s . Bourges' piers are a l l s imi lar in form: round and proportionately slender with narrow, coursed colonnettes. On the nave s ide, a l l piers have three i d e n t i c a l shafts up to the springing of the main arcades; on the a i s l e and east and west s ides , smaller shafts alternate with larger . Above the main - 28 -arcades, the piers alternate between three and five colon-nettes to accommodate the addi t ional r ibs of the s ix -part vau l t s . (F ig . 12) Although the actual circumference of the piers also varies due to the s ix -part vau l t s , the difference in size between major and minor piers is suf-2 6 f i c i e n t l y s l ight that they appear i d e n t i c a l . ( F i g . 11) Combined with the slender proportions of both shaft to core and pier diameter to pier height, this s i m i l a r i t y injects a powerful v e r t i c a l thrust into the nave. The t a l l , narrow colonnettes accentuate the towering height of the main arcade, and the roundness of the pier invi tes the viewer to look beyond i t , into the peripheral areas of the b u i l d i n g . The v e r t i c a l i t y of Bourges' nave is achieved by the non-a l ternat ing , very t a l l piers although the designer alternated the upper portions to accommodate the two fewer r ibs on the minor piers due to the s ix-part vaul t ing system. This combined use of a l ternat ing and non-a1ternating pier designs raises one of the most d i f f i c u l t , but perhaps also one of the most reveal ing questions about Bourges: since the a l ternat ion of the pier designs was c l ear ly not e s sent ia l , why were s ix-part vaults used when the bui lder could as eas i ly have employed the increas ingly more fashionable four-part type, thereby reta in ing a non-- 29 -a l ternat ing design throughout the elevation? A feature common to the two major French bui ldings of the 1 19 0 * s is a d i s t i n c t i o n between vault form and pier design. The t r a d i t i o n a l juxtaposit ions of s ix -part vaul t ing systems with a l ternat ing p i er s , and four-part vaults with non-alternating piers are modified at Bourges and Chartres to effect subtle changes in the spat ia l charac-ter of the bu i ld ings . At Bourges the r s ix -part vault is combined with a p a r t i a l l y non-alternat ing design ( F i g . 11), while at Chartres the four-part vaults are supported by a l ternate ly round-cored, octagonal-shafted and octagonal-cored, round-shafted p i e r s . ( F i g . 33) Thus, although the v i sua l effect of the re la t ionsh ip between vault form and pier design is d i f ferent in each b u i l d i n g , both Chartres and Bourges manifest a wi l l ingness on the part of the ir bui lders to break with conventional p ier -vau l t combinations 27 in order to achieve a desired e f fect . Bourges' s ix -part vaul t ing system has most often been viewed in i s o l a t i o n , and is consequently seen as an archaism adopted from P a r i s . (F igs . 10, 12) Louis 2 8 Grodecki c a l l s the nave vaul t ing "archaica l ly sexpartite" while Paul Frankl states that Bourges' ". . . imitat ion of the sexpartite vault of the Par i s ian model" is "con-- 30 -2 9 servative;" and although Jean Bony admits that "the sexpartite vaults of Bourges have none of the spec i f i c features which characterize the Par i s ian style of sexpartite v a u l t i n g , " he believes that they ". . . s t i l l re f l ec t a turn of mind current in the period when Notre-Dame 30 was designed." Although to varying degrees these scholars recognize Bourges' outstanding q u a l i t i e s , a l l three suggest that the designer of the bui ld ing was conservative by nature and was therefore reluctant to adopt such elements as quadripart i te vaul t ing which had become fashionable 3 1 by the end of the twelfth century. However, the p a r t i c u l a r use of the vaults at Bourges and the configuration of i t s piers indicate that the designer was not only well aware of the effects of quadripart i te vaul t ing systems, but that he was also able to incorporate certa in of these effects into his s ix -part system. With their slender, sharply pro f i l ed r ibs and de l icate bosses, the nave vaults propel the viewer eastward. The tendency to c e n t r a l i t y within each vaul t ing unit is reduced by the pier design which mimics that of a four-part system in i t s subdued a l t e r n a t i o n . Furthermore, each vault embraces two units of the e levat ion , rendering the bay d e f i n i t i o n equivocal . The use of sexpartite vaults did not confine the designer of Bourges to an outmoded pier and elevat ion form; rather , - 3 1 -i t provided him with an opportunity to redefine the r e l a t i o n -ship between vau l t , p i e r , and elevation and, in turn, the entire Early Gothic notion of space. The form of Chartres' p i l i e r cantonne made 3 2 a resounding arch i t ec tura l statement yet i t s a l ternat ion of design affirmed the bu i ld ing ' s t r a d i t i o n a l a l l i a n c e s . The four heavy, c a r d i n a l l y - o r i e n t e d , coursed shafts on each pier re inforce the primary axes of the bu i ld ing and d e f i n i t i v e l y separate the nave into a series of eas i ly l e g i b l e , se l f -contained bay un i t s . At Bourges, the piers are not employed as d iv id ing elements; without a transept, their repe t i t i on down the length of the nave is unbroken and the elegant v e r t i c a l i t y of their slender shafts cer ta in ly affects the space of the b u i l d i n g , but the piers do not unequivocally delineate the bay un i t . ( F i g . 10) Whereas at Chartres , the bay is defined by strong, p l a s t i c piers and reinforced by the corresponding four-part vaults (F igs . 30, 33), at Bourges each vault encompasses two v i r t u a l l y undif ferent iated lower e levat ion un i t s , resu l t ing in a degree of tension between the bay as defined by the lower p i e r s , and by the upper piers and corresponding vau l t s . The slender r ibs and elegant diagonal t ra jec tor i e s of the vaults reduce - 32 -the impact of the c e n t r a l i t y inherent in the s ix -part 33 form and provide a long i tudina l element of v i sua l continu-i t y . The result is a subtly suggested bay which permits the expansion of v i s i o n into the peripheral zones and provides an impetus to i n i t i a l l y experience the ent irety of the bu i ld ing and then to break i t into i t s constituent elements. In contrast , the i n t e r i o r of Chartres is under-stood on the basis of the ind iv idua l bay u n i t . This contrast in approach to the i n t e r i o r spaces of Chartres and Bourges also applies to the ir external forms. The exter ior of Chartres consists of a series of d i s t i n c t l y defined elements whereas Bourges has f i r s t a s ing le , uni f ied contour,. Although in both bu i ld ings , the f l y i n g buttress was e f f ec t i ve ly employed as a s t ruc tura l t o o l , i t s v i sua l effect is markedly d i f ferent at Chartres and Bourges. Chartres ' f lyers and pier buttresses are massive, c l e a r l y separating one bay from the next. At Bourges, the f lyers and pier buttresses are much l i g h t e r ; although they delineate the exter ior bay, the ins i s tent repe t i t i on of the ir slender pro f i l e s throughout the length of the bu i ld ing i n i t i a l l y concentrates attent ion on the who 1e. Chartres is a complex agglomeration of r i c h l y 34 varied shapes and s i lhouet tes . Its transept features - 33 -as prominently on the exterior as i t does inside the b u i l d -ing, segregating the nave and cho ir . To i t s west, the nave stands as a series of bays, each c l ear ly set off by the s t ruc tura l members. East of the transept, the number and var ie ty of forms is mul t ip l i ed in the elabo-rate configuration of chapels and ambulatories. In contrast to this d i v e r s i t y of forms, Bourges consists of only three uninterrupted volumes throughout i t s length, made v i s u a l l y cohesive by the s t ruc tura l mem-bers. The t a l l e s t nave volume is surrounded by the two a i s l e and ambulatory volumes in a stepped arrangement. Bony correc t ly remarks that this ^regular, three- t i ered arrangement of Bourges' exter ior is s imi lar to the east ends of several twelfth century tribune churches such as Noyon ( F i g . 8) and P a r i s , an a f f i l i a t i o n which contributes to a misjudgement of the i n t e r i o r configuration on f i r s t 35 sight of the ex ter ior . Perhaps expecting a bu i ld ing with stronger Par i s ian a l l i a n c e s , the viewer experiences something en t i re ly d i f ferent upon entering. The designer of Bourges was well acquainted with the outer appearance of a tribune church and was able to use this knowledge to his advantage, but this does not, as Bony suggests, 3 6 necessari ly place Bourges in "an older world." The exter ior of Bourges is arranged as i t i s , not because - 34 -the master was c l ing ing to t r a d i t i o n a l forms, but because the three levels were ideal for his purposes. The uninter-rupted t r i p a r t i t e exterior contour was not ul t imately the result of the a r c h i t e c t ' s supposed conservative bent; instead, i t hinged on the i n t e r i o r spat ia l configuration of the b u i l d i n g . These exterior volumes enclose a space which corresponds prec i se ly to the ir uninterrupted t r i p l e -t iered arrangement, making the exterior and i n t e r i o r of the bu i ld ing c lose ly correlated and eas i ly l eg ib le in r e l a t i o n to each other. The exterior appears l ike a s h e l l , an enormous vessel to contain space. Whereas the space of many bu i ld ings , including Chartres and the choir of St. Denis, is expanded outside the p r i n c i p a l contours by chapels and transepts , Bourges' space expands within the d i s t i n c t out l ine of the bu i ld ing and is a simple progres-sion from shorter to t a l l e r volumes, or vice versa, depending on one's standpoint within the b u i l d i n g . This correspondence between the exterior and i n t e r i o r of Bourges is c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of a l l aspects of the b u i l d i n g . The sense of homogeneity at Bourges is due in part to the designer's extraordinary spa t ia l concep-t ion but also to the bu i ld ing ' s interdependence of compo-nents. It is the in tegr i ty with which a l l elements within the bui ld ing were conceived and executed which large ly - 35 -creates the uni f ied v i s i o n we experience at Bourges. - 36 -NOTES - Chapter 2 The five n i che - l ike chapels which surround the rounded east end of the bui ld ing were not part of the o r i g i n a l design, having been added sometime after the i n i t i a t i o n of construct ion . They do not project beyond the l imi t s of the exter ior pier buttresses , providing only a minor v i sua l d i srupt ion to the exter ior contour of the bu i ld ing which remains v i r t u a l l y intact and the plan highly integrated. See Buhot de Kersers , pp. 417-30. There is a small porch on each of the north and south flanks of Bourges which include remnants of the previous bu i ld ing but, l ike the chapels, they do not s i g n i f i c a n t l y disrupt the contour of the b u i l d i n g . For a discussion of the porches and their por ta l s , see Robert Branner, "Les p o r t a i l s lateraux de la cathedrale de Bourges," B u l l e t i n  monumental, 115 (1957), 263-70. 2 P a r i s ' transept was extended in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries with the addit ion of chapels between the exter ior buttresses (Temko, p. 117) and, in fact , neither Bourges nor Paris remains uninterrupted in contour to this day, but both were o r i g i n a l l y so intended. 3 Boinet, 1952 , p . 7 . 4 Boinet, 1952 , p . 29 . ^The decis ion to omit a transept from the design may also have been related to other considerations; in any event, i t must cer ta in ly have had l i t u r g i c a l implicat ions at least as s i gn i f i cant as i t s aesthetic e f fect . For further discuss ion of these issues, see chapter 5. ^The piers at Chartres are s l i g h t l y heavier than those of Bourges (1.8 m in diameter compared to 1.6 at Bourges) but both bui ldings have very l ight piers con-s ider ing the height of the structures they support. What is remarkable about Bourges is the proportion of pier height (top of base to bottom of c a p i t a l from which spring the main arcades) to pier diameter; the "slenderness rat io" at Bourges is 9.3 (pier height divided by pier diameter) compared to 4.4 at Chartres . Bourges' piers - 37 -are much narrower in r e l a t i o n to their height than those of Chartres . See Robert Mark, "Structural Experimentation in Gothic Arch i t ec ture ," American Sc ient i s t LXVI, No. 5 (Sept/Oct, 1978), p. 544. ^Each of the exterior pier buttresses at Bourges weighs approximately 400,000 kg. (880,000 l b s . ) in contrast to those at Chartres weighing about 1 m i l l i o n kg. (2.2 m i l l i o n l b s . ) . See Robert Mark, Experiments in Gothic Structure (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1982), p . 36 . g Usual ly , chapels would be considered as a fourth type but at Bourges they are very small and were not part of the o r i g i n a l design (see n. 1) so they do not const i tute a separate volume. At Chartres , the chapels are a s ign i f i cant type of volume since they actual ly create an expansion of the ambulatory space at the east end of the b u i l d i n g . Boinet, La cathedrale de Bourges, (Par is : Pet i tes Monographies des Grandes Edi f i ces de la France, 1910), p. 50 . 1 0 B o i n e t , 1910, p. 50. Boinet states that the Paris hemicycle bays are equal in width to those of the nave but this is not quite correct . The hemicycle bays are, in fact , s l i g h t l y narrower than those of the nave . 1 1 Boinet , 19 10, p. 50. 1 2 F r a n k l , p. 83. 1 3 James, Chartres: The Masons, p. 9. 1 4 The proportions of Chartres' main arcade to t r i for ium to c leres tory are approximately 3:1:3; the same proportions at Bourges are approximately 4:1:2. '^Grodecki, p. 137. '^Robert de L a s t e y r i e , L 'arch i t ec ture re l ig ieuse  en France a l'epoque gothique, ed. M. Aubert, 2nd ed. , V . I (Par is : A. P i card) , p. 91. ' ^The main arcades are pr imari ly apertures and the c l eres tor i e s pr imar i ly l ight zones; the t r i f o r i u m - 38 -on the other hand, is a dark zone of masonry and space. 1 8 For a complete discussion of the form and function of Bourges' t r i f o r i u m , including a descr ipt ion of the differences between the construction of the upper and lower l eve l s , see Branner, La cathedrale de Bourges, pp. 80-86; see also Jean Bony's review of the above book in Art B u l l e t i n , 47 (1965), 521-25. 1 9 See n. 9, Chapter 1. 20 In the o r i g i n a l four-story e levat ion of P a r i s , the openings are surrounded by sections of unadorned w a l l , giving the f la t surface of the wall a de f in i te presence in the b u i l d i n g . The designer did not attempt to void the wall as much as possible but used i t s murality to his advant age . 2 1 Although techno log ica l ly , the g a l l e r i e d con-s truct ion of Paris cannot be compared with the structure of Bourges (see n. 22), i t is v i s u a l l y much more mural and massive than Bourges. 2 2 The tribune story of a g a l l e r i e d church is an integral part of the support system which counteracts the thrust of the nave vau l t s , and so was necessari ly massive, e spec ia l ly in a t a l l bu i ld ing such as P a r i s . The s t ruc tura l role of the t r i f o r i u m is much less c r u c i a l , making i t s structure po tent ia l l y very l i g h t . 2 3 Moving westward in the b u i l d i n g , the piers overlap the r e l i e v i n g arches to a progress ively lesser degree. Eventual ly , at the west end, the r e l i e v i n g arches are en t i re ly received by colonnettes. However, in the i n i t i a l v i s i o n , the piers grasped the r e l i e v i n g arches, evidenced by the t r i f o r i a at the east end of the b u i l d i n g . 2 4 <• . . Jurgen Michler deals extensively with the re la t ionsh ip between the piers and walls at Bourges in his a r t i c l e "Zur Stel lung von Bourges in der gotischen Baukunst," Wa11raf-Richartz Jahrbuch, XLI (1979-80), 27-86. 25 At P a r i s , there are three levels of l ight as at Bourges but the l ight at the ga l l ery leve l comes from outer wall windows and, espec ia l ly i f the glass is dark as at P a r i s , does not s i g n i f i c a n t l y i l luminate the central space of the b u i l d i n g . At Chartres , there are - 39 -only two levels of l i g h t , at the c lerestory leve l and in the a i s l e . 2 ^ Bourges' major piers are 1.59 m in diameter, and the minor piers are 1.27 m. Branner, La cathedrale  de Bourges, p. 80. 2 7 Although Chartres' l imited retention of a l t erna-t ion and Bourges' use of s ix -part vaults may be perceived as gestures toward t r a d i t i o n , both archi tects rejected the t r a d i t i o n a l combinations of vault and pier designs. 2 8 Louis Grodecki, Gothic Archi tec ture , t r a n s l . I . Mark Paris (New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1976), p. 142 . 29 F r a n k l , p. 83. 30 Bony, French Gothic Arch i tec ture , pp. 206-207. 3 1 Jean Bony, "Diagonality and Centra l i ty in Early Rib-Vaulted Arch i t ec ture ," Gesta, XV (1976), p. 25, n. 21. Bony states that with Chartres in 1194, diago-n a l i t y may be said to have "won the day," suggesting that diagonal i ty was the qual i ty of the future and that Chartres ' quadripart i te vaults embodied i t . 3 2 The style of Chartres ' pier form was perpetuated pr imar i ly through i t s fol lowers, Soisson, Amiens, and Reims. It has been suggested that, despite the h i s t o r i o -graphical renown of the p i l i e r cantonne, Bourges' pier form was more s ign i f i cant to the subsequent h is tory of Gothic arch i tec ture . See n. 24. 3 3 See Bony, "Diagonality and C e n t r a l i t y , ' pp. 15-25, for a discussion of the d i f f e r i n g v i sua l effects of various vault forms. 34 This complexity may be p a r t i a l l y due to the h i s tory and construction sequence of the bui ld ing which was i t s e l f highly complex and involved a number of d i f ferent bu i lders . (See James, The Contractors of Chartres ) . However, the f i r s t designer's v i s i o n of the bu i ld ing ' s outl ine was much more varied than that of Bourges. The transept, polygonal chapels, and the form and slope of the f lyers would have created i t s d i s t i n c t i v e s i lhouette despite the h is tory of the b u i l d i n g . - 40 -35 Bony, French Gothic Archi tec ture , p. 207. The exterior forms of Bourges and Paris are not, however, "almost i d e n t i c a l , " as Bony suggested in an e a r l i e r work. (Jean Bony, "Essai sur la s p i r i t u a l i t e de deux cathedrales: Notre-Dame de Paris et St. Etienne de Bourges," Chercher  Dieu, 13 (1943), 162. 3 6 Bony, French Gothic Arch i tec ture , p. 207. - 4 1 -Chapter 3: The Role of Structure in the Vis ion of Bourges To a considerable degree, i t is the use of the f l y ing buttress which dist inguishes the arch i t ec tura l efflorescence of the end of the twelfth century from other of the f l y ing buttress marked a s ign i f i cant advance in s t ruc tura l technology which enormously expanded the range of arch i t ec tura l p o s s i b i l i t i e s and, in his exp lo i ta t ion of this p o t e n t i a l , the designer of Bourges was not unique. ' To approximately the same extent that the v i s i o n of Bourges was a function of late twelfth century s tructura l advances, so was that of Chartres . Paradoxica l ly , however, this feature which most c lose ly unites their designers in motiva-t ion also most d i s t i n c t l y separates the resu l t ing bui ld ings ; both archi tects saw in the f l y ing buttress the opportunity to reformulate the pr inc ip l e s of Early Gothic architecture but their widely d i f f e r i n g s t ruc tura l and aesthetic perspec-t ives produced dramatical ly d i f ferent arch i t ec tura l forms. The use of the f l y ing buttress emancipated the twelfth century e levat ion from the constraints imposed on i t by e a r l i e r bu i ld ing techniques; bui ldings could be made t a l l without the use of tribunes and the three-story outbursts of c r e a t i v i t y in medieval b u i l d i n g . The advent - 42 -elevation gained an ent i re ly new f l e x i b i l i t y . Armed with this knowledge, the designer of Chartres envisioned his cathedral with extremely large c lerestory windows, the ir s i l l s located well below the springing of the vaul t s ; ( F i g . 31) the main arcades were made approximately equal in height to the c lerestory with the short t r i for ium story separating them. The f ly ing buttress enabled the designer of Chartres to reproportion the elevation in order to shape the space of the nave and to increase not only the amount of physical l ight admitted to the b u i l d i n g , but also the area devoted to d idact ic scenes and the amount of transformed "anagogical" l ight which so intoxicated 2 Abbot Suger of St . -Denis in the 1 14 0 ' s . The f l y ing buttress s i m i l a r l y allowed the designer of Bourges to give new form to the space of a very t a l l s tructure . It permitted the enlargement of one story of the elevation so that the i n t e r i o r of the bui ld ing was hollowed out and the exterior became l ike a s h e l l , enclosing the i n t e r i o r space. With the nave vaults s t a b i l -ized from the outside, the i n t e r i o r piers were made daringly slender, the main arcades of unprecedented height, and the spat ia l volumes consequently open to each other. The f ly ing buttress made possible the reproportioned three-- 43 -story elevation which was the key to redefining twelfth century pr inc ip l e s at both Chartres and Bourges. However, at Chartres , the effects of the newly formulated elevation and reconfigured space are concentrated on the i n t e r i o r , whereas the Bourges designer's r e d e f i n i t i o n of the e levat ion incorporated a spec i f i c understanding of the supporting and v i sua l roles of s t ruc tura l members which spawned a t i g h t l y integrated conception of the bu i ld ing ' s exterior and i n t e r i o r . The p r i n c i p a l supporting members on the i n t e r i o r of Bourges are the piers and, on the ex ter ior , the f l y ing buttresses and pier buttresses; ( F i g . 5) together, these three elements const i tute the s t ruc tura l skeleton of the b u i l d i n g . The piers support the main arcades and provide a framework for the e levat ion while the f lyers and pier buttresses transfer the bulk of the thrust of the main vaults to the ground. A l l three s t ruc tura l components are reduced to physical and v i sua l minima. The success of this frugal use of stone was contingent upon the adequacy of the bu i ld ing ' s s t ruc tura l performance. The e f f i c i e n t form of the exterior supporting members made possible the ir own remarkable l ightness; the vault thrust is transmitted v ia the steeply sloped - 44 -f lyers to the pier buttresses and ult imately to the ground. More acutely angled f lyers reduce ,the distance the force of the vaults must t r a v e l , and s t a b i l i z e the head of the 3 pier buttress by the ir greater v e r t i c a l thrust , making possible the employment of exter ior supporting elements which are extremely s l ight r e l a t i v e to the size of the bu i ld ing they uphold. A pier buttress at Bourges weighs approximately 800,000 pounds in contrast to one at Chartres , 4 weighing roughly 2,000,000 pounds, a difference which, despite greater wind loads at Chartres,"' reveals i t s design-er's conservative approach to engineering and makes c lear the s ign i f i cant material and v i sua l economies rea l i zed at Bourges. (F igs . 24, 40) Furthermore, because the f lyers and pier buttresses e f f ec t i ve ly s t a b i l i z e the main vaul t s , the i n t e r i o r piers were permitted to be made extremely slender (just 1.6 m in diameter), despite the height of the main arcades (14.9 m from the top of the base to the bottom of the c a p i t a l ) . ^ Although Chartres has t r a d i t i o n a l l y been viewed as the quintessent ia l High Gothic b u i l d i n g , Bourges' f lyers are unequivocally more e f f i c i e n t , a feature which, con-s ider ing the s imi lar chronology of the two bu i ld ings , prompts a perplexing question: was the designer of Bourges a s u f f i c i e n t l y astute engineer to have understood that - 45 -the design he used was s t r u c t u r a l l y superior , or were his buttresses the result of a fortunate c o l l i s i o n of circumstances? U n t i l quite recent ly , the audacity of the Bourges f lyers was sometimes noted but never well understood. Throughout the 1970's, Robert Mark and several colleagues analysed the s t ruc tura l systems of medieval bui ldings from an engineering perspective. The results of their work provide a strong impetus to look again at Bourges, since they revealed that i t s s t ruc tura l system is superior to that of many other bu i ld ings . The results even seem to indicate that the f i r s t designer of Bourges (that of the east end) ^ was aware of the e f f i c iency of his p a r t i c u l a r design and that he understood the fundamental dynamics and potent ia l implicat ions of the f l y ing buttress . C e r t a i n l y , he was more daring than the subsequent designers of Bourges since the s t ruc tura l members of the east end of the bui ld ing are both l i gh ter and more e f f i c i e n t in transferr ing thrust than those of the nave which were g designed by la ter arch i t ec t s . U n t i l Robert Mark's research, this technical precocity of Bourges' s t ruc tura l system and i t s resu l t ing v i sua l effect were only c u r s o r i l y considered in the b u i l d -ing's h is tor iography. Frankl states unequivocally that the designer of Chartres was the f i r s t to "draw the l o g i c a l - 46 -consequences from the construction of the f l y ing buttres-9 10 ses," an assert ion echoed by de Las teyr ie ; both scholars neglected to note that simultaneously at Bourges, the f l y ing buttress was employed consis tent ly and l o g i c a l l y . (F igs . 23 , 24 ) Says Jean Bony of Bourges: "The great f l y ing buttresses of Bourges were even made to conform to the steep slope of that t iered progression in height, so as not to disturb the s i lhouette of the bui ld ing against the sky ," ' ' c l ear ly ind icat ing his view of the bu i ld ing ' s s tructure; for Bony, the audacity of the f lyers as s tructu-r a l members was not the result of the designer's i n t u i t i o n and s k i l l in matters of engineering, but resulted from his desire to maintain a completely uninterrupted contour. Although indeed, the s t ruc tura l and aesthetic components of Bourges' f lyers are int imately re la ted , the daring material economy of the easternmost pier buttresses and f lyers and the comparatively heavier, less e f f i c i en t nave buttress ing , indicate that the f i r s t Bourges designer had a clear conceptual understanding of the s t ruc tura l dynamics of the f l y ing buttress . The f l y ing buttress affected not only the external form of the bu i ld ing but also i t s in ternal support system and, in turn, the bu i ld ing ' s sect ion. This makes Frankl ' s assertion that "in sect ion, Bourges is i d e n t i c a l with - 47 -1 2 Notre-Dame except that i t has no g a l l e r i e s , " a fundamental misrepresentation of both bu i ld ings . (F igs . 5, 6) Although f ly ing buttresses were added to P a r i s , the i n i t i a l program was based on a four-s tory , g a l l e r i e d construction while the Bourges design was marked from the outset by the use of the f ly ing buttress . Common to the bui ldings is a basic pyramidal section due to the ir f i v e - a i s l e d layouts, but this by no means makes them i d e n t i c a l . Using an e f f i -cient s t ruc tura l system, the designer of Bourges was able 1 3 to make the inner a i s l e 21.3 metres high, and to eliminate the tribune story e n t i r e l y . The resu l t ing section is an integrated progression in height from a i s l e to a i s l e to nave, each of which is unobstructed from f loor to vau l t s , and the section is s t r i c t l y t r i a n g u l a r . Except in the number of i t s a i s l e s , i t bears l i t t l e resemblance to the g a l l e r i e d section of Paris which produced a four-story elevation in contrast to the reproportioned three stories at Bourges. Comparing the section of Chartres to that of Bourges, fundamental differences in conception between the two bui ldings become apparent. Bourges' f i v e - a i s l e d arrangement provides a proport ional ly broader foundation and is consequently more stable than Chartres' three-a i s l ed 1 4 conf igurat ion. In sect ion, Bourges takes the form of - 48 -a s t e e p i s o s c e l e s t r i a n g l e when the ground l i n e and the u n i n t e r r u p t e d l i n e s of the f l y e r s a r e e x t e n d e d . F u r t h e r m o r e , the b u i l d i n g ' s t h r e e main s t r u c t u r a l members, the i n t e r i o r p i e r s , the f l y e r s , and the e x t e r i o r p i e r b u t t r e s s e s , u n i t e on e i t h e r s i d e of the nave to form s h a r p l y s l o p e d r i g h t t r i a n g l e s w hich s h o r e i t up. I t i s w i d e r i n r e l a t i o n to i t s h e i g h t t h a n i s C h a r t r e s ' nave, and the mass which e n c l o s e s the lower o u t e r a i s l e s p r o v i d e s a de g r e e of b u t t r e s -s i n g i n i t s e l f , making the a r c h i t e c t ' s e n g i n e e r i n g p r o b l e m s i n h e r e n t l y e a s i e r to s o l v e . Whereas C h a r t r e s may be d e s c r i b e d as h a v i n g a " r e v e r s e d T s e c t i o n , " B o u r g e s ' s e c t i o n was c o n c e i v e d as f u n d a m e n t a l l y t r i a n g u l a r . ( F i g . 7) At C h a r t r e s , the low a i s l e s are j u x t a p o s e d w i t h the t a l l , c e n t r a l nave volume, and the more o b t u s e a n g l e s of the f l y e r s c o m p l e t e the o v e r a l l q u a d r a n g u l a r form of the s e c t i o n . C h a r t r e s ' a i s l e s are more remote from the nave t h a n at Bourges where the volumes are g r a d e d i n h e i g h t from o u t e r a i s l e , to i n n e r a i s l e , to nave, and a r e i n s c r i b e d i n the t r i a n g u l a r form of the s t e e p l y s l o p e d f l y e r s . As s i g n i f i c a n t as the s t r u c t u r a l p e r f o r m a n c e of B o u r g e s ' s u p p o r t i n g e l e m e n t s i s t h e i r r o l e i n the o v e r a l l v i s u a l e f f e c t of the b u i l d i n g . At a l l t i m e s , s t r u c t u r a l - 49 -members a r e d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m f o r m a n d s p a c e b u t t h e t h r e e e l e m e n t s a r e f u n c t i o n a l l y a n d a e s t h e t i c a l l y i n t e r -w o v e n . On t h e i n t e r i o r , t h e s l e n d e r p i e r s m a x i m i z e v i s u a l a c c e s s t o t h e p e r i p h e r a l z o n e s f r o m t h e n a v e a n d v i c e v e r s a ; ( F i g s . 11, 13) t h e w a l l s come i n t o p l a y o n l y a b o u t two t h i r d s o f t h e way up t h e e l e v a t i o n s o t h e s i d e a i s l e s a r e i n e x t r i c a b l y r e l a t e d t o t h e s p a c e o f t h e n a v e . On t h e e x t e r i o r o f B o u r g e s , t h e b u t t r e s s e s p h y s i c a l l y a n d v i s u a l l y s h o r e up t h e b u i l d i n g a n d c r e a t e i t s d i s t i n c t i v e p r o f i l e b u t t h e y do n o t o b s c u r e t h e e x t e r i o r f o r m o f t h e b u i l d i n g ' s w a l l s as d e t e r m i n e d by i t s i n t e r i o r s p a c e . B e c a u s e t h e s t r u c t u r a l members a r e as l i g h t a s t h e d e s i g n e r d a r e d make t h e m , t h e e x t e r i o r e l e v a t i o n o f t h e b u i l d i n g i s c l e a r l y v i s i b l e ( F i g . 2 4 ) , p a r t i c u l a r l y a r o u n d t h e e a s t e n d w h e r e t h e f l y e r s a r e p r o m i n e n t b u t n o t d o m i n a n t , a n d t h e a r r a n g e m e n t o f i n t e r i o r v o l u m e s i s c o n s e q u e n t l y l e g i b l e . ( F i g . 23) A t C h a r t r e s , t h e a n g l e , 1 6 s i z e , a n d c o m p l e x , d o u b 1 e - f 1 i g h t e d f o r m o f t h e f l y e r s t e n d t o d o m i n a t e t h e e x t e r i o r o f t h e b u i l d i n g , e s p e c i a l l y a t t h e e a s t e n d ; t h e m a s s i v e , s t e p p e d - f a c e p i e r b u t t r e s s e s a r e v e r y t a l l , e x t e n d i n g f r o m t h e g r o u n d t o a p p r o x i m a t e l y two t h i r d s o f t h e h e i g h t o f t h e c l e r e s t o r y , g i v i n g t h e e x t e r i o r o f t h e b u i l d i n g a m a s s i v e a p p e a r a n c e . T h e u p p e r f l y e r s s p a n t h e two s i d e a i s l e s i n a c o n t i n u o u s l i n e f r o m - 50 -t h e t o p o f t h e n a v e c l e r e s t o r y t o t h e h e a d o f t h e p i e r b u t t r e s s , a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y t h e b o t t o m o f t h e i n n e r a i s l e r o o f . T h e p i e r b u t t r e s s e s a r e s l e n d e r a n d p i l l a r - l i k e w i t h f l a t , u n a d o r n e d f a c e s , a n d t h e y p r e s e n t a s i m p l e r v i s u a l e f f e c t t h a n t h o s e o f C h a r t r e s , a l l o w i n g t h e v o l u m e s t o p l a y a p r o m i n e n t r o l e on t h e e x t e r i o r o f t h e b u i l d i n g . S t a g g e r e d on e a t o p t h e o t h e r b e t w e e n t h e s l e n d e r , e l e g a n t s u p p o r t s , t h e t h r e e e x t e r i o r v o l u m e s s u g g e s t t h e c o n f i g u r a -t i o n o f i n t e r i o r s p a c e a n d p r o v i d e v a r i e t y i n t h e b u i l d i n g ' s f o r m , t h e i r s t e p p e d a r r a n g e m e n t e n c a g e d by t h e s t r a i g h t , s l o p e d l i n e s o f t h e f l y e r s a n d t h e s o l i d v e r t i c a l i t y o f t h e p i e r b u t t r e s s e s . T h e r e p e t i t i o n a l o n g t h e b u i l d i n g ' s f l a n k s o f t h e s t r u c t u r a l members a n d t h e e x t e r i o r s p a t i a l u n i t w h i c h t h e y h e l p t o e s t a b l i s h p r o d u c e s a u n i f i e d e x t e r i o r a p p e a r a n c e i n w h i c h e q u i l i b r i u m e x i s t s b e t w e e n f o r m , s t r u c -t u r e , a n d s p a c e . I n l i g h t o f o u r b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f m e d i e v a l s t r u c t u r e , i t s eems i m p e r a t i v e t o r e a s s e s s t h e r e l a t i v e r o l e s o f e n g i n e e r i n g a n d s t r u c t u r e i n t h e d e s i g n o f B o u r g e s . B o u r g e s ' f l y e r s p e r f o r m two i n e x t r i c a b l e f u n c t i o n s , one a e s t h e t i c a n d o n e s t r u c t u r a l ; t h e y u n i f y t h e e x t e r i o r c o n t o u r o f t h e b u i l d i n g w h i l e t r a n s f e r r i n g t h e l o a d o f t h e m a i n v a u l t s t o t h e p i e r b u t t r e s s e s . C h a r t r e s ' f l y e r s f u l f i l l t h e i r r e q u i r e d s t r u c t u r a l f u n c t i o n '' b u t , i n so - 5 1 -d o i n g , much m o r e mass i s e m p l o y e d t h a n a t B o u r g e s , r e s u l t i n g i n an e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t v i s u a l e f f e c t . ( F i g s . 3 7 , 39) A l t h o u g h t h e h e a v i e r b u t t r e s s i n g o f C h a r t r e s may h a v e b e e n a e s t h e t i c a l l y m o t i v a t e d , i t m o r e l i k e l y m a n i f e s t s t h e b u i l d e r ' s c a u t i o u s a p p r o a c h w i t h r e s p e c t t o s t r u c t u r a l de s i g n . D e s p i t e t h e B o u r g e s a r c h i t e c t ' s a b i l i t y t o s t r u c t u r a l l y a n d a e s t h e t i c a l l y e m b r a c e t h e f l y i n g b u t t r e s s , a n d t o r e a l i z e t h i s w i t h a h i g h l y e c o n o m i c a l u s e o f m a t e r i a l , B o u r g e s f a i l e d , i n some w a y s , t o make i t s m e s s a g e h e a r d . N e i t h e r B o u r g e s ' b r i l l i a n t s p a t i a l v i s i o n n o r t h e p r e c o -c i o u s s t r u c t u r a l s y s t e m w h i c h made i t p o s s i b l e , h a d as p r o f o u n d an i n f l u e n c e on s u b s e q u e n t s t r u c t u r e s as t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g e l e m e n t s o f C h a r t r e s s o , as i t h a s i n t h e p a s t , B o u r g e s ' s i g n i f i c a n c e r e m a i n s e l u s i v e . I t s a r t i s t i c a n d t e c h n o l o g i c a l m a g n i t u d e a r e a p p a r e n t , b u t why d i d B o u r g e s n o t s p e a k t o l a t e r d e s i g n e r s w i t h a s i m i l a r i m m e d i a c y a n d i n t e n s i t y as C h a r t r e s ? - 52 -NOTES - Chapter 3 For a concentrated and thorough discussion of the s t ruc tura l systems of Gothic bui ldings from an engineering perspect ive, see Mark, Experiments in Gothic  Structure . 2 Of the glass at S t . -Deni s , Abbot Suger says, "We caused to be painted . . . a splendid var ie ty of new windows; . . . One of these, urging us onward from the material to the immaterial , represents the Apostle Paul ." (Erwin Panofsky, Abbot Suger on the Art Treasures of Saint- Denis (Princeton: Princeton Univers i ty Press, 1946), p . 75 . ) While the enlarged c lerestory windows at Chartres cer ta in ly increased the physical i l luminat ion of the nave, they were also most cer ta in ly perceived much as Suger indicated: as a greater area for devotional representations of re l ig ious s ub j e c t s . 3 M. Wolfe and R. Mark, "Gothic Cathedral Buttres-sing: The Experiment at Bourges and i t s Influence," Journal  of the Society of A r c h i t e c t u r a l H i s tor ians , 23, No. 1 (1974), p. 22. 4 Wolfe and Mark, p. 22. "'Mark, Experiments in Gothic Structure, pp. 40-4 1. Approximate maximum wind ve loc i ty near ground leve l at Chartres is 105 km/hr and at roof top l e v e l , 135 km/hr; at Bourges, i t is approximately 105 km/hr at roof top leve l (estimated from data for Chateauroux, 50 km southwest of Bourges). ^Mark, "Structural Experimentation," p. 544. ^The chronology of the various bui ld ing campaigns at Bourges is c l e a r l y outl ined by Branner (see n.9, chapter 1) whose dating is borne out by the form of the bu i ld ing ' s exterior s t ruc tura l members. See Wolfe and Mark, pp. 21 & 24-26. g Wolfe and Mark, pp. 24-26. 9 F r a n k l , p. 79. - 53 -'^de L a s t e y r i e , p. 68. ''Bony, French Gothic Arch i tec ture , p. 207. 1 2 F r a n k l , p. 83. ' 3 B o i n e t , 1952, p. 35. 1 4 Wolfe and Mark, p. 21. '"'james A. Acland, Medieval Structure: The Gothic Vault (Toronto: Univers i ty of Toronto Press, 1972), p . 103. '^It has been argued that the upper f lyers in the nave of Chartres were a later addit ion but i t appears that they were part of the o r i g i n a l construct ion, although perhaps not of the o r i g i n a l design. They help to counteract wind loading on the timber roof which produces tens i l e forces in the p i e r s . See Alan Borg and Robert Mark, "Char-tres Cathedral: A Reinterpretat ion of i t s Structure ," Art B u l l e t i n , LV (1973), 369. See a lso , John Fi tchen, "A Comment on the Function of the Upper F ly ing Buttress in French Gothic Arch i tec ture ," Gazette des Beaux-Arts, series 6, 45 (1955), pp. 69-90. For addit ional information concerning wind loading, see Robert Mark and Ronald S. Jonash, "Wind Loading on Gothic Structure ," Journal of the Society of A r c h i t e c t u r a l His to -rians , 29 (Oct . , 1970), 222-30. pp. 36-41 '^Robert Mark, Experiments in Gothic Structure - 54 -Chapter 4: The Legacy of Bourges In order to determine the pos i t ion and role of Bourges in the h is tory of Gothic archi tec ture , i t is essent ia l to ascertain the degree and the nature of i t s effect on later bu i ld ings . Although Bourges never became an arch i tec tura l formula, i t had a cer ta in , l imited follow-ing. However, since each designer addressed di f ferent concerns, the roles of those spec i f i c features of Bourges' design which influenced subsequent archi tects were s i g n i f i -cantly altered in their transfer from one design context to another. This has made Bourges' legacy d i f f i c u l t to recognize which at least p a r t i a l l y accounts for i t s lack-lustre record re la t ive to Chartres , and elucidates the respective roles of the two bui ldings at the inception of High Gothic arch i tec ture . The greater h i s t o r i c a l success of Chartres is due in part to the immediacy and pervasiveness of i t s acceptance as a model. Buildings based on Chartrian p r i n -c iples were not only more numerous than those a f f i l i a t e d with Bourges, they were also more prest igious and renowned. Prominent Gothic landmarks such as the cathedrals of Soissons, Reims, and Amiens, and a host of lesser bui ldings display unmistakably Chartrian charac ter i s t i c s and, through-- 55 -out h i s tory , they have c o l l e c t i v e l y epitomized French High Gothic a r c h i t e c t u r e . ' In contrast , Bourges' message was more readi ly accepted in a series of less important bu i ld ings . The choirs of the abbey church of St. Martin at Tours (begun 2 in the f i r s t quarter of the thirteenth century), and 3 the cathedrals of Le Mans ( 1217 - 1 250 ' s ) , and Coutances (begun c. 1230-40)^ exhibit some of Bourges' features. ( F i g . 9) These bui ldings extend northwest from Bourges in Berry to Coutances in Normandy and, although the extent of the associat ion varies from one bui ld ing to the next, their geographical proximity to each other and to Bourges i t s e l f make their common design t r a i t s understandable. Seemingly less l i k e l y are the features of Bourges exhibited by some Spanish and I t a l i a n bui ldings which suggest the i t inerant nature of medieval arch i tec t s .^ The cathedrals of Toledo (1220's to late 1240's) 6 ( F i g . 9B) and Burgos ( 1 2 2 0 ' s - 3 0 ' s ) ^ have elements in common with Bourges a l -though they are geographically well removed from i t and i t s immediate a f f i l i a t e s at Le Mans and Coutances. Even mo re remote is the church of S. Antonio in Padua (1230's - 60's) which Pierre Hel iot believes was p a r t i a l l y inspired 9 by Bourges and i t s so-ca l led "family." Bourges' followers are numerically small and geographically scattered; they - 56 -represent a l imited infusion of Bourges' charac ter i s t i c s and display a consequently d i f ferent s p i r i t , making Bourges 1 legacy less eas i ly i d e n t i f i a b l e than that of Chartres . The difference between Chartres' prominent legacy and Bourges' more l imited influence is due, at least in part , to the nature of the two arch i t ec tura l conceptions. Whereas the Chartres formula was eas i ly reduced or enlarged, and varied to accommodate size and design requirements, the s ingu lar i ty of Bourges made i t more d i f f i c u l t to successful ly modify without los ing i t s essent ia l meaning. As a r e s u l t , the design of Chartres was used in i t s ent irety by future archi tects whereas ind iv idua l elements of Bourges were extracted and set in a var iety of design contexts, confining i t s legacy to a small number of i t s sal ient features. One of these is the pier form, the influence of which has only recently been studied. Jurgen Mich ler ' s research' ' has led him to assert the predominance of Bourges' pier form in the development of Gothic architecture from the thirteenth century on; in fact , the acceptance of his thesis requires the complete re -appra i sa l of a l l previous notions concerning the respective roles of Chartres and Bourges. Michler suggests that Bourges' pier form and i ts re la t ionship to the wall were more central to the - 57 -f u t u r e o f m a i n s t r e a m G o t h i c a r c h i t e c t u r e t h a n t h o s e o f C h a r t r e s . C o n s e q u e n t l y , f o r h i m , B o u r g e s embodies t h e p r o t o t y p i c a l H i g h G o t h i c s t r u c t u r e and t h e d i r e c t l i n e a g e o f t h e C h a r t r i a n p i e r f o r m u l a r e m a i n s a l i m i t e d e x c e p t i o n . M i c h l e r c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e r o u n d p i e r c o r e w i t h n a r r o w v e r t i c a l s h a f t s s i g n i f i e s a new r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n w a l l and p i e r w h i c h became d e f i n i t i v e l y G o t h i c t h r o u g h o u t F r a n c e , 1 2 s o u t h w e s t e r n Germany, S p a i n , and I t a l y . S i g n i f i c a n t i s t h e r o u n d n e s s , b o t h o f t h e c o r e s and s h a f t s o f t h e p i e r s , s i n c e t h i s f o r m c l e a r l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e s t h e s u p p o r t i n g member f r o m t h e f l a t n e s s o f t h e w a l l ; t h i s a l l o w e d t h e d e s i g n e r o f B o u r g e s t o have t h e p i e r s p e n e t r a t e t h e w a l l r a t h e r t h a n t o c a r r y i t , as at C h a r t r e s . T h i s v e r t i c a l p e n e t r a t i o n o f t h e w a l l f r o m f l o o r t o v a u l t s was, i n M i c h -l e r ' s e s t i m a t i o n , a s i n g u l a r l y d e c i s i v e f a c t o r i n t h e f o r m u l a t i o n o f H i g h G o t h i c a r c h i t e c t u r e , e p i t o m i z e d t o some d e g r e e by t h e t h i r t e e n t h c e n t u r y nave o f t h e abbey 1 3 c h u r c h o f S t . - D e n i s . ( F i g s . 60 - 62) A l t h o u g h M i c h l e r ' s argument i s c o m p r e h e n s i v e and t h o u g h t f u l l y c o n s i d e r e d , a t t i m e s i t a p p e a r s somewhat o v e r s t a t e d . To a s s e r t B o u r g e s ' g r e a t e r i n f l u e n c e on H i g h and L a t e G o t h i c a r c h i t e c t u r e b a s e d on a s i n g l e f e a t u r e o f i t s c o n s t r u c t i o n ( n a m e l y , t h e p i e r ) i s i n d e f e n s i b l e i n l i g h t o f h i s t o r i c a l f a c t . - 58 -C e r t a i n l y , Bourges requires h i s tor iograph ica l reconsiderat ion, of which i t s pier form is an important part , but, in so doing, the importance of Chartres, Reims, and Amiens must not be dismissed. Although Bourges' pier form appears to have had a much greater following than has been previously documented, the major themes of Bourges' design remain singular in the ir achievements. In the same way, the pier form of Chartres may have had a l imi ted l i fespan but the broader spat ia l and v i sua l concerns of 1 4 the so-ca l led "c las s i ca l" Gothic structures remained s ign i f i cant throughout the medieval period. More essent ia l than the pier form to the overa l l spat ia l effect of Bourges and, in turn, to consideration of the bu i ld ing ' s legacy, is the dispersion of i t s e levation over mult iple planes. The s igni f icance of this feature is manifested in a r e l a t i v e l y small number of bui ldings located throughout northwestern France, Spain, and I ta ly where the main arcade was heightened to reveal a second e levat ion , opening the peripheral areas of the bui ld ing to the space of the central vesse l . The designers of the cathedrals of Le Mans and Coutances employed dual elevations in which the choir elevations were reduced to two s tor i e s , a main arcade - 59 -surmounted by a t a l l c l eres tory , but the a i s l e e levation retained the three stories of Bourges' e levat ions . (F igs . 42, 49, 53) Although the a i s l e e levat ion is v i s i b l e through the main arcade of the central vessel in both bu i ld ings , suggesting that the designers of Le Mans and Coutances were perhaps inspired by Bourges, neither was motivated by the spat ia l implicat ions of the dual e levation to the same degree as the archi tect of Bourges. Neither Le Mans nor Coutances exhibits the overr iding u n i f i c a t i o n of space found at Bourges since the dual i ty of the elevation was not exploited in the same way. With two stories in the main elevation and three in that of the a i s l e , there is not the same consistency of elements as at Bourges, where the repe t i t ion of a l l three s tories introduces an element of cont inui ty , both between the two elevations and throughout the length of the b u i l d i n g ; and although the a i s le spaces of Le Mans and Coutances are p a r t i a l l y in view from the choir , the expansiveness and unity of Bourges' space are greatly reduced by the re la t ive posit ions of the piers and e levat ions . In the straight bays of the choir of Le Mans, the two elevations are c l ear ly l eg ib le from the central vessel of the bui ld ing (Figs . 47 , 48), but this is not so in the hemicycle bays where the intercolumniations - 60 -are extremely narrow and the c y l i n d r i c a l pier cores are flanked by sturdy shafts so that only the centre portion of the a i s l e e levat ion is v i s i b l e . At Coutances, although the piers are proportionately more widely spaced, and are composed in the hemicycle of paired c y l i n d r i c a l shafts which minimize the obstruction of v i s i o n by their being placed one behind the other, the pos i t ion of the a i s l e e levation re la t ive to the main arcades reduces i t s v i s i b i l i t y from the cho ir . (F ig . 54) The a i s l e e levation c lerestory consists of two pairs of lancets , separated' by a vault r ib which springs from the centre shaft of the b l ind t r i f o -rium story. Consequently, an axia l view of both the hemi-cycle and straight bays reveals the main arcade of the a i s l e e levation surmounted by a shaft which v e r t i c a l l y divides the upper two s tor i e s . This configurat ion encourages the more eas i ly l eg ib le oblique views in which one half of the elevation is v i s i b l e (F ig . 56), but i t does not draw the peripheral zones of the bui ld ing into f u l l p a r t i c i -pation with the choir space as does the e levat ion of Bourges. Although the archi tect of Coutances did not seek to re-create Bourges' overa l l spat ia l uni ty , his design of the outer ambulatory of the bu i ld ing captures the s p i r i t of Bourges' e levat ion in that i t couples an i n t e r i o r spat ia l expansion with an uninterrupted exterior - 6 1 -c o n t o u r . ( F i g s . 51, 52) B o u r g e s was o r i g i n a l l y i n t e n d e d t o be w i t h o u t c h a p e l s , so t h a t t h e e a s t end w o u l d c o n s i s t o n l y of t h e a m b u l a t o r y v o l u m e s , open t o each o t h e r w i t h i n t h e c o n f i n e s o f t h e o v e r a l l r o u n d e d f o r m o f t h e end o f t h e b u i l d i n g . T h i s g o a l i s p a r t i a l l y a c h i e v e d at C o u t a n c e s , a l t h o u g h c o n f i n e d t o t h e o u t e r a m b u l a t o r y where t h e v o l u m e s a r e expanded on t h e i r o u t e r edges i n t h e manner o f S t . - D e n i s b u t w i t h t h r e e - p a r t , f a c e t e d c o n t o u r s . ( F i g . 57D) The r e s u l t i n g i n t e r i o r s p a c e s o f t h e o u t e r a m b u l a t o r y a r e e x t r e m e l y a n i m a t e d , i l l u m i n a t e d by t h r e e windows and e ach s u b t l y e x p a n d e d b e y o n d t h e m a i n s e m i c i r c l e o f t h e e a s t end c o n t o u r . More i n t e r e s t i n g i n r e l a t i o n t o B o u r g e s i s t h a t on t h e e x t e r i o r o f t h e b u i l d i n g , t h e d e s i g n e r o f C o u t a n c e s c l e a r l y s t a t e d h i s d e s i r e t o m a i n t a i n a f u n d a -m e n t a l l y s e m i c i r c u l a r c o n t o u r . ( F i g s . 51, 52) The t h r e e s i d e s o f e ach c h a p e l a r e g e n t l y f a c e t e d b u t t h e r o o f l i n e o f t h e o u t e r a m b u l a t o r y i s a c o n t i n u o u s s e m i c i r c l e a r o u n d t h e e a s t end o f t h e b u i l d i n g , i n t e r r u p t e d o n l y by t h e p i e r b u t t r e s s e s . The r e s u l t i s an e x t e r i o r e l e v a t i o n w h i c h i s more s i m i l a r t o t h a t o f B o u r g e s t h a n any o t h e r o f i t s f o l l o w e r s i n i t s t r i p 1 e - t i e r e d a r r a n g e m e n t and w i t h i t s u n i n t e r r u p t e d c o n t o u r . A l t h o u g h t h e s p a t i a l a m p l i t u d e c r e a t e d by B o u r g e s ' e l e v a t i o n i s l i m i t e d on t h e i n t e r i o r o f C o u t a n c e s , t h e e x t e r i o r e l e v a t i o n s o f - 6 2 -both bui ldings manifest an interest in the simple juxtapos i -t ion of s tructura l members with three t i e r s . The t h i r d French bui ld ing which shows some a f f i l i a t i o n with Bourges' i n t e r i o r e levat ion is the cathedral of Beauvais which represents a synthesis of the pr inc ip le s of Chartres and Bourges. Although the plan and elevation of Beauvais were ul t imately derived from the design of Chartres , the t a l l main arcade of the elevation p a r t i a l l y reveals a second three-story elevation in the inner a i s l e as at Bourges. (Figs . 58, 59) The proport ional heights of the three levels of the main e levat ion are closer to those of Chartres but the play on two elevations in two planes expands the central space of the bu i ld ing in somewhat the same manner as at Bourges. As Beauvais now stands, the second complete e levat ion in the inner a i s l e is barely v i s i b l e from the central space of the choir because the 17 ex is t ing mtercolumniations are extremely narrow. In the o r i g i n a l design, the piers in the straight bays were 1 8 more widely spaced and would have made the very t a l l inner a i s l e much more v i s i b l e from the main vessel of the choir . This would have given to the lower hal f of Beauvais a s i m i l a r l y pronounced m u l t i p l i c i t y of planes and sense of spat ia l expansion as at Bourges. The Bourges designer's emphasis on the pyramidal composition of spat ia l - 63 -v o l u m e s a n d t h e r e s u l t i n g h o m o g e n e i t y o f s p a c e a r e r e p l a c e d a t B e a u v a i s b y a c o n c e n t r a t i o n o n t h e m a x i m i z a t i o n o f g l a z e d a r e a s i n a s t r u c t u r e o f e n o r m o u s h e i g h t . The p l a y o n two e l e v a t i o n s i n s e p a r a t e p l a n e s w h i c h i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f B o u r g e s was a d m i r e d b y a v a r i e t y o f b u i l d e r s , e v e n some o f t h o s e w h o s e a l l e g i a n c e was l a r g e l y t o C h a r t r i a n p r i n c i p l e s a n d , w h i l e i t c e r t a i n l y i n d i c a t e s a d e s i g n a f f i l i a t i o n , i t d o e s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y c o n n o t e common a r t i s t i c g o a l s among t h e a r c h i t e c t s . I n S p a i n , t h e c h o i r o f t h e c a t h e d r a l o f T o l e d o h a s a n e l e v a t i o n i n w h i c h t h e t a l l m a i n a r c a d e r e v e a l s a s e c o n d a r y , a i s l e e l e v a t i o n b u t , as i n t h e F r e n c h m e m b e r s o f B o u r g e s ' " f a m i l y , " t h e s p a t i a l c h a r a c t e r o f t h e b u i l d i n g d i f f e r s c o n s i d e r a b l y f r o m t h a t o f B o u r g e s . ( F i g . 6 3 ) A l t h o u g h t h e d u a l e l e v a t i o n i s e m p l o y e d , t h e b u i l d i n g i s m o r e c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o t h e d e s i g n o f P a r i s i n s e v e r a l i m p o r t a n t r e s p e c t s . A n o n - p r o j e c t i n g t r a n s e p t d i v i d e s t h e c h o i r f r o m t h e n a v e a n d t h e n u m b e r o f h e m i c y c l e p i e r s 1 9 i s d o u b l e d b e t w e e n t h e a m b u l a t o r i e s a s a t P a r i s . A t B u r g o s , c e r t a i n d e t a i l s o f t h e e l e v a t i o n s u c h as t h e t r i f o -20 r i u m d e s i g n w e r e i n f l u e n c e d b y B o u r g e s b u t t h e o v e r a l l t r e a t m e n t o f t h e e l e v a t i o n c r e a t e s an e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t v i s u a l e f f e c t . A l t h o u g h t h e d e s i g n e r s o f b o t h t h e F r e n c h a n d S p a n i s h b u i l d i n g s w h i c h f o l l o w e d B o u r g e s w e r e e n a m o u r e d - 64 -w i t h t h e n o t i o n o f m u l t i p l e p l a n e s o f e l e v a t i o n w i t h i n t h e same b u i l d i n g , t h e p o t e n t i a l i n t h e d u a l e l e v a t o n f o r s p a t i a l a m p l i t u d e a n d u n i f i c a t i o n was g e n e r a l l y n o t e x p l o i t e d t o t h e same d e g r e e a s a t B o u r g e s i t s e l f . I n t h e same way t h a t t h e u s e o f a d u a l e l e v a t i o n d o e s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y i n d i c a t e a s p a t i a l c o n f i g u r a t i o n l i k e t h a t o f B o u r g e s , t h e s t e p p e d s e c t i o n w h i c h c h a r a c t e r i z e s many o f B o u r g e s 1 f o l l o w e r s h a s a d i f f e r e n t e f f e c t i n e a c h d e s i g n , d e p e n d i n g o n t h e c o n t e x t a n d m a n n e r i n w h i c h i t i s u s e d . The c h o i r s o f L e M a n s , C o u t a n c e s , S. A n t o n i o 2 1 i n P a d u a , a n d S t . M a r t i n a t T o u r s a l l h a v e s t e p p e d s e c t i o n s s i m i l a r t o t h a t o f B o u r g e s due t o t h e g r a d a t i o n i n h e i g h t o f t h e i r f i v e a i s l e s . H o w e v e r , n o n e o f t h e m e x h i b i t s t h e same d e g r e e o f c o n c e r n f o r t h e u n i f i c a t i o n o f i n t e r i o r s p a c e as a t B o u r g e s , m a k i n g P i e r r e H e l i o t ' s c o n t e x t u a l i z a -t i o n o f B o u r g e s i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e t r a d i t i o n o f s t e p p e d s e c t i o n b u i l d i n g s s o m e w h a t l e s s u s e f u l i n a s s e s s i n g t h e b u i l d i n g ' s r o l e i n t h e h i s t o r y o f G o t h i c a r c h i t e c t u r e 2 2 • t h a n i t f i r s t a p p e a r s . A l t h o u g h H e l i o t ' s w o r k e l u c i d a t e s B o u r g e s as a member o f a n h i s t o r i c a l f a m i l y o f a r c h i t e c t u r e , i t i s t o o b r o a d t o be o f s p e c i f i c v a l u e i n t r a c i n g B o u r g e s ' l e g a c y . B u i l d i n g s w i t h s t e p p e d s e c t i o n s m o s t c e r t a i n l y h a v e a l e n g t h y h i s t o r y o f w h i c h B o u r g e s i s a p a r t , b u t t h i s r e p r e s e n t s a s i n g l e a s p e c t o f t h e d e s i g n w i t h p o t e n -- 65 -t i a l l y d i v e r s e e f f e c t s . The p r e s e n c e o f a s t e p p e d s e c t i o n i n a b u i l d i n g d o e s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y i n d i c a t e a n y m o r e t h a n a r e m o t e a f f i l i a t i o n w i t h B o u r g e s . B o t h R o b e r t B r a n n e r a n d J o e l H e r s c h m a n r e c o g n i z e 2 3 t h i s f a c t i n t h e i r e x a m i n a t i o n s o f B o u r g e s ' f o l l o w i n g , b u t t h e y p e r c e i v e i t f r o m d i f f e r e n t v i e w p o i n t s . B r a n n e r p u r s u e s i n d i v i d u a l e l e m e n t s o f B o u r g e s w h i c h i n f l u e n c e d s u b s e q u e n t d e s i g n s , w h e r e a s H e r s c h m a n a n a l y z e s t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f B o u r g e s ' m o s t s a l i e n t f e a t u r e , i t s s p a t i a l c o n f i g u r a t i o n . A l t h o u g h B r a n n e r ' s r e s e a r c h a s s i s t s i n u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s b e t w e e n t h e w o r k s h o p s o f B o u r g e s a n d i t s f o l l o w e r s , H e r s c h m a n ' s d i s c u s s i o n i s m o r e i n s i g h t f u l i n e s t a b l i s h i n g B o u r g e s ' m o r e b r o a d l y d e f i n e d p o s i t i o n i n t h e h i s t o r y o f m e d i e v a l a r c h i t e c t u r e . S p e c i f i c a l l y c o n c e r n e d w i t h L e M ans a n d C o u t a n c e s , H e r s c h m a n n o t e s t h e i r s i m i l a r i t i e s t o B o u r g e s b u t u l t i m a t e l y c o n c l u d e s t h a t t h e r e may be no d i r e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e t h r e e b u i l d i n g s . He c o n v i n c i n g l y s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e i n s p i r a t i o n f o r t h e s t e p p e d s e c t i o n s o f L e M ans a n d C o u t a n c e s s t e m s f r o m an e a r l i e r t r a d i t i o n t h a n B o u r g e s w h i c h was n o t p r i m a r i l y c o n c e r n e d w i t h s p a t i a l u n i f i c a t i o n , n a m e l y C l u n y I I I a n d t h e B u r g u n d i a n R o m a n e s q u e . I n l i g h t o f t h e f u n d a m e n t a l d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n B o u r g e s a n d i t s " f a m i l y , " a n d t h e common g r o u n d w h i c h t h e y a l l s h a r e w i t h C l u n y , - 66 -this explanation becomes p laus ib l e . Le Mans and Coutances 24 have five a i s les and a staggered elevation l ike Cluny and they belong, as Hel iot demonstrated, to the broad, h i s t o r i c a l family of stepped section bu i ld ings , but they lack the spat ia l unity which is c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of Bourges. Perhaps Bourges and i t s "followers" had no more than a common parentage at Cluny, or perhaps some basic Cluniac features were transmitted to the other bui ldings v ia Bourges. In any case, a l l belong to the ancient t r a d i t i o n of stepped section design but not necessari ly to the var ia t i on on that t r a d i t i o n which is p a r t i c u l a r to Bourges. Perhaps the most important single feature which d i f f erent ia tes Bourges from the members of i t s supposed "family" is that a l l the la ter bui ldings have transepts; in fact , transeptless bui ldings are exceptional in Gothic 25 archi tec ture , perhaps p a r t i a l l y due to the powerful 2 6 influence of t r a d i t i o n but also because of the potent ia l for r i ch decoration which transepts provided, and because of the l i t u r g i c a l and symbolic functions which they per-formed. Since the spat ia l openness which is central to the statement of Bourges is v i r t u a l l y impossible to achieve with' the d isrupt ion of a crossing ( p a r t i c u l a r l y of the augmented crossing p i e r s ) , the ubiquity of the transept in Bourges' "family" means that, e ither by necessity or - 67 -choice, subsequent designers did not recapture the essence of Bourges' v i s i o n . The lack of a spat ia l amplitude l ike that of Bourges at Le Mans and Coutances is p a r t i a l l y ref lected in the ir respective usage of the e levat ion and stepped section but also in the prominence of the crossing in e a c h b u i l d i n g . A t L e M a n s , o n l y t h e c h o i r w a s r e b u i l t in the thirteenth century, the Romanesque nave having 2 7 been preserved, ( F i g . 50) and perhaps a transept was the simplest means of es tabl i sh ing a t r a n s i t i o n between the old and new portions of the b u i l d i n g ; Coutances, however, was en t i re ly rebu i l t at this time so the presence of a transept represents a conscious choice by the designer; in addi t ion , the use of a large , handsome lantern tower to mark the crossing bay reinforces the v i sua l effect of the transept, both inside the bui ld ing and on i t s exte-r i o r . Combined with the treatment of the bu i ld ing ' s i n t e r i o r e levat ion , the transept indicates that the arch i t ec t ' s primary interest was not in Bourges' overa l l spat ia l configu-r a t i o n , but was l imited to spec i f i c aspects of i t s design. In dealing with the legacy of Bourges, i t becomes apparent that although the bui ld ing was cer ta in ly seen - 6 8 -and used by subsequent designers, i t s themes remained unique to a much greater extent than those of Chartres . A l l of Bourges' "family" are related to i t through certa in ind iv idua l features of the ir designs, but a l l represent a pr imari ly formal legacy. Bourges' e levat ion , stepped sect ion, and pier design were s ign i f i cant in the future of medieval arch i tec ture , but their use does not represent a concern for i ts spat ia l homogeneity. In contrast , Char-tres ' entire conception, as well as many of i ts ind iv idua l features, were employed in the designs of la ter bui ldings so i t s legacy is more eas i ly perceptible and appears more s i g n i f i c a n t . - 69 -NOTES - Chapter 4 'This att i tude is p a r t i c u l a r l y apparent in surveys of medieval arch i tec ture . For example, in Stoddard's Architecture in Medieval France, Chartres , Soissons, Reims, and Amiens are discussed in succession as the culmination of Gothic experimentation and Bourges is considered af ter , despite the basic chronological layout of the book. 2 Branner suggests that the choir of St. Martin at Tours was probably not begun before 1210, having been destroyed by f i re c. 1202. See Robert Branner, La cat he d r a1e  de Bourges, p. 1 7 0. Branner, La cathedrale de Bourges, p. 176. 4 , Patrice Colmet Daage, La cathedrale de Coutances (Paris : Petites Monographies des Grands Edi f i ces de la France, 1967), p. 184. See also , Robert Branner, La cathedrale de  Bourge s, p. 184. Bony contests Branner's and Colmet Daage's dating stat ing that the choir of Coutances was not begun before 1240. See his review of Branner's monograph on Bourges in Art B u l l e t i n , 47 (1965), pp. 521-25. ^For a spec i f i c discussion of the re lat ionships between the architects of Bourges and i t s school, see Robert Branner, "The movements of Gothic archi tects between France and Spain in the early Thirteenth Century," Acts  of the XIX Internat ional Congress on the History of Art , 1958, pp. 44-48. ^Elie Lambert, L ' a r t gothique en Espagne aux  X l l e et X l l e s iec les (Paris : Henri Laurens, 1931), pp. 202 &207. & 220-21 ^Lambert, L ' a r t gothique en Espagne, pp. 202 8 H e l i o t , p. 15 1. ^Heliot considers Bourges to be part of the large "family" of stepped section bui ldings which began with Early C h r i s t i a n arch i tec ture . H e l i o t , p. 143. - 70 -Of Bourges' re la t ive obscuri ty , Jean Bony says: "The reasons for this l imited success are obvious, for the scheme implied ambitious bu i ld ings , double a i s les being essent ial to i t s e f fect ; and i t is also technica l ly complicated, involving two major elevations one behind the other and vaults at three d i f ferent l eve l s . Bourges is a v is ionary so lu t ion , a u n i f i e d , but cer ta in ly not a s impl i f i ed s tructure ." Jean Bony, "The Resist ance to Chartres in Early Arch i tec ture ," Journal of the B r i t i s h 3rd s e r . . Thirteenth Century Archaeological Assoc iat ion , p . 35 . 20-21 (1957-58), bui ldings which he 40f f . Michler , pp. 27-86. 1 2 . Michler ' s study is f i l l e d with examples of from a l l these countries , the pier forms of feels were influenced by Bourges. Mich ler , p. 1 3 14 Michler , p. 41 Michler , p. 27 1 5. of the piers in suf f i c i ent depth in of the main bearing allow greater 1 s to The doubling was necessary to provide to carry the thickness v i sua l e f fect , however, the ambulatory. '^Robert Branner, "Le maitre de Beauvais," Art de France, II (1962), p. this manner the support wal l ; i t s access to de 8 1 . la cathedrale 1 7^^ . This L S to the choir after 1284. (Stoddard, p. 235) due to the the collapse addit ion of the of six piers main vaults in 1 Branner, "Le maitre," pp. 78-81 piers is the i n t e r -1 9 At Toledo, this m u l t i p l i c a t i o n of brought beyond that of Paris by the doubling of ambulatory piers on the periphery of the b u i l d i n g , creating a fanning effect in plan which is suggested on the exterior of the bui ld ing in i t s elaborate arrangement of forked f ly ing buttresses around the east end. 20 Burgos' pier design (round core with narrow, - 7 1 -round shafts) and the p ierc ing of the vault webs in the hemicycle were also l i k e l y influenced by Bourges. Lambert, pp. 227-229. 2 1 Although destroyed, i t appears that St. Martin at Tours had double a i s les and a stepped section l ike those of Bourges. In plan, i t was more s imi lar to Bourges than the other members of the Bourges "school." Herschman, pp. 323-332. 2 2 H e l i o t , pp. 143-170. 2 3 See Robert Branner, "Encore Bourges," Journal  of the Society of A r c h i t e c t u r a l Hi s tor ians , 25, No. 4 (Dec. 1966), pp. 299-300. Also , Branner, La cathedrale de Bourges, pp. 170-190, and Herschman, pp. 323-332. 24 Kenneth John Conant, A Brie f Commentary on  Early Medieval Church Architecture with Especial Reference  to Lost Monuments (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1942), p. 29 & P i s . 45-47 . 25 Sens and the co l l eg ia te church at Mantes are two of the very small number of transeptless bui ldings constructed during the Gothic per iod. 2 6 Transepts formed a part of the designs of some of the ear l i e s t large C h r i s t i a n churches, such as St. Peter's in Rome which provided a prototype for subsequent transepted bui ldings (for example, St. Paul's Outside the Wal ls ) . Although largely an exceptional arch i t ec tura l element during the Early C h r i s t i a n and Carol ingian periods, the transept eventually became commonly used in b a s i l i c a l -planned s tructures . See Richard Krautheimer, Early Chr i s t i an and Byzantine  Architecture (Penguin Books, 1975), pp. 56-57 & p. 484, n. 6 . 2 7 Herschman, p. 329. - 72 -C h a p t e r 5: B o u r g e s a s a F u n c t i o n a l H o u s e o f M e d i e v a l W o r s h i p I t i s p e r h a p s t h e g r e a t e s t e n i g m a s u r r o u n d i n g B o u r g e s , t h a t a d e s i g n o f s u c h a r t i s t i c m a g n i t u d e a n d s t r u c t u r a l p r e c o c i t y s h o u l d h a v e p r o v i d e d so l i t t l e i n s p i r a -t i o n t o f u t u r e g e n e r a t i o n s o f b u i l d e r s . As we saw i n c h a p t e r 4, t h i s p a r a d o x h a s b e e n c o n s i d e r e d by many b u t h a s r e m a i n e d i n a d e q u a t e l y e x p l a i n e d . B r a n n e r ' s d i s c u s s i o n o f B o u r g e s ' l e g a c y y i e l d e d v a l u a b l e b u t s o m e w h a t i n c o n c l u s i v e r e s u l t s ' a n d J o e l H e r s c h m a n ' s i n v e s t i g a t i o n s s e r v e o n l y 2 t o r e i n f o r c e B o u r g e s ' e x c e p t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r . J e a n B o n y ' s e x p l a n a t i o n f o r B o u r g e s ' l a c k o f s u c c e s s , t h a t ". i t d i d n o t s u p p l y a s e t o f s i m p l e r e l a t i o n s t h a t c o u l d l e n d i t s e l f e a s i l y t o v a r i a t i o n s i n s c a l e a n d t o a c e r t a i n 3 f r e e d o m o f r e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n " i s m o s t c e r t a i n l y v a l i d , b u t i n c o m p l e t e . I n d e e d , C h a r t r e s ' c o n c e p t i o n was s i m p l e r t o r e d e f i n e t h a n B o u r g e s 1 m o r e c o m p l e x s p a t i a l c o n f i g u r a t i o n b u t t h i s d o e s n o t f u l l y e x p l a i n B o u r g e s ' s e c o n d a r y p o s i t i o n i n t h e h i s t o r i o g r a p h y o f G o t h i c a r c h i t e c t u r e ; o t h e r a s p e c t s o f i t s d e s i g n m u s t a l s o h a v e d i s c o u r a g e d i t s u s e as a m o d e l f o r s u b s e q u e n t b u i l d i n g s . I n a r c h i t e c t u r e , as i n a l l t h e a r t s , t h e r e i s a p o w e r f u l e l e m e n t o f a r t i s t i c c r e a t i v i t y , b u t t o a much g r e a t e r e x t e n t t h a n i n p a i n t i n g a n d s c u l p t u r e , p r a c t i c a l - 73 -considerations such as engineering and function figure largely in the art of b u i l d i n g . In no period is this more apparent than the High Middle Ages when s truc tura l experimentation evolved rapidly and the successful design of a re l ig ious bui ld ing was dependent on i t s a b i l i t y to f u l f i l l current l i t u r g i c a l requirements as well as on i t s aesthetic and symbolic appeal. For this reason, the success of a medieval bui ld ing is largely revealed to the twentieth century by the nature and extent of i t s use as a model by future bui lders since a design which was repeatedly used must have been considered sat i s fac tory for i t s p r i n c i p a l function as well as for i t s aesthetic and symbolic requirements. Whereas the design of Chartres was employed in i t s ent i re ty , that of Bourges remained unique (although ind iv idua l features were employed in la ter b u i l d i n g s ) , indicat ing that inadequacies may have existed in i ts design - that perhaps there were l i t u r g i c a l functions or elements of church dogma which Bourges' design was i l l - equ ipped to accommodate, making i t an unsuitable choice as a model. In l ight of the substant ial changes which occurred in the Church before and during the thirteenth century, this explanation gains c r e d i b i l i t y . General l i t u r g i c a l trends in the medieval Church - 74 -are known and documented, and an examination of these in re la t ion to Bourges 1 design suggests areas in which the bui ld ing may have been inadequately designed, both with regard to the l i t u r g y and to current att i tudes toward the roles of l a i t y and c lergy . From the ninth century, and with increasing rap id i ty in the eleventh and twelfth centuries , the intens i ty of the community s p i r i t of the Early Chr i s t ian church waned. Over several centuries , and due to a var ie ty of e c c l e s i a s t i c a l and soc ia l factors , the simple par t i c ipatory l i t u r g y of the f i r s t centuries of C h r i s t i a n i t y developed into a po lar i zed , clergy and dogma dominated r i t u a l , much of which survived u n t i l the 4 1960's. The actual changes which occurred are well known but their dispers ion and acceptance in spec i f i c areas of the Chr i s t ian world are d i f f i c u l t to pinpoint in many cases. However, i t may be said without equivocation that the r i f t between congregation and clergy increased consider-ably from the tenth to the thirteenth centuries . This movement away from a fellowship of l a i t y and clergy is highly complex, involving a var iety of factors which u l t i -mately changed the entire appearance and demeanour of the l i t u r g y . Simple changes such as the use of unleavened bread for the Eucharist from the ninth century^ reduced the p a r t i c i p a t i o n of the f a i t h f u l in the s a c r i f i c e of - 75 -the Mass since home-baked, leavened loaves were no longer necessary. The customarily large offertory procession of the Early Chr i s t ian period, in which a l l members of the congregation presented the f r u i t s of their labour at the a l t a r , was gradually reduced from the eleventh century on;^ g i f t s in k ind , which were essent ial either to the l i t u r g y i t s e l f or to the dai ly l i f e of the c lergy, were no longer obl igatory and were eventually replaced by monetary of fer ings , c u r t a i l i n g both the physical and symbolic contributions of the f a i t h f u l to the l i t u r g y . Changes to spec i f i c portions of the Mass also moved toward a greater removal of the congregation from the focus of the l i t u r g y . Beginning c. 1000, i t became obligatory for the clergy to rec i te the canon of the Mass so f t l y , in a bare whisper; ^ although introduced as a sign of respect for the great mystery occurring on the a l t a r , this rendered the canon inaudible even for those g standing closest to the a l t a r . At approximately the same time, the pract ice became widespread of the pr ies t facing the a l tar rather than the f a i t h f u l during the Mass. The Consecration, the most important and sacred part of the Mass in which bread and wine became the body and blood 9 of Jesus C h r i s t , was largely obscured from the eyes and ears of the congregation. - 76 -From the monasteries, the outgrowth of the private Mass at which only the pr ies t and one server attend-ed, eventually affected regular public services by the thirteenth century. '^ Even during High Mass, the celebrant read the pericopes and chants of the l i t u r g y to himself rather than p a r t i c i p a t i n g in the ir public singing and reading, and a series of prayers from the private Mass became part of the normal solemn Mass, f i l l i n g the areas formerly occupied by a c t i v i t i e s in which the congregation t ook part . A l l these changes fuel led the growing convict ion that i t was the da i ly ob l igat ion of every pr ies t to celebrate a private Mass which was considered more valuable than community worship. This gradually led to a dras t i c reduction in the number of l a i t y who received Communion, to the point where a mandatory annual reception of the Eucharist at Easter was introduced at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 by Pope Innocent I I I . ' ' The professed awe and respect for the sanct i ty of Mass and the Blessed Sacrament which j u s t i f i e d these changes resulted in a segregation of the f a i t h f u l from the celebrant of the Mass, and u l t i -mately in a more elevated regard for the clergy by the general pub l i c . By the thirteenth . century, Mass was con-sidered an almost exclus ive ly p r i e s t l y a c t i v i t y , with - l i -the, f a i t h f u l attending as mere spectators. The l a i t y paid stipends to have Masses said for their intentions and r e l i g i o n became something that was performed by the clergy on behalf of the f a i t h f u l . L i t u r g i c a l and a t t i t u d i n a l changes as profound as these must have affected the form of re l ig ious bu i ld ings , although gradually to be sure. It is d i f f i c u l t to estimate the extent and speed with which this influence was fe l t but the endurance of a p a r t i c u l a r design solut ion to the problem of housing worship gives an ind icat ion of the types of arch i t ec tura l features which best f u l f i l l e d the l i t u r g i c a l needs of a per iod. With respect to Bourges, this avenue of invest igat ion may be f r u i t f u l l y employed to understand the bu i ld ing in the context of i t s primary function, as a thirteenth century vessel for l i t u r g y and wo r sh i p. An examination of the cathedral of Bourges reveals certa in inconsistencies between the character of the medieval Mass and the design of the bui ld ing as i t s physical manifestation. Glar ing ly absent is a transept, without which there is no arch i t ec tura l d i v i s i o n between choir and nave - no formal d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n between the various parts of the b u i l d i n g . L i t u r g i c a l and congregational - 78 -space are one, the only d i s t i n c t i o n being speci f ied by use and furnishings , not form. The increas ingly cavernous f issure between the clergy and f a i t h f u l is not at a l l borne out by the physical form of the b u i l d i n g . The separa-t ion of the p r i e s t , who summoned and stood in the mystical presence of Christ at the a l tar is not ref lected by Bourges' uninterrupted, homogeneous space; further , the increasing awe and fear with which the Blessed Sacrament i t s e l f was regarded, and the perceived unworthiness of the l a i t y to be in i t s presence are incompatible with the s ingular treatment of space in Bourges. Although transepted bui ldings were large ly exceptional in Early C h r i s t i a n arch i tec ture , there existed some examples and the transept gradually became a more standard element of the b a s i l i c a l plan during and after 1 2 . . the Carol ingian period. The symbolic s ignif icance of cruciform buildings was most cer ta in ly recognized but i t has been suggested that the transept was o r i g i n a l l y developed in response to l i t u r g i c a l necessi ty . The addi-t iona l space which i t created at the l i t u r g i c a l focus of the bui ld ing provided a place where the bulky of fertory g i f t s of the early l i t u r g y could be placed. As we l l , i t gave the f a i t h f u l the opportunity to draw nearer to the memorials of the martyrs which were associated with - 79 -1 3 the a l t a r . S i m i l a r l y , the cruciform plan was standard in la ter medieval archi tec ture , perhaps because of the tendency to i n e r t i a which t r a d i t i o n encouraged, and because of i t s symbolic s ign i f i cance , but a lso , as in e a r l i e r periods, because the transept had a role in the functional s u c c e s s of a b u i l d i n g . B y e l iminat ing the offertory proces-sion and changing the re la t ionship between l a i t y and c lergy , l i t u r g i c a l and theological reform had rendered i t s o r i g i n a l purposes obsolete, but the transept eas i ly adapted to contemporary need. It provided a c l e a r l y defined a r c h i -tec tura l d iv id ing element which d i f f erent ia ted the l i t u r g i c a l and congregational portions of the b u i l d i n g , a feature of considerable s igni f icance in a l i t u r g y which s t r i c t l y dist inguished between the roles of lay and c l e r i c a l p a r t i c i -pant s . 1 4 In both secular and monastic churches of the Middle Ages, the space to the east of the crossing was generally reserved for c l e r i c s . It contained the high a l tar and s t a l l s for either the canons of the cathedral chapter, or the monks, depending on the type of e s t a b l i s h -ment.'^ Usual ly , this entire arm of the bu i ld ing was enclosed on the west side by a screen of stone or wood - 80 -to unequivocally delineate the most sacred space of the 1 6 b u i l d i n g . This choir screen was sometimes located on the eastern edge of the crossing bay, and sometimes on the western side, depending on the spat ia l requirements of the community. West of the screen, there was often a second sanctuary, in either the crossing bay or the easternmost bays of the nave, where Mass was said for the l a i t y . This clear spat ia l d i v i s i o n was ref lected in the form of most bui ldings so that space was unambiguously designated by funct ion. The transept provided a d iv id ing element from f loor to vaults which reinforced the a r t i c u l a -t ion of the space established by use and furnishings . Even i f the locat ion of the transept did not prec ise ly correspond to the functional d i v i s i o n of space, i t estab-l i shed a v i sua l separation between lay and c l e r i c a l zones. In a number of bu i ld ings , the space was further ar t i cu la ted by the use of odd piers in the nave. At Laon, for example, four odd piers to the west of the crossing appear to have been an intent ional device employed to designate the space of the nave sanctuary. The large chapter of eighty canons at Laon l i k e l y necessitated the use of a l l or part of the crossing for s t a l l s so the a l tar screen was probably 1 9 located at the western extremity of the crossing bay. - 8 1 -The addit ional a r t i c u l a t i o n provided by the piers leaves no doubt as to the boundaries of secular and c l e r i c a l space. Although the chapter of Bourges has only forty 20 canons, reducing by half the amount of space required for s t a l l s compared to Laon, and probably r e l i e v i n g the necessity for a nave sanctuary, there is no formal choir at Bourges and, consequently, no predetermined t r a n s i t i o n a l bay between sacral and secular space. The locat ion of the choir screen at Bourges was a r c h i t e c t u r a l l y a r b i t r a r y . Bui l t and sculpted during the 1240's by the 2 1 th i rd master of sculpture at Bourges, the choir screen . . . 22 was o r i g i n a l l y situated in the eighth bay of the nave. A substantial structure consist ing of an open, vaulted arcade which supported a balustrade with a sculpted Passion f r i e z e , i t most cer ta in ly established an e f fect ive functional 23 and symbolic d i s t i n c t i o n between choir and nave. S igni f icant in any discussion of Bourges' lack of a transept is the presence of a crossing in a l l of i t s fol lowers. Le Mans, Coutances, St. Martin at Tours, Burgos, and Toledo are a l l cruciform despite their various a f f i l i a t i o n s with Bourges. Although this may have been the result of a number of factors such as regional taste or t r a d i t i o n , i t indicates that the transept was considered an essent ia l component of re l ig ious architecture and makes r - 82 -the Bourges designer's omission even more exceptional . Furthermore, i t means that none of Bourges' "family" captured the essence of i t s spat ia l v i s i o n which depended heavily on i t s transep11essness . S i m i l a r l y , chapels were not essent ia l to the design of Bourges. The five small chapels at Bourges' east end are v i s u a l l y no more prominent than the exterior pier buttresses and they provide only a very minor extension of the bu i ld ing ' s space. Since they were an addit ion to the o r i g i n a l design, and they were made very small to ensure that the ir v i sua l role remained secondary, they may represent the resul t of a compromise between the func-t ional demands imposed by the cathedral chapter and the a r t i s t i c goals of the designer. The secondary l i t u r g i c a l space provided by chapels was an important element of the lay and c l e r i c a l community's s p i r i t u a l l i f e . Although several a l tars were d i s tr ibuted throughout the central vessel of most b u i l d -24 . . . ings, ind iv idua l chapels dedicated to spec i f i c saints provided a more intimate devotional space. In the twelfth century, subsidiary chapels in ambulatories, apses, and at the ends of side a i s les began to acquire a l tars for the ce lebrat ion of private Masses. In the la ter Middle Ages, side chapels were often added to ex is t ing churches - 83 -to meet the demand for a l tars for the ever- increas ing number of private Masses, and they provided l i t u r g i c a l space for the special services of the guilds and f r a t e r n i t i e s 25 of the community. In addi t ion , chapels provided the opportunity to render special homage to patron saints and to place any r e l i c s the cathedral chapter possessed in posit ions of suitable prominence, i f not on an everyday bas is , at least on feast days. Without chapels, a medieval bui ld ing lacked a l i t u r g i c a l necessity, evidenced at Bourges by the addit ion of chapels along the flanks of the bu i ld ing during subsequent c e n t u r i e s ^ which suggests a la ter d i s -sa t i s fac t ion with the o r i g i n a l design's provis ion of l i t u r g i -cal space. Just as a transept figures prominently in the designs of a l l the members of Bourges' school, so were chapels an essent ia l element of the later bu i ld ings . Although not always as large and varied as the chapels at Chartres, those of Bourges' "followers" supplied the l i t u r g i c a l and spat ia l f l e x i b i l i t y requis i te to a medieval cathedral . At Coutances, seven shallow chapels surrounded the east end of the bui ld ing in i t s o r i g i n a l state , to which were added side chapels along the flanks of the nave and an extended ax ia l chapel in the fourteenth century. Le Mans had very deep chapels and an extended ax ia l chapel / - 84 -from i t s incept ion. In these bui ldings as well as Toledo and Burgos, chapels formed an essent ia l design element. Although Bourges d i d , in fact , have five chapels and consequently provided a certa in amount of secondary l i t u r g i c a l space, these were not an integral part of the arch i t ec t ' s v i s i o n . As an afterthought, they represent a design change which may have been based either on aesthetic or functional concerns. However, the ir i n i t i a l omission from the design reveals certa in att i tudes of the o r i g i n a l arch i t ec t . We sense his emphasis on the unity of the design, on i t s smooth out l ine , and on the homogeneity of i t s space; by l i m i t i n g the number of volumes to three, he was able to accomplish a l l these goals. The addit ion of small chapels l i k e l y represents a compromise which modified his o r i g i n a l v i s i o n without destroying i t . The re la t ive roles of l i t u r g y and architecture at Bourges are s ign i f i cant to i t s pos i t ion in the h is tory of medieval arch i tec ture . Certain elements of Bourges 1 design contrast sharply with both preceding and la ter bui ldings which may help to explain i t s l imi ted h i s t o r i c a l success and i t s consequently lesser h i s t o r i o g r a p h i c a l considerat ion. Bourges' lack of a transept, and o r i g i n a l l y also of chapels, produced what Jean Bony terms an "extreme - 85 -2 7 of nonart i cu la t ion ," the s p i r i t of which did not coincide with that of the increas ingly clergy-dominated l i t u r g y . Unlike most medieval bu i ld ings , Bourges did not have an i n b u i l t hierarchy of space to es tabl i sh spat ia l functions. Instead, i t presented a uni f ied space which did not create a separation between l a i t y and c lergy , making i t funda-mentally i l l - adapted to the s p i r i t of the medieval l i t u r g y , which may well explain i t s lack of success as a model. - 86 -NOTES - Chapter 5 Branner, La cathedrale de Bourges, pp. 153-191 i Herschman, pp. 323-332. 'Bony, French Gothic Arch i tec ture , p. 220. the Middle Council in Many of the l i t u r g i c a l changes effected Ages remained in place u n t i l the Second 1962, which ins t i tu ted the most rad ica l re form in many 5 centuries dur ing Vat ican Church L i t u r g y : Theodor Klauser, A Short History of the Western An Account and Some Ref lect ions , trans l H a l l i b u r t o n , 1979) , p. 110 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford Univers i ty John Press, Klauser, Klauser, 110 99 . 8 the canon, s t and i t In fact , even i f the f a i t h f u l could have heard they would probably not have been able to under-since i t was rec i ted in Lat in which most lay people in the Middle Ages did not know. 9 Lengthy and ongoing controversy over the nature of C h r i s t ' s presence in the Eucharist was f i n a l l y resolved at the Fourth Lateran Council in of transubstant iat ion became dogma, of the Western Church (Cleveland: 1215 when the doctrine Bard Thompson, L i turg i e s World Publishing C o . , 196 1), p 42 . 10 1 1 1 2 1 3 Klauser, p. Thompson, p See n. 26, KIauser, 107. 46 . chapter 4. 146-147 PP Also , Krautheimer, 57 14, But was no chapter St . John Hope, not much in parish churches where there of canons or monastic community. Wil l iam "Quire Screens in English Churches," - 87 -Archaeologia, 68 (1916-17), 44. '^Usually, there was ei ther a chapter or a community of monks and not both. The monastic cathedrals , in which there would have been both, were pecul iar to England. (Hope, p. 44.) Hope, p . 44 . '^Generally, the larger the community, the further west the screen was located, and vice versa. 1 8 E r i c Fernie , "The Use of Varied Nave Supports in Romanesque and Early Gothic Churches," Gesta, 23, No. 2 (1984), p. 114. Both secular and monastic churches of the twelfth century often had l i t u r g i c a l areas to the west of the cross ing . In the thirteenth century, the l i t u r g i c a l area was most often confined to the eastern arm of the bui ld ing with the choir screen located between the eastern piers of the cross ing. (e .g . Chartres , Soissons, Beauvais, e tc . ) 1 9 Fernie , p. 113. 20 Bout ault , p . 11. 2 1 Tania Bayard, Bourges Cathedral: The West Portals (New York: Garland Publ i shers , 1976), p. 118. 22 . i . e . on the west side of the second complete double bay (the bay encompassed by one s ix-part vault) from the east end. Paul Gauchery, "Restes de l 'anc ien jube de la cathedrale de Bourges," Memoires de la societe des antiquaires du  centre, 38 (1917-18), p. 90. 23 According to Gauchery's drawing of the recon-structed jube, i t was approximately 5.7 metres t a l l . Gauchery, pp. 88-89. 24 There was most cer ta in ly at least one high a l tar in the l i t u r g i c a l , choir of Bourges and another in the secular sanctuary to the west of the jube; this public a l tar was probably dedicated to the Holy Cross (Fernie , pp. 111-114). In addi t ion , there was an a l tar of St. - 88 -Mart ia l at the north edge of the jube, and one dedicated to Notre-Dame la Gisante to the south. Gauchery, pp. 88-89. 2 5 K l a u s e r , pp. 148-149. 2^Chapels were b u i l t along the sides through the f i f teenth and sixteenth centuries , sponsored by prominent famil ies of Bourges, and to a var iety of sa ints . Boinet, 1952, pp. 73-77. o f Bourges pr imar i l y dedicated - 89 -Conclus ion In contrast to the perception of Bourges' pos i t ion in the his tory of Gothic architecture to date, i t may be seen from a close examination of the bui ld ing that i t is a monument of equal importance as Chartres and that, in fact , the two are uniquely complementary. Together, C h a r t r e s and B o u r g e s mark a p a r t i c u l a r , creative moment at the end of the twelfth century when technological inven-t ion fuel led a reassessment of ex is t ing aesthetic ideals and produced diverging solutions to s imi lar functional problems. Although both designers f u l l y rea l ized the a r t i s t i c freedom which the f l y ing buttress made poss ible , they approached i t s potent ia l quite d i f f e r e n t l y . Whereas the designer of Chartres sought a new combination and configuration of arch i t ec tura l elements, the bui lder of Bourges envisioned a uni f ied overa l l e f fec t , created by the fusion of a number of features. His comprehensive grasp of the s t ruc tura l dynamics of masonry construct ion, and of the f ly ing buttress i t s e l f , assisted enormously in integrat ing the effects of a l l the bu i ld ing ' s elements in order to rea l i ze a s ingle aesthet ic . The resu l t ing homogeneity of space is unparal le led in the h i s tory of - 90 -Gothic archi tec ture . I r o n i c a l l y , i t was perhaps this very concentration on an arch i t ec tura l v i s i o n which led to the re la t ive obscu-r i t y of Bourges in the h i s tory of medieval archi tec ture . The design of Bourges was not eas i ly adaptable to a var ie ty of contexts and, furthermore, i t lacked certa in features which were fundamental to a rapid ly evolving medieval l i t u r g y . Although the designer made a profoundly o r i g i n a l a r t i s t i c and technological statement at a unique and highly creative moment in h i s t o r y , he f a i l e d to create a design which stood as a functional and aesthetic model for future generations . - 9 1 -Llondaff, •Westminster SouwworV. Rochester ^ 'Glastonbury Canterbury ^Salisbury Netted Wells Lissevjeghe, Bruges ^ ^Aardenburg Portsmouth St. Omer <7 Y p r e s , Henin-LiStard Doutlens,-' E u , 1 VaucellesK Honnecourti Ghent Brussels 'Oudenaatde VittersO -ambrar Fecamp Gdmaches -^sTouintinffi'/S^rTTC^ J« ^  ! ^7, >Longues^  Auffay Rouen Aumate Lang rut Bayeux^ . Norrey<Hta/ CoutoncestpA Ardenne'7 L a e n 1 • s W Jumteges S^ Andelys Sisors V Dmp, ousters,; Lisieux Do; V^^Fatatse OMortain "~" _ .-ont • St.Mchel Pacy-sur-EJ TSt. E-vroult 'Lorilay Sees <sors\ v rJ ' V W r^Braine ® • H^tleud'E.® ® ®Reims Corm ^I^J&h, Longpont Mont-N.D. ^Tav. Meaux^  ^ r j r b a j s Andres/ SiEgmi" -BagneasH s&Bafi." tflaChop.-sur^C. ChalSns-V f Vi1lene-uve-1e-C. s u r ® V o u d o y Laval J onneval Vannes GallardW Dourdan LBrie-C.R. ® ®rhn ®s _ Champcueil Chartres u - ^ Tropes Moret \ iroyes, VU1 en euve-surJY. Saumur^ Candes" m le Puy-TST.D. St. Jouin-de-M* Blots_ Marmoutier . Tours BoisCommun Romorantin ^.'"^Pontigny Auxerre'-i 7 Rougemont Montreal.* ^ 'St.Pere-spus-V ^ * 9 Ctamecy Air vault Poitiers^ N Flavigny^ 0 50 100km /V St. Yrietx F i g . 1 France, map - 94 -A. choir, begun ca. 1163 fl. nave, begun ca. 1175 F i g . 6 Notre-Dame, Par i s : section of nave F i g . 7 Comparative cross sect ions, showing formation of volumes in sect ion: Reims Cathedral ( l e f t ) ; Bourges Cathedral ( r i g h t ) . / - 95 -/ A. T o u r s , Saint-Martin, ca. 1210-1230 B. T o l e d o Cathedral, ca. 1222-1247 C. L e M a n s Cathedral, ca. 1217-1254 D. Coutances Cathedral, ca. 1235-1255 9 Plans: Abbey of St. Mart in , Tours; Toledo, Le Mans, and Coutances Cathedrals Bourges Cathedral: and hemicyc1e nave F i g . 11 Bourges Cathedral: nave to west, showing south flank F i g . 12 Bourges Cathedral: v a u l t , bays 6 & 7 F i g . 13 Bourges Cathedral: hemicycle and f i r s t straight bays of south side from north inner F i g . 15 Bourges Cathedral: north flank of nave from inner ambulatory F i g . 16 Bourges Cathedral: south flank of nave F i g . 17 Bourges Cathedral: nave and hemicycle 18 Bourges Cathedral: inner ambulatory, showing secondary elevat ion F i g . 19 Bourges Cathedral: north flank of nave, and hemicycle - 102 -F i g . 20 Bourges Cathedral: north inner a i s le to east F i g . 21 Bourges Cathedral: f l y i n g but tress , south side of n av e F i g . 22 Bourges Cathedral: f l y ing but tress , east end F i g . 23 Bourges Cathedral: exter ior of east end F i g . 24 Bourges Cathedral: nave ex ter ior , south elevat ion - 105 -F i g . 26 Bourges Cathedral: upper t r i f o r i u m , bay 6 of nave - 106 -F i g . 28 Bourges Cathedral: lower t r i f o r i u m , bay 5 of n av e F i g . 31 Chartres Cathedral: north e levat ion of choir F i g . 32 Chartres Cathedral : nave vault F i g . 33 Chartres Cathedral: north e levat ion of nave F i g . 34 Chartres Cathedral : easternmost bay of north nave e levat ion F i g . 35 Chartres Cathedral: north transept, eastern e levat ion F i g . 36 Chartres Cathedral : north transept from south F i g . 37 Chartres Cathedral: ex ter ior , east end 38 Chartres Cath east end flye F i g . 39 Chartres Cathedral : exter ior north flank - 113 -Fig . Not re-Dame, Par i s : elevat ion F i g . 42 L e M a n s C a t h e d r a l : v i e w o f h e m i c y c l e f r o m n o r t h i n n e r a i s l e o f c h o i r F i g . 43 L e Mans C a t h e d r a l : s o u t h e l e v a t i o n o f c h o i r F i g . 44 Le Mans C a t h e d r a l : F i g . 45 Le Mans C a t h e d r a l : s o u t h e l e v a t i o n f r o m p i e r s and i n n e r i n n e r a m b u l a t o r y a m b u l a t o r y v a u l t s f r o m i n n e r a m b u l a t o r y F i g . Le Mans Cathedral: south e levat ion of choir F i g . 48 Le Mans Cathedral: south e levat ion of choir F i g . 49 Le Mans Cathedral: north inner a i s l e and ambulatory of choir g. 50 Le Mans Cathedral: Romanesque nave F i g . 51 C o u t a n c e s C a t h e d r a l : F i g . 52 C o u t a n c e s C a t h e d r a : e x t e r i o r , e a s t end e x t e r i o r , e a s t end F i g . 55 Coutances Cathedral: outer ambulatory F i g . 56 Coutances Cathedral : south flank of choir NO S3 F i g . 57 Coutances Cathedral: F i g . 58 Beauvais Cathedral: north flank of choir north e levat ion of choir - 1 2 3 -F i g . 62 St. Denis, Abbey: north e levat ion of nav e - 125 -Bibliography Acland, James H. Medieval Structure: The Gothic Vault . Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press, 1972. Bayard, Tania . Bourges Cathedral: The West Por ta l s . New York: Garland Publ i sh ing , 1976. Boinet, Amedee. La cathedrale de Bourges. Ed. Henri Laurens. Par i s : Pet i tes Monographies des Grands Edi f i ces de la France, 1910, 1952. Bony, Jean. "Essai sur la s p i r i t u a l i t e de deux cathedrales: Notre-Dame de Paris et St. Etienne de Bourges." Chercher Dieu, 13 (1943), 150-67. "The Resistance to Chartres in Early Thirteenth Century Arch i t ec ture ." Journal of the B r i t i s h  Archaeological Assoc ia t ion , 3rd s e r . , 20-21 (1957-58), 35-52. . Rev. of La cathedrale de Bourges et sa place dans 1 'arch i t ec ture gothique, by Robert Branner. Art B u l l e t i n , 47 (1965), 521-25. "Diagonality and Centra l i ty in Early Gothic Rib-Vaulted Arch i t ec ture ." Gesta, 15 (1976), 15-25. . French Gothic Architecture of the 12th and 13th Centuries . Berkeley: Univ. of C a l i f o r n i a Press , 1 983 . Boutault , Genevieve. Les domaines du chapitre de Bourges  au debut du X l l l e s iec le . Par i s : Edit ions Proba, 1942. Branner, Robert, and Robert Gauchery. "La cathedrale de Bourges aux Xle et X l l e s i ec l e s ." Bui 1 et in  monumental, III (1953), 105-23. "The Movements of Gothic Archi tects between France and Spain in the Early Thirteenth Century." Acts of the XIX Internat ional Congress on the  History of A r t , 1958, pp. 44-48. - 126 -La cathedrale de Bourges et sa place dans  1 'architecture gothique. P a r i s : Edit ions tardy, 1962. "Le maitre de la cathedrale de Beauvais." Art de France, No. II (1962), 77-92. "Encore Bourges." Journal of the Society  of Arch i t ec tura l H i s t o r i a n s , 25, No. 4 (December, 1966), 299-30 1 . " ' F a b r i c a , opus' and the Dating of Medieval Monuments." Gesta, 15 (1976), 27-30. Brooke, Christopher. Medieval Church and Society. New York: New York Univ. Press, 1972. Borg, Alan, and Robert Mark. "Chartres Cathedral: A Re-appraisal of i t s Structure ." Art B u l l e t i n , 55 (1973), 367-72. Kersers , A. "Les chapelles absidales de la cathe-drale de Bourges." B u l l e t i n monumental, 40 (1874), 417-30. P. des. "Les tr i for iums de la cathedrale de Bourges." B u l l e t i n monumental, 83 (1924), 9 1-10 2. Buhot de Ch aume s, Colmet Daage, P a t r i c e . La cathedrale de Coutances. Ed. Henri Laurens. Par i s : Petites Monographies des Grands Ed i f i ce s de l a France, 1967. Conant, Kenneth John. A Br ie f Commentary on Early Medieval  Church Arch i tec ture . Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1942. Fernie , E r i c . "The Use of Varied Nave Supports in Romanesque and Early Gothic Churches." Gesta, 23, No. 2 ( 1 984 ) , 107-1 7 . F i tchen , John. "A Comment on the Function of the Upper F ly ing Buttress in French Gothic Arch i t ec ture ." Gazette des Beaux-Arts, series 6, 45 (1955), 69-90. F r a n k l , Paul . Gothic Arch i tec ture . Trans. Dieter Pevsner. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1962. - 127 -Gaucher, Paul . "Restes de l 'anc ien jube de la cathedrale de Bourges." Memoires de la societe des a n t i - quaires du centre, 38 (1917-18), 63-100. Grodecki, Louis . Gothic Arch i tec ture . Trans. I , Mark P a r i s . New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1977. He i tz , C a r o l . Recherches sur les rapports entre architecture  et l i t u r g i e a l'epoque carol ingienne. Par i s : S . E . V . P . E . N . , 1963. H e l i o t , P i e r r e . "La famil le monumentale de la cathedrale de Bourges et 1 'architecture de l 'Europe au moyen age." Gedenkschrift Ernst G a l l . Deutscher Kunstverlag, 1965, pp. 143-70. Henderson, George. Chartres . Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1968. Herschman, J o e l . "The Norman Ambulatory of Le Mans Cathedral and the Chevet of the Cathedral of Coutances." Gesta, 20, No. 2 (1981), 323-32. Hope, Wil l iam St. John. "Quire Screens in English Churches." Archaeologia, 68 (1917), 43-110. James, John. The Contractors of Chartres . Wyong: Mandorla Publicat ions, 1981. Chartres : The Masons Who Bui l t a Legend. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul , 1982. Klauser, Theodor. A Short History of the Western L i t u r g y :  An Account and Some Ref lec t ions . Trans. John H a l l i b u r t o n . 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press , 1979 . Krautheimer, Richard. Early Chr i s t i an and Byzantine A r c h i - tecture . Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1975. Lasteyr ie du S a i l l a n t , Robert Charles , comte de . L ' a r c h i - tecture re l ig ieuse en France a l'epoque gothique. Ed. M. Aubert. 2nd ed . V . l . Par i s : A. P i c a r d , 1926. Mark, Robert, and Robert S. Jonash . "Wind Loading on Gothic Structure ." Journal of the Society - 128 -of A r c h i t e c t u r a l H i s t o r i a n s , 29 (Oct . , 1970), 222-30. Mark, Robert. "Structural Experimentation in Gothic A r c h i -tecture ." American S c i e n t i s t , 66, No. 5 (1978), 542-50. . Experiments in Gothic Structure . Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1982. Mich ler , Jurgen. "Zur Stel lung von Bourges in der gotischen Baukunst." Wal l ra f -Richartz -Jarbuch , 41 (1979-80) , 27-86 . M i l e s , Margaret R. Image as Insight: Visual Understanding  in Western C h r i s t i a n i t y and Secular Cul ture . Boston: Beacon Press, 1985. Panofsky, Erwin, ed . , trans. Abbot Suger on the Art Treas- ures of Saint-Denis . Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1946. Seymour, Charles J r . Notre-Dame of Noyon in the Twelfth Century : A Study in the Early Development of Gothic Arch i tec ture . New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1939. Simson, Otto von. The Gothic Cathedral: Origins of Gothic  Architecture and the Medieval Concept of Order . New York: Pantheon Books, 1962. Southern, R.W. Medieval Humanism and Other Studies. Oxford: Bas i l Blackwel l , 1970. Stoddard, Whitney. Rev. of La cathedrale de Bourges et  sa place dans 1'architecture gothique, by Robert Branner. Journal of the Society of A r c h i t e c t u r a l H i s t o r i a n s , 24, No. 2 (1965), 176-78. . Art and Architecture in Medieval France New York: Harper and Row, 1972. Temko, Alan. Notre-Dame of P a r i s . London: Seeker < Warburg, 1956. Thompson, Bard. L i t u r g i e s of the Western Church. Cleveland: World Publ . Co . , 1961. - 129 -, and R. Mark. "Gothic Cathedral Buttress ing: The Experiment at Bourges and i t s Influence." Journal of the Society of A r c h i t e c t u r a l Historians 23, No. 1 ( 1974 ) , 17-26. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0097100/manifest

Comment

Related Items