The Early Stained Glass of Canterbury Cathedral: Circa 1175-1220 9780691039275, 0691039275

Citation preview

| Canterbury Cathedral

The Early Stained Glass of

BLANK PAGE

The Early Stained Glass of Canterbury Cathedral CIRCA 1175-1220 Madeline Harrison Caviness

TWKIL CORARY Se cOUNCES GRANT

1-16-R-77

78=10599 | Princeton University Press

Copyright © 1977 by Princeton University Press

. Published by Princeton University Press, | Princeton, New Jersey

IN THE UNITED KINGDOM: Princeton University Press,

Guildford, Surrey All Rights Reserved Publication of this book has been aided by The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation This book has been composed in Linotype Granjon

Printed in the United States of America by Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Caviness, Madeline Harrison, 1938The early stained glass of Canterbury Cathedral circa I175—1220.

Bibliography: p. Includes index.

1. Glass painting and staining, Romanesque—

England—Canterbury. 2. Glass painting and

. staining, Gothic—England—Canterbury. 3. Glass painting and staining—England—Can-

terbury. 4. Canterbury Cathedral. I. Title. NK5344.C3C38 —-748.5'922'34 77-10419 ISBN 0-691-03927-5

TO THE MEMORY OF MY MOTHER Gwendoline Fownes Harrison

BLANK PAGE

Contents

List of PLAarTEs 1X VIII. HactocrapHicaL SuBJECTs 139 List of Text Ficures xv The cycles: changes in emphasis 140 The lives ofFIGURES Sts. Dunstan Alphage List| or APPENDIX XV Theand Becket windows144 146

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS XVil IX. Concrustons 151

INTRODUCTION 3 APPENDIX: FIGURES 159

I. MerHop or Stupy: Propiems or REsTora- BrptiocraPHy 179 TION AND THE AUTHENTICITY OF

MeprevaL Gtass 13 INDEX 185

IT. ‘Tue Historica, BacKGROoUND AND THE PLATES

ProsLem oF DatING 23 III. MerHop oF Srupy: SryL—E AND ORNAMENT 36 Comparative material 37 The part played by composition and ornament

in the Canterbury windows AI General stylistic background 45 IV. THe TransirionaL Winpows: THE Earty

AND Muppet Perriops 4g

The early period: the Methuselah Master 49

The middle period 58

V. THe Goruic Winpows: Sens, CANTER-

BURY, AND CHARTRES 83

andSens ornament The painters 84 go The Canterbury—Sens Designer: composition

The development of the style of the

Fitz-Eisulf Master at Canterbury 93

The Joseph Window in Chartres 95

windows 96

The dates of the Trinity Chapel ambulatory The chronology of the Trinity Chapel

clerestory glazing . 98

VI. THE Iconocraruic ProcraM ol The subjects of the windows 103 The planning and execution of the program 106

VII. Brsticat Susyecrs 107

The ancestors of Christ 107 The typological windows: the cycle 115

related series 120

The typological windows: design sources and

BLANK PAGE

LIST OF PLATES

Color 18. Astrological treatise, etc., Oxford, Bodleian Li-

. , dl. 614, ff.1v-2. Conway Librar

I. North choir aisle n:XV (10). Destruction of 19. rary, Me poe eV (x), Bal an, ore wh

Sodom Copyright. Victoria & Albert Museum

II. Julian the Apostate and Maurice Tiberius (the P led h Peal B | ° Bibl; he

thorny ground) from the sixth typological win- 20. © termorons Salter, Brussels, vromomedue

dow a 9901 6 f.11 ; feaert of1°, alam. . opy_ ; , Royale, right Dibluotheque kKoyate Bruxelles HI. lena Chapel n:IV (3). Petronella with epi- 21. North choir aisle n:XV (3), Isaiah. Crown Copy-

IV. Fogg Museum, Medallion from the life of Beck- nie Vaciona nll msc Biblioth’ et, formerly Trinity Chapel n: VI. Fogg Museum, 72. Rows orn Salter, DrUsse’s, _pidomedne

Harvard University oyale, MS 9961-62, f.rx, detail of Isaiah. Copyright Bibliotheque Royale Albert I, Bruxelles 23. North choir aisle n:XV (2), Magi Riding to

Black and White Bethlehem. Crown Copyright. Victoria & Albert useum t. North choir aisle n:XV, border. Conway Library. 24. “Psalter of Henry of Blois,” British Library, Cot-

brary tion. Conway Library

2. North choir aisle n:XIV, border. Conway Li- ton Nero MS CIV, f.12, magi riding and adora-

3. Crypt, east window, border. The Author 25. North choir aisle n:XV (8), adoration. Crown 4. Chartres, St. Eustace window, border and rrn- Copyright. Victoria & Albert Museum

ceaux. Archives photographiques 26. Monza ampulla of the sixth century, adoration. 5. Rheims, St.-Remi, clerestory border. Archives D. Fourmont

photographiques 27. North choir aisle n:XV (5), Magi before Herod.

: 6. Adam, from clerestory N:XXV. Crown Copy- Crown Copyright. Victoria & Albert Museum right. Victoria & Albert Museum 28. Peterborough Psalter, Brussels, Bibliothéque Roy-

7. Aelfric, Pentateuch, British Library, Cotton Clau- ale, MS 9961-62, f.11v, detail of Magi before dius MS B.IV, f.7v, detail of Adam. Conway Li- Herod. Copyright Bibliotheque Royale Albert

brary I", Bruxelles

8. Jared, from clerestory N:XXII. Crown Copy- 29. Great Canterbury Psalter, Paris, Bibliothéque

right. Victoria & Albert Museum Nationale, MS Lat. 8846, f.4v, detail, magi cycle

g. Enoch, from clerestory N:XXII. Crown Copy- and presentation. Bibliotheque Nationale

right. Victoria & Albert Museum 30. North choir aisle n:XV 4, Exodus. Crown Copy-

10. St. Savin-sur-Gartempe, vault painting, Enoch. right. Victoria & Albert Museum

Archives photographiques 31. Winchester Bible, f.350v, detail of King Anti-

11. Aelfric, Pentateuch, British Library, Cotton Clau- ochus. Warburg Institute dius MS B.IV, f.11v, Jared and Enoch. Conway 32. Aelfric, Pentateuch, British Library, Cotton Clau-

Library dius MS B.IV, f.22, detail of Pharaoh. Conway

12. Methuselah, from clerestory N:XXI. Crown Library

Copyright. Victoria & Albert Museum 33. Canterbury Cathedral, sculpture fragment from

13. Lamech, from clerestory N:XXI. Crown Copy- the choir enclosure of 1180 (?). Conway Library

tight. Victoria & Albert Museum 34. Peterborough Psalter, Brussels, Bibliothéque

14. Winchester Bible, f.169, initial to Baruch. Crown Royale, MS 9961-62, f.11, detail of the Exodus.

Copyright, Victoria & Albert Museum Copyright Bibliotheque Royale Albert I° Bru-

15. Aelfric, Pentateuch, British Library, Cotton Clau- xelles dius MS B.IV, f.11, detail of Cainan. Conway 35. Utrecht Psalter, University Library. MS 32,

Library f.44, Psalm 76, detail of the Exodus. After De-

16. Aelfric, Pentateuch, British Library, Cotton Clau- Wald Utrecht Psalter dius MS BIV, f.12, detail of Methuselah. Con- 36. Ara Pacis Augustae, Rome, detail of relief sculp-

way Library ture, procession. Scala New York/Florence

17. The same, detail of Lamech. Conway Library 37. North Choir Aisle N:XV (6), Christ leading the

PLATES x Gentiles away from pagan gods. Crown Copy- 55. North choir aisle n:XV (12), sacrifice of Jero-

right. Victoria & Albert Museum boam. Crown Copyright. Victoria & Albert Mu-

38. Winchester Bible, f.350v, detail Mattathias pre- seum venting idolatry. Warburg Institute 56. Winchester Bible, f.246, detail of Abraham. War39. Lambeth Bible, London, Lambeth Palace Li- burg Institute brary, MS 3, f.285v, detail of idol. Warburg In- 57. Great Canterbury Psalter, Paris, Bibliothéque

stitute Nationale, MS Lat. 8846, f.3v, detail of Christ

40. Bronze statuette of Jupiter, 2nd—3rd century, teaching. Bibliotheque Nationale Utrecht, Provincial Oudheidkundig Museum. 58. Sens, Good Samaritan window, Christ before

Archaeologisch Institut, Groningen Pilate. Archives photographiques

41. Peterborough Psalter, Brussels, Bibliothéque 59. Peterborough Psalter, Brussels, Bibliotheque Royale, MS 9961-62, f.11v, detail of Christ lead- Royale, MS 9961-62, f.t2v, detail, sacrifice of ing the Gentiles. Copyright Bibliotheque Royale Jeroboam. Copyright Bibliothéque Royale Albert

Albert I, Bruxelles 1°", Bruxelles —

7. useum ex; - ;264 (Prudentius [Xth cent.) ; of Royale, MS 9961-62, f.12v, detail, presentation

42. Psychomachia of Prudentius, Bern, Burgerbiblio- 60. North choir aisle n:AV (13), presentation of

thek, MS 264 p. 68, combat between faith and name’ Crown Copyright. Victoria & Albert

me cult of the gods. Burgerbibliothek Bern, Co- 61. Peterborough Psalter, Brussels, Bibliothéque

, , Bruxelles

43. Aelfric, Pentateuch, British Library, Cotton Clau- Samuel. Copuricht Bibliothoaue Rovale Albert

dius MS B.IV, f.23v. detail of the men of Sodom rer B + SOPYE 4 oy

ensnared by the devil. Conway Library 62. St-Quentin, Collegiate Church, Lady Chapel 44. North choir aisle niXV (7); Solomon and Sheba. Window, presentation of Samuel. Archives pho-

Crown Copyright. Victoria & Albert Museum tographiques 45. Sens, Prodigal Son window, harlots. Archives 63. North choir aisle n:XV (14), presentation of

photographiques Christ. Conway Library

46. Peterborough Psalter, Brussels, Bibliotheque 64. Peterborough Psalter, Brussels, Bibliothéque Royale, MS gg61-62, f.11v, detail of Solomon and Royale, MS gg61-62, f.12v, detail of presentation Sheba. Copyright Bibliotheque Royale Albert I°’, of Christ. Copyright Bibliotheque Royale Albert

Bruxelles L®", Bruxelles graphiques tographiques

47. St.-Quentin, Collegiate Church, Lady Chapel, 65. St.-Quentin, Collegiate Church, Lady Chapel Window, Solomon and Sheba. Archives photo- Window, presentation of Christ. Archives pho48. North choir aisle n:XV (9), Joseph and _ his 66. Noah, from clerestory N:XX. Crown Copyright. brethren. Crown Copyright. Victoria & Albert Victoria & Albert Museum

Museum 67. Shem, from clerestory N:XX. The Author

France” burg Institute

49. St.-Denis, Signum Tau. After Grodeckt, “Art de 68. Winchester Bible, f.120v, detail of Elisha. War50. Peterborough Psalter, Brussels, Bibliothéque Roy- 69. Aelfric, Pentateuch, British Library, Cotton Clau-

ale, MS g961-62, f.r1v, detail of Joseph and his dius MS B.IV, f.15v, detail of Noah. Conway

brethren. Copyright Bibliotheque Royale Albert Library

[°’, Bruxelles 70. Neri, from clerestory S:XII. The Author

51. North choir aisle n:XV (10), destruction of 71. Clerestory N: XIV, border. The Author

Sodom. Crown Copyright. Victoria & Albert Mu- 72. Bury Bible, Cambridge, Corpus Christi College,

seum MS 2, f.147, detail of border. Conway Library

52. North French Psalter, New York, Morgan Li- 73. Sens, Good Samaritan window, border. Archives

brary, MS 338, f.196v details with destruction photographiques of Sodom. The Pierpont Morgan Library 74. Corona, Jesse window by Austin, 1861, border. 53. Palermo, Capella Palatina, mosaic of destruction The Author of Sodom. Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzan- 75. Clerestory S:XIV, border. Canterbury Cathedral

tine Studies, Washington, D.C. 76. Reu, from clerestory N: XVI. Crown Copyright.

54. Byzantine Gospels, eleventh century, Paris, Bib- Victoria & Albert Museum liothéque Nationale, MS grec. 74, p. 147, detail 77. Terah, from clerestory N:XVI. Crown Copyof destruction of Sodom. Bibliotheque Nationale right. Victoria & Albert Museum

PLATES x1 78. Abraham, from clerestory N: XIV. Crown Copy- théque Nationale, MS grec. 510, f£.374v, detail,

right. Victoria & Albert Museum Julian the Apostate paying his soldiers. Bzblio-

79. Palermo, Cappella Palatina, mosaic, detail of St. théque Nationale James from Pentecost. Dumbarton Oaks Center 100. Ecclesia and the three sons of Noah, from the

for Byzantine Studies, Washington, D.C. sixth typological window. Crown Copyright. 80. Phares, from clerestory N: XII. Restoration Center Victoria & Albert Museum 81. Ingeborg Psalter, Chantilly, Musée Condé, MS 101. Kennet Ciborium, detail of the circumcision of 1695, f£.18v, detail of Herod. Photographie Gi- Isaac. After Swarzenski, “Monuments of Ro-

raudon manesque Art’

82. Joanna, from clerestory S:XIV/XV. Crown Copy- 102. Great Canterbury Psalter, Paris, Bibliothéque

right. Victoria & Albert Museum Nationale, MS Lat. 8846, f.1v, detail, Abraham

83. Rheims, St.-Rémi, clerestory, Hosea. Archives and Melchizadek. Bibliothéque Nationale

photographiques 103. Three virtuous states, from the sixth typological

84. Winchester Bible, f.250, initials to Psalm r1o. window. Crown Copyright. Victoria & Albert

Warburg Institute : Museum

85. Semei, from clerestory S:XV/XVI. Crown Copy- 104. Sens, central west portal, jamb figures, wise vir-

right. Victoria & Albert Museum gins. The Author

86. Victoria and Albert Museum, original head of 105. North Oculus, Moses and Synagogue. Crown Semei. Crown Copyright. Victoria & Albert Mu- Copyright. Victoria & Albert Museum

seum 106. North oculus, Prudence. Crown Copyright. Vic-

87. Miraculous draught of fishes, from the fourth toria & Albert Museum

typological window. National Monuments Record 107. North oculus, Temperance. Crown Copyright.

88. Calling of Nathanael, from the fourth typologi- Victoria & Albert Museum

cal window. The Author 108. Great Canterbury Psalter, Paris, Bibliothéque

89. The sower on stony ground, from the sixth typo- Nationale, MS Lat. 8846, f.15v, Psalm g, detail.

logical window. Crown Copyright. Victoria & Bibliothéque Nationale , Albert Museum 109. North choir aisle “triforium” Nt:X, scenes from

go. Utrecht Psalter copy, British Library, Harl. MS the life of St. Dunstan. Entwistle 603, f.21, detail, Psalm 37. Conway Library 110. Detail of fig. rog, angel in the miracle at Glas-

gi. Hortus Deliciarum, the parable of the sower tonbury. The Author

Deliciarum’”’ Author

(copy, f.108v). After Straub & Keller, “Hortus 111. Detail of fig. rog, St. Dunstan at Calne. The

g2. Trinity Chapel s:II (12), William of Kellett re- 112. Baldwin, Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, turning to work. Crown Copyright. Victoria & MS 200, f.1, author portrait. Conway Library

Albert Museum 113. North choir aisle “triforium” Nt:IX, seige of

93. Trinity Chapel s:VII (19), the search party for Canterbury by the Danes. Fzsk-Moore William of Gloucester. Crown Copyright. Vic- 114. Prefatory page from a Psalter (?), New York,

toria & Albert Museum Morgan Library, MS 724, detail. The Pierpont 94. Pharisees turn from Christ, from the sixth typo- Morgan Library logical window. Crown Copyright. Victoria & 115. Fogg Museum, medallion from the life of Becket,

Albert Museum Trinity Chapel n:VI. Fogg Museum, Harvard

ypolog ow py -_ , oo, , ae casPsalter, & AlbertParis, Museum 96. Great Canterbury Bibliothéque ; pas ae Nationale . ) 4V, Bibliotheque braryLerp §an 95. The sower in good ground and among thorns, Un versity

from the sixth typological window. Crown Copv- 116. Victoria and Albert Museum, ornament from

right. Victoria & Albert Museum Trinity Chapel n: VI. Crown Copyright. Victoria

Nationale. MS Lat. 8846. £6ov. detail. Psalm 2”, 117. Worksop Bestiary, New York, Morgan Library,

, 4 » Geral, sal 37 MS 81, £.84v, detail. The Prerpont Morgan Li-

97. The Emperors Julian the Apostate and Maurice 118. Fogg medallion, detail. The Author (the thorny ones), from the sixth typological 11g. Winchester Bible, f.246, detail of unfinished fig-

window. The Author ures, partially painted by the Morgan Master.

98. Little Canterbury Psalter, Paris, Bibliothéque Warburg Institute

Nationale, MS Lat. 770, f.124, Psalm 97, Julian 120. Trinity Chapel n:V (7), pilgrims at the tomb of

and Maurice (?). Bibliothéque Nationale Becket. Crown Copyright. Victoria & Albert Mu99. Homilies of Gregory Nazianzus, Paris, Biblio- seum

PLATES X11 121. North choir aisle “triforium” St: XI, border. Con- théque Nationale, MS grec. 510, f.360, detail of

way Library Noah’s ark. Bibliotheque Nationale

122. Clerestory N:VII, rinceaux. Conway Library 146. Virginia Museum of Fine Arts, Last Judgment,

123. South choir aisle “trifortum” St:IX, rinceaux. from Trinity Chapel clerestory I. Virginia Mu-

The Author seum of Fine Arts

124. Chalons-sur-Marne, Cathedral Treasury, border. 147. Paris, Notre-Dame, south rose, reused twelfth-

Archives photographiques century panel. Archives photographiques Library, f.23, initial. The Author National Monuments Record

125. Christ Church Register K, Canterbury Cathedral 148. Corona, redemption window, 3, Sacrifice of Isaac.

126. Little Canterbury Psalter, Paris, Bibliothéque 149. North French Psalter, New York, Morgan Li-

Nationale, MS Lat. 770, f.11v, Beatus initial. brary MS 338, f.220v, sacrifice of Isaac. The

Bibliotheque Nationale Pierpont Morgan Library

127. Salmon (?), from clerestory N:IX, with orna- 150. Palermo, Capella Palatina, Mosaic, sacrifice of

. ment im situ (montage). Crown Copyright. Vic- Isaac. Scala New York /Florence

toria & Albert Museum 151. Amminadab, from clerestory N:X. National 128. North oculus, border. The Author Monumenis Record 129. North oculus, Jeremiah. Crown Copyright. Vic- 152. Nahshon, from clerestory N:X. National Monu-

toria & Albert Museum ments Record

130. North oculus, Ezechiel. Crown Copyright. Vic- 153. Obed, from clerestory N: VIII. The Author

toria & Albert Museum 154. Rheims, St.-Remi, clerestory, Ezechiel. Archives

131. North oculus, Daniel. Crown Copyright. Victo- photographiques

ria & Albert Museum 155. Troyes, St. Peter window, Simon Magus. Ar-

132. Treatise on the angels, Cambridge, University chives photographiques Library, MS Kk.4.25, f.45, Tobias and the angel. 156. Paris, Notre-Dame, south rose, reused twelfth-

Conway Library century panel. Archives photographiques

133. Corona, Jesse tree, Virgin. Entwistle 157. Private collection, synagogue, from St.-Remi of

134. Corona, Jesse tree, Josiah. Entwistle Rheims (?). After Metropolitan Museum of Art, 135. Sens, Becket window, Christ in majesty. Archives “Medieval Art”

photographiques 158. “Psalter of Blanche of Castille,” Paris, Biblio-

136. Second great seal of Richard I, before 1198. théque de I’Arsenal, MS 1186, f.16, annunciation

Warburg Institute and visitation. Bibliothéque Nationale

137. Corona, redemption window, upper part. Crown 159. Trinity Chapel n:IV (15 & 16), Ethelreda of

Copyright. Victoria & Albert Museum Canterbury at the tomb of Becket. Crown Copy138. Sens, St. Eustace window, the saint refusing to right. Victoria & Albert Museum . worship idols. Archives photographiques 160. Sens. Becket window, burial of Becket. Archives

139. North choir aisle n:XIV (2), Moses and Jethro. photographiques National Monuments Record 161. St. Augustine's gospels, Cambridge. Corpus 140. Gumbertus Bible, Erlangen, Universitatsbiblio- aie eee MS 286, f.r29v, St. Luke. Corpus thek, MS 121, f.171v, detail, Hezekiah. Universi- PIS MOUERE

mare 162. Trinity Chapel, n:III Erlangen (19-22), Hugh, Abbot, of titsbibliothek,

des Jervaulx cured. Crown Copyright. Victoria & ale, MS 9961-62, f.72v, detail, God portal, instructing 62. lefbirth I birth of SJohn. i . 163. Sens, left west voussoir, of St. Moses. Copyright Bibliotheque Royale Albert I, The Author

141. Peterborough Psalter, Brussels, Bibliothéque Roy- Albert Museum

B ruxelles 164. Trinity Chapel N:III (1), vision of Becket.

142. Von Reider ivory plaque, Munich Bayerisches Crown Copyright. Victoria & Albert Museum

Nationalmuseum, detail of Ascension. Munich 165. Josephus, Cambridge, St. John’s College, MS A.8,

Beyertsches Nationalmuseum £.64, initial. Conway Library

143. North choir aisle n:XIV (8), Noah’s Ark. Na- 166. Sens, Becket window, rinceaux. Archives pho-

tional Monuments Record tographiques

144. Corona, redemption window, 12, Noah’s Ark. 167. Trinity Chapel N:III (13), a knight (14-16), Crown Copyright. Victoria & Albert Museum Eilward of Westoning unjustly punished. Crown 145. Homilies of Gregory Nazianzus, Paris, Biblio- Copyright. Victoria & Albert Museum

PLATES Xili 168. Psalter, Cambridge, Trinity College, MS B.11.4, 193. Austin Sketchbook, Canterbury Cathedral Lif.7v, detail from Joseph cycle. Trinity College, brary, Add. MS 1, drawing from Trinity Chapel

Cambridge vault painting of St. Peter. The Author

169. Trinity Chapel N:III (13), a knight leaving Can- 194. Trinity Chapel s:VII (14), William of Glouces-

terbury. Crown Copyright. Victoria & Albert ter’s accident reported. Crown Copyright. VictoMuseum ria & Albert Museum 170. Worksop Bestiary, New York, Morgan Library 195. Chartres, Prodigal Son window, upper part. AfMS 81, f.35, detail. The Pierpont Morgan Library ter Delaporte and Houvet, “Vitraux de Chartres’’ 171. Trinity Chapel n:III (11), daughters of Godhold 196. Chartres, Joseph window, lower part. After Dela-

of Boxley. Crown Copyright. Victoria & Albert porte and Houvet, “Vitraux de Chartres”

Museum 197. Trinity Chapel n:II (25-33), plague in the house-

172. Trinity Chapel n:I1V, border. Crown Copyright. hold of Jordan Fitz-Eisulf. National Monuments

Victoria & Albert Museum Record Victoria & Albert Museum bert Museum

173. Trinity Chapel s: VII, border. Crown Copyright. a. Detail, 25. Crown Copyright. Victoria & Al-

174. Trinity Chapel s:II, border. Conway Library b. Detail, 26. Crown Copyright. Victoria & Al-

175. Trinity Chapel n:II, border. Crown Copyright. bert Museum

Victoria & Albert Museum c. Detail, 27. Crown Copyright. Victoria & AL-

176. Sens, Becket window, border. Archives photo- bert Museum

graphiques d. Detail, 28. Crown Copyright. Victoria & Al-

177. South choir aisle “triforium” St:IX, border bert Museum

fragment. The Author e. Detail, 29. Crown Copyright. Victoria & Al-

178. Sens, St. Eustace window, border. Archives pho- bert Museum

tographiques f. Detail, 30. Crown Copyright. Victoria & ALI-

179. North choir aisle n: XIV, rinceaux. Conway Li- bert Museum

brary g. Detail, 31. Crown Copyright. Victoria & Al-

180. Trinity Chapel, double capital. The Author bert Museum

photographiques bert Museum 182. Corona, redemption window, rinceaux. Crown i. Detail, 33. Crown Copyright. Victoria & Al181. Sens, St. Eustace window, ornament. Archives h. Detail, 32. Crown Copyright. Victoria & Al-

Copyright. Victoria & Albert Museum | bert Museum

183. Trinity Chapel sill, ornament. Conway Library 198. Chartres, Joseph window, Joseph and Potiphar’s

tographiques Chartres”

184. Sens, Becket window, ornament. Archives pho- wife. After Delaporte and Houvet, “Vitraux de

185. Trinity Chapel s:II. Lhe Author Trinity Chapel n:II (13), stoning frogs. Crown 186. Sens, Becket window. Archives photographiques 199: C y poe 3} BBS

. Trinity opyright. Victoria & Albert Museum 187. Chapel s:VI (14), a boy cured. Crown ; red with Copyright. Victoria & Albert Museum 200. Sens, St. Eustace window, the saint reunited wit

) § » the prodig . . , .

188. Sens, Prodigal Son window, the prodigal return- his wife and sons. Archives photographiques

ing home. Archives photographiques 201. Corona, Redemption window, 4, detail of sacri189. Trinity Chapel s: VII (3), Geoffrey of Winches- ficial attendant. Conway Library . ,

ter buried by a collapsed wall. Crown Copy- 202. Sens, Becket window, the Archbishop receiving

right. Victoria & Albert Museum a message. Archives photographiques

190. Trinity Chapel s: VII (12), uroscopic examination 203. Sens, Becket window, the Archbishop confirm-

for leprosy. Crown Copyright. Victoria & Albert ing. Archives photographiques

Museum - 204. Corona, Redemption window, 2, Moses striking igi. Trinity Chapel s:VII (13), William of Glouces- the rock. Conway Library ter buried by a fall of earth. Crown Copyright. 205. Trinity Chapel n:IT (6), Richard Sunieve with

Victoria & Albert Museum leprosy. Crown Copyright. Victoria & Albert

192. Little Canterbury Psalter, Paris, Bibliothéque Museum

tionale , seum ,

Nationale, MS Lat. 770, f.32v, Psalm 21, flagel- 206. Trinity Chapel s:II (11), William of Kellett lation and carrying the cross. Bibliotheque Na- healed. Crown Copyright. Victoria & Albert Mu-

PLATES X1V 207. Sens, Good Samaritan window, the golden calf. 213. Nathan, from clerestory n:VII. Crown Copy-

Archives photographiques right. Victoria & Albert Museum

208. Trinity Chapel n:II (2), Juliana of Rochester at 214. Rehoboam, from clerestory N:VI. Crown Copy-

the tomb. Crown Copyright. Victoria & Albert right. Victoria & Albert Museum

Museum 215. Abiah, from clerestory N:VI (original head

209. Trinity Chapel n:II (19), Matilda of Cologne, a montaged). Crown Copyright. Victoria & Albert

maniac, beaten. Crown Copyright. Victoria & Museum

Albert Museum 216. Hezekiah, from clerestory N:V. Crown Copy-

210. Trinity Chapel n:II (20), Matilda at the tomb. right. Victoria & Albert Museum Crown Copyright. Victoria & Albert Museum 217. Jeconiah (?), from clerestory N:IV (original 211. Trinity Chapel n:II (21), Matilda cured. Crown head now in clerestory N:XXV, motaged). Copyright. Victoria & Albert Museum Crown Copyright. Victoria & Albert Museum 212. Chartres clerestory, Daniel. After Delaporte and 218. Cosam (?), from clerestory S:X. Crown Copy-

Houvet, “Vitraux de Chartres” right. Victoria & Albert Museum

LIST OF TEXT FIGURES 1. Courses of dilapidation and repair in glass 15 2. a. Canterbury Cathedral from the southeast —28 b. Interior view from the choir to the

Trinity Chapel 28

c. Interior view of the north side of the

choir and northeast transept 29

d. Interior view of the north side of the

Trinity Chapel 29 3. Armatures of Chartres windows 42 LIST OF APPENDIX FIGURES 1. Compositions of Canterbury windows: 17. Reconstruction of the tenth typological

Choir, transepts and presbytery window (s:XIT)

2. Compositions of Trinity Chapel ambulatory 18. a. Reconstruction of the eleventh

and corona windows, oculi, and the tomb typological window (s:XIV)

of Hubert Walter b. Lincoln Cathedral, tentative reconstruc3. Compositions of related French windows tion of one of the typological windows

4. Compositions of windows by the (after Lafond )

Canterbury-Sens Designer 19. Reconstruction of the twelfth typological 5. Compositions of the Trinity Chapel window (s:XV) clerestory windows 20. “Thirteenth” typological window (corona 6. The contents of the Trinity Chapel east window )

windows 21. Chartres typological redemption

7. Chronology and authorship of the Canter- window (LIX)

bury windows 22. Concordance of window numbers

8. Reconstruction of the first typological window (n:XVI, blocked) g. Reconstruction of the second typological

window (n:XV) 10. Reconstruction of the third typological

window (n:XIV) rr. Reconstruction of the fourth typological window (n:XIIT) 12. Reconstruction of the fifth typological

window (n:XII) |

13. Reconstruction of the sixth typological } window (n:XI) 14. Reconstruction of the seventh typological Window (n: VIII) 15. Reconstruction of the eighth typological window (s: VIII) 16. Reconstruction of the ninth typological window (s:X1)

BLANK PAGE

Acknowledgments

THE research and writing for this book were done with the help of grants from the Mellon Centre for Studies in British Art, London (formerly Mellon Foundation for British Art), Radcliffe College, the British Academy, and the Radcliffe Institute, where I was a Fellow from 1970 to 1972. The Fine Arts Department of Harvard University gave initial help with photographic expenses, and the Victoria and Albert Museum generously supplied color film for photographing the Canterbury glass. My personal thanks are due to many people who gave their advice or technical assistance, and especially to those colleagues who discussed ideas with

me; specific acknowledgments are made in the notes, but I take full responsibility tor the ideas presented. I am indebted to: Mr. Michael Archer of the Victoria and Albert Museum; Dr. Larry Ayres of the University of California at Santa Barbara; Ms. Clara Bargellini Camara; Professor Jean Bony of the University of California at Berkeley; Dr. Robert Brill of the Corning Museum of Glass; Ms. Jonnie Cleveland M.F.A., who did the drawings for the text figures and appendix figures 1-5;

Mr. Frederick Cole, F.M.G.P., glass restorer of Canterbury Cathedral; Professor Giles Constable of Harvard University; the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury Cathedral, especially the late Canon Herbert Waddams, and the Cathedral staff, who have moved, or tolerated, stepladders all over their

building; Dr. Debby Dluhy of Boston College; Professor C. R. Dodwell of Manchester University; Mr. B. C. Doughty, Surveyor of Canterbury Cathe-

dral, who generously supplied appendix figures 8-20; Mr. David DuBon of the Philadelphia Museum of Art; Mr. Colin Dudley of Christ Church College, Canterbury; Mr. George Easton, retired glazier to the Cathedral, who climbed the roofs

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS XVIII and scaffolds with me when he was approaching Rijks-Universiteit, Utrecht; Bayerisches Nationalthe age of eighty; Mr. W. L. Entwistle, photogra- museum, Munich; Bibliothéque Municipale, Metz; pher of Canterbury; Dr. Peter Fergusson of Welles- Bibliothéque Nationale, Paris; Bibliothéque Royley College; the Friends of Canterbury Cathedral; ale, Brussels; Bodleian Library, Oxford; British Professor Emerita Terci Frisch of Wellesley Col- Library, London; Burgerbibliothek, Bern; Con-

. lege; Dr. Dorothy Glass of the State University of way Library of the Courtauld Institute, London; New York at Buffalo; Dr. Rosalie Green of the Corpus Christi College, Cambridge; Detroit InstiPrinceton Index of Christian Art; Dr. Jane Hay- tute of Arts; Dumbarton Oaks Library, Washingward of the Cloisters; the late Mr. John Hunt; Dr. ton, D.C.; Lambeth Palace Library, London; PierDorothy Gillerman of Brown University; Professor pont Morgan Library, New York; Museo ArqueLouis Grodecki of the Sorbonne, who read the text oldgico Nacional, Madrid; the Queen’s Chapel of and generously debated many points with me; Pro- the Savoy, London; Trinity College, Cambridge; fessor Peter Kidson of the Courtauld Institute of University Library, Cambridge; Virginia Museum Art; Professor Ernst Kitzinger of Harvard Univer- of Fine Arts, Richmond; and the Warburg Instisity; Mr. Dennis King, F.M.G.P., glazier of Nor- tute, London. wich; the Rev. Brother Lawrence (Christopher Another debt I owe to my fellow women, both Christianson) of the Society of St. Francis; Dr. those who formed a scholarly community at the Meredith Lillich of Syracuse University; Dr. Janet Radcliffe Institute, and those who took over my Martin of Princeton University; Dr. Peter Newton roles of housekeeper and mother at various times; of York University; Dr. Walter Oakeshott of Lin- my mother especially carried much of this burden, coln College, Oxford; Ms. Anne Oakley of the and was a constant source of encouragement and Chapter Library, Canterbury; Madame Francoise support. Ms. Judy Solar helped to revise parts of Perrot; Monsieur Léon Pressouyre; Dr. Virginia the text, and Ms. Louise Seidel has patiently typed Raguin of Holy Cross College; Mr. Kunihide Sakai and retyped the manuscript. The greatest single of Hitotsubashi University, who placed a copy of debt, however, is to my husband, who has spent the Miraculi Sancti Thomae at my disposal while I his vacations photographing and measuring glass was in Japan; Professor Willibald Sauerlander of with me, and who has never waivered in his deMunich University; Professor Meyer Schapiro of termination that I should continue my art histori-

Columbia University; Dr. Linda Seidel of Har- cal studies. vard University; Dr. Kenneth Severens of Oberlin

College; Mr. F. W. Smith, Borough Librarian of .

Dewsbury; Dr. Mary Evelyn Stringer of Missis- Note on the Illustrations sippi State College for Women at Columbus; Dr. PHOTOGRAPHIC CREDITS are acknowledged in the

Hanns Swarzenski of the Boston Museum of Fine list of illustrations. J am also grateful for permisArts, who has generously shared his knowledge sion from the owners of the works of art. All phoand love of English art; Dr. William Urry of St. tographs of Canterbury Cathedral are reproduced Edmund Hall, Oxford; Mademoiselle J. Vinsot of by kind permission of the Dean and Chapter. OthMonuments Historiques, Paris; the late Professor ers are reproduced by courtesy of the following: Francis Wormald, whose encouragement steered the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Trustees me into art historical studies; and Professor George of Lambeth Palace Library, London; the Bayer-

Zarnecki of the Courtauld Institute of Art. isches Nationalmuseum, Munich; the Bibliothéque

) In addition, I am grateful to the following insti- Nationale, Paris; the Bibliothéque Royale Albert tutions for answering queries or supplying photo- I*, Brussels; the Bodleian Library, Oxford; the graphs, or for allowing me to examine materials in British Library Board, London; the Burgerbiblio-

their collections: Archaeologisch Instituut der thek, Bern; the Dean and Chapter of Winchester

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS XIX Cathedral; the Fogg Art Museum, Cambridge, Condé, Chantilly; the Pierpont Morgan Library, Mass.; the Master and Fellows of Corpus Christi New York; the Syndics of the Cambridge UniverCollege, Cambridge; the Master and Fellows of sity -Library; the Victoria and Albert Museum, St. John’s College, Cambridge; the Master and Fel- London; the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts, Rich-

lows of Trinity College, Cambridge; the Musee mond.

BLANK PAGE

| The Early Stained Glass of Canterbury Cathedral

BLANK PAGE

Introduction

Canterbury, “that rock on which the main cur- It woup BE hard to overestimate the importance rent of English art struck and parted asunder of the early stained glass of Christ Church, Can-

only to meetFrancis again on theterbury, other side.” . ; , in the history of English painting styles. Bond+ ; ; ;

Close contacts with the continent during the entire period of the rebuilding and decoration of the cathedral church resulted in a very early assimilation of the Gothic style, or even participation in its

development, in painting as in architecture.’ In spite of a somewhat unsatisfactory knowledge of the Canterbury windows and recent skepticism about their authenticity, they have inevitably been cited in many of the art historical studies that span this period.* In most cases the dates proposed by Rackham for the windows in his monograph of 1949 have subsequently been accepted, and they have been used to date other works.* And yet we are still without sufficient proof of the dates of the Canterbury glass, and it is not surprising that wide differences of opinion are possible.® Nonetheless, NOTE on citations: Any work that is cited only once is cited in full in the footnotes, and not listed in the bibli-

ography. Works cited more than once are listed in the bibliography, and cited by author and date in the notes. 1 Francis Bond, English Cathedrals, London, 1912, p. 29. 2 For the architecture see Jean Bony, 1949; “Origines des

piles gothiques anglaises 4 fits en délit,’ Gedenkschrift

Ernst Gall, ed. Margarete Kuhn & Louis Grodecki, Munich, 1965, pp. 95-99 and 115; Bony, 1957-1958, p. 48.

3 For example, Emile Male in André Michel, Hzstotre générale de l'art u Part 1, Paris, 1907, p. 375; Saunders, 1932, pp. 100-102, 236-38; Walter Oakeshott, The Sequence of English Medieval Art, London, 1950, p. 47; Beer,

1952, p. 49; Boase, 1953, pp. 291-93; Rickert, 1965, pp. 109-10, 113; Brieger, 1957, pp. 94-95; and van der Boom, 1960, pp. 118-21. 4 Rackham, 1949, pp. 15-17. The date of ca. 1220 given by Professor Grodecki to the ambulatory windows of Sens

Cathedral probably reflects the same date given to the Trinity Chapel windows of Canterbury (Grodecki in Vitrail, p. 139 and fig. ior). 5 For a lengthy dispute over the dating of Adam and related choir clerestory figures, see: Heaton, 1907, pp. 172-

“6; Rackham, 1928; Evetts, 1941, p. 98; Herbert Read, review of Rackham, 1949, in Burlington Magazine 92

INTRODUCTION 4 great advances have been made since Gostling fire of 1194, when 173 windows were glazed in the compared the glass to the Bayeux tapestry,° or first four decades of the thirteenth century; but the Westlake proposed an earlier date for the Trinity Canterbury glazing program must have been one Chapel and corona glass than for the clerestory of the most ambitious to have been attempted at

figures of the choir.’ the time of its inception, about 1175-1180. In its Little is known of the early history of the win- organization as much as in its extent, the Canterdows of Christ Church. Unlike the famous win- bury glazing was remarkable. The encyclopedic dows of St.-Denis Abbey Church, which were dis- program is comparable to the mosaic decoration of cussed in some detail by Abbot Suger at the time Monreale Cathedral, or to the illustrations of the of their creation,® those at Canterbury, Chartres, great twelfth-century Bibles. Bourges, Laon—indeed almost all of the early There is little to suggest now that the glass was Gothic monuments—passed uncommented by their repaired during the Middle Ages, but from a fourcontemporaries. No doubt this was in part because teenth-century record of the subjects in twelve tythese brilliant walls of glass were not as novel to pological biblical windows, it seems possible that an audience already familiar with large colored the order of some of these had been interfered windows; the glazing of the earlier Canterbury with, since extraneous subjects are interpolated.*® choir, built by Lanfranc and Conrad in the early The subject matter may not have been very well part of the twelfth century and destroyed in the understood at this time; the roll was evidently fire of 1174, had been the subject of high praise by placed in the choir as a guide to the windows, William of Malmesbury, but the new glazing in which proves the difficulty experienced in reading the reconstructed east end was neglected by Ger- inscriptions then two hundred years old. In view vase, whose enthusiasm was captured by the latest of this difficulty of access to the art of an earlier Gothic style of architecture and sculpture.’ In the time, it is not surprising that in later years the course of this study it will emerge, however, that glass was sacrificed to other needs. In the fifteenth the glazing was carried out with considerable ten- century the lower third of each of two windows of acity, and must have been a passionate concern of the Trinity Chapel was blocked by the chapel of its patrons, the Benedictine monks of Christ Edward the Confessor, and the first of the twelve Church, of whom Gervase was one. The sheer windows with biblical subjects, obscured by the quantity of glass was tremendous: three tiers of fifteenth-century Lady Chapel, was filled by 1657; windows throughout the choir and eastern tran- no glass has survived from either of these locasepts, two tiers in the Trinity Chapel, and one in tions.** the corona, a total of 104 arched or lancet windows The sixteenth-century antiquarians whose acand two oculi (plan). This was, of course, far ex- counts of windows often provide valuable records ceeded at Chartres in the rebuilding following the of lost glass were seldom interested in religious (1950), 55 (cf. Grodecki, pp. 294-97, and Rackham, p. 357 of Gervase have been discussed by: Carl Schnaase, Geof the same volume); Grodecki and Rackham, Burlington schichte der bildenden Kunst im Mittelalter w1, 2nd ed., Magazine 93 (1951), 94-95; van der Boom, 1960, p. 120. Dusseldorf, 1872, 179-85; Paul Frankl, The Gothic: 6 Gostling, 1774, p. 215; a judgment repeated by [John Literary Sources and Interpretations through Eight CenBurnby|, 42 Historical Description of the Metropolitical turies, Princeton, 1960, pp. 24-35; Walter Oakeshott, Church of Christ, Canterbury, 2nd ed., Canterbury, 1783, Classical Insptration in Medieval Art, London, 1959, pp.

p. 37, and many other local writers. 81-82.

7 Westlake, 1, 1881, 70. 10 Canterbury, Cathedral Library, MS C246, ed. James,

8Sugerus, Liber de Rebus in Administratione sua tg01; for these confusions, zbzd., p. 3.

Gestis, cap. xxxiv, see Abbot Suger, on the Abbey Church 11 Fveleigh C. Woodruff and William Danks, Memortals of St.-Dents and Its Treasures, ed. E. Panofsky, Princeton, of the Cathedral and Priory of Christ in Canterbury, Lon-

1946, pp. 72~77 and 192-201. don, 1912, p. 420, stated that the choir aisle window was

9 William of Malmesbury, 1870, p. 234; Gervase, Trac- filled in 1663, but the painting by Johnson shows it already tatus, ed. Stubbs, 1, 1879, pp. 19-29. The aesthetic attitudes blocked in 1657 (see n. 13 below).

INTRODUCTION 5 subjects or inscriptions of early date; the notes in tributed to an understanding of them. Gervase’s British Library, Harleian MS 1366, made in Can- chronicle of the rebuilding in 1175-1184 had been terbury in 1599, are those of a student of heraldry edited,*® as had the twelfth-century texts which rewho passed over the early glass, recording only corded the miracles at the tomb of Becket, and coats of arms and monuments. The first evidence which are the basis for the scenes in the Trinity of a revival of interest in the earlier glass is in Chapel glass.*° The fourteenth-century record of William Somner’s Antiquities of Canterbury of the choir window inscriptions had already been 1640, in which he praised, but unfortunately only printed by Somner in 1640, but it had now been briefly described, the windows of the eastern part made available in a more recent book by Win-

of the cathedral.? Two years later much of the ston.”° glass was broken by the Parliamentarians, and the On a less esoteric level were numerous scrutinies

details of their triumphs, printed in Cathedrall of the glass itself; with a revival of interest in Newes from Canterbury, are in some cases the Gothic architecture came a better understanding of only record we possess of the contents of the win- the monumental arts associated with it. If the dedows.”* Repairs carried out after 1660 probably only cay of the stonework at Canterbury was partially added to the disorder of the glass.** In the eight- responsible for the loss of glass, the repair of the eenth century the first systematic antiquarian de- stonework was the occasion of the first major resscription was printed, that of Gostling in 1744.*° toration of the glass. In 1819 George Austin Sr. At the end of the century, however, the glass was began work on the cathedral restoration; the most once more moved about; in 1799 the remaining urgent task was the reconstruction of the oculus clerestory figures were rearranged in two fifteenth- in the southeast transept, which was caving in. century windows in the southwest transept and the Work was extended from there to include most of west end of the nave, their present location.*® These the fabric, including some restoration to the glass.”

changes were noted in the second edition of Has- The revival of a Gothic aesthetic occasioned de-

ted’s survey of Kent in 1800, and this author also tailed studies of the existing medieval glass, and | referred to the fragmentary panels still surviving from this period come five important series of in the north choir aisle “triforium” windows, the drawings and tracings of the Canterbury glass.” first time they had found a place in the descrip- In the absence of photographs, these served for

tions." study purposes and as illustrations to Williams’s During the hundred years between Hasted’s first book and others.?* With a similar activity continedition and 1897, when Williams anonymously uing elsewhere, it became possible for the first time published the first monograph on the Canterbury to make comparisons with continental glass, and to windows, a great amount of research had con- attempt to see the Canterbury productions as a part

12 Somner, 1640, pp. 174~75, 385-06. 19 Robertson ed., 1, 1875, and 11, 1876 (see also William 13 Culmer, ca. 1643. A painting by Thomas Johnson, of Canterbury and Benedict of Peterborough). dated 1657 and showing the destruction in progress in 20 Somner, 1640, pp. 385-96; Winston, 1, 1847, 353-64. the choir, has been published by Derek Ingram Hill, “The 21 Austin’s obituary, 1849, pp. 659-60. Iconoclasts in Canterbury Cathedral,” C.C.C. 1974, pp. 22 Victoria and Albert Museum, London, Department

20-22, illus. facing p. 17. of Prints: Joyce, 1841; O. Hudson, watercolor drawings 14 Evelyn, 1, 1955, 395. made from tracings, dated 1848; Clayton and Bell, 1895.

. 15 Gostling, 1774, pp. 214-18. Subsequent editions were Tracings made by the Canterbury glazier, Samuel Caldmore complete and accurate, as the 2nd, 1777, pp. 311-27. well, Sr., are in the Williams Coll., and a few by his prede16 Williams, 1897, p. 3. That extensive work was done cessor, George Austin, Jr., are in the cathedral library. on the windows in the period 1780-1800 has been con- 28 Williams, 1897, used Caldwell’s tracings; Gilbert, firmed by Anne Oakley, who was kind enough to search 1842, Pls. 1 and 1 used Joyce’s drawings, as did Loftie,

the accounts. 1846, facing pp. 1, 8, 10. Lewis Day, Windows: A Book

17 Hasted, x1, 1800, 377-82. about Stained and Painted Glass, London, 1909, used

18 Gervase, ed. Stubbs, 1879 and English translation Hudson’s drawings for figs. 250 and 292. by Willis, 1845.

INTRODUCTION 6 of broader developments. Based on working draw- catalogue, however, since certain types of informaings by designers who had a very acute perception tion (such as measurements of panels and discusof ornamental features, these studies, however, sion of restoration) are not systematically included. tended to present a much more satisfactory analy- Concessions were made to the general reader, and sis of ornament than of figural style. Within a few also to a broader framework of study than that of

years of each other were published the volumes a mere catalogue. Almost for the first time a that are still the only basic reference works for this chronology of glazing was argued from style, and aspect of stained glass, the volumes on Bourges and the questions of French influence and the “Authorrelated glass by Cahier and Martin, and the works ship and Production of the Canterbury Windows”

by Winston and Westlake for English glass.” were reviewed, but dating was still based entirely The preoccupations of the present century have on archaeological evidence. been more varied. The continuing antiquarian Rackham’s book can be seen as the summation tradition gave rise to several more catalogues, but of nineteenth-century achievements; the only mathese paid more attention than before to subject jor area to which he attached little importance, almatter and textual sources, and to a problem that though it had been broached by his predecessors, had grown unheeded out of the nineteenth-century was ornament. In this century, ironically, when restorations, that of the authenticity of the glass. great advances have been made in the study of Williams had used the texts of the miracles of manuscripts by close attention to decoration,” the Becket for identification of the Trinity Chapel topic has been sadly neglected in stained glass. scenes. Another important study of textual sources When the Canterbury glass was photographed was made by James, who re-edited the fourteenth- about 1926 by Noel Heaton for the Victoria and century record of the choir subjects, and proved Albert Museum, almost no ornament was included. that the inscriptions in these windows were partial- A full consideration of ornament may be indicated ly shared with Peterborough Abbey.** In his cata- as one of the great lacunae in Canterbury studies. logue of 1925, Mason was able to use both of these A second lacuna has impeded study. This is the textual studies, and made some new identifications lack of records of the extensive restorations to in the Trinity Chapel.?* He also indicated the prob- which the glass has been subjected. The replacelem of restoration in the glass. A series of popular, ments occasionally noticed by Williams, Mason, but succinct and accurate, handbooks to the glass and Rackham are but a few of the total number, has been printed since; the most recent, by Ingram although the work of restoration was going on

Hill, appeared in the 1960s.7" as they prepared their texts. This problem was very In the same catalogue tradition is the fuller pub- aptly outlined by Oakeshott in his review of Racklication by Rackham. Conceived ten years before ham’s book.®® It is not, of course, one that is spethe inception of the European Corpus Vitrearum cific to Canterbury, although the work of one reMedu Aevi, this book was intended as a complete storer there has tended to accentuate it.** Most un-

illustrated account of the glass.** It is not a true fortunately, Caldwell, Jr. was able to convince 24 Cahier and Martin, 1841; Winston, 1847; Westlake, hunderts unter besonderer Berticksichtigung der Inittal-

1881-1894. ornamentik, Basel, 1959; and L.M.J. Delaissé’s pioneer 25 James, 1901. work on Flemish manuscripts, La Miniature flamande, le 26 Mason, 1925, pp. 29-43. mécénat de Philippe le Bon (Catalogue of the exhibition

27).M.C. Crum, Cathedral Church of Christ, Canter- in Brussels, Amsterdam, and Paris), 1959, pp. 15ff. bury—Notes on the Old Glass, Plymouth, 1930. Derek 80 Oakeshott, 1951, pp. 86-89. Ingram Hill, The Stained Glass of Canterbury Cathedral, 31 Hans Wentzel, “Die Farbenfenster des 13. Jahrhun-

Canterbury [1962]. derts in der Stiftskirche zu Biicken an der Weser,” 28 Rackham, 1949. Niederdeutsche Beitrige zur Kunstgeschichte 1 (1961),

29 For instance, Ellen J. Beer, Bettrage zur oberrhetin- 62-66, fig. 55. One of the aims of the Corpus Vitrearum ischen Buchmalerei in der ersten Hialfte des 14. Jahr- Medu Aevi is to provide detailed records of restoration.

INTRODUCTION 7 Rackham of the authenticity of quantities of glass tended it into a thorough study of the productions that had no place in the original glazing of the of the Canterbury scriptoria up to 1200.°" Detailed cathedral.*? Rackham was later able to indicate studies of other works of art have also opened up only in the most circumspect manner that these further possibilities of comparison. Oakeshott’s panels were not worthy of serious attention.** It work on the Artists of the Winchester Bible, which has remained until now for anyone to attempt a contains a succinct characterization of the several systematic evaluation of the glass, although Rack- different hands that he surmised worked on that ham and Caldwell, Jr. drew up a list of restorations manuscript in the years following 1160 or so, has in 1951, working from photographs.** A more com- been followed by another study by Larry Ayres.** plete examination carried out in the summers of Florens Deuchler has published a detailed study of 1967 and 1971 allows us far more certain stylistic the Ingeborg Psalter.*° Willibald Sauerlander has

judgments than were possible to Rackham. made outstanding contributions to our knowledge In the twenty years since Rackham’s book ap- of early Gothic sculpture in northern France.*° The peared, a large corpus of literature on related topics “Year 1200” exhibition and symposium at the Methas been produced. It is time this was assimilated ropolitan Museum of Art, New York, in 1970 drew

into Canterbury glass studies, in much the same attention to the art of this period.“ There have way as Williams drew on the nineteenth-century been several important studies of continental glass edition of the miracles of Becket and Westlake’s with affinities to Canterbury, such as Deuchler’s comparative studies of the glass. Historians have doctoral dissertation on the east windows of Laon investigated the financial records of the monas- Cathedral,*? Beer’s monograph on the rose wintery®> and the records of tradesmen renting land dows of Lausanne,*® and the Corpus of Notrein the town.*® Dodwell has taken up the survey Dame, Paris.** The chronology of the glazing of made by James of the library holdings, and ex- Chartres Cathedral is still controversial,*® but Gro82 The “Miscellaneous Early Glass” described by Rack- $8 Oakeshott, 1945; cf. Ayres, 1970. ham, 1949, pp. 112-14, fig. 21, included four Evangelist 39 Deuchler, 1967. symbols and several prophets from Petham, as proved by 40 Willibald Sauerlander, “Die Marienkronungsportale C. R. Councer, “The Ancient Glass from Petham Church von Senlis und Mantes,” Wallraf-Richartz Jahrbuch 20 now in Canterbury Cathedral,” Archaeologia Cantiana 65 (1958), 115-62; “Die kunstgeschichtliche Stellung der (1952), 167-70. Other panels are either modern or made Westportale von Notre-Dame in Paris,” Marburger Jahrup of scraps: the Virgin and Child “restored to” the east buch fir Kunstwissenschaft 17 (1959), 1-56; “Sens and window of the Crypt in 1939, Rackham, 1949, pp. 65-67, York: An Inquiry into the Sculpture from St. Mary’s Pl. vit; nine medallions placed by Samuel Caldwell, Jr. Abbey in the Yorkshire Museum,” Journal of the British in the south choir aisle triforium windows in 1920 (said Archaeological Association, 3rd ser. 20 (1959), 53-69; by Mr. Easton to be of recent facture), Rackham, 1949, and 1966, 1970. Pp. 50-51, 72-73, figs. 22, 23, 24, 26, 27a; two roundels 41 The Year 1200 1 and Ut. in Window s:V of the Trinity Chapel, Rackham, 1949, 42 Florens Deuchler, “Die Chorfenster der Kathedrale p. 103; much of the glass in Window n:VII, Rackham, in Laon, ein iconographischer und stilgeschichtlicher Bet-

1949, pp. 83-85. trag zur Kenntnis nordfranzosischer Glasmalereien des 13.

83 Rackham, 1957, pp. 36, 38, 45, 48, 63, 69. However, Jahrhunderts,” Ph.D. dissertation, Bonn, 1956. Many of in all cases Rackham continued to overestimate the amount the conclusions from this study were published by Deuch-

of thirteenth-century glass reused by Caldwell. ler, 1967.

84 Bernard Rackham and Samuel Caldwell, Jr., type- 43 Beer, 1952. script, Department of Ceramics, Victoria and Albert 44 Corpus, France i.

Museum, cf. Caviness, 1967. 45 Delaporte and Houvet, 1, 1926: these dates have gen35 Most recently, Barnes and Powell, eds., 1960. Earlier erally been accepted, as by Grodecki in Vutrail, p. 124; studies were largely untapped by Rackham: C. E. Wood- cf. Frankl, 1963, p. 321, and Grodecki, “Chronique: Viruff, 1932, pp. 13-32, and 1936, pp. 38-80; Smith, 1940, trail,” Bulletin Monumental 121 (1964), pp. 99-103, and

pp. 353-69, and 1943. Jan van der Meulen, “Histoire de la construction de la

86 Urry, 1967. Unfortunately rentals have survived only cathédrale Notre-Dame de Chartres aprés 1194,” Bulletin

for lands held by Christ Church. de la Société Archéologique d’Eure-et-Loir 23 (1965),

37 James, 1903; cf. Dodwell, 1954. 81-126.

INTRODUCTION 8 decki has been able to isolate one significant mas- of a Channel School still has some usefulness.*® ter from among the many painters and localize The surviving Canterbury windows and the Winhis development in northeast France.*® Also fun- chester Bible are, however, unique monuments damental for method was the same author’s article from the period, affording the possibility of a

in which he traced atelier connections from Poi- study of transitional styles not to be found else- _ tiers to Bourges and Chartres, demonstrating the where. ability of traveling artisans to cut across local stylis-

tic groupings.*” At the same time, Grodecki has Tuts book has grown out of my doctoral disbeen conscious of the close ties that might have sertation on the Gothic Trinity Chapel windows.** existed between glass painters and artists in other In the past seven years some of my views have been media, a topic to which Wentzel has also given modified by new observation, others seem to be

attention.*® confirmed. The only glass which has not by now

The framework within which one now views the been thoroughly examined for restorations is in Canterbury windows has thus been immeasurably the north oculus, but for this good nineteenth-cenextended. The aims of the present study are both tury tracings survive.”® It is now possible to select broader and more detailed than could have been only the best-preserved panels for illustration, and outlined in 1949. It is now desirable, as suggested to discuss both the iconography and the style with by Oakeshott,*® to recognize differences of style a full knowledge of the extent to which they have

within a single group of windows, indicating the been tampered with. presence of different artistic personalities. Only The form of this book has been modified by the after such a detailed analysis as this can the proc- projected publication of the Corpus Vitrearum for esses of change in style become apparent. Canterbury. In order to facilitate cross-referencing The period 1175-1220 embraces a phase of Eng- between the two works, I refer to: the windows by lish art history which is still insufficiently under- the numbers given under the Corpus system; for stood.”® Little is known of centers of manuscript those wishing to refer back to Rackham, a conproduction after the disintegration of the great cordance with his window numbers is given in the monastic scriptoria, so in that field, with the possi- Appendix. The Corpus will contain all catalogue ble exception of Oakeshott’s and Ayre’s studies of information, such as measurements, complete resthe Winchester Bible, no one has yet attempted to toration charts, and discussion of condition; new study closely a group of artists working in the photographs are being taken to reproduce the exsame location in England during this period of isting state of the glass. In the present study I have experimentation and stylistic change.’ A great preferred to use the 1926 photographs, when availnumber of important manuscripts are without a able, partly because the glass was then clean and secured provenance.*? Recent scholarship has lo- in better condition than now (its rapid deterioracalized two books, long thought to be French or tion, noticed from the scaffolds during my examEnglish, in the north of France, but the concept inations, has been cause for some alarm, and con-

46 Grodecki, 1965, pp. 171-04. B.11.4; London, British Library, Arundel MS 157 and

47 Grodecki, 1948, pp. 87-110. Royal MS I.D.X; Imola, Bibliotheca Communale, MS 100, 48 Grodecki, 1955, p. 615; and Sainte-Chapelle, Paris, and British Library, Harl. MS 5102. See Rickert, 1965,

1961, p. 100; Hans Wentzel, “Glasmaler und maler im pp. 98-100. Mittelalter,” Zeitschrift fir Kunstwissenschaft 3 (1949), 58 The Manerius Bible (Paris, Bibliotheque Sainte-Ge-

53-62. neviéve, MSS 8-10), and the Ingeborg Psalter (Chantilly, 49 Oakeshott, 1951, p. 88. Musée Condé, MS 1695); see Rickert, 1965, p. go n. 1, and 50 For a broad survey, Homburger, 1958. Pp. 94. 51 Cf. Swarzenski, 1943, on Weingarten. 54 Caviness, 1970.

52 For example, the Munich Psalter (Munich, Staatsbib- 55 Among Caldwell’s drawings in the cathedral li liothek, MS Clm 835); Cambridge, Trinity College, MS brary; they appear to be Austin’s tracings.

INTRODUCTION 9 servation is imperative).°° Many of the judgments sonalities will have to be acknowledged, are perand reconstructions given in this book depend on haps of less importance than the recognition of the the materials that will be fully published in the outstanding qualities of a glass painter such as the

Corpus; the aim of the present study is to intro- Methuselah Master. With his early style as the duce a greater amount of personal interpretation, basis of the Canterbury glazing, it becomes possible and especially a greater amount of comparative to trace the evolution of succesive generations, and material than is admissible in the Corpus format. to weigh the extent of external influences.

I have thought it reasonable to combine in a mon- It would be surprising if one could write on tage panels that once belonged together (fig. 127), Canterbury without most of one’s ideas being anor even to mount the original head on its body ticipated in some form by previous authors. One of (figs. 215, 217). If the Fogg medallion had been the outstanding of these is Clement Heaton, who loaned to the Metropolitan Museum in 1970, it in 1907 claimed a place for the Canterbury glass

might there have been matched with the orna- between that of St.-Denis and the windows of ment from the Victoria and Albert Museum; but Chartres and Sens. In 1939 Arnold referred almost _ the glass being too fragile to travel, tracings had to casually to the impact of the Interdict of 1207-1213

be used to confirm the fit of both panels in the on the Trinity Chapel glazing, an idea which was Trinity Chapel, Window n:VI; the result is figures more laboriously worked out by Sulkis in an un115 and 116. It is only by matching the “right” or- published master’s thesis,°’ and independently by nament to the scattered figure panels that one can myself a few years later.** Certain ideas seem to be apprehend the distinctive qualities of different de- “in the air” at a given time. Within the space of a signers and painters. It has taken me ten years to few months Grodecki, Hayward, and myself argrasp the physical complexities of the Canterbury rived at the same conclusions as to the twelfthglass, its development in space as it was originally century date of glass from Troyes. More astonishplanned, and, by contrast, the present confusion. ing is the parallel direction taken by Ayres’s work As I walk through the cathedral church now I see and my own, which was not due to any collaboa vision of its windows, if not as they appeared to ration, nor even to the fact that we were both

Henry III in 1220, at least as they appeared to students of Professor Kitzinger. At the time of Gostling in 1774. It is this vision I hope to convey writing I had not read the typescript of Ayres’s

to my readers. recently completed study of the Morgan Master, Style is given the lengthiest consideration in this because it seemed wiser that our conclusions re-

book, perhaps partly because of a modern bias main independent. It is hoped that the rather towards this aspect of art history, but also because “early” dates offered here for both the earliest and it has been only slightly treated by other authors. the latest of the Canterbury glass may be accepted I have to acknowledge a post-Renaissance need to on the basis of the evidence derived from style, deal with styles as manifestations of individual be- content, and historical probability. It is a happy ings; whether all the masters recognized here will accident that the thirteenth-century date hitherto stand the test of time, and whether other lesser per- accepted for the so-called “Master of the Gothic 56 A, R. Dufty, “Through a Stained Glass Less Darkly,” Osterreichische Zeitschrift fir Kunst und Denkmalpflege The Times (London), September 23, 1972; Caviness, 27 (1973), pp. 76-77; P.A.T. Burman, “Corpus Vitrearum “Saving Canterbury’s Medieval Glass,” Country Life Medii Aevi,” The Brittsh Soctety of Master Glass-Painters (September 28, 1972), pp. 739-40; the international collo- Journal 15 (1972-1973), 27-33; subsequently, Joseph Robquium of the Corpus Vitrearum Mediu Aevi convened inson, “Conservation and the Ancient Stained Glass,” in Canterbury in September 1972 to inspect some of the C.C.C. 1974, pp. 23-24. glass and discuss methods of conservation; see E. Bacher, 57 Sulkis, 1964. “Das vir. Colloquium des Corpus Vitrearum Medii Aevi 58 Caviness, 1970, pp. 184-86. in York und Canterbury, 25. September-1. Oktober 1972,”

INTRODUCTION 10 Majesty” of the Winchester Bible and for the another dimension of this historical insight, since Sigena paintings is being challenged by Ayres.” it documents major exchanges and influences in the The investigation of the subject matter was be- period more precisely than does style alone. gun chiefly to prove the unity of the program, and The chapters on subject matter could no doubt thence to focus upon the traits that might indicate have been extended to formidable length. It rewho laid the master plan for the windows, and mains, for instance, to investigate all the sources of when. If the individual painter tends nowadays to the ideas and verses for the extended series of typobe given all the credit for artistic productions, we logical subjects, but it is hoped that the new reshould recall that in the Middle Ages the prime constructions of each window will stimulate more

creator was the patron; the man who “made” a work. An expert analysis of the epigraphy, from work might be the one who had it made by a the very large number of intact inscriptions that craftsman.” It is, therefore, important to know survive in the glass of all periods, also remains to who was chiefly responsible for the choice of sub- be done. Its interest for me would be to see whether jects, especially in a program as complex and as it confirmed my chronology and approximate dat-

tightly organized as that of the Canterbury glaz- ings. ing. In searching for a date for the execution of My working method was to undertake the histhe Canterbury windows, I have investigated also torical investigation only after the sections on style their moment of inception, as a terminus a quo. At and iconography had been completed, in order to |

the same time, one has to be prepared to accept avoid the temptation to accept certain dates for breaks in the continuity of execution, the possibil- the windows a priori. For the reader’s benefit this ity that designs of an early date may be executed order has been reversed in the present volume, since

by an artist of the next generation working in a historical events are a natural prelude to the seradically different style; and glass, unlike manu- quence of styles. script illumination or wall painting, does not re- An important question related to patronage is veal this secret except to a prepared eye, since no how the glazing was financed, and when. Rack-

underdrawing is preserved. ham made little use of the detailed accounts that

Artistic creation is better understood if one con- have been preserved for Christ Church, but he siders the demands of subject matter. This is espe- rather arbitrarily connected a year of unusually cially true of medieval art, when the artist gener- high expenditure (1213-1214) with glazing exally worked from some sort of model, and creative penses.** Other studies have made the financial syscopying has to be taken into account.** Valuable tem much clearer. The absence of any reference to insight into this process has been given by Kitzin- glazing, either in payments to artists or purchase ger, who separated the pictorial design source or of materials, makes it possible to indicate, by anal-

“motif book” from the “iconographical guide.” ogy with other monuments, a limited number of I have attempted to make this distinction, discuss- ways in which the windows could be financed. ing iconographical sources in the chapters on sub- Such a study does not produce a precise date for ject matter, and motifs, or what one might call aids the glazing, but knowledge of the socioeconomic

to drawing, in the chapter on style; but there is conditions in which much early Gothic art was necessarily some overlapping, as when an icono- produced is not irrelevant for the art historian. graphical model is also imitated in some aspects of Underlying financial uncertainties and difficulstyle; a summary of these various sources shows ties was the turbulence of ecclesiastical and political 59 Oakeshott, 1945, pp. 7, 16; Pacht, 1961, p. 175. XX International Congress of the History of Art) 1, ed.

60 Swarzenski, 1967, p. 18. M. Meiss, Princeton, 1963, pp. 7-Io.

61 Hanns Swarzenski, “The Role of Copies in the For- 62 Kitzinger, “Norman Sicily,” 1966, pp. 139-40. mation of the Styles of the Eleventh Century,” in Roman- 63 Rackham, 1949, p. 16. esque and Gothic Art: Studies in Western Art (Acts of the

INTRODUCTION 11 events in the period during which the east end of architectural and painting style, it was for the other Canterbury Cathedral was being rebuilt. Our own centers to evolve a specifically English Gothic distinctions between history and art history were idiom, as exemplified by the architecture of Salisnot observed by the historical writers of the time; bury Cathedral or the manuscripts associated with Gervase describes the rebuilding as the most im- a “Sarum Illuminator.”® portant feature of the years 1174-1184, then abrupt-

ly turns to a chronicle of the events leading to bit- In THIs introduction I have attempted to outline ter disputes with the new Archbishop Baldwin. To the existing legacy of Canterbury studies, and to him, no doubt, this was not an interpolation, but indicate some of the lacunae that might now be a continuation of his record of the significant filled. With the change in style from late Romanevents affecting the lives of the monks of Christ esque to Gothic as a central problem, the aim of Church. These other aspects of the history of this study is to bring together as much material as Christ Church are just as relevant to the creation possible to bear on the production of the windows. of the windows as considerations of development An analysis of styles by comparison with other and change in style; they are also complementary Canterbury works and with those from other rein that the presence of continental contacts, sug- gions indicates a phase of eclecticism and experigested by a study of style, can be proved from a mentation. This will be demonstrated not only in close scrutiny of events during the period of dis- figure compositions but also in ornament, an asturbances from Becket’s exile to the exile of Arch- pect of the windows that has already been noted bishop Stephen Langton and all the inmates of the as somewhat neglected since the nineteenth cenhouse during the Interdict of 1207-1213. It was pre- tury. The relation of the subject matter to already cisely during these difficult times that links with existing works will also be discussed, and a date the continent were strengthened in art as in poli- proposed for the intellectual inception of the glaztics. Had calm prevailed, Canterbury might have ing program. Speculation as to the date of execubeen materially richer but more isolationist; it is tion of this program would not be valid without not just the result of geographical location that reference to the account rolls and chronicles of York and Durham were provincial centers, in con- Christ Church, and this implies a survey of the

trast to Canterbury. socioeconomic conditions prevailing during the This was a period when many of the great mon- period of glazing. Finally, it will be possible to astic centers became intellectual backwaters, over- draw some conclusions as to the date of execution shadowed by the secular schools at Paris, Oxford, of the windows. The datings so far proposed have Chartres, and Laon. An intense intellectual life relied rather too heavily on isolated archaeological continued at Canterbury at least to the turn of the observations. When I began to look closely at the century; if the era of the great monastic theologi- ornament in the Trinity Chapel windows, I be-

ans was over (and even Latin was in a decline, as came aware that the date given by Rackham, is proved by the inscriptions in the later glass), about 1220, implies that at least some of the ornathere was a strong generation of politicians whose ment was extremely archaic. This sort of concluletters are eloquent and sometimes brilliant.°* The sion is a difficult one to accept for Canterbury, in

artistic vitality of Canterbury at the turn of the view of its cosmopolitan contacts, particularly century exceeded that of its peers—Sarum, West- when one finds that it shares an identical repertory minster, St. Albans, Winchester, Worcester, Peter- of ornamental designs with the Sens windows.

borough. Ironically, perhaps, after the great A true idea of the development of English glass achievements of Canterbury in the new Gothic painting in the thirteenth century will not be pos-

64 Stubbs, ed., 1865. see Hollaender, 1942-44, pp. 230-62; D. H. Turner, “The

65 For architecture, Bony, 1949, p. 13; Brieger, 1957, Evesham Psalter,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld p. 3; for west country manuscripts of about 1240-1260, Institutes 2'7 (1964), 32-37.

INTRODUCTION 12 sible until better documentation exists for Salisbury clusions reached here have a broader base, and a and Lincoln; my conclusion that both are later in higher degree of probability, than those of previ-

inception than Canterbury may be modified by ous works. It is also my hope that this book, tolater researchers. A chapter in preparation on the gether with the Corpus, will restore confidence in Lincoln glass by Morgan will advance our knowl- one of the best preserved-collections of glass paint-

edge of that monument;*° the last serious treat- ing of the period 1175-1220, so that it may once ment was published in 1946.°7 No study can be more take its place as a great monument of Eng-

definitive, and it is hoped at least that the con- lish medieval art. 86 Peter Kidson and Nigel Morgan, monograph on Lin- 67 Lafond, 1946. coln Cathedral (forthcoming).

I. Method of Study: Problems of Restoration and the Authenticity of Medieval Glass

“Who would ever think that the primary task of Durinc the past two decades it has become inthe estore of glass patnting is one of textual creasingly apparent that, one of the chief impedi-

| Jean Lafond! ‘ments to the study’ of medieval stained glass is uncertainty about its abithenticity; such doubts are

especially disturbing to the historian of style. Oakeshott greeted Rackham’s book with the question,

“To what extent has the restoration gone?’ In 1951, unfortunately too late in many instances to

profit from study of the glass while it was still down after the war, the plan for an international Corpus Vitrearum Medu Aevi was formed, and it is hoped that eventually all surviving medieval glass will be studied, with special attention given to authenticity. Since no such documentation existed for Canterbury, the essential groundwork of my own study has been the laborious authentication of individual panels, and of each piece of glass within the figured panels. In 1967 and 1971 scatfolding was erected on the exterior of the building to give access to the windows, since it is the outer surface that most easily reveals the age of a piece

of glass.2 In this examination I was helped by

| George Easton, the retired foreman of the cathedral glassworks, who had worked there since the first decade of this century. Even with his expert knowledge and very good memory for the glass he had handled, this inspection alone might be insuf1 Lafond, 1946, p. 122. 2 Oakeshott, 1951, p. 88.

3For initial training in these methods of detection, I

) am grateful to Louis Grodecki, and the late Jean Lafond and Marcel Aubert, who in 1960-1961 permitted me to observe their examination of the glass from the abbey church of St.-Ouen of Rouen, then in the course of restoraticn. The results of this examination have since been published in the Corpus, France 1-2/1.

METHOD OF STUDY 14 ficient to solve all questions of restoration. Fortu- ticity retained in restoration. For instance, if alnately, the results could in many cases be checked most all the glass in a panel is new but it is known against prerestoration tracings or drawings, and that the restorer worked from original leading, compared with earlier accounts of the glass. Par- then the outlines of the composition are original. ticularly valuable are the mid-nineteenth century Such a panel is an authentic outline drawing, and drawings that predate George Austin, Jr.’s work of probably retains its original iconography. This of restoration. The correspondence was satisfactory course may apply to the whole or to a small part enough to indicate the high degree of accuracy of of a panel only. More important, it was common Mr. Easton’s judgments, so that they may be ac- in the nineteenth century to take out an original cepted in the case of the ancestors of Christ from piece if it was badly shattered or severely pitted, or the clerestory and other panels for which no early if it was a fragment that had remained in the leads records are available. In the absence of any early when the rest of the piece fell out. Thus in some records, however, it was seldom possible to say instances the glass painter had an original, or part whether a piece was a copy of the original or a of it, from which to copy the trace-lines and with

free restoration. which to match the new glass. In this way new The restoration of stained glass is more treacher- glass may give a better indication of the original

ous than that of any other of the medieval arts than an old piece interpolated from elsewhere. except mosaics, owing to peculiarities of the tech- Text figure x illustrates some of these possibilities.

nique.* If a piece of glass in an otherwise well- Drawing 1 shows the (conjectural) original appreserved panel is missing, the gap can be filled pearance of the Sower in north choir aisle n:XV, in one of four ways.° The modern painter can se- 17; 2a shows the figure as recorded in Williams’s lect a piece of new glass to match as well as pos- tracing before 1897,° the head being missing and sible and leave it unpainted; or paint such a piece the glass in the garments much broken and to conform with the style of the original glass; or mended by additional leads; 3a shows the actual he can select from a box of fragments a medieval restoration by Caldwell, Sr, who replaced two piece (contemporary with the original or not) pieces of missing drapery by extraneous fragments which is the right color, and insert it as a stopgap, and painted a head according to his own design ignoring any paint it may have on it; fourthly, he on new glass; 2b represents a hypothetical alterna-

may take such an old piece, wipe it clean with tive to 2a, the original head badly cracked; 3b is acid, and repaint it to conform with the style and a restoration, using new glass, with the features design of the original. Normally the first three can copied from the broken original; 2c is another al-

- be detected fairly easily, even from a photograph, ternative, with part of the original head missing; and, in fact, the first method has the sole advan- 3c shows a restoration using new glass and partially tage of extreme ease of detection. In case of doubt, copied from the original. In the restoration charts, a new piece can usually be identified by a close 3a, b, and c look the same, as they do on examina-

examination of the edge and the outer surface, tion of the glass itself. For a knowledge of the even if these have been tampered with. In the actual degree of authenticity retained in restorafourth instance one has to rely on stylistic judg- tion, a prerestoration drawing is needed. This illus-

ment almost entirely. tration exposes the limitations of the method used

A more important problem for the art historian by Easton and myself where no other records exist, than a decision as to whether a given piece of glass and also the limitations of restoration charts. Error is original or not is to assess the degree of authen- will be on the side of overdiscrimination, however,

* For mosaics, see Kitzinger, 1960, p. 118. 6 Williams Collection, no. 17. 5 Some methods were described in detail by Jean Verrier in Vitrail, pp. 85-87.

fs y 4.G fa

) 7 oe (7, (EE

‘ ‘ .) on ' fi %o {oy /t ; ‘a ‘1 ‘AN ‘ ‘so f

' in iy bas J ia 4 ‘ \ “vty

‘es ‘s iy we Say 'vos‘WON .ony wt ‘: i) aA Tory “se SOV) FQU8 2p . ° .* RY r% *s3.3,BERN ty Aaipte

5x ‘.tay*.ote“hye . .: : . tt Se.ae oN 4 °f. exe! 2 OR »~

ONY Om . GS 1. Conjectural original appearance Ne SUEY Qs: heen of the Sower in north choir aisle n: XV.

SOWA RS Sate

a3 ] = an\

— (4 ry Kafe “4 \UG) oy \3yp @~ C

\¢

aOd ite Yas RON 2b 2c "ee XS erases.

“2 Py7Sie Bet -ooSSete. VS baht \... > SN # are } 4»FP ae DONNIE. NN “Fg RE GO ot ay ANG A states SES 4 ey. 2a RS SO \ Urs 0 Beg 2. Alternate of dilapidation bie be

| A QWNAG é S _— Rae ot

EN SOU

WN

RA SS < \ & SN

IWS

.new a get : PRO leads 3b 3¢ . im NLess . Saree ° oN P NG ‘ QYi Ss | oy RSS REG RSS S OR SS8n

original leads 2 me ASS. RSG NSS NS REG $e : Tea owe Se iginal SSS “ae A| Sa My} original glass So Dans

eo VS cee aan ao N "fe ed, ra ,

mee at A a missing glass SSS YMA EF ‘es OULL_--T-A Sa Qt 2 ea 7/0 RN tte ttre OQ ont ‘ ar NS new glass “Qs ote, Whee Leer “4g dsna, ~ eee “0 @. ra “7 i cs

old glass used as stop-gap 3a ‘ee 3, Post-restoration appearance. Text fig. 1. Courses of dilapidation and repair in glass.

METHOD OF STUDY 16 in contrast to the previous indiscriminate accept- glass was entrusted to four successive generations ance of almost all the existing Canterbury glass as of the same family, and the evolution of techniques

authentic. can be closely followed. In 1819 George Austin, Sr. Methods of restoration have changed consider- began to direct repairs to the cathedral. Although ably over the years. These changes, in both attitudes the architectural structure was his major concern, and materials, can be traced at Canterbury in some he apparently also restored the glass. In the obitudetail, at least in the period after the mid-nineteenth ary on his death in 1848, it was said that he painted

century. Comparatively little is known of earlier in the Gothic style, and that “the imitation is so methods because ¢arly 4 estorations have been Jarge- curiously correct that many artists when asked to

ly obliterated in the course of substifuent onés. point out the new glass have failed to fix on the ' "There are indications that.work done on the glass right lights.” This was found to be all the more in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries was remarkable, since he had “no previous knowledge very careless. Gaps were filled haphazardly with of the art of glass painting.”® However, none of his old glass from elsewhere in the cathedral, whole work is now in evidence, and the testimony given panels being interpolated from other windows and in the obituary is more interesting for its bearing

cut “own to fit if ssived sf even .. at the on Austin’s son, George Austin, Jr., whose work is

win ows were repairs a i" ; th i fone st to be seen everywhere in the cathedral, and who "644, but this probably involved the shifting trained with his father.

anels to aps. It ls generally assumed that there .; Pp 84P & of Austin, Sr. was an older man than Viollet-lewas a further drastic reordering indidthe eighteenth ;i Duc, who not become active in the Commiscentury. Some panels may even have been turned . oo. ,9 — , sion des Monuments Historiques until the 1840s,

inside outwhose so that the paint wasarticle exposedon to stained weather- glass , , , was ;ing; . . and important the; Fogg medallion showed signs ofwas weath, pito , . not published until 1868.°° Austin thus a ering on both sides prior to cleaning in 1970. Up to a th val of Gothi dit;

, ; oneer in the revival of Got t

the middle of the nineteenth century there had been ‘sing th he if oh ar S, an it is . not virtually no releading, and losses were probably “he. sik that he Was Se taug t in glass painting;

as great from glass simply falling out as from icon- the craft had almost died out in the seventeenth and oclastic destruction. Even after 1900 much of the eighteenth Centuries, and where it was still known glass was still in its original leads, and at the be- it had little in common with medieval practice. It

ginning of the First World War Caldwell and was only in the later part of Austin, Sr.’s life“triforium” thickly covered with glass fragments, aroused; in the 1840s the Reverend J. G. Joyce many of which they fitted back in subsequent res- made his series of drawings of Canterbury glass

toration.” for the glass painter Thomas Willement, and the

From the first half of the nineteenth century un- Reverend O. Hudson did several watercolor tractil a decade ago the restoration of the Canterbury ings that supplement drawings by the Austins.** 7 Unfortunately, almost no original leads now remain; his tracing of the Virgin from the Jesse Window as repro-

a few are preserved in the Cathedral Library. duced by Day, 1913, fig. 16, and by Rackham, 1949, PI.

8 Austin’s obituary, 1849, pp. 659-60. Bb, facing p. 13. Some small watercolors of glass are in

° Johnson, 1965, p. 26. the Austin Album, Cathedral Library, Add. MS 1. Austin,

10 FE. Viollet-le-Duc, “Vitrail,” Dictionnare raisonné de Jrs.’s tracing of Josiah from the Jesse Window is also in

Varchitecture frangaise 1x, Paris, 1868, 373-462. the cathedral library. In 1963 other tracings were depos11 Joyce’s Album of 1841 is in the Victoria and Albert ited there, after Caldwell, Jr.’s death. Austin’s tracings of

Museum, London, Department of Prints, 93.H.29. The other corona panels had been used subsequently, and freehand drawings are about one-third the original size, marks (“N”), indicating new glass, were added then, acand the leading is not accurately represented. O. Hudson’s cording to Easton. The date and authorship of other watercolor tracings are mounted in single sheets, Victoria tracings are uncertain; even those of north choir aisle suband Albert Museum, Department of Prints, nos. 415.1-17; jects backed by newspapers dated 1854 are suspect, as Eas-

METHOD OF STUDY , 17 Making such records of early glass was a fashion- tures of the glass paintings of the north choir aisle, able hobby, especially among the clergy.” This sort as stated by Gilbert in 1842, who quoted Joyce, the of work continued throughout the nineteenth cen- artist of the drawings in his illustration.*® It was tury, as in the album of drawings made at Canter- primarily this early Canterbury style that was imibury for the glass painters Clayton and Bell some- tated by Austin, Jr. His work in the east window time between 1871 and 1895,*° and those made, of the corona deceived Westlake only thirty years probably with the aid of the restorer, Caldwell, Sr., later; Westlake, one of the most savant historians to illustrate Miss Williams’s book of 1897."* These of glass painting of his time, selected Austin’s Crudrawings, done by or for glass painters, had an cifixion for illustration and high praise as an origiaesthetic as well as a practical function; just as the nal thirteenth-century work.*? Such confusion was Neo-Classic painters of the eighteenth century had more to be expected when Austin copied an origimade drawings of Italian High Renaissance sculp- nal, as in the case of the Jesse Tree figures. ture, so the Gothic Revival artists made studies of There are few records preserved of the manner medieval works. The drawings were not done with in which George Austin, Jr.’s restorations were the intention of providing accurate archacological carried out. In 1854 “a particular description of records, but if used with caution, they are often what has been done by Mr. George Austin to the useful indicators of the condition of a panel at that old windows in the Church” was shown at a Chap-

time. ter meeting, and it was agreed to ask him to keep The drawings of the 1840s preceded by a few this record in a book;** no such account has sur-

years the systematic restorations to the glass carried vived, although Mason referred to Austin’s “notes” out by George Austin, Jr. After 1848 the two sons in 1925.’° It is apparent from the Chapter Minutes of Austin, Sr. divided his duties; Harry succeeded that Austin had a monopoly of the cathedral glazas surveyor to the cathedral, and George the young- ing, although he was not in the permanent employ er was in business as a glass painter until his retire- of the Chapter. He obtained a contract to glaze the

ment in 1862.’ George Austin, Jr. was a young whole of the fourteenth-century nave, on the man during the decade in which the revival of grounds that the iconographic scheme and color glass painting gained impetus in England and balance would be destroyed if other painters were France. For him, as for none of the later restorers, allowed to work in the same area.”° He seems to it was natural to recreate the “Gothic style,” but have had far too much freedom to remove old glass the “Gothic” that inspired his generation was the and to introduce copies in its stead. It was thus that phase we now call late Romanesque or proto-Goth- two figures from a Jesse Window recorded in the ic. Especially admired were the classicizing fea- east window of the corona in the 1840s were reton says Caldwell had a cupboard full of such old news- tracing on wax paper and a finished ink drawing for papers. Furthermore, Austin did not restore the choir reproduction. The tracings were in some cases made beaisle glass, and would have been unlikely to make work- fore restoration (north choir aisle and “triforia” glass), ing tracings. The only Trinity Chapel subject, of n:III, 25, but have occasionally been used by Caldwell, Sr. to sketch

seems to have been traced after Austin’s restoration. in missing heads, etc., and a number of these details have 12 Compare, from the same period, the volumes by C. been copied in the ink drawings, so that.the plates in A. Buckler (London, British Library, Buckler Bequest Williams’s book are not accurate records of the glass prior xvi and xvi, Add. MSS 37138 and 37139), and by Charles to Caldwell’s restoration. Winston, a lawyer who dabbled in glass painting (British 15 Caldwell, 1951, p. 22. Library, Add. MS 35211). Neither of these men worked 16 Gilbert, 1842, p. 19.

at Canterbury. 17 Westlake, 1, 1881, p. 102, Pls. rx, x1; the Crucifixion

13 The Clayton and Bell Album of Water-colours 1, is was of Austin’s own design, though the Virgin was copdated 1895; Victoria and Albert Museum, Department of ied from n:IV, 15. Another panel illustrated (Pl. txu, a) Prints, 94.J.34. Permission to make these drawings was is a copy by Austin in Trinity Chapel n:III, 22 of n:IV, ro. granted at St. Catherine’s Chapter, 1871 (Canterbury, Ca- 18 Chapter Minutes, 1854-1884, p. 7. thedral Library, Chapter Minutes, 1854-1884, p. 287). 19 Mason, 1925, p. IO. 14 Williams Coll. In almost every instance there is a 20 Chapter Minutes, 1854-1884, pp. 28-209.

METHOD OF STUDY 18 moved in 1854, and Austin’s copies of them, still nal in the Victoria and Albert Museum (fig. 86).”° extant in the adjacent corona window and in the Whatever his proficiency in recreating the “Gothic”

southeast transept, were made about that time.” style, however, Austin was handicapped by the Although these particular panels remained in the glass then available for use in restoration. The purshop until 1906, there was a market for old glass ples, blues, and greens, especially, were too brilbefore then. An extract from a letter by Joyce to liant and hard in tone to harmonize with twelfthWillement, which forms the preface to the album or thirteenth-century glass. Aesthetically, therefore, of 1841, contains an interesting passage about the he may have felt it preferable to renew a whole possibility of obtaining some old glass: “The great panel than to mix old and new glass; the two origstrictness enforced of late by ecclesiastical compul- inal Jesse figures would have appeared somber in sion (not before it was necessary) renders it, I fear, the windows glazed by Austin with a complete

almost a hopeless case; there is just a possibility tree. That these panels were not sold until fifty that I may succeed through young Mr. Austin, as years later, by Austin’s great-nephew, suggests that

in his Father’s private Store Room and Closets Austin did not remove them from the cathedral many bits doubtless are lying about, and this is the because of an immediate possibility of sale. only channel through which it is at all possible.” Rackham has drawn together the records of AusWilliams says some of the clerestory figures had tin’s restorations contained in the cathedral library. been sold as early as 1799, but were brought back In 1853 and 1854, some work was done on the low-

in the 1860s.”° er row of genealogical figures in the west window.

The ethics of restoration in the nineteenth cen- The east window of the corona was repaired in tury were not our own. It was extremely common 1854. The three windows on the north side of the for glass painters to substitute new glass, faithfully Trinity Chapel (n:II, II, IV) were probably the copied from the original, and to throw out the next to receive attention, Window n:II in 1855." darkened and decayed pieces, just as present-day These still retain much of Austin’s glass. In the stone masons discard moldings that have rotted. Trinity Chapel no attempt was made to invent Only modern cleaning techniques allow such glass scenes to fill gaps, as the texts of the miracles were to be restored to translucence.** In cases where the not yet widely known, so Austin made copies of original has been preserved and can be compared existing panels, with some modification of colors.” with the copy at Canterbury, it can be seen that Austin seldom tampered with the surface of the George Austin made academic and idealized cop- glass he used in restoration. There are only a few ies, but they nonetheless give a fairly accurate idea instances, chiefly in white glass, where he has apof the character of the original—compare, for in- plied a “flux,” or false patina, to the outer surface stance, the head of Semei by Austin, as it appeared to tone down the piece. This is hard and white, in the photograph of 1926 (fig. 85), and the origi- and unlike genuine patina on the old glass at Can21 Caviness, 1975, p. 374. The window in the transept 25 The head was replaced by Austin in 1855; see Rackchapel was “highly approved” by the Chapter in 1854 ham, 1949, p. 27, and Oakeshott, 1951, p. 87. Austin’s (Chapter Minutes, p. 7). In the adjacent chapel window, head has since been replaced by Caldwell, Jr. The original, glazed in 1852, are copies of two panels now in the Vir- Victoria and Albert Museum, C. 854-1920, was first recginia Museum of Fine Arts, Richmond, which, like the ognized by Baker and Lammer, 1960, Pl. 1, p. 60. The Jesse panels, had been sold to Nelson in 1906; see Caviness, provenance has since been confirmed; The Year 1200 1,

1973, p. 54. No. 225, pp. 221-22. 22 Joyce, 1841, pp. 2-3. 26 Rackham, 1949, pp. 26-27.

23 Williams, 1897, p. 3. 27 This was the most frequent way of “composing”

24 For example, the well-known case of the Winchester used by the Caldwells, as well as by Austin. It has given College Chapel glass, which was replaced by Betton and the false impression that the same cartoon was reused in Evans. Some of the original glass has now been cleaned the Middle Ages [Rackham, 1949, p. 13, who cited Trinby Dennis King; see John H. Harvey and Dennis King, ity Chapel n:V(3), and n:IV(8)]; both are modern adap-

“Winchester College Stained Glass,” Archaeologia 103 tations from s:II(10). (1971), 153-58.

METHOD OF STUDY 19 terbury, it cannot easily be scraped or flaked off. his restorations.” Where this was the case the reIt is unlikely to have been applied with an intent sults are much further removed from the original

to deceive on close inspection. than are Austin’s replacements, and the panels often The next two generations must have been very have a kaleidoscopic appearance. Even the leading conscious of the unpleasant tonality of Austin’s lines cannot be accepted as medieval outline drawglass, much of which they replaced. Late in the ing.°° The use of old fragments without recutting nineteenth century there was a reaction against the or repainting was not satisfactory except at some practice of replacing old glass with new, and a distance from the eye, such as in the outer figures sentimental mystique began to surround the qual- of the oculus in the northeast transept, which were ities of old glass. It was realized that imperfections provided by Caldwell, Jr. It was often found prefin its facture, and even subsequent pitting, added erable to clean an old piece with acid and repaint to its luminosity and to the subtle variations of tone it. This method was used chiefly from around 1890 and light intensity. In 1876 Fowler read a paper to to about 1914 by Caldwell, Sr. and his son, in the the British Archaeological Association in which he windows on the south side of the Trinity Chapel

criticized the antiqued glass produced in the Goth- (s:II, VI, and VII). ic revival, and applauded an awakening sensibil- It was easier, however, to apply “flux” and acid ty one eat) of ancient glass.” In 1910 he was to a new piece of glass, since refiring an old piece

a yee earn wre went so a as Oy was hazardous and required extraordinary techni-

me weat CrINg OF Ol Blass Is one OF AS Chie cal skill.3? This explains the methods used by Samglories.” That Heaton Jr. could also quote Winston, ;to draw a. uel Caldwell, After 1908 he continued from mid-nineteenth that ; he cae > the on the boxes of old century, fragments butweathering increasingly is “like a perfecting by God of the work of man, .; ,this ; used glass approach treated sohad as to old, at first shows that newnew aesthetic its appear . Loe, ; applying a false patina and eventually also employbeginnings in the picturesque, as defined by writ-

4 . ing acid to bleach the colors and to give. .the effect ers such as Prosper Merimée, though Romanticism wn es og of pitting. He replaced much of his great-uncle’s

was now tempered by scientific inquiry.”* It was a 4 father bj ae the wind |

broad movement, which encompassed the “discov- and Father's WOrk in restoring The WInCows a sec-

ery” of Tang pottery, and of patinated bronzes in ond or even a third time, during the two world

the west. wars. Thus today a piece of drapery may be a copy Austin’s nephew, Samuel Caldwell, Sr., who was of a copy of a lost original. Ironically, with all the in charge of restorations from 1862 to 1908, was as technical means at his disposal to make the glass much a part of this movement as Austin had been look old, Caldwell could not paint, as his greatof the Gothic revival. Under his direction, frag- uncle had been able to do, in a convincingly Gothic ments abandoned by Austin were sorted and boxed style. His work was misleading chiefly because he by color for reuse. He developed in his shop meth- enjoyed telling antiquarian experts that his glass ods of cleaning, repainting, and refiring old glass. was in fact old. Frequently he said that the original He claimed to have used chiefly medieval glass in piece had been found in Austin’s boxes of frag28 Noel Heaton, “The Foundation of Stained Glass has been cleaned and refired appears to have been resurWork,” Journal of the Royal Society of Arts 58 (1910), faced in the kiln, and it has not developed a patina, as 455, 459. Heaton was reporting some of the first chemical has the glass that was less thoroughly cleaned. It has a analyses of ancient glass, to be followed by Léon Appert, very bright outer surface, but is less smooth than modern

Note sur les verres des vitraux anciens, Paris, 1924. glass.

29 For example, Williams, 1897, p. 29, said Trinity 32 A wood-fired kiln, which required very careful conChapel n:V was cempleted in 1894, using old fragments. trol, was used throughout this period. Many experiments

In fact, much of this glass was new. were tried, including the fusion of two broken edges from 30 For example, Trinity Chapel n:V(1) and s:II(3-8). a piece of glass in the north choir aisle “triforium”; the 81 For example, in Trinity Chapel s:VI, the horse in join was still intact in 1967. panel 1 and the drapery in 7, restored in 1906. Glass that

METHOD OF STUDY 20 ments and replaced. This was occasionally true, but The greater part of seven windows in the Trinity

usually the pieces supplied were new.** Chapel was now filled with original glass. Caldwell, Jr. had trained with his father from A few panels were then placed in Window 1878, and in the early years it is not possible to tell n:VII, which had perhaps retained its border. The their work apart. The difference that emerged lat- first was a figure of an archbishop partly composed er, as outlined above, was not so much stylistic as of old glass that had been used as a ground betechnical. The son was in charge of all restorations tween medallions in the “triforium.” By 1954 the to the glass from 1908 to his retirement in 1952.** window was completely filled with colored glass,

During this long period the cathedral glass was but except for one semicircle (n:VII, 15), it was taken out for two wars. All, except for a few pan- all made up by Caldwell, Jr. with a sparing use els leaded by Austin, were releaded at some time of old glass. The same is true of two medallions in by Easton. The chronology of Caldwell, Jr.’s work Window s:IV, placed there in the 1g20s.*° can be given from Mason’s book up to 1925, from The late 1940s saw the cleaning, releading, and the Annual Reports since 1927, and from his own restoration of the Trinity Chapel windows previ-

“Memories of a Craftsman.” Easton was also ex- ously restored by Austin (n:II, HI, IV). The east tremely helpful on occasion in remembering dates window of the corona must have been restored of restoration, since he joined Caldwell in the about the same time. The two original Jesse Tree glassworks in 1906. In 1892, according to Caldwell figures now in Window n:lIII of the corona were himself, work was begun on the south windows of returned to the cathedral by the executors of Philip the Trinity Chapel and continued sporadically un- Nelson only in 1953, at which time they were retil 1909.°° These had not been touched by Austin, leaded by Easton. Apart from this, little restoration but panels had earlier been moved to other locations work has been done in the upper church since in the cathedral. After the First World War much Caldwell’s retirement.*’ It is Caldwell, Jr., through glass must have been kept in the shop for restora- his longevity and the event of two world wars, tion, among it the very decayed panels from the who stands out as the Canterbury restorer who north choir aisle “triforium.” About 1920 Window handled all of the early glass, some of it twice. He n:V of the Trinity Chapel, already restored by had a reputation as an honest and talented craftsCaldwell, Sr., had two panels added; about the man, and trust was placed in him almost to the same time, Window s:II was completed with pan- end of his life. In Rackham’s book four of the color els moved down from the south “triforium,” and plates of glass supposedly of the early period in Window s:VI was filled, some panels being fact show figure panels made up by Caldwell.** brought from s:II. Canon Mason directed these Because Caldwell’s work has been so misleading, restorations, and contributed much to an under- it is worth recording some of his methods in destanding of the subject matter. The restoration of tail. The techniques were more sophisticated than panels to locations in Windows n:V, s:II, and s:VI, those outlined by Knowles early in Caldwell’s caas already to s:VII, was archaeologically correct. reer.*” He took endless trouble over each piece of 33 The skirt of Abraham’s tunic in the Sacrifice of Isaac 35 Caldwell, 1951, p. 22. (corona east, 3) was replaced by Austin, and appeared un- 86 Rackham, 1957, p. 48; Caviness, 1967, pp. 5-6, 113-16. broken in Nelson, 1913, Pl. v1, but the old fragments were 87 The examination with scaffolding in 1967 and 1971

subsequently found and put back; see Caviness, 1967, p. was the first detailed inspection since the Second World 177, On the other hand, in Trinity Chapel n:III(4), a War. Dilapidation was found, and a program of conservery disordered panel, Caldwell placed a head on the left vation is now in hand. that he claimed was the original, but that on examination 38 Rackham, 1949, Pls. vu, x1, x1, and frontispiece. proved to be of Austin’s facture. See Bernard Rackham, 39J, A. Knowles, “Forgeries of Ancient Stained Glass: “Old Glass Reinstated,” C.C.C. 42 (1947), pp. 20-23, and Methods of Their Production and Detection,” Journal of

1949, Pl. x1. the Royal Soctety of Arts 72 (1923), 38-56.

84 He died, aged ror (according to Mr. Easton and Dr. Urry), in August 1963.

METHOD OF STUDY 21 glass, particularly in his later work on the north quickly in the center and lower part, which are side of the Trinity Chapel. Modern glass was care- less protected from rain by the leads. The false fully selected, of the right thickness and as near as patina does not regard variations of environment possible to the right color.*° The edge, generally and tends to cover the surface evenly, and to the cut with a diamond, according to modern practice, same extent in the upper as in the lower part of was often grozed down and roughened afterwards the window. Generally the flux was also harder. to approximate a medieval grozed edge.** The Again, the whiteness of a flux is rather monotonblues were frequently treated with acid all over ous. Most old glass develops a colored patina, yelboth surfaces to lighten the color, leaving a rough- lowish in the case of the blues and some yellows, ened inner surface that feels only slightly less sharp rust-colored on the reds, pinkish on pinks and than that of a genuinely decayed piece. Acid was whites. This was very apparent in the ornament

then allowed to work on random spots on one of the windows examined, which had not been surface to give the effect of pitting. In the early thoroughly cleaned in the last restoration. Even years the acid pitting on the outer surface was not from a distance, panels made up by Caldwell, Jr. further abraded, but a flux of putty powder and to simulate old glass, such as those in Window ground glass was fired on, giving a hard white s:VI of the Trinity Chapel, appear too white on “patina.” However, the pits made by acid have a the outer surface to the critical eye.” slightly rounded lip and do not feel as sharp as To summarize the restoration methods used at genuine weathering. This “fault” is readily notice- Canterbury during the century between 1850 and able in the windows of the north choir aisle “trifo- 1950, the work of Austin, up to 1862, is often the rium,” which were restored between the wars. The most accurate archaeologically; wherever possible he next step perfected by Caldwell was to abrade the seems to have copied a damaged original. His work whole surface with emery paper after pitting with is also the easiest to detect, the nineteenth-century acid, leaving a narrow raised strip around the edges glass generally having an unpleasantly hot tone.

as if it had been protected by the leads; the lip of The surface has not been greatly tampered with, the pits was sharpened in the process. A flux ap- though he sometimes used a crude flux on the outplied thinly over this made the forgery very hard side. Distinctions between Austin’s glass and wellto detect. One of the incomparable Canterbury preserved medieval glass are only occasionally difforgeries is the head of the woman on the left in ficult to make. Some of the medieval blues (espeTrinity Chapel n:IV (15), an instance in which the cially in the north choir aisle and corona winstyle of painting is convincing because the trace- dows), acid greens, and pinks are very hard, and lines were copied from another head, though even the outer surfaces are still intact; conversely, some these were partially removed to give the appearance of Austin’s glass has begun to pit on the outside.

of being effaced (fig. 159). The distinction between Austin’s pieces and old

Without Easton to explain these methods and to glass is more easily made from inside on the basis remember the pieces treated in this way, detection of tonality and style. His colors are very brilliant would have been very difficult. Being forewarned, compared with the old. Austin’s figure painting is however, I was able to notice occasional discrepan- strong, a pleasing approximation of a late Romancies that might betray this sort of work elsewhere. esque style, though of course not free from Gothic For instance, a natural patina seldom spreads even- revival traits. ly over a piece of glass, but tends to develop more The work of Samuel Caldwell, Sr. (cathedral 40 In these years Easton was several times sent to Lon- 42Tn his restoration of the glass at Nackington in 1935,

don to select glass, generally at Heatley’s. Caldwell let the new glass lie out under rusting iron to 41 Some pieces still in the shop in 1967 were almost per- develop a brownish patina. fect forgeries; with the edge only partially visible under leading, detection would be impossible.

METHOD OF STUDY 22 glass painter, 1862-1906) and his son (1906-1952) gives a deceptive impression of homogeneity. This overlapped during the years 1878 to 1906. Both has been increased by the reuse of extraneous glass,

used old fragments in restoration, at first un- so that in a given window the style is not as hotouched, later recut or even cleaned and repainted. mogeneous as it should be. Furthermore, Caldwell Their painting styles were weak, uncertain, loosely was more eclectic than the previous restorers; al-

organized, in contrast with the authority and bums of photographs of glass in other cathedrals, rhythm of Austin’s draftsmanship. To some extent such as Chartres or Rouen,** were available to him their draperies approximate the driest or the freest and probably influenced his style as much as did of the Trinity Chapel styles (in Windows n:V and Canterbury painting. He seems to have added a s:II respectively) but the faces are seldom con- “Chartrain” element to the Canterbury glass, for vincing (e.g. fig. 100). An amusing insight into instance, in the heavily draped Madonna in the the workings of the shop is provided by Easton’s east window of the crypt.** testimony that Caldwell, Jr.’s sister, who was the A second type of confusion has arisen from the creator of the children’s character Rupert Bear, was availability of the texts on which the miracle series occasionally called in to help with a difficult face. was based. These were edited in 1875-1876, and These restorations would probably not have been their relevance to the glass was recognized by so long accepted as original if it were not for the Williams in 1897. Mason, Urry, and Rackham reuse of old glass and eventually elaborate faking have made further identifications with the help of techniques, and Caldwell’s own testimony to their these texts. The Caldwells may also have used

authenticity. them, however, for designing or reconstructing

The implications for the art historian of these scenes.*? Other scholarship to which the younger restoration techniques are not only archacological. Caldwell had access were the chemical analyses of Stylistic observations have been hampered by the medieval glass made by Noel Heaton. Easton told very confusing material that has been accepted un- me that on occasion “flux” (false patina) and “frit” til now as original. Austin’s restorations are not (the vitreous enamel used for the trace-lines) were very troublesome and have a higher degree of au- obtained from Heaton, the inference being that a

thenticity than much that has been done since. medieval formula was used. Even with chemical Caldwell, Jr.’s work is ubiquitous in the cathedral, analysis, therefore, it might be impossible to detect and has tended to lead to interpretations that are which pieces retain only original paint and which false—the chief of which is that the Trinity Chapel have been repainted. ambulatory windows are the work of a single de- Once this confusing restoration has been recog-

signer. There are, for instance, no authentic in- nized, it becomes possible to define the original stances of the reuse of the same cartoon in these styles and suggest a division by ateliers. Compariwindows; instances cited by Rackham are in every sons with manuscripts and stained glass from other case Caldwell’s adaptations from an existing com- centers can also be made with greater sureness. But position. The appearance in every window of first a brief consideration of the historical context

facial types and draperies favored by Caldwell is in order. #3 Delaporte and Houvet, 1926, for Chartres, and Rit- medallions in Window n:VII(10 and 14) were identified

ter, 1926, for Rouen. by William Urry, “The Thirteenth Century Miracle 44 Rackham, 1949, Pl. viz. Glass: An Identification,” C.C.C. 31 (October 1938), 13-

45 Mason, 1925, p. 29, found an identification for the 14. They have little old glass in them, and may have scenes in Trinity Chapel n:V(2 and 3); and Rackham, been created around the inscriptions and a few fragments, 1949, (p. 85) added panel 1 to the series, although it had perhaps with the help of the text. There may be some been made up by Caldwell, Sr. in 1894; one wonders if degree of accuracy in the reconstruction. Caldwell had already read the same text. Similarly, two

I]. ‘he Historical Background and the Problem of Dating

“Cantet igitur novum domino canticum felix In THE late twelfth century, and into the thirteenth,

Cantuartensis ecclesia . . Christ Church, Pope. .Honorius 111+ . Canterbury, was still of paramount

importance, not only as the first church of England but also as one of the richest and most powerful of the Benedictine houses.” It has even been said, as by the contemporary writer Gerald of Wales, that the monks were given to luxurious living.® At the same time, Christ Church was conspicuous in the ecclesiastical history of England as the site of the bitterest quarrels between the monks, the secular clergy, and the king, from the time of Archbishop Thomas Becket and Henry II to that of Archbishop

Stephen Langton and King John. During these disputes, the riches and power of the monks were gradually dissipated. The friars took over the religious instruction of the people.* Archbishop Baldwin, who was one of the last monks to hold that office, was a Cistercian not a Benedictine, and his tenure only served to make greater the distinction between the convent and the archbishopric; by the

middle of the thirteenth century even their archives had been separated.® The quarrels were very |

costly; the monks borrowed large sums of money

, early in the thirteenth century, and these debts were not settled until 1285~1287.° Nonetheless, this is the

“Therefore let the fortunate church of Canterbury sing unto the Lord a new song.” Letter to Langton of

January 26, 1219, quoted by Foreville, 1958, p. 163. 2 By the end of the twelfth century the monks owned between a third and a half of the domestic property of Canterbury, but more lucrative were high rents from London properties; Urry, 1967, pp. 23, 35-36. 3 Poole, 1955, p. 228. * Stubbs, 1865, pp. cxix—cxx.

5F.R.H. du Boulay, “The Archbishops as Territorial Magnates,” Medieval Records of the Archbishops of Can-

terbury; A Course of Public Lectures Delivered in Lambeth Palace Library, London, 1962, pp. 54-55. 6 Smith, 1943, pp. 17-18, 26. As much as 20 percent interest was paid on loans from Italian merchants.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 24 } era of the splendid rebuilding and decoration of . Peterborough, was a prolific writer, a great pro-. the eastern part of the church; it is clear that in moter of the cult of St. ’Thomas, and had probably the case of Christ Church external difficulties and been much interested in the new building at Canfinancial stress were not an insurmountable obsta- terbury. At Peterborough he directed the rebuild- , cle to the completion of an extremely ambitious ing of the nave up to his death in 1193, and founded

building program.’ there a chapel of St. Thomas. Bale and Dart sup- ,

Rather than attempting here an analysis of all posed that Benedict had a degree from Oxford, but the crosscurrents that may have affected the glaz- he was described by his medieval biographer as ing program, my main purpose in this chapter is only sufficiently learned;** we shall: see that his into survey the contemporary records and events that terpretation of the miracles of Becket that he had might give some indication of the date of the glass. collected was quite conventional. This is necessary in part because in the past some Archbishop Richard’s tenure was peaceful and over-hasty conclusions have been reached. A brief prosperous. The building continued smoothly after outline of the history of Christ Church in the pe- the departure of Benedict until the architect, Wilriod from the fire of 1174 to the translation of the liam of Sens, fell from the scaffold in the summer relics of St. Thomas to the Trinity Chapel in 1220 of 1178.*” Even this did not prevent the completion

may remind the reader of the order of events. of the choir by Easter, 1180, under the new archiIn 1174, the year of the fire, Richard, prior of tect, William the Englishman. The building was Dover, was elected archbishop of Canterbury. Al- not entirely finished when Baldwin succeeded though it was during his archiepiscopacy that the Archbishop Richard in 1184, but from this time the rebuilding progressed rapidly, he was apparently chronicle of Gervase centers on the disputes with not a man of strong character, and the onus of the the Cistercian archbishop rather than on the buildwork must have been carried largely by the breth- ing.*° ren.* Among the monks were many men of letters Baldwin wished to found a college of canons and

who still earned Canterbury a name as a center of a chapel, to be dedicated to Sts. Stephen and learning, and one of their closest acquaintances was Thomas, at Hackington near Canterbury, a proj-

John of Salisbury, who lived among them up to ect that had been envisaged by Sts. Anselm and 1177;° Gervase, the chronicler, has given us the Thomas. The monks objected because they feared most important document of local history of the the new church would compete with the first period, and Nigel of Whiteacre was widely known church of England. They appealed to Rome, and for his satirical verse.*° Benedict, who was prior the case went through many vicissitudes between from 1175 until 1177 and then became abbot of 1184 and r190, when Baldwin died on crusade. 7 On financing building projects of the twelfth century, 11 The few known facts about Benedict’s life have been

see Boase, 1953, pp. 268-71. collected in Robertson, 1, 1876, xix, and in the Dictionary

8 Richard was blamed by his contemporaries “for the of National Biography, 1, Oxford, 1921~1922, 213-14. The

failure of the church to profit by the martyrdom of chief source is the chronicle of Swafham; see Roberti

Becket” (Poole, 1955, p. 221). | Swaphami “Historia Coenobii Burgensis,” ed. Sparke,

9 Webb, 1932, pp. 16, 122. 1723, pp. 97-103. For his work at Peterborough, see

10 Haskins, 1927, p. 51, saw Canterbury in the time of Boase, 1953, pp. 265-66; J. Dart, The History and AnBecket as “the best example of a vigorous cathedral com- tiguities of the Cathedral Church of Canterbury, London,

munity.” For Nigel, formerly known as Wireker, see 1726, p. 183. Stubbs, 1865, p. Ixxxv; Polycarp Leyser, Hzstoria Poe- 12 Gervase, ed. Stubbs, 1879, p. 20. tarum et Poematum Mediu Aevi, Magdeburg, 1721, pp. 13 Tbhid., pp. 2off. 751-58; and F.J.E. Raby, 4 History of Christian Latin 14 David Knowles, The Monastic Order in England ... Poetry, Oxford, 1927, p. 337, with bibliography; more re- 942-1216, Cambridge, 1940, pp. 319-22, and Dodwell, cently, J. H. Mozley, “Nigel Wireker or Wetekre,”’ Mod- 1954, pp. 112-13. The dispute was followed in detail by ern Language Review 27 (1932), 314-17; Nigel de Long- Stubbs, 1865, pp. xxxvili-Ixxxiv; see also C. R. Cheney, champs, Speculum Stultorum, ed. J. H. Mozley and Rob- Hubert Walter, London, 1967, pp. 135ff. ert R. Raymo, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1960, p. 1; Urry, 1967, PP. 59, 153-54.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 25 The Popes Lucius III and Gregory VIII supported Church suffered considerable financial loss in spite Baldwin, as did the English bishops (all but Hugh of restitutions made after the return.”

of Lincoln) and the Cistercians; Urban III was In subsequent years, the history of Christ able temporarily to turn events in the favor of the Church was dominated by the archbishops rather

monks, so that by the time of Gregory VIII the than the brethren. Stephen Langton, trained in proposed site had been moved to Lambeth.*® At the Paris, was already famous as a theologian, and his height of the quarrel, the monks were virtually im- interest in canon law brought him to the front in

prisoned in their convent for over a year (1188- the negotiations for Magna Carta.” Though an in1189), and they suspended services in the cathedral ternational figure, his interests did not take him

church.*® The dispute continued under Baldwin’s away from Canterbury entirely. It was he who h- | successor, Hubert Walter (1193-1205); he had al- nally realized the monks’ dream of translating the

ready supported Baldwin, as bishop of Salisbury, relics inom. Beene wh, gold shrine ” ue and his election was unpopular with the Christ EPpet CAUTCD. Balas OF Mereaam, a member or ais Church monks.’” He continued to try to build at

W ; . brother’s household who had previously served |

_ , Hubert Walter, was and Walter ofgiven Colchester from St. Lambeth, but ,when permission finally | . are credited withInnocent supervising the, work on for onlyshrine.** a smallAlbans foundation, by himself Pope III yg , . the Langton delivered a long in 1201, he capitulated with good grace and became og , address on the translation.** The monks probably

known as one of the great benefactors of Christ | , , Church1® The peace was again broken. however played a very inconspicuous part; it is to Matthew

di

iy~ OEE ; ae haiy ns

sPi arf- rxf- -.;x .~ RE- TE + ae"oe Agahcota A ae. ve- nes4oA 5: “= OSA i ieee 5 abe Pengtr - ae 4.‘ $5024 agi, SF:Ptrs eee Text fig. 2a. Canterbury Cathedral from the southeast

.&\

Sean’ . ; N Aas 7 ' \ i Rar i 1 8 ; : : as ee24 WA f A\|1?‘, 4 J { Wh ~ &W lh Ah“yy 3 | icsa; Af . ee ; > eR, “a wv e ai' >, : Nig. 5 . wy : ts iat r a ‘el p

b. Interior view from the choir to the Trinity Chapel

i. eS , ff sh eee ‘ $ Z f 4, ; Ai co | OU Sl Ee ee \ i -y ot S i by \ t : é ; ' } a. / fy " J / i ie 4; —* \ Ly y; /!fae. ;rsi| >f“3 Be |—— , sgw y

LOAj fiat . =aaF Pd : yf: ‘/ ifififa yA i. mf oe < i? 2

e \ ; ; Bs j i $

.y ~ 4.a:iSSE wal > “A ; iq a ey 7es « ;+. oa |ae a ~ ~~ | j s es , aS - 4sAe | 5eee iN :| a\. ;44; ft 1% = f. “;

7;aby % 38a? Ce eae *A ; ' ¢asi "2 par: i ae M0 of j a oe —_ | 7 5 , tick vf ae \ ped wit iy ‘a / 4 | oF} hs bees e vi Al § ::A Fh ¢ re : F L : bie ie . ‘ay: (} } Y Nay Ny es) 7 1 :et) . , .oO i*1 7 ‘, iam eos»y‘7 ;D| NN; 3: ‘\° A AL

‘'-yj;¢ee KX « .* . i 2 : Fi A } \ \ “ rae ee 2 od oN 1 + f ; f ) ; ee : XN aa i \ eee

ee Si EPG +i e veeFfBy. } | Jiei; ee 14>i 5° mY13 4 ; .; OS ka} > Oe,

j: mx . :| MeMemtTe y See ‘ bl )$4 ri aiiL. \leWS \) f° wy \ ani Be i: aa -2eo ee 3PRE | 1D Ty.sf Aerie JURE gee + oo ae | 18 po? Fash ai Pa) | a) 3 isae:Fs a , re UT Boa ed = 3 > :Bie: : :;rf2Ag ~ Mees “a Pe: r +3 P 7 : {! : et ¥ é ; >6 ed cm i ,Ct 1\8:) Brorpppapere fe wees nen enst 5PT : :: j; i.' aeoawien y fond ‘ ia: ia . 47Bei wa ae : | oxy mi oi.oe bga:: éhd |} fe “ Ay SE Raeopen ‘ : a ee ay j ae Ae * > ~ = (ee Ss gee : = .

:: :=.IOP a ae -7A oF iee a iae f NY 4;

: 3wy ,t |a)eeei;#2Dec Noaee | aa SLE w* +0 erp aa=“a* a . > me PEAS at sileen ~ . iw

Bei? .E .Se Te ee % /,yt:>*5’of2“Y bs x" :¥ =a ® pT aa CS Ta ‘A ga . ay Py : $ Bie Le eh ee Ser ee BI Ss od xt ees i 4Week 5 ihe rs —— aK of 3 2 : K: ¥ . v ¥ . | S t i 3 2 545 ae Bet ee!Et#‘ 4:oe| |1*, ‘. sree 3 inca > WM sao247 ee PIRtha TELEae Et ESS ef : ee

~~ > a % tae ‘ ,a? y)>S .=hy Dy ‘ = Fas nd ~~+ 84 ~— - : 5°:’ AA é « 7 ‘

ys aaa . Tit 3 Meter tah ~ oe ~ e i Sho, a! ny A , ae “=a ne A es aS Ea Bie ’B,; c. Interior view of the north side of the choir and northeast transept

“\asyeSe NS Be. GS Sh .Ne “S\ Marne ot :ety > wy oo Sa|Sa ri ee Sat oo|) 2| ST pr ES . aoe. my saree THA » Se ; Be. ae ban eae a Be f i | sore \t |e SS Sae Rate, a " “E> wut j 3 ‘ ‘ bY Vas poy c— TPO EN ry “ Ne 3 ae ae " . i YS ry ' {4oaAq

Se UEaee eS : aa | i YE [Fa a Ve +e. ae ‘§_£see faSa ae Ye 4 : ~~, ( Sere ere a eS TS a ; ie ~

’Ee, f ‘aX.) e— f a ae 124 a ie 1 i vag CR 2" > ba ps 34 ie if =~ ri ‘ 4 és ; Fe ’ . aie TA. tee ss ite! Bak ce A eo * . : : ie “a ees : "ada } a 4

Sy ai ee | 4 i aN Vr ot "Aa .#» .\ ;4- .jae oF Ca AN io hope 9~e :y é be, Fi Pa > : t- # oe ap ‘irre Ly ee re: | > “7 i , i 3 a et ess, ee 29 Ree } Re v ah % a

it es a, B ; &

gaa iitiit. «.5 ;~i Bile SS eee ;;| 31S |eae: | BS fe. te F ipeey ae fie ch Nt | nis f a ’ pce ¥ -_ ¥ 3 sb |Minds" BESS 5eh > am . ti Sas as i| AV. eae1sfwae RAE. ' : (ia A es 5 Rotuhin ¥ 7 -— s | ————— a i te

= ¥Ge" wee ee i Ztit3g }~oet — | Hi , bao mee > |; “Ai rT ; | T:iu |*ik 3e” |A *}‘os iepeaay ie% 3Pe 4 +: S .. 4be r)AiA'|frat 4i W(\ Soe Ia4is rs ~ " tee + ¢Fit | i ‘it Fae LbAth :;

== in! — as= 3ee ee mereaias: a : c tes

y) {are He ble et) ae Bee 3 2 ties Jey zi |Eo| ee os ; ' |ee : | ~ ‘Sieaes ree et ae ni -Yp2 mg i Boor,

te wy : Pe ent ee Fees 2 wi ; 5 ks ee fe ee ie, om xe

part} ;Ss vig Oe oO=egalt gee 2 “eyrrOO BSge ci ER ETNG actrare ae a~~“apt : aeaecea. Peere ee ;aix eneg - See _eee na LF Sasa eet lepee Sh ee :, eeBet ty age oree ea atSegcnr OC — oe yy}> =Ee roaOe, Repeg oh i~— oan area *pte - eles ZaSEA tiprt Hcy;Bs aadNe: . oe , -~ a "AE i 3 « oe a ee iS Ye Oe 2 : Ss aoe ie

More attenuated than the Jesse figures, remains are in the ambulatory and in the clerestory their style associates them with a Canterbury clere- of the choir. The upper levels were clearly not story window of ca. 1190. Related figures are in completed in their present form until well into the the Walters Art Gallery in Baltimore and the City thirteenth century, and this later glazing does not

Art Museum of St. Louis. concern Us.

The principal early glass is zz stu in the four windows of the north ambulatory. From the east the subjects, which read variously up or down, are

ST.-QUENTIN, COLLEGIATE CHURCH ; ; (AISNE) the Parable of the Good Samaritan, the Parable of The rebuilding of the chapels was begun about the Prodigal Son, the Life of St. Eustace, and the 1212. In 1220 a chantry was founded in one of the later Life of Thomas Becket.”? The glass has gensouth chapels, and in 1229 relics were translated.”® erally been dated after a fire in 1184, which may The surviving glass of thirteenth-century date have damaged the cathedral fabric. Recently asforms two groups, the later of which—in the choir signed dates are in the thirteenth century: Grodecki clerestory—does not concern us.?’ In the axial puts the group before 1225; Sulkis envisages a chapel of Our Lady are seven narrow lancets, the period of glazing from about 1209 to about 1220.*° center three of which retain much glass of about The windows appear moderately well preserved, 1225 or later. On the left is a typological early Life with the exception of the lower third of the St. of Christ, which reads from the top. It is matched Eustace window. The glass was in medieval leads on the right by a window with identical armature until quite recent times, which may account for in which the Life of the Virgin is represented, the few breakages.** reading upwards. The center window has an arma- The glass at present in the axial chapel is chiefly ture that describes fan shapes, in which twelve up- later, but the date of 1230 or so assigned by Grodper panels are ancient; some certainly belong to a ecki to the Lives of Sts. Peter and Paul and SavinLife of St. Stephen, but the order has been altered ian is too early for the present structure. Miscellaand the lower six panels are modern. I was fortu- neous fragments have been added in restoration, nate to be able to examine these windows from including two well-preserved scenes from the St.

exterior scaffolding in 1973. Eustace window.”

SENS, CATHEDRAL OF ST.-ETIENNE CHARTRES, CATHEDRAL OF NOTRE-DAME

(YONNE) (EURE-ET-LOIR)

The ambulatory wall is thought to have been be- This collection is so well known that only a few gun about 1140. There was a consecration in 1163. comments are necessary; as an ensemble it is one Accepted opinion that an axial chapel of horseshoe of the best preserved of Gothic glazing programs. 25T am grateful to Mademoiselle Jeanne Vinsot for this 1140-1145,” Journal of the Society of Architectural H1sinformation. The removal of glass from St.-Yved is men- tortans 29 (1970), pp. 98ff.

tioned by Fleury, 1882, pp. 123-24. 29 The clearest description is still that of Lucien Bégule, 26P. Héliot, “Chronologie de la basilique de Saint- La Cathédrale de Sens, Paris, 1929, pp. 43-74. Quentin,” Bulletin monumental 117 (1959), 10, 27-32. 30 Vitrail, p. 139; Sulkis, 1964, p. 116. 27 Vitrail, p. 123; the other group is described by 31 Jean Lafond, Le Vitrail, Paris, 1966, p. 106, n. 24.

Grodecki, 1965, and Fleury, 1882, pp. 125-32. 32 Madame Francoise Perrot was kind enough to point 28 Kenneth W. Severens, “The Early Campaign at Sens, this out to me.

a

STYLE AND ORNAMENT 4]

Points of comparison with Canterbury have been Lubin and Nicholas, and associated them with the found only in the nave windows of the aisles and Master of the Redemption Window at Bourges.** clerestory, including the west rose, and one win- The St. Eustace window he has attributed to the dow in the north transept adjacent to the nave. The master of the two lateral windows in St.-Quentin.” best description is still that of Delaporte, and the The west rose has a Last Judgment; its style is photographs taken by Houvet have only just been close to that of the Joseph Master in the nave. The replaced by Fiévet for the Monuments Histo- clerestory on the south side has standing figures of

riques.** , saints and apostles, while on the north a similar |

The nave includes, on the south side from the disposition is varied in five of the fourteen lancets west, windows with the stories of John the Evan- by seated figures, from two to six in a window, ingelist, Mary Magdalen, the Good Samaritan, the cluding three prophets. A fifth lancet has Abraham Dormition of the Virgin, and the Miracles of the preparing to sacrifice Isaac. Virgin. On the north are the stories of the Flood, The most frequently accepted date for the glazSt. Lubin, St. Eustace, Joseph, St. Nicholas, and ing of the nave aisle windows is 1200-1210/15; the the Redemption, with the Parable of the Prodigal transepts and choir would be later.** ‘This chronol-

Son in the transept. Of these, Grodecki has ogy has, however, been questioned in recent

grouped together the Flood, and the Lives of Sts. times.*”

The part played by composition and ornament in the Canterbury windows

Tue Canterbury windows are some of the most resemble decorative frames rather than buildings richly ornate to have been preserved as a series. In (Col. Pl. mr and fig. 159). spite of considerable individual variation, they In tracing atelier traditions, ornament 1s often maintain a consistent decorative level, so that even more useful than figure compositions and style. those that are relatively lacking in color have a rich Ornamental motifs tend to be very long-lived; brilliance. The light is broken up by small patterns, their execution is less idiosyncratic than is that of

much as silver may be enlivened with repoussée, the figures, but at the same time they are less reor gold leaf by punched tooling.** sponsive to a “model.” Links that can be proved by

The composition of a window is controlled by the use of similar ornament may also have a bearthe iron armature; ornament includes the border, ing on the transmission of styles. But here a caveat the areas between the figure compositions, and the is necessary, because patterns may equally be edging lines of medallions. Ornament between the passed from one shop to another without signiffigure subjects generally fills concave-shaped “neg- cant stylistic exchange.*® Some of the border deative” areas, whereas the figures are in convex, ex- signs in use in the thirteenth century are derived panding shapes. A strict division between orna- from motifs already current in the middle of the

ment and figure compositions is not always twelfth, and it is the changed style of execution apparent, however, as in Window n:IV of the rather than the similarity of motif that is signifi-

Trinity Chapel ambulatory, in which all the blue cant. Not only motifs, therefore, but also their style grounds have delicate tendrils picked out from a of execution and the total decorative effect of the grey wash, and aediculae are so schematized as to windows deserve to be considered, in conjunction 33 Delaporte and Houvet, 1926, pp. 160-95, 381-411. apres 1194,” Bulletin de la Soctété archéologique d’Eure

34 Vitrail, p. 139 and 1948. et Loir 23 (1965), 81-126. 35 Grodecki, 1965. 88 Johnson, 1965, p. 65, Pl. ro. Mojmir Frinta, “Punch36 Vitrail, p. 124. marks in the Ingeborg Psalter,’ The Year 1200 111, 1975. 87 Frankl, 1963; Jan van der Meulen, “Histoire de la 39 Read, 1926, p. 38.

construction de la cathédrale Notre-Dame de Chartres

STYLE AND ORNAMENT 42 with the style of the figure compositions, for the edge of Euclidian geometry.** Regardless of this bearing they have on authorship, and on links with development, however, straight bars were still de other glass or with works in other media. Some rigueur for some subjects, such as the Tree of Jesse. general remarks about contemporary trends will be Furthermore, at Angers between 1155 and 1180 a useful first, since there are few recent publications system combining straight bars and complex geo-

that deal satisfactorily with ornament. metric figures panels was used, as also at Poitiers The first stage in planning a window was to in some windows of about 1215.** This composidetermine the pattern of the armature. The stone tional method developed together with the curvedmasons either left the windows void or boarded bar armature, and both are seen in the thirteenththem up temporarily. Before the glass could be century windows of Chartres and Bourges. The assembled panel by panel, a wooden frame was same shapes may be provided for the figure subrecessed into the stonework, and the ends of iron jects by either method, as can be demonstrated in bars were riveted to it.*° Broad trends in the de- two Chartres windows (text fig. 3). In Window

sign of armatures in the hundred years from about |

I150 to 1250 are easy to define, but they do not eed be IK PAA? ODE

provide a means close dating, even a chrobod SOc nology except in theof work of one shop. or Ironwork/sae seer_ — — STya NG . . likethe other aspects is a more sure indication Ce.S --e of aesthetic ofof anstyle, individual designer than of 2SCo} AB .aE

the date of a window." eo, OH 1° “ Ge At the beginning of this period armatures were Se y =P {fe

generally rectilinear, usually containing square and i ae ne ee - oO) Coes S

inscribed circular compositions in alternation. In Bod aS 5 Se clerestory windows it was customary to paint large ce AER LP = < “> ‘ figures the viewer could discern from a and dis- ee aA aN ie ce tance;that at Augsburg before 1150,*? later in SESS St.- el ip ae SS

dj Remi of Rheims, and in the choir and eastern iS Yo Se a . aN fi: = transepts of Canterbury Cathedral, such large fig- ea a oma. ures are cut across by a minimal number of straight

bars, which are purely XXV supporting elements with..| . : Window Window XXX out decorative value. In lower windows the pan-

els are smaller. Their size was determined by the Text fig. 3. Armatures of Chartres windows

number of scenes required by the subject matter (after Delaporte and Houvet) rather than by structural factors. The decorative

potential of ironwork was fully realized when XXX the irons provide firm accents, which reinlarge typological or narrative windows became force the decorative bands defining pictorial subpopular, for which complex geometric structures jects. Their intersections form a closely knit geomwere designed. By 1200 the armature had begun to etry. In Window XXV the figure panels are largely assume considerable aesthetic interest, which can defined by decorative bands alone. Though the be linked historically with an increasing knowl- variety afforded by the curved bar gives a far more 40 At Canterbury the wooden frames as well as the #2 See Grodecki in Vutrail, p. 96; and Wentzel, 1954, irons are said to be the originals. Since the irons do not pp. 15-16, Pls. 1 & 1-6 (dated ca. 1130-1140). slot into the stonework in this period, the building date 43 Haskins, 1927, pp. 286-87, 311.

is not necessarily that of the window design. 44 For Angers, see Vetrail, fig. 72, and Hayward and

41 Cf, Frankl, 1963, pp. 302-303, and criticism by Louis Grodecki, 1966, p. 13, numerous illustrations. For Poitiers, Grodecki, “Chronique,” Bulletin monumental 122 (1964), see Grodecki, 1948, Pl. 18g-l, and comments pp. 90-93. 99-103.

,

STYLE AND ORNAMENT 43 lavish appearance than does the easily constructed to the vine leaves in the border (fig. 2). Interlaced straight bar, curved bars virtually disappear after stems here and in Window n:XV meant the cutabout 1250, probably in part for reasons of econ- ting and leading of many small pieces, an arduous

omy. and skilled job; a single element in the repeating During the same period, 1150-1250, the orna- border design of Window n:XV contains twentyment becomes progressively less rich in design and seven pieces of seventeen different shapes (fig. 1). coloring. Wide borders, rosettes, and luxuriant veg- Such designs were therefore progressively modified etal motifs fill large areas of the windows of St. by simplification and to some extent, at least with-

Denis, Angers, and St.-Remi of Rheims, painted in a group of related windows, this provides a before the turn of the century. The iconographic basis for chronology. Modifications of this sort ocrepertory was then comparatively restricted and, in cur in the corona and Trinity Chapel glass, as also spite of the relatively small windows of early Goth- at Sens and Chartres. The most economical designs ic buildings, all the available space was not used used areas of color no larger than the normal size

for figure compositions. In the thirteenth century, of a “muff,” in the thirteenth century perhaps increasingly less space and effort were given to about five by eight or nine inches. To avoid leadornament. Borders became narrower, and were lines that crossed the ground and thus were not rather dryly and mechanically executed. The areas part of the design, motifs had to be spaced at interbetween figured panels were filled with geometric vals of a few inches, as if from horror vacui. Motifs patterns, often in red, white, and blue glass with that overlapped were therefore discarded in favor a minimum of painting (misleadingly called “mo- of motifs that spread over the surface as space-fillsaic” grounds since the nineteenth century),* in- ing elements. ‘This development is quite clear from stead of vegetal scrolls (rinceaux) and rosettes. The a comparison of the borders in Window n:XIV of

Sainte-Chapelle of Paris, glazed about 1243-1248, the north choir aisle and Window s:II of the and much of the thirteenth-century glass of Trinity Chapel ambulatory at Canterbury (figs. 2, Chartres represent the later trend. Elaborate orna- 174). In Window s:II, however, organic motifs are ment came back in grisaille windows in the second not only spread out and flattened into a single half of the century, and soon after 1300 stereotyped plane, but there is also a degree of distortion or acanthus foliage was replaced by vigorous natural abstraction; plant growth is in two or more direc-

forms. tions, responding to the available space rather than The development of ornament in Gothic win- to natural law. At the same time, plant species are dows, as also to some extent the development of no longer recognizable. The economy of this bora “Gothic” figure style, was influenced by stained der is remarkable; thirteen pieces per unit of deglass techniques;** as windows grew larger and sign have been cut from five patterns. The border more numerous in the new cathedrals, it became of the east window of the corona is comparable, necessary to develop more rapid techniques of with twenty-four pieces per unit cut from six patglazing. Ornament such as that in Window n:XIV terns. It is not surprising that a design so economiof the north choir aisle at Canterbury must have cal and pleasing had considerable success, being been extremely time-consuming to execute; the used also at Bourges, Chartres, Troyes, and Auglass was painted on both sides to give full body xerre.*” *° Winston, 1, 1847, 33, used “mosaic.” “Diaper mosaic” Death of the Virgin Window in the south nave aisle, and or “geometrical diaper,” as used by Lafond, 1946, p. 150, in a clerestory window on the north side (Delaporte and are more accurate, since the glass is usually painted. Houvet, 1926, Window VII, Pl. xxm and Col. Pl. m1; and

#6 Grodecki, 1955, p. 619. Window CLXII, Pl. ccixvm). Another variant is in the

*7 For the Joseph Window in Bourges Cathedral, see window with Miracles of St. Andrew in Troyes Cathedral; Cahier and Martin, 1841, Mosaiques C; comparison with the relation to Canterbury was noticed by Lafond, 1955,

Canterbury was made by Westlake, 1, 1881, Pl. vxuua p. 31. For the example at Auxerre, I am indebted to

and b. At Chartres this type of border was used in the Virginia Raguin. | ¢

STYLE AND ORNAMENT 44 Other coincidences indicate a shared repertory of easterly of the Trinity Chapel windows at Canter-

forms with Chartres and Bourges, in windows bury.°> Included in the same general “Channel which must be approximately contemporary with school” group with Canterbury are Rheims, St.the Trinity Chapel glazing, though few of them Quentin, Troyes, Orbais, Chalons-sur-Marne, go beyond superficial resemblances.** Some broad Laon, and Soissons, as well as Sens. Peculiar to distinctions from these two monuments can be most glass in this regional group is lavish ornamade. Canterbury used curved-bar armatures in ment, especially in fleshy acanthus; rimceaux are lower windows of this period, to the exclusion of preferred to “mosaic” grounds. Red, which is spar-

the other type. On the other hand, the simple ingly used in the figures, is concentrated in the

. quatrefoil found at Chartres and Bourges*® does grounds of borders and rinceaux, making these not appear in the early or middle groups of win- ornamental areas extraordinarily brilliant. Beaded dows at Canterbury, except inscribed in a circle in edging lines to both borders and medallions add a the choir aisle “triforium.” Tiers of roundels, such scintillating effect; the cumulative impact of the as those in Windows n:IV and s:II of the Trinity finely executed detail of the ornament is to create Chapel, were not used at Chartres, though they a highly wrought surface resembling jeweled or were at Bourges and Laon.” Although this has the enameled inlay. The affinity with metalwork is to appearance of a very simple “early” form, it can- be expected in a region bordering on the Meuse. not support an earlier dating than Chartres, since The glass of these several monuments provides it is used in the Sainte-Chapelle as late as 1243- examples that are well distributed throughout the

1248.°* period, from about 1150 at Chalons to perhaps as

Grodecki has recognized a conservative charac- late as 1220 at Soissons.*® In both ornament and ter in the glass of several monuments in the region figure style, however, there are individual variato the northeast of Paris, including Canterbury.” tions that preclude any theory of linear developChartres, as he has indicated, provides a meeting ment and point to the existence of subgroups. ‘Thus of several regional styles.°? The St.-Eustace Win- grisaille, which is highly developed in the tribune dow has wide, rich borders, rinceaux with fleshy of St.-Remi of Rheims and in some of the windows

acanthus, and intricately painted edging lines at Soissons, is not prominent at Canterbury.” In around the scenes, which link it with the north- borders at St..Remi and Soissons palmettes are easterly group. The Prodigal Son Window has most often placed sideways, whereas at Sens and affinities with Laon.®* The Joseph Window, on the Canterbury borders are generally conceived as a north side of the nave next to the St.-Eustace Win- continuous plant growth up the sides of the window, has to be associated with Sens, and is also dow, sometimes with strapwork providing a kind closest of all the Chartrain windows to the most of trellis, sometimes supported on their own white 48 Westlake, 1, 1881, p. 108, compared the composition 51 Corpus, France 1, Baie D, plan facing p. 74. of Trinity Chapel n:JII with the Joseph Window at Char- 52 Grodecki, 1965, p. 178. tres; he may have meant the St. Nicholas Window, LX, °° Tbid., pp. 171-72.

or the St. Thomas the Apostle Window, XLVI (see 54 Tbid., p. 178 n. 28.

Delaporte and Houvet, 1926, pp. 391-94, Pls. cLvimi-cLx1 55 Delaporte and Houvet, 1926, Window LXI, Pls. and pp. 357-63, Pls. cxxxvi-cxxxix). Cf. also the arma- cLxu—cixvi. Frankl, 1963, p. 316, has already attributed ture of the Relics of St. Stephen Window in Bourges, the Joseph Window to the painter of the Prodigal Son

Vitrail, fig. 105. Window in Sens. 49 For examples in the south nave aisle of Chartres, see 56 Grodecki, Vitrail, pp. 107-108, 117-24.

Delaporte and Houvet, 1926, Window IV, pp. 160-64, Pls. 57 For St.-Remi and Soissons, see Cahier and Martin, x-xi11; Window VI, pp. 168-70, Pls. xvi-xx1; Window 1841, Mosaiques F. For the impact of St.-Remi, Meredith VII, pp. 171-76, Pls. xx1r-xxv. For Bourges, see Vitrail, Lillich, “The Band Window: A Theory of Origin and

Pl. vt. Development,” Gesta 9 (1970), 28. One grisaille panel, 50 For the Passion Window in Bourges, see Grodecki, of unknown provenance, is now in the crypt at Canter1948, Pl. 18b; for Laon, the lateral windows in the cast bury; see B. Rackham in C.C.C. 33 (1939), 28-29, illus. end of the choir, dated about 1200-1205, see Deuchler, facing p. 34. 1967, pp. 150, 157, and 264, figs. 210, 240-44.

STYLE AND ORNAMENT 45 interlaced stems. Exceptions at Canterbury are re- Canterbury alone of the monuments of this restricted to one group of windows, and where the gional group spans the full development from Soissons-St.-Remi type occurs, it may be under the Romanesque to Gothic, and provides an opportuinfluence of one or other of those monuments. nity to trace, step by step, the changes in composiHowever, as with the grtsaille, Canterbury _re- tion and ornament, as well as in figure style, that jected a type of border common at St.-Remi, con- took place in the period. The ornament progresses sisting of nearly abstract geometric designs. There in a far more linear way than the figure styles: in is a basic distinction here. All the St.-Remi border the figures there are experiments that are multidesigns, heterogeneous though they appear at first directional and that do not lend themselves to sight, could be derived from late twelfth-century chronological ordering, whereas ornamental fea-_ metalwork,’* whereas the Canterbury foliage, tures such as the rinceaux establish in the clearest whether climbing or “sideways” shoots, shares a possible way the continuity of development from vocabulary in common with some mid-century a late Romanesque classicizing trend to its commanuscript borders. Canterbury could not have de- plete reversal in Gothic (figs. 179-184). For the rived its vigorous plant growth from St.Remi. But sake of clarity, and chiefly in response to the figif Canterbury did not adopt the full repertory of ure styles, the glass has been divided into three ornament used at St.-Remi, it is equally true that periods, early, middle, and late. The extent to St.-Remi did not develop armature design; all the which there is overlapping and shading off beextant windows have straight bars, those in the tween these periods should be stressed. The most

clerestory being strictly comparable to the more complete break in the development occurs near the : westerly of the Canterbury windows. At St.-Quen- end of the glazing, about midpoint in the Trinity tin, Laon, Orbais, and Sens are armatures compara- Chapel, but if the ambulatory windows of Sens are ble to the more evolved types used elsewhere at inserted here, they bridge this gap with astonishing

Canterbury. completeness.

General stylistic back ground

THE manuscripts produced in Canterbury in the riod after 1180, and the general phenomenon of latter half of the twelfth century are very few; intellectual decline in the monasteries.°° Yet much after the Eadwine Psalter and the Dover Bible of of the glass must have been painted between 1180 mid-century, there is only one richly illustrated and about 1220. The fact that glass painting was book preserved from Christ Church—the third then the chief artistic activity of Christ Church may copy of the Utrecht Psalter.*? On the basis of this account for the decline in manuscript production. evidence Dodwell has referred to a “decline in ar- That decline was at first only quantitative; there is tistic activites.” This has been attributed to two fac- no falling off in quality until the thirteenth-centors, the preoccupation of the monastic community tury Psalter.** with ecclesiastical and political disputes in the pe- The glass of Canterbury cannot be understood in °8 For examples see: Fritz Witte, Tausand Jakre 257, Pp. 257-59, with bibliography, and The Year 1200 deutscher Kunst am Rhein, 1, Berlin, 1932, Pls. 51 (Shrine Ill, 1975, pp. 313-38.

of St. Aetherius, ca. 1170), 57 (Shrine of Innocent and 6° Dodwell, 1954, pp. 112-13. Mauritius, ca. 1185); 64, 67 (Three Kings Shrine), and 61 Paris, Bibliothéque Nationale, MS Lat. 770; dated on

60 (Shrine of St. Albinus, 1186). the basis of the calendar about 1220 by Francis A. Gasquet

°° Paris, Bibliothéque Nationale, MS Lat. 8846; the and Edmund Bishop, The Bosworth Psalter, London,

illustrations are reproduced in Psautier. See also Dodwell, 1908, pp. 68-69. A description of the miniatures is in V. 1954, pp. 98-100, who dated it in the period 1170-1200 on Leroquais, Les Psautiers manuscrits latins des btbliothe basis of script and illustrations. The most recent dis- théques publiques de la France, 11, Paris, 1940-1941, pp.

cussion is by Adelheid Heimann, The Year 1200 1, no. 52-54.

STYLE AND ORNAMENT 46 relation only to the differences of style between the media for the origins of the Canterbury styles. Dover Bible, the Great Canterbury Psalter, and the Even so, the training of at least one master reLittle Canterbury Psalter. In the early windows mains just as obscure as that of his contemporary, there is also an intimate relationship to the Win- Nicholas of Verdun; it is impossible to derive the chester Bible styles, which widens the base of com- style of a singular genius from his general milieu.

parison. More importantly, as suggested in the Recognition can be given to a number of disIntroduction, the glass has always been at the cen- tinctive hands working at Canterbury, yet the final ter of the Anglo-French debate. The glazing was decision as to how many personal styles there are carried on, at least in part, in the crucial period is a difficult one; personal style was a less conbetween Abbot Suger’s glass at St.-Denis and the scious, and therefore a less consistent, feature in rebuilding of Chartres Cathedral after the fire of medieval art than in the art of the Renaissance or 1194;°7 this is the great period of Chalons-sur- the present. Furthermore, style, though a legitiMarne, St-~Remi of Rheims, and the earliest glass mate dimension of medieval art, has to be treated

of Notre-Dame of Paris. with caution in making chronological judgments,

The immediate background of the first styles in because it interacts in a very complex way with the glass cannot be completely explored; there is other factors, such as subject matter. It is someno glass of earlier or related style preserved in the times preferable to speak of a difference of mode, south of England. The earlier choir of Christ rather than a difference of style; modes that are Church, built under Anselm and Priors Ernulf and distinct from each other may be contemporary, or Conrad, and consecrated in 1130, was renowned may even be present in the work of the same for the brilliancy of its windows, according to Wil- painter. Models played a very important role, not liam of Malmesbury;** some of these same win- only in determining the iconography of a scene dows appeared small and dark to Gervase fifty but also, in varying degrees, in influencing style.°° years later.** Whether there was any mid-century The biblical subjects in the Canterbury windows, glazing which might have been influenced by St. in the north choir aisle and corona, surely had Denis cannot be proved, but iconographic influ- models that go back well into the twélfth century, ences that appear in York in glass painted during and some long before, whereas the hagiographical the archiepiscopacy of Roger of Pont-l’Evéque scenes in the Trinity Chapel must have been of (1154-1181) might have filtered through Canter- more recent origin; there cannot have been an bury in the rr4os and 1150s, when Roger was there iconographical guide prior to the completion of the as one of Theobald’s clerks.®° Yet the glass of York, texts in 1179. The two modes, biblical and historiwhich may at present be dated around 1170-1180, cal or hagiographical, tended to coincide with two scarcely appears as a precursor of the Canterbury stylistic poles around 1200, the one looking back to glass of a decade later. There is far greater empha- Romanesque, the other already Gothic in sentisis on linear organization of drapery folds than at ment. It was in the invention of scenes from recent Canterbury, and little back-painting to give depth. history that the artist had greatest freedom to deThe York glass, though damaged, is of very high velop a new style. Works of this type may somequality; but it stands in relation to Canterbury as times appear precocious,*’ and they also tend to be a separate branch or peak. One has to look at other international in style; recensions of saints’ lives can 62 As suggested by Henri Gérente as early as 1846, may be translated, “Above which piers the solid wall was

quoted by Rackham, 1949, p. 20. interrupted by very small dark windows.” One of these

63 William of Malmesbury, 1870, p. 138. This often- windows is preserved, walled into the present triforium quoted passage may be translated: “Nothing comparable roof at the extreme northwest end of the choir. was to be seen in England, either for the brilliancy of the 85 Boase, 1953, p- 234. See also Knowles, 1951, pp. 12-14. glass windows, the splendor of the marble pavement, or 66 Kitzinger, ‘Norman Sicily,” 1966, pp. 130ff. the ceiling with colored pictures.” See also Boase, 1953, 67 For example, the earliest preserved recension of the

p.64 32. Topographia Hibernica of Gerald of Wales, London, Ed. Stubbs, 1879, p. 12, “Super quos [pilarios] murus British Library, MS Royal 13.B.viii, from St. Augustine’s, solidus parvulis et obscuris distinctus erat fenestris,” which Canterbury, which must date soon after 1188; see Boase,

STYLE AND ORNAMENT 47 be supposed to have been very quickly dissemi- sculpture in the Early Christian period. It would nated, since hagiographical collections were rap- be mistaken, however, to characterize the later idly increasing in popularity.°° One may even masters at Canterbury as mere imitators.’* The wonder if there were not itinerant artists who process of flattening and stretching forms may be, specialized in designing hagiographical subjects; as Grodecki has suggested, a response to the specific at a later time, at least, one can cite Matthew Par- needs of the glazier.’* By insisting only on essenis’s atelier, specializing in secular and hagiographi- tials, the artist is able to evoke far more, as comcal narrative cycles, and W. de Brailes, in biblical parison between the Sower from the transept and

subjects.°? The style groupings of the early part of Wiliam of Kellett Returning to Work in the the thirteenth century coincide to some extent with Trinity Chapel shows. The early master built up

these divisions; among Psalters and Bibles there his landscape setting very painstakingly, with are homogeneous groups that have little relevance sweeping hills, rocks, pasture and ploughed land, to the place of ownership of the books. Similarly, and a tree; overlapping of these elements implies there are stronger connections between the Life of spatial recession. In a panel of similar size the Cuthbert, which was in all probability made at Trinity Chapel painter presents, with great clarity, Durham, and the Canterbury, Sens, and Chartres a man striding out of the city to work in the forhagiographical windows, than exist between the est. There are no distant hills, the groundline is Trinity Chapel glass and the two extant Christ kept low. A single tree, which stands for a forest, Church Psalters or a Canterbury Bible of 1224- and the city walls are spread out as space-fillers on

1253.7° . either side. Full representation is eschewed by the

There has been no detailed study of the styles of Gothic glass painter. More important than the loss the Canterbury windows; although the various of classicism is a new positive stylistic force—rapid, groups of windows have frequently been referred shorthand, expressive, and eminently suited to to in general publications, the relationships of one hagiography. painter to another, or of the Canterbury artists to The clerestory figures can legitimately be used those working elsewhere, have not been defined.” to establish a chronology of style; all illustrate the The comparative chronology proposed by Rack- same theme, the genealogy of Christ, so there is ham is largely confirmed in this study, with some no necessity for the artists to introduce new modes. slight refinements.”? The development of style is More than half the figures survive, and although very clear if a subject from one of the typological losses are great from the south side, especially from windows of the northeast transept is compared the choir, there are enough to corroborate the west

with one from the more easterly of the Trinity to east chronology, which is apparent in figures Chapel ambulatory windows (figs. 89, 92). In the from the north. Three well-defined stylistic phases ornament certain motifs were repeated or imitated are represented. The first, in figures from the choir,

until they became rather dry and impoverished; corresponds with a “dynamic” late Romanesque the process is not unlike the gradual “decline” of phase; these figures are massive, powerful, and 1953, p. 197, Pl. 3re, and Gransden, 1972, pp. 48-49, figs. and by Rickert, 1965, p. 103, Pl. 100. Its relation to the

2 & 3. Christ Church glazing was discussed by Rackham, 1950, 88 Wormald, 1952-1953, pp. 249, 261-62. p. 357, and by Grodecki, 1951, p. 94.

89 For lists of attributed works see Rickert, 1965, pp. 71 Such a study was called for by Oakeshott, 1g51, p. 88. I04~105, ro8-1o, and Brieger, 1957, pp. 86-91 and 136-54. 72 Rackham, 1949, pp. I5—17. 70 Paris, Bibliothéque Nationale, MSS Lat. 8846 and Lat. 73 Caviness, 1965, pp. 194, 196. 770. The latter is datable before 1220; see Wormald, 1939, ™ Grodecki, 1955, p. 619. 1, p. 64. I am grateful to Dr. Plummer of the Pierpont 75 A “dynamic” or “baroque” style in Byzantine art of

Morgan Library for bringing this manuscript to my at- the second half of the twelfth century, with Western tention. The third manuscript is the Bible of Robert parallels, has been discussed by Kitzinger, “Norman de Bello, abbot of St. Augustine’s (1224-1253), London, Sicily,” 1966, p. 137, and “Byzantine Contribution,” 1966,

British Library, Burney MS 3, which has been discussed | pp. 40-41. and illustrated by Brieger, 1957, pp. 81-82, Pl. 21a and c,

STYLE AND ORNAMENT 48 restless or even agitated (figs. 6, 8, 9, 12, 13). The ated as this, it seems that each style did not grow second phase reaches its peak in figures from the out of the previous one, but actually ran counter north side of the Trinity Chapel, above the pilgrim to it. A modern bias might give rise to the assumpsteps; Amminadab and Nahshon are calm, quietly tion that they were the creation of three successive outlined, and have a higher degree of classical and rebellious generations of artists. This is not poise but less physical power (figs. 151, 152). This borne out by close study; at least one of the paintis a “proto-Gothic” classicizing style, corresponding ers changed his style, from the “dynamic” figures to the brief transitional phase which has come to be of prophets in the north oculus to the classicizing associated, too rigidly, with the “year 1200.”"° Fig- King and Virgin of the Jesse Tree in the corona ures from the easternmost Trinity Chapel clerestory (figs. 129-31, 133, 134). There is a certain arbitrariwindows are again active and restless, yet they dif- ness, therefore, in assigning such a painter to the fer in all other respects from the “dynamic” group; middle rather than to the early period.

pose and gesture are elegant, draperies fall in orna- In the following chapters approximate periods mental passages that prevent an apprehension of for the activity of several artists are suggested by the body or limbs underlying them (figs. 216, 217). dated comparisons; more precise dating becomes These figures are truly Gothic, in the same way possible when this chronology is correlated with that the illustrations of Matthew Paris’s Chronicles the historical and iconographical evidence preof the middle of the thirteenth century are Goth- sented in other chapters. For the reader’s conven-

ic.”7 ience these dates are assimilated into the chart in When the three phases are as clearly differenti- Appendix figure 7.

78 Defined by, among others, Grodecki, 1955, p. 620, ‘7 London, British Library, Royal MS 14 C.vii; see and 1963, pp. 140-41. See also Sauerlander, 1971, pp. Brieger, 1957, pp. 136-38, Pl. 42a. 506-507.

IV. The Transitional Windows:

The Early and Middle Periods ,

other. . . . woe

“I cannot see... that one can explore a chain ‘THE ATTEMPT to trace the chronological developof mountarns by jumping from one peak to an- ment of the Canterbury glass paintings through a

| L. M. J. Delaissé! scrutiny of the visual material—composition, ornament, and style—has led to the emergence of some remarkable individual artist. Among the greatest is the first to appear on the scene, whom I name the Methuselah Master.’ Others are distinctly lesser

artistic personalities; it is as though the shop expanded and numerous painters merged their styles

during part of the middle period. Each of these amorphous styles seems, however, to have contributed te the process of change between Romanesque and Gothic.

The early period: the Methuselah Master

THe windows of the choir at clerestory and lower levels have several distinctive features. The armatures of the north choir aisle windows are of early

types; the second (n:XV) consists of a grid of straight bars (Appendix fig. 1). The glass im situ shows that square panels were alternated with inscribed circles, as in the central west window of Chartres Cathedral of the mid-twelfth century.®

The third (n:XIV), with circles in the center flanked by inscribed semicircles, had a precursor 1T.M.J. Delaissé, “Millard Meiss, French Painting in the Time of Jean de Berry, Part I” (review), Art Bulletin 52 (1970), 209.

2 Previously ,identified as the “Master of the North Choir Aisle Windows” (Caviness, 1965, pp. 194ff.) and as the “Classical Master” (Caviness, 1970, pp. 80-81). A part of this section was presented at the Ninth Confer-

ence on Medieval Studies sponsored by the Medieval Institute, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, in May 1974, in a paper entitled “The Methuselah Master of Canterbury and the Twelfth Century Renaissance.” 3 Delaporte and Houvet, 1926, Pls. 1, v.

THE TRANSITIONAL WINDOWS 50 in St.-Denis.* This composition, and the use of closely comparable to the border of the St.-Benedict knots in the ornament to link adjacent circles, is Window of St.-Denis, which probably dates from much like a page in a late twelfth-century manu- 1144.° Elaborate strap-work and persistent beading, script, Paris, Bibliothéque Nationale, MS _ Lat. as in others of the St.-Denis borders, was reiterated 11534, £.6v, a Bible once associated with Canter- at York sometime between the glazing of St.-Denis bury, but more probably from the north of France.’ and Canterbury.’ The Canterbury Master, howLittle can be said of the aisle windows on the south ever, preferred to develop naturalistic foliage and side, as only the armatures (and a record of the interweaving; with the crisp and stylized palmettes subjects) remain, but from the fact that Window and acanthus of this north choir aisle border are

s:XV, facing n:XV, is paired with it in armature interspersed serrated trefoil leaves on slender design, it seems probable that the designer was the stems, which spring above delicately drawn leaf same (Appendix fig. 1). Its neighbors are perhaps scars and bend across the main branch. Both blue

less primitive in appearance, but even Window and red are used in the ground—as in many of s:XVI may be seen as an early experiment with the Canterbury borders—but the foliage is unusualthe quadrilobe (Appendix fig. 1). This window is ly rich in color; the palette, with delicate shades of divided into three units, each of which is built up near-white, pale pink, acid green, and pale blue, from a square in the center, a more sophisticated with accents of hot yellow, is identical to that of

articulation than the grid. Yet the lobes of the the figure scenes. quatrefoils are not controlled by the compass, as Even the trefoil leaves of this border scarcely prethey came to be in the middle period. Window pare us for the vine trellis in Window n:XIV (fg. s:XIV has intersecting circles and cannot be dis- 2). Set off against red and blue grounds, a single tinguished from the middle group in the transepts. white stem winds from one side to the other beThe painted ornament from the north side of hind a yellow support, while at regular intervals the choir is extremely vigorous and imposing. The leaves with bunches of grapes grow across in front clerestory borders are as great as ten to fourteen of it. In spite of the whitish coloring of the leaves inches wide, whereas in the Trinity Chapel they and the variously yellow, green, or blue hue of the are in the range of five and a half to eight inches. grapes, the effect is extraordinarily naturalistic, Even small palmettes, such as fill the corners out- chiefly because of the depth of modeling which is side the medallions of choir aisle Window n:XV, built up on both sides of the glass. ‘This border are strong and rich, and do not have the cramped represents a trend quite contrary to the standard appearance of some of the Trinity Chapel orna- legacy of St.-Denis.* The great delicacy of the Canment (figs. 27, 197). The two borders zn situ in terbury border recalls the observation of plant life the choir aisle are highly individual, though both recorded in the herbals, as for instance in an early are of the climbing kind. That of the second win- twelfth-century manuscript in Oxford, Bodleian dow is unique in retaining a slightly archaic bead- Library, MS 130.° On the other hand, the vine

, ing on the central stem (fig. 1); this feature is trellis brings to mind sculpted examples from late # Grodecki, 1961a, fig. 4. 1976, pp. 126-31, types B, F, J, H, figs. 194, 195, 205, 206, 5 Corpus Switzerland 1, 51-52, ascribed to Canterbury. 207 (St.-Denis). Westlake’s claim (1, 1881, 42) that the There is a close relationship to the Manerius Bible (Paris, York borders are purely English or Norman in character Bibliothéque Sainte-Geneviéve, MSS 8-ro) in some of the has been rightly challenged by Lafond, 1946, p. 152. illustrations; both are probably continental productions; 8 One border design, in the griffin windows of the amsee The Year 1200 1, no. 246, 247-48. The coincidence bulatory, has a stiff vine with small green and purple with window designs was noticed by A. van der Boom, leaves. Made in the nineteenth century, it was based on a “Het eerste internationale Congres voor glasschilderkunst drawing by Percier; see Grodecki, 1976, p. 123, Pl. xv,

gehouden te Bern,’ Koninklijke nederlandse Oudheid- hg. 187. kundige Bond, Bulletin, 6th ser. v1 (1953), 106, n. 12. ®R. T. Gunther, The Herbal of Apuletus Barbarus 6 Grodecki, 1976, pp. 127-28, type C, fig. 204. from the Early Twelfth Century Manuscript Formerly 7 The Year 1200 1, nos, 222, 223, 218-20; and Westlake, in the Abbey of Bury St. Edmunds (Roxburghe Club), 1, 1881, Pl. xith, xti, xuum, xx (York); cf. Grodecki, 1925; and see Gransden, 1972, p. 51, figs. 9-10.

THE TRANSITIONAL WINDOWS 51 antiquity.*° Naturalistic vines reappear in late the window. Elaborate palmettes, with long curled twelfth-century sculpture at Rheims, Sens, and leaves resembling plumes, in white, yellow, and Canterbury, and in the enamel plaques of the mid-blue, grow sideways on a red ground between Klosterneuburg ambo of 1181.** Of all the surviv- rosettes of yellow, white, green, and pink leaves on ing Canterbury ornament, this border preeminent- a blue ground. The rosettes are encircled in white, ly bears the stamp of the twelfth-century renas- and framed by a wreathlike growth of leaves. The

cence. whole appears as a crisp and distilled version of In the same window of the north choir aisle are one of the rich Anglo-Saxon manuscript borders other developed leaf forms. The ornament in situ of the Winchester School, such as the “Benedicmaintains the high standard of the border, without tional” of Archbishop Robert.** Comparable to the introducing recognizable species (fig. 179). Where Canterbury border is that of the St. Eustace Winthe medallions nearly touch, the white edging is dow in Chartres Cathedral, the work of a master twisted into an elaborate knot. In the central space from the northeast of France; this too has the echo is a rosette of leaves in the full range of colors used of “Winchester” ornament in the lozenges that are in the neighboring border. From the rosette spring interspersed with the trellis (fig. 4)..* Very simtwo pairs of intertwined rinceaux with slender ilar are the palmettes with long white, yellow, and white acanthus foliage and blue leafy clusters re- blue leaves on a red ground in a border in the

sembling oak; the ground is red. clerestory of St.-Remi of Rheims, which, however, The clerestory borders are somewhat bolder in lacks the rosettes of the Canterbury border (fig. design and coloring than the lower ones, and tend 5). In view of the aridity of the York ornament to use a more hackneyed repertory of acanthus and in the decades preceding the Canterbury glass, bor-

palmette, although in at least one example sur- ders of this kind at Canterbury and on the conviving in the choir the execution is extremely pain- tinent may have an aspect of revival, which is staking. Another very fine border, which is un- paralleled in manuscripts. The motif of continuous fortunately misplaced in the crypt east window, growth developed from the center along a trellis deserves attention; its large dimensions may indi- _ is also found in the early books."® The introduction cate an origin in the clerestory, and the vigorous ex- in the English manuscripts of an entirely different ecution suggests a westerly rather than an easterly repertory of designs has been ascribed to the Alexis

position (fig. 3).” It departs, however, from the Master of the St. Albans Psalter before 1123,"" but normal type of continuous growth up the sides of there is a revival in the mid-century manuscripts 10 For instance at the Temple of Hadrian at Cyzicus - Year 1200 1, no. 227, 223-24, who accepted Samuel Cald(A.D. 123-39); see Bernard Ashmole, “Cyriac of Ancona well’s assertion that it belonged to the crypt east window. and the Temple of Hadrian at Cyzicus,” Journal of the The two topmost panels, which curve to fit the frame, Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 19 (1956), figs. 39b-e. are entirely modern. 11 Reused pieces over the cloister doorway of Rheims 8 Rouen, Bibliotheque Publique, MS Y 7, a pontifical; Cathedral include a wide border of inhabited vine; Sauer- see Rickert, 1965, Pl. 29B, pp. 38, 223. lander, 1970, Pl. 56, p. 48, dated it about 1180. At Sens an 14 Grodecki, 1965, p. 178, derived this border type from inhabited vine is on one side of the trumeau of the cen- earlier examples in glass, as in Poitiers, ca. 1160-1170, tral west portal, illustrated in Richard Hamann-McLean, but the latter has a prominent Romanesque interlace. “Zur baugeschichte der Kathedrale von Reims,’ Gedenk- 15 In the center lancet of the third bay from the west on schrift Ernst Gall, ed. M. Kiihn and L. Grodecki, Berlin, the north side; one panel is preserved in medieval leads, 1965, fig. 135. In Canterbury the easternmost roof-boss and five other panels are largely ancient. The photograph, in the choir, which must date from 1177, has curled vine unfortunately, is of a modern panel. Before restoration

leaves and grapes; see Cave, 1935, Pl. vit, 4, p. 43. For this design was in the third lancet; I am grateful to the Klosterneuburg ambo plaques, see Riidiger Becks- Mlle Vinsot for this information. mann, “Das Jesse-Fenster aus dem spatromanischen Chor 16 As in the tenth-century New Minster “Memorial,” des Freiburger Munsters; ein Beitrag zur Kunst um 1200,” British Library, MS Cotton Vesp. A.viii, illus. Rickert, Zeitschrift des deutschen Vereins fir Kunstwissenschaft 1965, Pl. 25.

23 (1969), fig. 25. 17 See Pacht, Dodwell, and Wormald, 1960, pp. 97-99. 12Cf. Rackham, 1949, p. 67 and J. Hayward in The

THE TRANSITIONAL WINDOWS 52 of plant forms to frame the pictures.’* Swarzenski very different idiom, just as in the Winchester Bible has discussed the influence of Anglo-Saxon orna- Oakeshott noticed that drawings by the Master of ment in twelfth-century manuscripts on the con- the Leaping Figures were painted by the Morgan tinent;*® trellis work is generally accepted as of Master.”’ The Methuselah Master’s work broke off English origin, though it had spread to the conti- in the lower windows at the same point. Window

- nent by 1200.7° n:XIII has a simple armature consisting of full The figure painting zm situ in the north choir and half-circles; the surviving medallions, howaisle and the paintings removed from the clerestory ever, justify an attribution to another designer.

above show the same qualities as the ornament, The six ancestors of Christ attributed to the and support an attribution on a single great master, Methuselah Master are characterized by angular named for the most imposing of his perfectly pre- poses and by extraordinary vigor and restlessness. served figures, Methuselah. His work has certain All but Enoch have one arm detached from the “early” features, combined with a new naturalism body, the hand placed on the hip, the silhouette

and an awareness of the antique as well as the pierced through inside the elbow in a sculptural Anglo-Saxon tradition.”* Classicizing qualities way. All the knees and feet are widely spaced, on were recognized as long ago as 1842, when Sir different levels, the broad shoulders are twisted inJohn Gilbert referred to the “Grecian beauty and to the picture plane, the heads turned into threestrength” of the Magi’s horses, which he likened quarter view. The calmest figures are Methuselah to the Elgin marbles.”” The sensitivity to individ- and Jared, from adjacent positions; the former ual forms that is so apparent in the vine border adopts the classical philosopher’s pose, his chin restpervades this master’s treatment of the human fig- ing on his hand. He presents a powerful and

} ure. On the other hand, the breadth of his style is brooding aspect. The monumentality of the figure, such that for a long time I was unwilling to attrib- and the suggestion of sheer weight and bulk, are ute to one hand the upper and the lower windows; astonishing at any time within the period of glazthe upper figures have a far more dynamic aspect ing. None of the figures in this group holds an than the lower, which are serenely classicizing. attribute; instead their hands are employed in tense Included in the oeuvre of the Methuselah Master gestures. Contributing to their powerful monuare Adam digging from Window N:XXV,” Jared mentality is the absence of canopies and the severe and Enoch from Window N:XXII,* and Methu- restriction of colors. On a blue ground the basic

selah and Lamech from Window N:XXI,” that colors are green, white, and yellow, with pink as is, all the figures surviving from the choir clere- a flesh color. Silvery blue and brilliant red are story (figs. 6, 8, 9, 12, 13). To them has to be added used very sparingly. The paint is handled with the figure of Noah from Window N:XX, in the extraordinary freedom and sureness, both in modnortheast transept, although the window design eling washes on the outer surface and rapidly modhas been modified by the introduction of canopies ulated stabbing or sweeping lines inside. Such over the figures, and the paired figure of Shem has broad handling indicates that the Master was well to be attributed to another hand (figs. 66, 67) ;7° it aware of the effect his works must have even when seems that a design by the Methuselah Master for placed sixty feet above eye level. The treatment is Noah was taken over by an artist who worked in a essentially painterly; though working without col18 For example in the Bury Bible, illus. Boase, 1953, 2* Now in the south window of the southwest transept, Pl. 54a. Q4 and Q8; Rackham, 1949, p. 32. 19 Swarzenski, 1943, pp. 8, 53- 25 Now in the southwest transept window, Q5 and Q1;

20 See The Year 1200 1, p. 292. Rackham, 1949, pp. 32-33.

*1'The kinds of models he used are discussed in Chap- 26 Now in the southwest transept window, Q2, and

ter Six. clerestory N:XIII; Rackham, p. 33. 22 Gilbert, 1842, pp. 20-21. 27 Oakeshott, 1945, pp. 7-8, 13-15, Pls. xxix, xt. 23 Now in the great west window, L4; Rackham, 1949, p. 31.

THE TRANSITIONAL WINDOWS 53 or on his brush, the painter’s interest is in the broad glass is some of the most brilliant in the cathedral,

, handling of form and the breaking up of color and in spite of the northerly situation and the shadows mass; in these large-scale works he shows little in- cast by neighboring buildings. It is dominated by terest in the aesthetic potential of line, little of that the limpid blue grounds to the figure panels, but quality one might call graphic sensibility. the cool blues are “balanced” by warm yellows and The monumental style of the Methuselah Master reds; these colors are used nonrealistically, as in is not easily recognizable in the small-scale histori- the yellow horse of one of the Magi, or the red ated panels of the lower windows; yet the earliest lining of the clouds in the same panel. Red also style in the surviving glass of the north choir aisle plays a large part in the decorative elements of is, I believe, an extension of his versatile creative the window, but it is avoided in the draperies. abilities to another mode, even if close analysis sug- These are predominantly green, purple, or yellow, gests that in the execution he was aided by other with occasional white or pale blue. Very fine nupainters. Evetts has noticed resemblances in facial ances of tone are recognizable in the purples, varytypes between the upper and the lower windows ing from near-white, as in the flesh tones, to deep in this part of the building.”* One might cite Adam murrey or brownish pink. Blues also vary, both and Herod (in the Magi before Herod); both have paler and deeper shades being available to distinthe same solemn, even melancholy expression, the guish draperies from the mid-blue ground. Greens moustache seeming to draw the corners of the are carefully selected from a bluish mid-green and mouth down (figs. 6, 27). In both the hair on the a yellowish acid green; both are used in different head is fanned out into wavy strands, but is more bands in the waters of the Red Sea (fig. 30). tightly organized in the beard. The pensive mood The Methuselah Master is a great colorist, able and pose of Herod are not too distant from Methu- to create effects of extraordinary richness even with selah. Although the painting of draperies tends to the few colors available to the stained-glass artist be more detailed in the lower windows, at least in in the twelfth century. He is also a very accomone figure, that of Balaam in the top of Window plished painter, capable of an astonishing variety of n:XV, the draperies have a swirling, vibrant qual- linear and painterly effects, in which he exploits ity achieved by powerful brushwork (fig. 19). both surfaces of the glass. As a designer he achieves Above the waist the downward sweep of the tunic clarity and serenity in a symbolic mode as conis abruptly caught by the belt, and dramatically sistently as monumentality and restlessness in a broken by a series of short, tapered strokes alter- more dramatic one. Naturalism is pursued in the nated with blobs extending into hooks, which re- easeful and unified articulation of the human form, , semble the pad and claw of a cat’s paw; the same in the varieties of physical types and of drapery

technique is used in Enoch (fig. 9). textures, but violent motion or emotion is esThe north choir aisle windows differ from the chewed. His awareness of the physical world was clerestory in several ways. The figures are more obviously acute, and in the choir aisle windows serene, more classicizing in spirit, than the patri- there is a wealth of minute observation, as in the archs. ‘They are also more varied, in physical type, carefully rendered skin color and profiles of the pose, colors, and especially in brushwork. Only Queen of Sheba’s African attendants (fig. 44); but Balaam gives some indication of the Master’s abil- detail is strictly subordinated to essential organiza-

ity to compensate for distance from the eye; in tion. Rhythmic spacing and grouping of figures lower panels he used a full repertory of more min- give a floating or even static quality to the action; laturesque effects. And as the severe restriction of the compositions express a state of being, at once

color in the clerestory is very powerful at a dis- classicizing and in harmony with the exegetical tance, so in the lower windows the Master em- mode; Old and New Testament events are disployed a more subtle palette. The north choir aisle tilled into motionless equivalents of each other. 28 Evetts, 1941, p. 118.

THE TRANSITIONAL WINDOWS 54 The question “What happened next?” is never selah Master, though still restricted in his reperposed, as it must be in a narrative mode. tory of poses, has concentrated all his extraordinary In his compositional organization the Methuselah prowess on the distinctive qualities of face and Master relied heavily on Romanesque conventions. dress of each person; he has also imbued them with The unbroken blue ground around distinct groups a psychological awareness of each other, a possior figures forms one or more vertical caesurae, bility of intercommunication, as between Joseph

which have great dramatic impact, as in the De- and his brothers (fig. 48). At the same time it struction of Sodom in n:XV, where it isolates becomes possible for the viewer to empathize—-say, Lot’s wife from the fleeing figures and from the with the dignified figure of Moses who looks back burning city (Col. Pl. 1). Massed groups, like in care of his flock, and with the women and chil-

the Gentiles led by Christ (fig. 37), take on a dren who follow (fig. 30). The most compelling collective quality and tend to be isolated from image of metamorphosis before Bernini’s Daphne the main figures, who function autonomously is surely the delicate figure of Lot’s wife, motionwithin their own space, occasionally touching but less, slender and white, still a woman yet immiseldom overlapping others. Similarly, the elements nently a pillar of salt. It will be no surprise to have of a composition rarely extend beyond the inner to admit a Byzantine model for this scene, from edging line, though they touch it. Except in the which some of the humanistic qualities must deremarkable composition of the Magi riding (fig. rive (figs. 51, 53, 54). 23), in which the leader’s horse disappears through One of the remarkable distinctions of the Methua gateway, and the pursuing Balaam who reaches selah Master is his combination in these lower wintowards the same star (fig. 19), there is no indica- dows of linear and painterly sensibilities. In spite tion of an extension of action or space beyond the of individual variations between one figure and picture frame. Architecture is used, like the ground, another, a similar construction can be perceived. to emphasize groupings; the isolation of Pharaoh Faces, bodies, and limbs are organized into a sysis dramatized by the aedicule set over his throne, tem of open circles and ellipses. This structuring which is also the pretext for the fiery red ground of forms by a tight linear web has a parallel in the behind him (fig. 30). Very similar grouping and work of a great draftsman, the Master of the Apocspacing of figures and the articulation of action by rypha Drawings of the Winchester Bible.*° His architectural frames have been noticed in the St. seated figure of King Antiochus shows his use of Albans Psalter;*? The convention may have been finely modulated curving lines, often grouped in introduced into England, at Bury St. Edmunds, by twos or threes; they sweep upward in an open the Alexis Master before 1123. There is some pos- ellipse over the torso, and pull the mantle into sibility, therefore, that the Methuselah Master took curving pleats over the arm, much as they do in this aspect of his art from a model which also the Methusaleh Master’s Pharaoh (figs. 30, 31). The served painters in Peterborough, perhaps about figures, too, of the Apocrypha Master have a poised 1170; the question of his reliance on this East elegance, not, however, always fitting to the subAnglian cycle is considered in Chapter Six. Com- ject; the executioner of I Maccabees 1 has the tipparison with a scene from the Albani Psalter, how- toeing gehende-stand and turned head which is a ever, will show how significant is the change from favorite pose of the Methuselah Master, as in Christ this Romanesque style of a previous generation. and the foremost Gentile (figs. 37, 38). Such a pose Whereas there is little individuality in the figures has a long history and is a convention of the Engthat make up a crowd in the Psalter, the Methu- lish twelfth-century artist.** 29 Pacht, Dodwell, and Wormald, 1960, pp. 107~-108, century; Frank Stanton, ed., The Bayeux Tapestry: A

TIQ—20. Comprehensive Survey, 2nd ed., London, 1965, Pl. 20; 30 Oakeshott, 1945, pp. 8-10. and a tenth-century manuscript from St. Gall, Stiftsbiblio-

81 Cf. the Bayeux Tapestry of the end of the eleventh thek, MS 64, illus. H. Woodruff, 1929, fig. 20.

THE TRANSITIONAL WINDOWS 55 Linear patterning, executed on the inner surface King Jeroboam, though it differs in the flattenof the glass, is supplemented by broad modeling ing of the far side of the face and in the crisp, washes frequently applied on the outer surface. scalloped edge of the short beard, is very close in This is true of the pleats of Pharaoh’s mantle, and type to the King Antiochus of the Apocrypha Masmany of the heads. There are also subtle variations ter of the Winchester Bible (fig. 31). This multiple

in draperies within the same panel; the broad, relationship to the artists of the Winchester Bible rather stark handling of Pharaoh’s mantle over the has to be extended also to the Master of the Leapshoulder, and the comparable stiffness of the skirt ing Figures: the closest parallels for the poses of of his robe, contrast with a passage of crumpled some of the clerestory figures are in his drawings; material in his lap in which washes are used rather Noah might be compared to Elisha in pose and than line. In the foreground of the same panel the latent energy (figs. 66, 68). Yet in the Canterbury woman’s robe is modeled with an intricate pattern glass there is no vestige of the damp-fold drapery of slashes, each heavy sweep of the brush tapered system so rigorously adhered to by the Master of rapidly and modified by one or two fine parallel the Leaping Figures, even though it is present in strokes to create an effect of half-tones. Moses’ the Lambeth Bible from St. Augustine’s** and the robes are given more painterly treatment; the posi- wall painting of St. Paul at Malta in St. Anselm’s tioning of lines is tentative, the blacks are not as Chapel.*? The Methuselah Master’s use of the leappositive, and they are attenuated by numerous fine ing figure is fleeting. The ponderous figures of strokes. Variety is a constant factor; there are no Jared and Methuselah find parallels in the initial examples in the Master’s work of easily copied to Baruch by the Morgan Master (figs. 8, 12, 14). schemata, though these begin to appear in his as- The king is seated in the philosopher’s pose, his

sistants’ work. elbow resting on one drawn-up knee; the prophet

In his capacity for individual variation and in gestures in the manner of Jared. In the manuscript, his painterly qualities the Methuselah Master draws as in the glass, the bulk of the figures is emphanear the “Winchester” Master of the Morgan Leaf. sized by mantles that sweep around in depth, clariFor instance, the strongly suggested plasticity of fying major articulations. The large-scale figures the figure of the Prophet of 1 Kings 13, with thigh- are rather more broadly handled, with less minuclinging draperies represented by soft, tentative tiae of folds and loops, but they are remarkably strokes, is paralleled in the painting of Abraham close in spirit. The most salient general distinction in the initial to Psalm 102 in the Winchester Bible to be made is between the elegance of the Morgan (figs. 55, 56). Even the facial type of the man on Master and the greater directness of the Methuse-

the extreme right in the Canterbury panel could lah Master. derive from a model similar to the Morgan Mas- Winchester connections appear again in at least ter’s head of Abraham; they share an organization one of the clerestory figures of the eastern tranof the hair into rows of curls, a close beard reveal- septs, of the middle period. Joanna is remarkably ing the shape of the chin, an aquiline nose, and similar to a drawing for the initials to Psalm tro high cheekbones. The glass painting is more brit- (figs. 82, 84). Oakeshott attributed these to the tle and linear in this figure, possibly due to an “Master of the Gothic Majesty,” but more recently assistant’s hand. In the same panel the head of Ayres has seen this work as a mature development 32 London, Lambeth Palace, MSS 3 and 4, Dodwell, 1160. See also Grabar and Nordenfalk, 1958, pp. 115, 117; 1954, pp. 81-84, 123, Pls. 31a, 48a, 49b, 50a and c, 51a, André Grabar dated the work “around the close of the 52a, 53a, 59a, 60a; and C. R. Dodwell, The Great Lambeth twelfth century,” by comparison with the Winchester

Bible, London and New York, 1959. Bible and the Great Canterbury Psalter in Paris. Demus 33 Tristram, 1944, Pls. 23-24, Suppl. Pl. 1, who (p. 23) and Hirmer, 1970, pp. 121, 124, 509, compared it with dated it between about 1153 and 1175 on archaeological the Bury Bible. Byzantine influences were discussed and evidence and about 1160 on style. Dodwell, 1954, p. 50, illustrated by Kitzinger, “Byzantine Contribution,” 1966, compared it with the Dover Bible, which he dated 1140- p. 38, figs. 8 and 9.

THE TRANSITIONAL WINDOWS 56 of the Morgan Master’s style, a postulate which Swarzenski has suggested to me that the Sigena seems entirely acceptable.** There are. earlier afhini- paintings are part of a wider stylistic trend in ties with the “Gothic” master; the head of Adam Spain, the miniatures of the Huesca Missal also bears a close similarity to the head of the Lord in offer significant points of comparison with the

, the initial to Isaiah.*° Great Canterbury Psalter and the Sigena paintWhat remains perplexing is the totally parallel ings.*® Yet is is hard to avoid the conclusion that development of styles at Canterbury, where de- this style is largely English in origin. Whether it signs by the Methuselah Master seem to carry over belongs to Winchester or Canterbury is perhaps a archaisms comparable to those of the Master of the question one should not ask in a period when local Leaping Figures and the Master of the Apocrypha styles were rapidly disappearing. Neither the MeDrawings; yet in its execution his oeuvre rivals the thuselah Master nor the artist of the Great Canterpaintings of the Morgan Master. Furthermore, a bury Psalter seem to have derived their styles from development in the Morgan Master’s style is even the Dover Bible or the St. Paul fresco; equally, the reflected in the next stage of the Canterbury clere- style of the Morgan Master does not grow out of story glazing. A connection with the Morgan Mas- the Psalter of Henry of Blois, or even out of the ter is suggested with some reluctance, since it work of his older collaborators on the Bible itself. seems that already far too many important works In the same way, it might be said that the younger have been associated with, if not actually attributed master of the Milan candlestick, whose classicizing to him, and while each of them may reflect some style has been so hard to place in time and space, aspect of a very varied style, they would not inde- is not close to the rigid formulations of the older pendently have been grouped together. On the one master.*° hand, there are the Sigena frescoes, which are The serene style of the Methuselah Master is also thought to be a monumental work of the Master found in a series of relief sculptures that seem to himself; in them there is a heightening of the have been part of the choir enclosure hastily erected dynamic mood, which has suggested to Demus re- before Easter 1180.*° Busts of Old Testament patrinewed contacts with Byzantine art.** On the other archs are framed in quatrefoils; their round heads, hand, there is the Westminster Psalter and contem- with neatly incised hair and beards, and the simi-

porary St. Albans productions, which reflect a larly incised planes of drapery correspond well calmer mood. Dodwell’s view that the Sigena with Pharaoh or the group of Herod and the Magi paintings were influenced by the Great Canterbury in the north choir aisle windows (figs. 27, 30, 33). Psalter, Lat. 8846, which was known to have been It is hard to avoid the conclusion that they are in Spain in the Middle Ages, has been countered contemporary. About the same time, perhaps, the by Pacht, who viewed the paintings as works of vaults of the nave of St. Gabriel’s Chapel in the a Winchester artist, and supposed that the artist of crypt were painted with scenes and busts framed the Psalter must also have been Winchester- in rinceaux; these must postdate the fire of 1174.*" trained.*” These questions are not easily resolved. The preserved underdrawing of the busts and the 84 First proposed in his Harvard doctoral thesis, 1970, sterwerk friuhgotischer Plasttk [Zurich], 1949, pp. 10-11,

and published in Ayres, 1974, pp. 209, 219. I am especi- Pls. 12, 13. ally indebted to him for the loan of a copy of the thesis, 40 Prior to 1971 only two pieces were known; see and for a frank exchange of ideas during the period this Arthur Gardner, English Medieval Sculpture, Cambridge,

book was in preparation. IQ51, p. 84, fig. 145, and George Zarnecki, Later English

35 Oakeshott, 1945, Pl. xxxvul. Romanesque Sculpture, 1140~1210, London, 1953, p. 46, 36 Demus and Hirmer, 1970, p. 511. fig. riz. Several more pieces have been found in the

37 Dodwell, 1954, p. 99. Pacht, 1961, p. 171, n. 37. cloister. I am grateful to Professor Zarnecki for informa38 Jesis Dominguez Bordona, Miniatura (Ars His- tion and photographs, and especially for communicating paniae 18) Madrid [1958], pp. 76-77, fig. 85, who also his new idea that they are from the choir enclosure.

noticed the resemblance to Sigena. 41 Tristram, 1944, p. 104, Pls. 20-22, Suppl. Pl. 2c. 39. QO, Homburger, Der Trivulzto-Kandelaber; Ein Met-

THE TRANSITIONAL WINDOWS 57 character of the rinceaux are similar to the Jesse cade of V-folds between them, and are drawn in page of the Great Psalter in Paris, but the greater tightly under the knees. But these appear as archaic use of curving line places them closer in style to conventions in the work of an assistant of the Me-

~ the Methuselah Master. thuselah Master. Markedly different from St.-Denis

One of the central issues in any discussion of the is the Master’s introduction of architectures and early Canterbury glass must be the role it played in spatial settings, his insistence on individuality in the

the development of glass painting between St.- figures, and on plasticity and ease, and his use of Denis and Chartres.** Neither the architecture nor a changed proportion of head to body. The panels

the glass of Chartres Cathedral after the fire of from Troyes illustrate a divergent trend, only in 1194 derive in a straight line from St.-Denis of fifty a few aspects parallel to the development we see years earlier, nor can all that happened between in the early Canterbury glass.*° In spite of a more be ascribed to the Ile-de-France. It may be debata- classicizing proportion, and greater ease in the figble whether the region to the east of Paris, as far ures, the facial types and draperies have little indias Burgundy in the south, the Meuse in the east, vidual variation. The artist’s work has an exquisite and extending across the Channel into southern quality reminiscent of niello metalwork; its effect England, provided a strong polarity to Parisian relies almost entirely on fine modulation of line, art, or whether it rather carried the mainstream of and there is no back-painting. His style is also seen development towards a Gothic style.** However, in manuscripts of the region, and no doubt it was already in some of the glass of St-Denis Grodecki important in the formation of a “proto-Gothic” has recognized a “Mosan” hand, which is prophetic style in the northeast of France, as Grodecki has of the style that dominates the glass of this easterly suggested.*®° One could not, however, derive the region through the later part of the century. Af- Methuselah Master’s style from Troyes. Nor was finities were found between this Signum Tau pan- he influenced by the books illuminated in a less el in St.-Denis and the work of a painter responsi- exquisite variant of the Troyes style, which may

ble for the glass panels of about 1175 that were have been brought from Pontigny by Thomas later incorporated into the thirteenth-century build- Becket and Herbert of Bosham.*’ ing of Troyes Cathedral.** More surprising, per- It is important to distinguish between the classihaps, is a certain similarity between the Tau panel cism of the Methuselah Master, which was very and Joseph and his Brethren at Canterbury (figs. short-lived, and that of the continental produc48, 49). The grouping and isolating of figures are tions, which seems to rise slowly from the idealithe same, with the ground forming two caesurae. zation of the Troyes Master to the equally strong Motifs have been carried over, such as the posi- idealization of the Ingeborg Psalter or the Antique tioning of the arms of the central figure, the fall Master at Rheims; much stronger in the Methuseof his mantle in a vertical plane all but hiding the lah Master are the ingredients of humanism and wide, high belt that grips his torso; in the standing naturalism, resulting in a particularization of figfigures to the right in each instance draperies are ures and events, which is to some extent incompatipulled into stiff pleats behind the legs and a cas- ble with idealization.** Much stronger also is his 42 Rackham, 1949, pp. 18-20; Heaton, 1907. nos. 179-82; Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 30 43 As postulated by Homburger, 1958, pp. 31-35. (1971-1972), in color, n.p. #4 Grodecki, 1963, p. 137, n. 38; at that time he dated *6 Grodecki, 1963, pp. 140-41. the Troyes glass ca. 1200, and questioned whether a date *7 George Zarnecki, “The Transition from Romanesque later than 1145 should be given to the Signum Tau panel. to Gothic in English Sculpture,” in Romanesque and He now accepts it as part of the glazing program of Suger Gothic Art; Studies in Western Art (Acts of the Twen(Grodecki, 1976, p. 105). The panel appears to Grodecki ticth International Congress of the History of Art), to be heavily restored, but the drapery system was not Princeton, 1963, fig. 10; The Year 1200 1, no. 240, 241-42,

altered in restoration (p. 104, figs. 138, 140-42). with bibliography. 45 Jllus. Grodecki, 1963, figs. 1, 3, 5, 6, 7; Medieval Art, 48 Ayres, 1969, pp. 45-47, has similarly distinguished the

THE TRANSITIONAL WINDOWS 58 evident fondness for marble columns, altars, and pa- many such statues which appear in Carolingian gan statuary all’antica, all of which suggest that his and Romanesque art (e.g., fig. 42);°* comparison aesthetic could have been formed by the intellec- with the stiff figure in the mid-century Lambeth tual climate of England in the time of John of Bible from St. Augustine’s, Canterbury, shows how Salisbury and Henry of Blois—the one of Canter- different is the attitude of the Methuselah Master bury, the other of Winchester.*® In fact, an anec- to his subject (figs. 37, 39). In all probability the dote told of Henry by John has, in its attitude to Methuselah Master had before him, or had somethe Romans, an echo in the scene of Christ leading where seen, examples of antique sculpture, perthe Gentiles (fig. 37): when Henry was mocked — haps a small bronze such as the second- or third-

for bringing home to Winchester a boatload of century Jupiter that was excavated in the Low pagan statuary, he is reported to have explained Countries in the nineteenth century (fig. 40).* that he “wished to remove the heathen gods from The classicism of the Methuselah Master was not Rome before the contemporary Romans made practiced in the same degree by his immediate folthem once more the objects of their veneration and lowers. One of the assistants, who may be called cult; which they would be likely to do because the V-fold painter, showed a tendency to schemaspiritually the Romans in their innate and deep- tize drapery into heavy V’s with little sensitivity to rooted avarice always adored idols.”°° In the glass form. Such passages, as in the skirt of the Queen of

panel, the Gentiles look longingly back to their Sheba, both recall the Signum Tau panel of St. idol; the statue itself, though painted on blue glass Denis and provide a direct link with the later and with an overly large head and demonic horns, Gothic styles of Canterbury (fig. 44, cf. figs. 49, is portrayed as a contrapposto nude. The limbs and 92). It is the lesser artist who transmits such traditorso have a suppleness and unity scarcely seen in tional motifs. the art of the west since antiquity, even in the

The middle period

Wir the exception of the oculi in the transepts, to the straight-bar composition used in the choir there is no change in armature design at clerestory by the Methuselah Master; each has three horizonlevel until Windows N:X and S:X, which are the tal bars, spaced at thirty-inch intervals, in addition first in the Trinity Chapel; they were also the first to bars in parallel with the window frame to define beyond the point where a temporary wooden par- the borders (Appendix fig. 5). The seated figures tition closed off the choir and presbytery in 1180. from the transepts and presbytery, however, are Up to this point all the clerestory lancets conform given canopies. naturalistic trend of English miniaturists of the 1190s Pl. 160; Pl. 173, fig. 6; Pl. 183, fig. 2. Several such figures

from continental work. are in the Eadwine Psalter, Cambridge, Trinity College,

429 Henry of Blois, a cousin of Henry II, was Bishop of MS R 17 1, ff. 126, 141, 146, 152, 172, 169. Cf. also the Winchester from 1129 to 1171; see Knowles, 1951, pp. late eleventh-century wall paintings in Civate (Demus 34-37, 157. John of Salisbury entered the service of and Hirmer, 1970, p. 72) and the blue idols in an eleventhArchbishop Theobald in 1153/54 and was intermittently century Byzantine manuscript, Smyrna MS B. 8 (Strzyin Canterbury until 1177, when he became Bishop of gowski, 1899, Pl. iv). Chartres, where he died in 1180; see Webb, 1932, pp. 52 David Gordon Mitten and Suzannah F. Doeringer, 15-124, also pp. 140, 169 for his Canterbury connections. Master Bronzes from the Classical World, Greenwich, 50 Quoted by Hans Liebeschtitz, Mediaeval Humanism Conn., 1967, p. 274; A. N. Zadoks-Josephus Jitta, W.J.T. in the Life and Writings of John of Salisbury, London, Peters, and W. A. Van Es, Roman Bronze Statuettes 1950 (repr. 1968), p. 59 from the Historia Pontificalts from the Netherlands u, Groningen, 1969, no. 30, pp.

cap. 40, ed. R. Poole, p. 82. 7oft. I am indebted to Dr. Isings of the Provincial Oud51 For example, Stettiner, 1895-1905, Pl. 43, fig. 2; heidkundig Museum for the last reference.

THE TRANSITIONAL WINDOWS 59 A clear division is much harder to make at the s:VIH, on the south side of the presbytery, the lower levels, particularly because almost no glass east window of the corona, and again in Trinity

from the south side has survived except in the Chapel n:V and s:V, and partially in n:VI (ApTrinity Chapel; only broad distinctions can be pendix figs. 1, 2). In the two former it is used made on the basis of the armatures alone. Two in conjunction with quatrefoils built up from cenqualities distinguish the ironwork of the lower tral squares, a structure that appears also in the windows of the transepts and presbytery, the co- oculi. The centers of the part-circles forming the rona, and the westernmost group in the Trinity lobes are not consistently placed on the centers of Chapel, as well as all the windows at triforium the sides of the square except in the corona. level in the choir, transepts, and presbytery, and The ruling factor in the typological windows— the oculi. These are the persistence of simple grid which include the east window of the corona— armatures (Appendix figs. 1, 2),°* and the use of was the need to provide groups of two, four, or a number of highly individual and experimental six types around a central antitype. This suggested compositons, a very few of which have continental to the designers that interest should concentrate parallels. In this entire section of the building there on the central panels, whether squares, canted are only three instances of armatures paired facing squares, or circles, and that subsidiary panels each other, but these are sufficient to indicate a should form petal or star compositions around master plan. The eastern transepts are dominated these. The result is a clear articulation into three by the identically designed oculi, and fragments of or more units, a distinct advance from the overall . ornament z# situ in the south rose match those in grid of the choir aisles (n:XV and s:XV). The the north.°* Windows n:X and s:X, in the outer- windows of the transept chapels and Trinity Chaplying chapels of the transepts, are a matching pair, el ambulatory did not have to meet this need, and but there is no point in the building from which they are narrower; these compositions of the middle they can be seen at one time. At triforium level in group allow for a continuous sequence of narrative the choir the second windows from the west are subjects, but in the latest narrative windows the a pair, as are n:XV and s:XV immediately below star is used. A distinction was not consistently

them. made in earlier monuments;** whereas the comThere are a number of experiments with circles posite quatrefoil was used in a typological window of different sizes, sometimes intersecting or placed at Chalons-sur-Marne, at St.-Denis during the prewithin each other. Window s:XIV on the south * ceding decade it was probably given to the strictly side of the choir belongs with this group, as do narrative Early Life of Christ.*’ Later, in the Re-

s:XI and s:XII in the end of the south transept,*® demption Window at Chartres, there is a return } n:X and s:X in the chapels (Appendix fig. 1), and to the grid, with lobes forming quatrefoils inseveral of the “triforium” windows. Window scribed in ornament (Appendix fig. 21). One of n:XIII, in the north transept, has circles linked by the few continental experiments that strictly parala combination of arcs and straight bars, much like lels the Canterbury group is the typological east the system of the “triforium.” Windows n:XII and window of the Benedictine abbey church of Orn:TX, in the north transept also, experiment with bais, not far from Rheims, which may date from squares linked by rectilinear or rhomboid forms. after 1200 (Appendix figs. 3, 13).

The canted square is introduced in Window The experimental nature of the compositions in °§In windows s:IX, s:XIII of the typological series, the tribune, and a reconstruction was possible on paper. n:II and UI, s:II and III of the corona, and also in the Westlake, 1, 1881, Pl. tvii & 1, published slightly inwindows at triforium level in the eastern transepts. accurate drawings of these. 54 The outer border, next to the stonework, is ancient 58 Grodecki, 1948, pp. go-91, has indicated the appear-

but for two panels in the bottom of the window. ance of the star composition in the twelfth century in °° The original ironwork was taken out after World Angers, Poitiers, and Chalons. War II for glazing by Bossanyi; it has been preserved in 57 Grodecki, 1961b, fig. 13.

THE TRANSITIONAL WINDOWS 60 this group is confirmed by the figure styles and (fig. 80),°? Hezron and Ram from N:XI.° From ornament. There is no dominant “transitional” the south side are Neri from Window S:XII (fig. master. Several distinctive and divergent hands 70),°* Zorobabel and Rhesa from S:XIII,*° Joanna can be recognized, making it impossible to estab- and Juda from S:XIV (fig. 82),°° Joseph and lish an internal chronology on the basis of style. Semei from S:XV (fig. 85).°” Two figures, at presConsiderable overlapping of hands, though, sug- ent in N.XIV, are the creation of Caldwell, Jr., gests that all the artists were part of the same incorporating a small amount of ancient glass. operation. Some worked only to the west of the The legacy of the earlier Master is apparent in 1180 screen, while their fellows continued to con- some of the ornament. Borders are predominantly

tribute to the glazing of the corona and Trinity of the climbing variety and the white stems are Chapel; they will be studied in this order. marked by leaf scars below the shoots. A pair in the north transept have blue and red grounds and intricately interlaced stems; one of the motifs can

THE JOANNA MASTER AND THE FIGURES J be traced at least as far back as the Bury Bible (figs. FROM THE CLERESTORY OF“1,THE 69 . 72).°° The foliage, however, tends to be rather EASTERN TRANSEPTS AND PRESBYTERY . .windows . flat, consisting chiefly of palmettes. In two This group has in common the use of canopies of the south transept clusters of very delicate treover the figures, and a marked loss of plastic and foil leaves are introduced, but these, too, are flat organic qualities in both ornament and figures, (fig. 75). Colors, in accordance with the figure compared with the work of the Methuselah Mas- panels, tend to be restricted to green, white, and ter. These traits justify an attribution to a single pink, and in four cases the ground is entirely blue.” designer, named the Joanna Master, although sev- Of this group all but Neri are characterized by eral disparate hands took part in the execution. In- quieter poses than those from the choir; the arms cluding Noah from Window N:XX, designed by are confined within a single outline, and the whole the Methuselah Master, eighteen out of the origi- figure is swathed in great sweeps of drapery, which nal thirty-six figures from this part of the building tend to unify it and to restrict movement. Even have survived, or exactly half. In addition, seven Neri is a more compact and calm version, in reborders are probably zm situ.°* From the north side verse, of Noah (figs. 66, 70). The heads, though

are Noah and Shem from Window N:XX (figs. varied from profile to full face, are more quietly 66, 67),°° Peleg and Reu from N:XVI (fig. 76),°° inclined. Only the feet, still placed on different levTerah and Abraham from N:XIV (figs. 77, 78),°° els or in different planes, express some of the restIsaac from N:XIII, Judah and Phares from N:XIl lessness of the choir group. The figures have less 58In Windows N:XX, N:XIV, N:XIII, N:XII, and shift the locations given to all these figures by Austin and

S:XII, S: XT, S:XIV. Rackham one to the east; Rackham, p. 42.

59 Now in the southwest transept window, Q2, and 65 Zorobabel is in the southwest transept window, M8;

clerestory N:XIII; Rackham, 1949, p. 33. Rhesa is in Window S:XIIJ; Rackham, 1949, p. 42. The 60 Southwest transept window, Q6 and Q7; Rackham, lower panel of Rhesa is almost entirely modern.

1949, Pp. 34. 66In the southwest transept window, Hz and H8; 61 Southwest transept window, Q3 and Mr; Rackham, Rackham, 1949, pp. 42-43.

1949, Pp. 35- 67 West window, L5 and L3; Rackham, 1949, p. 43.

62 Isaac has been returned to Window N:XIII; Judah 68 Rackham, 1949, p. 46, G and H. The inscriptions and Phares are in clerestory S:XIV; Rackham, 1949, pp. are entirely modern. The only significant old glass is in

35-36. both the heads, which belong to Peleg and Zorobabel. 68 West window Lr and Ly; Rackham, 1949, p. 36. 68 The motif was a common one, of long duration; 64 Neri is now in Window S:XIII, but the top panel has for the Bury Bible, see n. 18 above. Stems with interlaced

been heightened to fit this window. Since Cosam is in a shoots are also in the Winchester Bible, Vol. 1, f.5, quatrefoil that would fit Window S:X, in which he was Genesis initial. seen by Gostling, but not S:XI, it may be necessary to 70 Windows N:XII, S:XIII and S:XIV; also N:XXI, in the choir.

THE TRANSITIONAL WINDOWS 61 individual identity; most hold a large furled scroll! pacity to create serene figures is certainly demonin one hand and none is engaged in a specific ac- strated in the typological windows. The variable tivity or event, as are Adam digging and Enoch execution, however, seldom approaches the paintcarried up to heaven. Pink and white or green and erly qualities of work attributed to the Methuselah white predominate in the draperies of most figures, Master. Bold linear brushwork in a figure such as enlivened by yellow and silvery blue in a few, with Reu does not have the fluidity and freedom of

some red in canopies, edgings, and thrones. Lamech, whom it most resembles (figs. 76, 13); it There is a distinct loss of monumentality in all is constrained to follow a more unified surface but a few figures, arising partly from the addition pattern, instead of describing the rounded forms of fussy architectural features and a consequent of the underlying figure, and the folds are hardreduction in size of the ancestors of Christ. The ened. One of the most powerfully drawn figures figures, too, are elongate, with slight physiques and is Abraham, companion to Terah, yet very differ-

small heads. A serene pose is achieved at the ex- ent. He is represented in depth, his head turned pense of plasticity, as though an idealizing classi- over his shoulder, his feet crossed at the ankle, his cism had been substituted for the more naturalistic foreshortened left thigh emphasized by catenary classicism of the Methuselah Master Some ° the folds. Of the middle period he is the only one pregures demand comparison with the roughly con- served that approaches Jared in ease and sheer temporary clerestory series in St.-Remi of Rheims. physical presence, yet even so he is in proportions Canterbury glass-painting had perhaps entered a much taller and slighter (figs. 78, 8).

phase parallel with the art of the continent, In other figures there is some evidence of hurbut the rapproche ment was Not as yet complete. ried execution. The painting of Semei is cursory in

The colors are similar, with the same use of the extreme, consisting almost entirely of insensiyellow and pale blue in juxtaposition, OF MOre Nor- tive strokes brusquely applied on the inner surmay of green or pink with wots, Yet p faced ne face (figs. 85, 86). Elsewhere the execution is more y side, the Terah of Cantert ury has a sti HESS © painstaking but lacks boldness; soft effects achieved

articulation and a linear tension not present inandthe 4 as. in. Shem, are y numerous fine lines washes,

Hosea from Rheims; he lacks the ease, breadth, . ost from the |distance of floor level (fig. 67). The

and ponderation of the French counterpart (figs. . work of such a painter presages the miniaturesque effects of some of the much smaller figures of the a frontal, broad-shouldered pose, drops one foot and -; , Trinity Chapel clerestory, in which monumentalturns his knee out (fig. 82). Any effect of plasticity i, _ 77, 83). Even Joanna, so consciously brought into

. .negated ity is by abandoned is the edges of entirely. drapery which i. Shem and Phares (figs. 67, 80), from curve opposite across the picture plane. Significantly the same des of

trend is observable in the late work of the Morgan sides of the north transept, may both be attributed Master of the Winchester Bible, which used to be to the Fogg Medallion Master in execution; his attributed to a “Master of the Gothic Majesty.” style will be treated more fully below, since he also It has already been noticed that one of his unfin- worked in the Trinity Chapel. Phares evidently ished drawings in the initials to Psalm 110 in fact much resembles Terah (fig. 77) in pose and dracomes very close to the drapery system of Joanna pery system, as if both were based on the same (figs. 82, 84). What is perhaps surprising is that design, but Phares is even narrower, more elongate the wide platform of the knees in the drawing, and and fragile, and less compact. His face is inexpresthe generally broader proportion, are much closer sive and bland. Terah provides a link with the

to the Methuselah Master’s figure of Herod, for work of the Master of the Public Life of Christ

example, than is Joanna (fig. 27). who designed and executed Window n:XIII of the To some extent the Joanna Master’s style may typological series, likewise in the north transept; develop from the Methuselah Master, whose ca- the manner in which his arm is caught in a loop

THE TRANSITIONAL WINDOWS 62 of his mantle is repeated in the left-hand disciple where the two boats overlap (fig. 87). In the Call-

in the Calling of Nathanael (figs. 77, 88). ing of Nathanael two events are shown as continuous narrative, a mode not employed in the choir aisle; Phillip speaking to Nathanael is in the right

THE MASTER OF THE BOBLIC MIRE foreground, while Nathanael appears again to the

OF CHRIST left with Christ (fig. 88). Events are clarified by Six panels from the Fourth Window of the typo- labels, and by scrolls with spoken words, devices logical series are preserved in Window n:XIV of which were less often necessary in the Methuselah the north choir aisle, though unfortunately di- Master’s paintings, and which add to the crowding vested of all original ornament but the edging of the compositions. These panels must have made lines.” It is conjectured that eight rosettes framed great demands on the glass cutters and lead glain concave diamonds, now in the south window of ziers. the south west transept, belonged to Window The figures, few of whom are clearly seen as inn:XIII. They would fit between the full and half- dividuals, are small and little differentiated one circles in the armature (Appendix fig. 11).”* This from another. The few heads surviving seem to composition is slightly more sophisticated than that indicate that one flesh tint was used throughout. of Window n:XIV in that it avoids irons cutting Draperies are uniformly and softly treated, with through the center of ornamental bosses, and ad- occasional sharper folds (as in the standing figure heres strictly to the actual form of the figure compo- of Nathanael, fig. 88). Mantles tend to hide the sitions. The rosettes are extremely fine, consisting articulation but emphasize the plasticity of figures, of densely packed radiating foliage with several by a series of twists around them; in this respect highly differentiated leaf types. In the center are an afhnity with Terah from the clerestory has alfleshy palmettes, with the tips turned over, then ready been noticed. Detail is particularized where

pairs of fronds with small leaves like oak, and the narrative demands it, as in the leaves of the finally very delicate leaf sprays reserved in a thin fig trees or the disciples’ net full of fish (figs. 88, coat of grisaille on blue glass. They much resem- 87). Here the three-dimensional potential of the ble the rosettes in Window n:XIV in general char- white glass is fully exploited, almost as if it were acter. Their attribution to Window n:XIIl is con- sculptural relief; the net and the heads of the fish firmed by the equally painstakingly drawn fig breaking through it are painted on the inner sur-

leaves in the Calling of Nathanael (fg. 88). face, the tails and other fish are more dimly seen, The artist’s style is classicizing, but of a more painted on the outer surface. The freely undulating pictorial and generalized kind than the Methuselah white waves demonstrate the artist’s pictorial sense,

Master’s. The spatial relationships of figures and in contrast with the decorative green and white objects are explored, but he is less interested in the scale pattern formed by the waves in Noah’s Ark depiction of individuals. The compositions lack the by the Methuselah Master (figs. 87, 143).

clarity of the Methuselah Master’s work. Sym- White plays a large part in the color scheme, metry and a central axis are avoided, so that a being used for such extensive areas as waves, sails, kind of excitement flows evenly across the scenes. and the tablecloth as well as draperies. Red is Figures are scattered across the panels, their heads scarce, green and pink common. The Calling of more or less evenly spaced; they are organized in- Nathanael has an exquisite palette of yellow, midto a series of overlapping planes in depth, as in green, acid green, white, and a little soft pink on the Miracle at Cana, where the servants and water a limpid blue ground. These color combinations jars are in front of the table, the wedding guests are less common in the work of the Methuselah behind it, or in the Miraculous Draught of Fishes, Master than in the clerestory of the transepts. The

71 Rackham, 1949, pp. 63-65. 72 Cf. Mason, 1925, p. 14.

THE TRANSITIONAL WINDOWS 63 change in design sources which can be documented semicircles flanking the central circles; these areas after the third window (n:XIV) may account in must have been filled with ornament. The compart for this artist’s style; his ability to integrate position of Window n:XI is far more interesting the figures into a single action, his interest in spa- (Appendix fig. 1). Although the bars are straight, tial depth and in the substantial appearance of such the lengths are broken up so that panels of various a figure as the standing Nathanael, demonstrate sizes are formed; the border is interrupted by four his strongly classicizing bent. In this sense his style figure panels above and below and at the sides, so is only a modification of that of the Methuselah that a large cross is suggested. Comparable feaMaster, with a shift in emphasis from the symbolic tures appear in the Crucifixion Window in the to the narrative character of events, and a conse- tribune of St-Remi” and in the Redemption Winquent reliance on inscriptions to explain relation- dow at Orbais, which is dominated by a Cruci-

ships. fixion. As at Orbais, circles are inscribed in alternation with rectangles in the center of the window

(Appendix fig. 3). However, part-circles are also | THE MASTER OF THE PARABLE OF inscribed in alternate flanking panels by the Master

THE SOWER of the Parable of the Sower. The whole composiThis artist might stand alongside the Methuselah tion is a manneristic syncopation of the regular Master as a distinctive early hand; he is drawn into grid with alternating squares and circles previously the middle group by his collaboration, in the north used in the choir aisle, and it offers the possibility

oculus, with an artist who also worked in the of emphasizing certain scenes above others. corona and Trinity Chapel, the Jesse Master. In The palette of the Master of the Parable of the design types and color the ornament of the oculi Sower is heightened by considerable amounts of conforms with the ornament in other windows by red, not only as an edging but also in draperies, the Jesse Master, and will therefore be discussed which, combined with much of the hot yellow used among his oeuvre. Nine figure compositions from also by the Methuselah Master, makes his panels the sixth window of the typological series have exceedingly brilliant (Col. Pl. m). A variety of survived in the north choir aisle.’* All are attrib- greens and three blues are still in use, but there is uted to the same artist; they illustrate the Parables perhaps less subtle variation in the pinks. Collabof the Sower and the Three Measures of Meal. In orating with other artists, in the oculus and the all probability the armature of Window n:XI, hagiographical series, he used more pink, green, which is situated in the northeast transept imme- and white, but the red frames to his figures of diately below the oculus, was designed by the mas- Moses and Synagogue are the hottest accents in

ter, but no ornament from this window has yet the oculus. been recognized. With him also is associated a The compositions have a monumental clarity; panel, now in the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts, figures are frequently isolated in their own comshowing a disputation scene, perhaps a subject partment of an arcade, as Moses and Synagogue from a Life of St. Stephen once in that saint’s and the three personifications of Virtuous States chapel in the same transept (Window n:IX, Ap- (figs. 105, 103), or they are aligned in the same

pendix fig. 1)." plane, as Ecclesia with the three sons of Noah or The armature of the St. Stephen Window is the Three Righteous Men (fig. 100). The comvery conservative, essentially like that of north pact grouping of figures that was a feature of choir aisle n:XIV, but too narrow to accommodate the Methuselah Master’s style is used only rarely,

73 Rackham, 1949, pp. 58-61, 65. 75 Illus. Jacques Dupont and Cesare Gnudi, Gothic

7 Caviness, 1973, pp. 7-13. An engraving by Le Keux Painting, Geneva, 1954, p. 32. This window is heavily in Britton, 1836, Pl. v, shows two colored medallions in restored, but I believe the essentials of composition are

the top of this window. original.

THE TRANSITIONAL WINDOWS 64 as, for instance, in the Pharisees Turning Away pleated edges and strong vertical pull; only where from Christ (fig. 94), or in two groups of Jews action is portrayed do the skirt and mantle billow and Gentiles from the top of Window n:XI. out behind, as in the Sower on Stony Ground (fig. The background of these figures is reduced to a 89). Mantles tend to be treated as a kind of long minimum—an arcade, a bench, or a low ground- scarf, enveloping the shoulders. The skirts, which line with grass and flowers; the Pharisees have no fall rather straight over the weight-bearing leg, are synagogue and altar which might have compared drawn tightly over the free leg, the folds encircling with the pagan idol and temple in the scene of thigh and calf muscles in the manner of dampChrist Leading the Gentiles (fig. 37). Scrolls are fold drapery. The vertical fall tends also to be inpreferred to labels introduced into the ground, terrupted by a band of ornament in the skirt. In though both are used (Col. Pl. 11, figs. 95, 97, 100). spite of the modeling washes that are applied, espeThe scrolls are decorative space-fillers where other cially in the heads, the work of the Master of the accoutrements are so reduced. In three of the pre- Parable of the Sower is predominantly linear; there served panels, however, the Master of the Parable are few soft passages.

of the Sower does introduce complex spatial set- Many of the heads have been replaced; among tings. One is in the scene of Julian and Maurice, those preserved are some finely differentiated where a recession is strongly suggested by the foot- types. One—as in the Sower on Good Ground and

rest, and by the column set behind their bowl of among Thorns—has a high forehead framed by coins (fig. 97). Most remarkable of his composi- . receding hair, protruding cheekbones, and a wispy

tions are the two Sowers, one in a circular, the beard (fig. 95). His brows are furrowed, his eyeother in a rectilinear frame. Both stride energeti- brows slant down. It is a facial type that at once cally across a varied landscape, with ploughland, recalls St. Paul as represented in the mosaics of grassy hillocks, and trees. One is built up from a the Palatina in Palermo.”® Another type is the standard groundline by a series of sweeping curves; young man with slightly disordered curls (fg. the other is more emphatic in the delineation of 103); the angels, seen in profile above the Three foreground, middle ground, and distance (figs. 89, Righteous Men, may be the clue to the origin of 95). Double curves in the trees, hills, plants, and this hair style. A more ordered version is used for even in the sweep of birds’ wings, echo the arched angels in the Sicilian mosaics,’’ and this is very backs of the Sowers, which are characteristic of faithfully reflected in the work of the Methuselah

_ the Master’s design. Master (figs. 51, 53).

His figures frequently adopt the striding pose It seems, indeed, that the Methuselah Master

used by the Methuselah Master, but, as in Syna- and the Master of the Parable of the Sower shared gogue, it is modified by the arch of the back, with a “motif book” of Byzantine subjects. The Prophet

hips thrust forward, and a more even distribution in the Sacrifice of Jeroboam and Christ from of the weight (fig. 105, cf. fig. 37). Often the posi- whom the Pharisees turn away are adaptations of ©

tion of the back foot is “corrected” from the a very common type of figure, one that appeared pointed toe, which causes the Methuselah Master’s in the West in the Hortus Deliciarum, the German figures to float, to a profile that carries weight on flabellum in the British Library, Add. MS 42497, the ball of the foot, as in Virginity, Moses, and the Freiburg model-book page, the Ingeborg PsalTemperance (figs. 103, 105, 107). The figures are ter,’* as well as the Great Canterbury Psalter (figs. taller in proportion to their heads and tend to be 55, 94, 57). Lhe presence of Byzantine models in lean and narrow-shouldered. Draperies have stiffly Canterbury is felt in the Dover Bible of 1140-1160;

76 Illus. Dodwell, 1954, Pl. 64b. 79 Dodwell, 1954, pp. 84-87, Pls. 51c and d, 54a~d,

77 As the angels with Abraham in the Palatina; illus. 56a-c, 57a~d, 61b and d, 62a and b, 63a-c, 64a and b;

tbid., Pl. 48b. Kitzinger, “Norman Sicily,” 1966, p. 137, pointed out the 78 Deuchler, 1967, figs. 24, 219, 227, 230. anachronism of comparing the Bible with the Monreale

THE TRANSITIONAL WINDOWS } 65 the later figures in the glass are calmer, contrary their mantles, but their thighs are strongly outto the development of style in the east, which is lined, tensed in repose and in action. Draperies are reflected in the Monreale mosaics of the 1180s. The harshly folded and few figures have the grace of Byzantine models used by the early masters may those of the Master of the Parable of the Sower. therefore belong to the era of the Martorana and Only rarely can a specific comparison be suggested,

Palatina.®° as between the archer on f.21 and the Temperance The dominant formative influence on the style of of the north oculus (fig. 107),°° or the swordsman the Master of the Parable of the Sower is not, how- on f.15v and Prudence (figs. 108, 106), or Melchiever, Byzantine. Like the Methuselah Master, he zadek and Abraham on f.1v and the Sons of Noah

has taken over some of the conventions of English (figs. 102, 100). Apart from the extensive use work of the 1170s. In his Moses and Synagogue and of landscape settings in the Canterbury Psalter, in the Three Sons of Noah, the heavier proportions which derive from the Utrecht Psalter, and which of the figures and the damp-fold drapery system, resemble the settings for the Sower, there is a with an S-curve describing the front of the thigh, shared repertory of specific motifs. Three kinds the kneecap and the back of the calf, and a cascade of tree appear, one corresponding to the writhing of V-folds between the thighs, recall similar fea- growth with clumps of ornamental foliage of the tures in the Circumcision of Isaac, a detail of the Sower on Stony Ground (fig. 89), another with a Kennet ciborium on loan to the Victoria and Al- few stiff but more or less naturalistic leaves, as in bert Museum (figs. 105, 100, ror). Also similar are Balaam by the Methuselah Master (fig. 19), the the stiffly lifted ends of the mantles, the ornamen- third rather like a mushroom with a single clump tal bands across the skirts, and the facial type and of undifferentiated foliage, as in the Sower on

hair of the patriarchs.** In a more animated scene Good Ground and among Thorns (fig. 95). Scrolls on the ciborium, that of David rescuing the lamb and schematized architecture with columns punc-

from the bear, the tunic sweeps back from the tuating the action are also part of the composithigh much as it does in the Sower on Stony tional repertory. From these comparisons with the

Ground.” Great Canterbury Psalter in Paris it seems that the The closest contemporary style is in the Great Master of the Parable of the Sower must have

Canterbury Psalter in Paris. The palette of these worked in the same period, about 1175-1200. paintings is hot and brilliant, with much orange,

vermilion, and brownish-purple, offset by soft green |

and two tones of bright blue. In spite of the gold THE TIVES O18 STS: DONSTAN

grounds and the fuller palette available to the min- AND AEA iaturist, his color approaches that of the Master The Master of the Parable of the Sower may have of the Parable of the Sower in intensity; and if the played some part in the design and execution of glass-painter was perhaps influenced by the manu- these hagiographical subjects. The surviving fragscript in his use of reds, it may be questioned mentary panels are now in three windows of the whether the miniaturists had not intensified their north choir aisle at triforium level, immediately colors in response to the glass. The figures in the over Windows n:XVI (blocked), XV, and XIV Psalter are elongate, mannered, and rather stiff; of the typological series (Plan, text fig. 2c). The their shoulders tend to be narrow, enveloped in ornament is almost certainly im situ in these winmosaics of twenty years or more later, but accepted that Palatina to 1143, the rest of the decoration except in the

the style could be traced back to the Palatina. apse to the late 1140s to 1150s.

80 The Martorana mosaics have been dated between 81 Moses’ head is a restoration by Austin, but probably 1143 and 1151; Demus, 1949, p. 82. Ernst Kitzinger, “The a good copy of the original. Mosaics of the Cappella Palatina in Palermo: An Essay 82 Tllus. Swarzenski, 1967, fig. 450. on the Choice and Arrangement of Subjects,” Art Bulletin 83 For f.21 see Psautier, Pl. xxt.

31 (1949), 287, dated the mosaics in the drum of the .

THE TRANSITIONAL WINDOWS 66 dows; it is of a type associated with the Fogg Me- nuity of space beyond the frame, as in St. Dundallion Master (fig. 109). That the figure panels stan’s vision (fig. 109); such structures frequently are in their approximate intended positions is also occur in the Utrecht Psalter recensions. The scene certain; one quatrefoil in the St. Dunstan series has of the siege of Canterbury seems to be based on a been cut down to fit the circular irons in Window model in common with one of the prefatory pages Nt:X, but intact it would have fitted the existing now in the Pierpont Morgan Library (figs. 113, irons in St:XI. The predominantly cold tones of 114); the page is possibly from Canterbury, per-

the figured panels, with white, very pale blue, haps even from another Utrecht Psalter copy of green, and pale pink on a limpid blue ground, and the first half of the twelfth century.*® The number a sparing use of red stand out dramatically from of figures in the glass panel is much reduced, and

the brilliant ornament, with its red ground and they are more symmetrically distributed, but the splashes of yellow. Stylistic comparisons are ham- same leaping position is favored. Interestingly, the pered by the extent of restoration and the scarcity composition in the glass is closer to this early picof prerestoration accounts.** ‘Two panels only are ture than to the equivalent scene in the Great Canmoderately well preserved, the Siege of Canterbury terbury Psalter.*

by the Danes (fig. 113) and St. Alphage Taken Two hands may have worked on these hagioAboard a Danish Ship, both in the easternmost graphical series. One is archaic, the other belongs window, Nt:IX. Some others are authentic out- to the middle period. The archaic hand is apparent

line drawings. There is also the question of in two well-preserved fragments, the angel from mode; these are the only hagiographical sub- the scene of the miracle at Glastonbury and St. jects, other than the St. Stephen panel and a Dunstan at Calne (figs. 110, 111). The thigh of single fragmentary scene of St. Martin, that sur- each is firmly outlined, and the skirt below the vive outside the Trinity Chapel at Canterbury. knee is pulled into a series of crisp pleats that emMost of the compositions have none of the distilled phatically turn round the shins. The pose of St. clarity that characterizes the work of both the early Dunstan is close to that of a small portrait of Masters, but to some extent this is offset by their Archbishop Baldwin in a Christ Church manularge size and restricted colors. The scenes are ex- script, which may date between 1184 and 1190 tremely complicated, better suited to line drawing (Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 200, fig. than to glass because of the intricacy of cutting and 112), yet by comparison St. Dunstan is stiff. It leading. They may reflect quite closely an ancient would be logical to place this figure between the pictorial tradition, as suggested by the Viking prow two author portraits so aptly compared by Dodon the Danish boat.*® Like many pages of the well, the other being from a Smaragdus of ca. Great Canterbury Psalter, the scenes are divided 1150-1180;°° here the interlocking catenary folds of into zones in order to give some sort of clarity to the chasuble are similar to the glass, and comparadiversified action; so God and the angels are in a ble attention is given to the hems of the garments. heavenly zone, separated from the sleeping figure Some of the graphic conventions of the glass of St. Dunstan (fig. 109), or heaven and hell are painter are close to those of the Apocrypha Master defined by arcs. Architectural settings appear in of the Winchester Bible (fig. 31). There are also oblique perspective, some of them asserting conti- parallels in the most archaic work of the Methu84 Drawings made by the elder Caldwell and used in 85 Cf. Noah’s Ark in the eleventh-century “Caedmon” illustration of Miss Williams’s book are preserved in manuscript, Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Junius 11, the Emily Williams Collection in the cathedral library. p. 66, illus. Rickert, 1967, PI. 44. Williams, 1897, Pls. 6-8. Other nineteenth-century draw- 86 James, 1936-1937; Dodwell, 1954, p. 100; Heimann ings are in the Clayton and Bell Album in the Print in The Year 1200 1, 259. Room of the Victoria and Albert Museum; neither series 87 F.2v, Psautier, Pl. wv (upper right). is complete. Williams’s account of the subjects (pp. 15-17) 88 London, British Library, MS Royal 10 A xiii, fav;

is the earliest. Dodwell, 1954, Pl. 68a.

THE TRANSITIONAL WINDOWS ) 67 selah Master, and back-painting is comparable. Yet pendix fig. 2). In the ornament, which is given in outline these stiff, elongate beings lack the power much importance, a very idiosyncratic kind of

of the Methuselah Master’s figures. rinceau appears, generally on a red ground. The The other painter is recognized in a few figures. stem winds in a large spiral, ending with a comBrittle, unstructured lines appear in the drapery posite flower-like palmette in the center, the “petand chainmail, and the faces are insipid. Figures als” of which extend widely to intertwine with the are thin and weightless, quite lacking in the con- outer circles of the spiral. This fantastic vegetal tained energy characteristic of both the Methuselah form differs markedly from the more natural-lookMaster and the Master of the Parable of the Sower. ing leafy sprigs of north choir aisle Window n:XIV Part of a circular medallion now in Ireland con- (figs. 116, 179). tains a few related fragments.*® The painter’s typi- Recognition of this type of rinceau leads to a cal qualities are recognized again in a medallion more precise limitation of the group of windows in America, from which I name him the Fogg associated with the same designer. It may be inMedallion Master. It is important to observe that ferred that he provided the essential elements of he seems to have begun his career in collaboration design for a group of windows distributed on eiwith one of the earliest looking hands in the glass, ther side of the partition of 1180 and spanning the one that stylistically could date from ca. 1175-1185. three vertical levels of glazing. To the west of the Trinity Chapel are ten small windows with a tre-

THE FOGG MEDALLION MASTER foil head, at triforium level but opened in the aisle walls on the north and south sides of the choir and

As we have seen, this artist collaborated in the Sts. presbytery (Plan, Nt:I], etc.). Two of the three Dunstan and Alphage series, and executed figures on the north side of the choir have much of their for the clerestory of the northeast transept, notably ornament in situ; there has been patching with Shem and Phares (figs. 67, 80). He is responsible miscellaneous fragments on the south side. The for the well-preserved panel in the Fogg Museum borders present a variety of types of design, prein Cambridge, Mass., which can now be said with dominantly sideways-growing palmettes, but with certainty to come from Window n:VI in the north one more abstract experiment; one border panel is ambulatory of the Trinity Chapel, and to represent relentlesly composed with a compass, a series of a scene in the Life of Thomas Becket (Col. Pl. 1v circles being subdivided each into four fan-shaped & fig. 115).°° A panel of ornament from the same leaves (fig. 121). It much resembles a border in window has been identified in the Victoria and the choir clerestory of St.-Remi of Rheims.°* AnAlbert Museum (fig. 116),°* and other fragments other, in Window Nt:IX, has a simple series of are in the “triforium” windows on the south side palmettes, without a trellis, growing from the cenof the choir. The glass zm situ in Window n:V is ter bottom and up the sides of the window, in in the same style (fig. 120), and one isolated frag- traditional manner. A pair to this border is in ment has been inserted in a figure panel in Win- clerestory N:XII. This window originally had the

dow n: IIT.” figures of Phares and Judah that are easily attribThe compositions of these windows are remark- utable to the Fogg Medallion Master. There is litable for the rather arbitrary use of circles and tle appreciable change in the character of his ornacanted squares or parts of both in the armatures; ment on the north side of the Trinity Chapel. the forms intersect, which is a new principle, Beaded central veins, however, are used only in but the geometries are not yet tightly knit (Ap- the “triforium” above examples of this same “ar89 The Year 1200 1, no. 226, 222-23. scene). The insertion could have been made by Austin.

°° Caviness, 1965. *3In the center lancet of the first bay from the west 91 The Year 1200 1, no. 228, 224-25. on the north side. Examination has shown that ten upper °* Caviness, 1967, p. 51; Rackham, 1949, Pl. xm (lower panels are largely ancient.

THE TRANSITIONAL WINDOWS 68 chaic” trait in the choir. In The Trinity Chapel, ures by the Fogg Medallion Master have been inWindow n:VII has a border of the sideways-pal- serted in restoration. Their scale is not unlike that mette variety.°* Elaborate palmettes spring from a of the hagiographical series in the “triforium,” in quatrefoil leaf and the leaves are very delicately which the master had been a minor painter. painted, curling and fleshy; these features are also In the Trinity Chapel panels full use is not made found in a fragment of rinceaux now in clerestory of the circles or canted squares; they are pared _ N:VII which unfortunately is of uncertain prove- down by rectilinear architectural frames, within nance (fig. 122). In Trinity Chapel Window n:V, which the figures are tightly confined (fig. 120). the border is in keeping with the richness and vig- There are affinities in composition with the work or of the rinceaux, with the same insistence on of the Master of the Parable of the Sower, in the depth; pink and yellow leaves overlap in front of way figures are bracketed under arcades and in and behind the droplet-shaped white stems. The the use of scrolls as space-fillers. The figures themforms are only slightly more flaccid than those of selves, however, are entirely different; they are the border to the first clerestory window (N: poised, weightless and motionless, with impassive

XXV), which it much resembles in type. faces; the only action is in their hands, which reach Whether any of the windows on the south side out to make sharp, stabbing gestures (fig. 115). of the Trinity Chapel were actually executed under Shem shows a similar modification of outline as the Fogg Medallion Master’s supervision remains compared with Joanna (figs. 67, 82). In the draopen to question; the armature of Window S:V in peries the paint appears to be laid on with a thin the ambulatory is paired with N:V facing it, but no brush in uncertain, brittle lines without modeling glass is in situ. There is no evidence in the sur- washes, and there is little back-painting. viving glass to indicate that he worked on any of Stylistically, the Trinity Chapel windows attribthe ambulatory windows further east, or that he uted to the Fogg Medallion Master form a transiprovided glass for the Trinity Chapel clerestory. tion between the earlier hagiographical scenes reHis activity is thus restricted to the early and mid- lating to Sts. Dunstan and Alphage, in which the dle periods, which is in keeping with the transi- action is rather lost in pictorial complexity, and the

tional character of his work. other miracle windows, which are highly charged

The brilliance of the Victoria and Albert Mu- with drama and stripped of unnecessary detail seum panel, with its red ground, would set off very (figs. 109, 197). This is the moment of calm, the well the cool, clear colors of the Fogg medallion gathering of forces before a definitive mode is (Col. Pl. 1v); pale blue, which had been used in the found. Such an innocuous style, much more than clerestory of the choir and transepts, is now dar- the inimitable style of the Methuselah Master, was ingly employed in two tones against the deeper capable of forming the basis of a new departure. blue ground; other colors are soft green, pale yel- The Fogg Medallion Master rejected the richness low, and pink. Red appears in the aedicula and and variety of the Methuselah Master’s work in edging, and also in the dalmatic of the archbishop. favor of more generalized representation. He made In these panels the Master is a delicate colorist. His some lasting formulations. Throughout the rest of figure style is otherwise astonishingly negative, as the series of miracles the use of an arcaded aedicula free from Romanesque as from Gothic stylization. to impose order and clarity was never abandoned, The figures in position in Window n:V of the a restricted number of facial types was settled upon, Trinity Chapel look large and stiff compared with and figures tend to be insubstantial. The tomb of those in the windows to the east; the contrast is Thomas Becket, which first appears in Window quite apparent in Window ni:III, where two fig- n:V of the Trinity Chapel, is faithfully reproduced °Two lengths of this border are in the Virginia revealed that only one panel in the Trinity Chapel is Museum of Arts, Richmond; Caviness, 1973, figs. 1, 2, intact. and cover. Close examination from the fire escape in 1974

THE TRANSITIONAL WINDOWS 69 in the rest of the series. It takes the form of a rec- the petal. This particular form does not appear tilinear sarcophagus with two elliptical holes cut elsewhere in the glass. It has often been observed

in the marble side (figs. 120, 159).°° that fleshy, organic rinceaux were modified in the Neither the ornament nor the figure style gives thirteenth century, becoming more spindly and less very precise clues as to the origins of the Fogg plastic, with the omission of such traits as the rings Medallion Master or the time span of his work, but on the bark below a shoot.*** Twelfth-century exconsidered together they indicate an earlier date amples bear this out; in vault paintings in the nave than I had previously supposed.’* The type of at Ely, round, fleshy stems are used to frame merinceaux associated with him has parallels in man- dallions with figure subjects.*°? St. Gabriel’s Chapel uscripts, wall paintings, and metalwork, and occurs in the crypt of Canterbury Cathedral has similar

commonly on the continent as well as in Eng- vegetal forms, framing the remnants of figures, land in the twelfth century. Goldschmidt has at- which have some of the new naturalism of the tributed its appearance on the continent to English Morgan and Methuselah Masters. Rinceaux of

influence,*’ but a Norman origin was proposed by similar character are also found in metalwork, as | Wormald, who signaled its presence in the Christ in the English ciboria of about 1170 (fig. 1or).* Church Passionale, British Library, Harley MS 624, These comparisons would allow a very early dating

of the first half of the twelfth century.®* Such for the “triforium” ornament, of 1175-1180. The scrolls were also part of the decorative repertory of form is long-lived, however. Strong, vegetal scrolls the manuscripts given to Christ Church by Thom- also occur in the Cuthbert Life in the British Lias Becket on his return from France; they may brary, which is generally dated about 1200; the have been made in the north of France about “blossoms” are pronged acanthus, only slightly less 1160-1170.°? In these the “flowers” are elaborate rich than the vegetation of the Tree of Jesse page

and have long tentacle-like petals that intertwine in the Great Canterbury Psalter in Paris.*°* An with the stems, much as they do in the glass (figs. even later occurrence of rinceaux that much resem-

109, 122). They lack the leaf scars, which, how- ble the Victoria and Albert Museum panel is in ever, are as strong in the glass as in the earlier an initial in a Christ Church Register, which can manuscripts. One piece of ornament, unfortunately be dated between 1213 and 1216 or 1218 (figs. 116,

not im situ in the south choir aisle “triforium,” 125).°°° The central leaf has a beaded stem, but looks remarkably early (fig. 123); it compares there are no leaf scars or intertwining of leaves quite well with an initial in a Christ Church book and stems. This trend towards flat stems and dry dated by Dodwell 1110-1140, Cambridge, Trinity leafage is confirmed in the Little Canterbury PsalCollege, MS B. 2. 36.*°° In both the “calyx” is cir- ter in Paris, which has to be dated before 1220 (fig.

cular, and “petals” turn over in hard shell-like 126). The maximum date span of the ornament forms; cross-hatching is used on the far side of associated with the Fogg Medallion Master seems ®5 The tomb in the Burial of Thomas Becket in Sens 103 Swarzenski, 1967, figs. 448-50 (Kennet ciborium on has the same shape. The marbled sides are most often loan to the Victoria and Albert Museum). See also The

pink, rarely blue or yellow. Year 1200 1, nos. 171, 172, pp. 164-66 (Malmesbury

96 Caviness, 1965, pp. 195-96. ciborium in the Pierpont Morgan Library and Warwick

87 Adolf Goldschmidt, “English Influence on Medieval ciborium in the Victoria and Albert Museum), and comArt of the Continent,” Medieval Studies in Memory of ments by Sauerlander, 1971, p. 515.

A. Kingsley Porter, ed. R. W. Koehler, u, Cambridge, 1047 ondon, British Library, Add. MS 39945 (Yates

Mass., 1939, 715. Thompson MS 26). Dated in the period 1189-1212 by °8 Wormald, 1943, p. 34, Pl. xivb. Boase, 1953, pp. 287-88, cf. Pacht, 1962, p. 20 (late

°° Dodwell, 1954, pp. 106-109, Pls. 65a and c. twelfth century). Initials with scrollwork are on ff. 2v 100 Tdid., p. 121, Pl. 26a. and v. 101 Tristram, 1944, pp. 55, 70. For a more detailed 105 Cathedral Library, Register K. Rental Y, £23. I am

discussion see Plummer, pp. 44-45. grateful to Dr. Urry for pointing this out to me. The 102 Tristram, 1944, Pl. 83 and Suppl. Pl. 5a; dated dating is his, from paleographical evidence and that (p. 55) in the second half of the twelfth century. provided by names in the rental (Urry, 1967, p. 18).

THE TRANSITIONAL WINDOWS 70 to be 1175 to about 1200; by 1220 his vigorous in reaching an agreement as to the date of the rinceaux would be extremely archaic, a feature in- roll. For the Fogg Medallion Master one of the

consistent with their high quality. closest comparisons that can be made is with the Although the rinceaux used by the Master do Worksop Bestiary in New York, which is dated not presuppose any other than an English origin, before 1187.*** Figures are heavily outlined but de-

they do provide a link with one French monu- tails of facial features and drapery folds are genment; in Chdalons-sur-Marne such spirals with erally rather freely and sketchily treated. The lack flower-like palmettes are used as a wide border of structure and of any sense of underlying form (fig. 124). The earliest glass of Chalons, however, in the tunic of the reclining man illustrated here has rather meager ornament, and Grodecki has compares very well with the tunic of the rightcommented upon its enrichment towards the end hand figure in the Fogg medallion (figs. 117, 115).

of the twelfth century.*°° This does not suggest In the same book is another painting, also of a that Chalons is the source for Canterbury. Side- reclining figure, in which still sketchy but more ways-growing palmettes are also found in borders insistent hooked folds are used; this drapery sysat Chalons, as they are in St.-Remi, Soissons Cathe- tem is more highly developed by the older artist dral, and St.-Quentin,*” but so are they in York of the Ingeborg Psalter, who probably painted in well before the turn of the century.*®* It is chiefly the north of France in the 1190s.*** The rather flatthe geometric precision of one “triforium” border, ter and more elongate figures by his younger asalready referred to above, that suggests some con- sistant are paralleled by the clerestory figures attribtact with the northern French centers, principally, uted to the Fogg Medallion Master; Phares adopts perhaps, with St.-Remi. Similarity in composition a pose very similar to that of Herod in the Mas-

between Windows n:V and VI of the Trinity sacre of the Innocents in the Psalter, with torso, Chapel and two windows in the Lady Chapel at shoulders, and arm flattened into the plane of the St.-Quentin is more likely to indicate Canterbury picture, and the stomach and legs disproportionate influence in the thirteenth century, as suggested by and distorted (figs. 80, 81). Both artists reject much ' the iconography (Appendix figs. 2, 3); Grodecki of the classicism of their older contemporaries. ‘The has tentatively concluded that these windows are comparison with the Worksop Bestiary tends to

as late as 1220."°° confirm that the activities of both the Ingeborg

The “neutral” figure style of the Fogg Medallion Psalter artist and the Fogg Medallion Master beMaster, at once archaic and advanced, is very hard long to the last decade or two of the twelfth cento place in time, but its relatives are English. There tury. This may be further confirmed by compariis a certain general similarity with the Guthlac son with an unfinished painting in the Winchester Roll, in the use of aediculae, the static poses of the Bible by the Morgan Master, in which the paint figures and reliance on gestures to convey drama, much resembles the washes and tracelines of heads the impassive sameness of the faces, and the tall, by the Fogg Medallion Master (figs. 119, 118). He thin figure types.**° The drawing of the drapery seems to have outlived both the Methuselah Masis, however, quite different, though it has not aided ter and the Master of the Parable of the Sower. 106 Vitrail, pp. 107-108. The rinceaux border was 108 Westlake, 1, 1881, Pl. xxut. admired by L. Magne, L’Ocuvre des peintres verrters 109 Grodecki, 1965, p. 188.

francais ..., Paris, 1885, p. xii, fig. 6. 110 Warner, 1928. One scene is illus. Read, 1926, fig. 3a.

107 For Chalons, Westlake, 1, 1881, Pl. xvia; and Ferdi- 111 The date proposed by Warner, 1928, p. 18, of ca. nand de Lasteyrie, Histotre de la peinture sur verre, wu, 1196, which coincides with a translation of the relics, Paris, 1856, Pl. xxi. For St.-Remi, Westlake, 1, 1881, was regarded as too early by Homburger, 1958, p. 40, and Pl]. xxxiv D; it has not been possible to verify whether Boase, 1953, p. 288. this border, to the Crucifixion in the tribune, is old, but 112 The Year 1200 1, no. 259, 260-61, with bibliography. it resembles an original panel in the clerestory. For 113 Pierpont Morgan Library, MS 81, f£.6ov, cf. Deuchler, Soissons, see Cahier and Martin, 1841, Mosaiques F, 4 1967, fig. 28. The same observation was made independand 8. For St.Quentin, Grodecki, 1065, fig. 117, and ently by Ayres, 1974, p. 221. Westlake, 1, 1881, Pl. xv.

THE TRANSITIONAL WINDOWS 71 So also did another far more accomplished painter The concept of grouping varied shapes in fours who had collaborated in the north oculus. around a central element is very old,’*’ BaltruSaitis compared the oculus to a page in a tenth-century

THE JESSE TREE MASTER ; . i.

tia Gospel Lectionary from Cambrai.*** Similar constructions were used in eleventh-century ivories,

In spite of an important development of style, the such as an example in the Metropolitan Museum, figures of major prophets in the north oculus (figs. New York.**® The early constructions, however, 129-131), the ancestors Boaz and Salmon (fig. 127) are usually quite irregular. Grodecki has noticed

from the clerestory over the central steps to the an almost contemporaneous appearance, in the Trinity Chapel (Window N:IX), and the two mid-twelfth century, of close-knit geometries in surviving panels from a Tree of Jesse in the co- glass and metalwork, as in the Stavelot Altar and rona (figs. 133, 134) may be attributed to the same the Chalons-sur-Marne glass; even more elabohand. This is corroborated by the use of similar or- rate was the destroyed retable from Stavelot.*” namental motifs in all three windows. Work by the Examples from the Meuse and Cologne are numerMaster of the Parable of the Sower in the north ous;**? very similar to the oculus is a piece of metoculus allows an early date for this window. The alwork in the Hermitage.*”? Once more we find other two windows were situated to the east of the Canterbury in tune with developments in this repartition of 1180, and the building dates give a ter- gion of the continent, which reflect the twelfthminus post quem of 1184 for the corona glass, which century recovery of Euclidean geometry. The en-

is the most advanced in style. tirely geometric opus Alexandrinum mosaic, which The compositions and ornament in situ in the was laid at the top of the steps from the main altar oculi of the easterly transept gables are identical. and in front of the position of Becket’s shrine in The geometric ironwork is of great interest (Ap- the Trinity Chapel, is further evidence of this prependix fig. 2). The center is encircled by an iron; occupation with the ruler and compasses (text fig. within it a canted square and inside that a square 2d); it has been compared with the north oculus are developed by a process of continuous halving, by Dudley.*** Although it has never been closely or joining the midpoints of the sides of the first dated, a complete change in the flooring of the figure; this process has been studied by Dudley.’** eastern part of the Trinity Chapel has suggested On the sides of the canted square are four semi- new contacts with the continent, and I am inclined circles. The outer ring of the composition is less to attribute these to the period after the Interobviously organized; four contiguous part-circles dict;’”° a date between 1180 and 1207 would then describe petaloid forms, with trefoils between be most probable for the opus Alexandrinum. them.** The double outlines of the petals in the Clerestory Window N:IX, on the north side of irons recall the composition of Window s:XII, sit- the Trinity Chapel, is the first to abandon comuated below the south oculus (Appendix fig. 1). pletely the use of horizontal bars that are consis-

114 Caviness, 1975. 121 A drawing was reproduced in O. von Falke and H.

115 Dudley, 1969, fig. 3e-1, pp. 26-27. Frauberger, Deutsche Schmelzarbeiten des Muttelalters, 116 Thid., fig. 7. Frankfort, 1904, Pl. 70. 117 Numerous examples from the antique period on 122 Fanns Swarzenski, “The Song of the Three Worthwere discussed and illustrated by Ellen J. Beer, “Nouvelles ies,” Bulletin of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts 56

Réflexions sur limage du monde dans la cathédrale de (1958), 47. Lausanne,” Revue de l Art 10 (1970), 57-62. 123 No, 265 in the Basilevsky collection, illus. Rosalie 118 Jurgis Baltrusaitis, Réveils et prodiges; le gothique Green, Essays in Honor of E. Panofsky (de Artibus

fantastique, Paris [1960], p. 41, fig. 2%. Opuscula 40, 1961), Pl. 55, fig. 8.

119 R. H. Randall, “An xzrth Century Ivory Pectoral 124 Dudley, 1969, figs. 7 and 8. Cross,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 125 N. E. Toke, “The Opus Alexandrinum and Sculpted

25 (1962), 159-71, fig. 2. Stone Roundels in the Retro-Choir of Canterbury Cathe-

1201. Grodecki, “A propos des Vitraux de Chalons-sur- dral,” Archaeologia Cantiana 42 (1930), 194-98; cf. CaMarne: deux points d@iconographie mosane,” L’ Art mosan, viness, 1974, p. 69. ed. Pierre Francastel, Paris, 1953, pp. 163ff.

THE TRANSITIONAL WINDOWS 72 tently found to the west of the partition; the “trans- is not alone in using the motif at Canterbury; itional” nature of Window N:X will be considered broader, heavier leaves arranged in radiating patlater. In the central axis of the window Boaz and terns make up two borders in the clerestory of the Salmon (fig. 127) were set in large circles with a southeast transept, but in these the leaves are drawn small circle between them for ornament. The bor- freehand.’ The Methuselah Master also used half der of the window is not defined by irons, and it the motif—leaves in V’s—as a delicate monochrome is interrupted by wide edging bands encircling the edging to panels in the north choir aisle (fig. 27). irons that enclose figures; a similar use of orna- The palette of the Jesse Tree Master, especially

mental edgings outside the irons occurs in the in the oculus and clerestory window, tends to a north choir aisle “triforium” windows, and in predominance of white, pink, and green,**® a reWindow n:VI of the Trinity Chapel, attributed to striction that has been noticed in much of the the Fogg Medallion Master (figs. 109, 115, 116). work of the Joanna Master and his assistants in the Although the composition is simple and conserva- clerestory of the transepts. Red is added to the tive, the use of curved irons at clerestory level is clerestory panels, in small roundels on the blue

radically new. ground. The Jesse panels are richer and more bril-

The ornamental motif favored by the Jesse Tree liant, chiefly by the addition of greater amounts of Master consists of flat serrated leaves arranged in yellow in the blossoms, and red in the ornamental radiating patterns of fours. This is used in the bands between the figures and the orb of Josiah;*** borders of the outer and inner circles of the oculi; limpid blue appears only in the Virgin’s orb, where the outer circle has pairs of white stems, but the it is outlined in yellow against the more somber, inner one has only interlocking leaves, as does the slightly greenish-blue ground. The robes of both edging around the figure panels in clerestory N:IX figures are green and purple, of somewhat different (figs. 127, 128). In spite of the great distance of shades, thus avoiding the large amounts of white these panels from the viewer, the interstices be- that are used in the prophets of the oculus and in tween the main leaves are also painted with smaller the ancestors of Christ. and more delicate quatrefoils. This dense pattern- Two of the Jesse Tree Master’s early figures (figs. ing is omitted from bands dividing the figures of 129, 131), in the oculus, adopt the energized “leap-

the Jesse Tree from one another, although they ing” pose of Noah (fig. 66), yet they are more were closer to the viewer (figs. 133, 134); this is - compact and have greater organic unity, in spite one of the indications of a later date. The straight- of the contorted position. They are more heavily bar armature of the Jesse Window has to be re- draped; the mantles twisted over the shoulder and garded as standard for that subject, and so not across the stomach assert the plasticity and unity

indicative of an early date. of the figures. Broad sweeps of drapery are set off The leaf motif is an old one; it occurred com- against more planar, decorative passages, such as monly in eleventh-century manuscripts and ivories, the skirts of Jeremiah and Daniel or the mantle of and a variant was used in the St. Albans Psalter.*** Ezechiel (figs. 129, 130, 131). Crisp, pleated edges It is also found in enamel plaques of the Klos- are only fleetingly visible; usually they are looped terneuburg Ambo,’*’ and in one lancet of the under and serve to emphasize curvatures, contributclerestory of St.-Remi.*** Its appeal in this later ing to the softer appearance of these figures comperiod may have been its geometric precision, since pared with the Methuselah Master’s work in the it was possible to draw the leaves with a compass, choir clerestory (figs. 8, 9, 12). Such thick, looped as was evidently done in the oculus and the Jesse edges are a common feature of English and contiWindow, and at St.-Remi. The Jesse Tree Master nental works from the 1170s on; the glass from 126 Pacht, Dodwell, and Wormald, 1960, pp. 98, 103, 129 Clerestory Windows S:XII and S:XIJI; in Window

Pl. 131b—d. N:XXII a single motif appears in the center at the bottom. 127 Rohrig, 1955, figs. 13, 16, 38, 40, 43. 180 Rackham, 1949, Pl. 1 (color).

128 The center lancet in the first bay on the south side. 181 Rackham, 1957, Pl. 4 (color).

THE TRANSITIONAL WINDOWS 73 Troyes and related manuscripts may be cited,” In spite of an actual reduction in size, Salmon and the kings in niello on the St. Oswald reliquary has qualities of monumentality that are closer to in Hildesheim.*** The same feature appears in the the work of the Methuselah Master than to some

Ingeborg Psalter group of the late twelfth to early of the immediately preceding figures of the tran- |

thirteenth century.’** sept clerestories, in which miniaturesque effects

A tract on the angels included in an English Bes- were noticed. The contained power of this figure tiary (Cambridge University Library, MS Kk. 4.25) is also reminiscent of the early work of Nicholas has an illustration of Tobias in which the pose and of Verdun in the Klosterneuburg ambo of 1181; strong graphic techniques are very close to the early such a figure as Jacob in the scene of benediction work of the Jesse Tree Master (fig. 132).**° The is, however, more classicizing in proportion and draftsman, perhaps working in St. Albans around organic unity.**7 On the other hand, both artists 1200,*°° demonstrates the affinity between glass evince a parallel interest in surface textures of painting and the graphic arts, one that becomes drapery, with a bold use of dark accents. A loss even clearer with the advent of prints in the fif- of breadth and power can be detected in the four teenth century. Both the Jesse Tree Master and the Apostles set in paired semicircles in a nave clereartist of the manuscript are concerned with the lin- story window of Chartres (cixvi1); this is most

ear organization of mass. Thick, certain strokes noticeable in a figure which in pose resembles outline the figures and indicate the unwieldiness of Salmon. Gesture is more elegant, the figure is more heavy mantles, while finer, more closely spaced lines compact but more attenuated, imprisoned in softly suggest the lighter fabrics of the tunic, as in Ezech- curving draperies. Stylistically, Salmon belongs beiel (fig. 130). Passages of complicated drapery folds tween the Klosterneuburg ambo and Chartres,

detach themselves from the figures to fall in the where the glazing of the nave may date from the picture plane, as between the thighs of ‘Tobias, Jer- first decade of the thirteenth century. emiah, and Daniel (figs. 132, 129, 131). The greater The Jesse Tree in the corona is the Master’s last elegance of some passages in the drawings, how- work. His hand is recognizable in the handling

ever, suggests that they are later. of draperies, especially in the characteristic folds The two clerestory figures, which may be iden- between the thighs (figs. 133, 134). The most striktified as Boaz and Salmon from Window N:IX ing change is in the calm frontal pose of the figdisplay similar drapery passages. Because of the ures, to some extent demanded by tradition. The large scale, lead-lines are now ingeniously used to symmetrical pose of the figures, with both hands outline curving folds. The poses, slightly more re- grasping the tree, the way in which they function laxed, are sprawling, as if to fill the circles of the as columnar statues in relation to the trunk, and ironwork; the provenance is proved by the way the disposition of the large ornamental blossoms, in which the hands and feet have either been cut follow very closely the tradition of St.-Denis and off or altered to accommodate the figures to their Chartres, which had already been reflected in the present oval frames; curving lead-lines below Sal- York glass of ca. 1170."°° The composition appears mon’s hem and above his left arm, which fall on quite archaic beside the French windows and manthe same circle, originally echoed the circular edg- uscript pages of the late twelfth to early thirteenth

ing line (fig. 127). century, as in the Ingeborg Psalter and related 182 Grodecki, 1963, Pls. xLvi1, XLVvItt. 1386 The drawings have been considered close to Mat-

133 Swarzenski, 1967, fig. 484. thew Paris in style. They have frequently been dated early 184 For example, London, British Library, Add. MS in the thirteenth century; Swarzenski, 1967, fig. 545, p. 84; 15452; Deuchler, 1967, Pls. 11, tur and passim; The Year Rickert, 1965, p. 108; Brieger, 1957, pp. 149-50, Pl. 50;

1200 I, No, 251, 252. D. H. Turner, The Year 1200 11, Pls. 188-89.

135 4 Catalogue of the Manuscripts Preserved in the 137 Rohrig, 1955, Pl. 38. Library of the University of Cambridge, edited for the 138 Caviness, 1975, pp. 375-376, figs. 6 and 7. Syndics of the University Press, 111, Cambridge, 1858, no. 2040, 670-73.

THE TRANSITIONAL WINDOWS 74 Bible in the British Library, Add. MS 15452, or the ity of structure and quiet outline typical of the Psalter of Blanche of Castile, Paris, Bibliothéque Jesse designs. His symmetrically extended arms de l’Arsenal, MS 1186.**? In the thirteenth-century mimic the Jesse Tree figures, the wide sleeves of windows of Troyes, Soissons, and St.-Germain- his purple robe falling in evenly looped folds, as lés-Corbeil, as in the manuscripts, more fluid but in the Virgin. As with the two surviving Cantermeager rinceaux replace the great blossoms, and bury figures, his mantle is green. Red is used in the design is more unified.**° Of this group only the orb, as in Josiah’s, and the flanking angels in the earliest example, the Ingeborg Psalter, has fig- green and hot yellow take on the decorative brilures that are clearly structured, with well-defined liance of the blossoms of the tree. Comparison with

volumes underlying the drapery. the Christ in Majesty from the summit of the Very close relations observable between the style Prodigal Son Window in Chartres suggests that of the Jesse Tree Master and the sculpture and the style of Sens represents an earlier phase (fig. glass of Sens Cathedral will have to be considered 195). The Chartres figure is more “Gothic,” with more fully in connection with other painters. Else- articulation of the human form masked by envelwhere I have drawn attention to the similarity that oping, decoratively arranged draperies.

exists between the seated figures of the Liberal Earlier continental parallels for the Jesse Tree Arts of the central portal of Sens, generally dated figures exist at St.-Remi of Rheims, as comparison

in the 1190s or close to 1200, and the Jesse Tree of the Virgin with Hosea indicates (figs. 133, figures.'** In both series the knees form a broad 83)..** The classicizing style of St-Remi, if it platform from which the torso is built up, the belongs to the 1180s, is rather an isolated phenomrotund stomach clearly outlined, and the upper enon in France. The very assured style of the clerepart of the body squared off by the firm line of story figures, in which there is none of the conthe belt. This structural precision is only partially stant experimentation found at Canterbury, 1s masked by mantles that weave around the figures. quite obscure in its origins. Far more certain is the Some of the sculpted figures, however, adopt more presence in England of a “new style” by 1195;**° restless poses comparable to that of Salmon.*** The the Great Seal, of which the matrix was made for origins of this classicizing style at Sens remain Richard I in London in that year, was put into use obscure; it does not seem to grow logically out of in 1198, when it was attached to documents sent the earlier portal of St. John, and Sauerlander has to Canterbury.*** The figure of Josiah is so close to suggested the resolution of this problem may be the representation of Richard on the seal that this

bound up with the sources for the glass of the could conceivably have been the model that in-

ambulatory.**° spired the Jesse Tree Master (figs. 134, 136). Wheth-

The painting of Christ in Majesty at the summit er there was in some sense a “court style,” formed of the Becket Window at Sens seems directly re- as Gauthier has suggested by “le godt Plantagelated to the designs for the Canterbury Jesse Tree, nét,” or whether it was rather the product of the

and may even be a replica of the lost Christ from great Benedictine houses—St.Remi, Christ the corona (figs. 135, 137). Seated, like the Virgin, Church, Westminster—is not easily resolved on on an orb edged with gold, the figure has the clar- the basis of surviving material.**’ At about the

139 For the first two, Deuchler, 1967, figs. 18, 170; for 144 Caviness, 1975, p. 379. .

the Arsenal Psalter, Caviness, 1975, fig. 5. 145 Boase, 1953, p. 275; Saxl, 1954, pp. 20-21; Ayres, 140 For Troyes, Lafond, 1955, pp. 32, 42-43; illus. West- 1969, pp. 50-54. lake 1, 1881, Pl. xtvb; for Soissons, Vitrail, fig. 92, p. 1233 146 W. de Gray Birch, British Museum: Catalogue of for St.-Germain, Musée du Louvre, L’Europe gothique, Seals in the Department of Manuscripts, 1, London, 1887,

Paris, 1968, no. 195, p. 117, fig. 62. nos. 87-go, 14; Poole, 1955, p. 373, n. 6; Lionel Landon, 141 Caviness, 1975, p. 379, fig. 18. The Itinerary of Richard I (Pipe Roll Society i1 N.S. 13)

142 Sauerlander, 1966, figs. 69, 52. London, 1935, pp. 178, 183.

143 Sauerlander, 1970, p. 40. 147 M. M. Gauthier, “Le Gout plantagenét,” Stl und

THE TRANSITIONAL WINDOWS 75 same time, the Westminster Psalter paintings show since it provides groupings of four types around © a variant of this serene, classicizing style,*** and at each antitype, while giving greater importance to Canterbury the way was prepared by the Methu- three of the five central scenes, the Crucifixion,

selah Master. Resurrection, and Pentecost (Appendix fig. 20). In A date soon after 1198, which seems most prob- view of the versatility in armature design docuable for the Jesse Window, would allow the possi- mented throughout the typological windows at bility that the Master’s earlier style evolved over Canterbury, it is not necessary to suppose that the the previous ten to twenty years; he may have be- corona east window depends directly on the Chargun work on the oculus before 1180, which would train compositions. explain his collaboration with the more archaic In color the east window resembles others of the

Master of the Parable of the Sower. middle group. Limpid blue is sparingly used in the ornament; the blues are otherwise slightly greenish and heavily patinated. Red forms the

THE MASTER OF THE REDEMPTION . background to the rinceaux, while the figures are

WANDOW AND BIS ASSISTANTS less brilliant, with much white, purple, and green Many features of the east window of the corona in the draperies. The palette differs from that of follow the postulates of more westerly windows in the Fogg Medallion Master only in the absence of the early and middle groups, but, as already ob- - very pale blues in the figures, but this is compenserved in the work of the Joanna Master and sated by an equally delicate shade of green in the Jesse Master, there is also evidence of a rapproche- landscapes. The rinceaux are of a type quite difment with continental works. The composition ferent from his composite blossoms; both the ornatakes up one of the earlier experiments with the ment and the figure compositions show a direct composite quatrefoil; as in Window s:VIII on the dependence on the Methuselah Master. south side of the presbytery, the ordinary and The rinceaux present only a slight modification canted square are used in alternation in the central of the naturalistic leafy bunches of north choir aisle axis (Appendix figs. 1, 2). Whereas, however, the Window n:XIV (figs. 179, 182). The small leaves ordinary squares have semicircles on the sides, the are still delicate and fleshy, but they are less highly

canted squares are flanked by four small circular differentiated; leaves and stems spread out with compositions delineated by white stems in the in- no intertwining and less overlapping, as if they had termediate panels of ornament, without the use of been carefully separated and pressed between the encircling irons; a parallel is in the St. Eustace pages of a book. This trend to simplification, and Window in Chartres (Appendix fig. 3).2*° At eventually to hardening and impoverishment, will Chartres, also, the composite quatrefoil is the main be followed more closely in the context of the glass component of a Redemption Window similar to of Sens and the easternmost windows of the Trinthe Canterbury one, but as in a much earlier exam- ity Chapel. It corresponds with developments in ple of the compositional type at St.-Denis, the iron- the sculpted capitals and bosses of the choir and work is rectilinear with semicircles inscribed.1*° Trinity Chapel. In the choir capitals palmettes are The more varied Canterbury solution is one excep- introduced but they are stiff and highly stylized. tionally well suited to the meaning of the window, There was, as Newman has remarked, a gradual iiberlieferung in der Kunst des Abendlandes 1 (Akten Pp. 92-93; Turner, The Year 1200 11, 135-36, figs. 177des 21. Internationalen Kongresses fiir Kunstgeschichte in 79; Grodecki, 1963, p. 131.

Bonn, 1964) Berlin, 1967, 142. 149 Grodecki, 1965, pp. 172ff.

‘48 London, British Library, Royal MS 2 A xxii, gen- 150 For St.-Denis, see Grodecki, 1961b, fig. 13. The erally associated with the St. Albans scriptorium. See Chartres window is on the north side of the nave, WinE. G. Millar, English Mluminated Manuscripts from the dow LIX, Delaporte and Houvet, 1926, pp. 383-91, Pls. Xth to the XIllth Centuries, London, 1926, Pls. 62-63, CLIV—-CLVII. pp. 90-91; Boase, 1953, pp. 284-87, PI. 85b; Rickert, 1965,

THE TRANSITIONAL WINDOWS 76 loosening of the vegetal forms in the capitals as Pentecost descend from the Godhead represented the building progressed east;*** the last two pairs in the panel above (fig. 137). In Noah’s Ark, which in the Trinity Chapel have delicate and vital leafy was perhaps based on the same scene by the Mescrolls, with numerous leaves somewhat resem- thuselah Master in the north choir aisle, a signifbling oak arranged rather freely so that they over- cant modification is seen in the way forms break lap (fig. 180). They are very nearly identical to out of the edging at the top in one of the few unthe rinceaux of the choir and the corona east win- disturbed areas of this heavily restored panel (figs. dow. The capitals must be dated about 1182; in 143, 144). view of the gradual and consistent development Another scene taken over from the choir aisle from the choir capitals, sculpting long apres la is Moses and Jethro; it is freely copied, without the

pose is highly unlikely. The only feature that use of the same cartoon (figs. 137, 139). The seems archaic by comparison with the corona glass change of style is slight but significant. There is is the beaded stem, which does not appear in the less area of ground, resulting in more crowding glass after north choir aisle Window n:XV and and less clarity. The tightly constrained figure of some of the “triforium” ornament. On the other Jethro from the earlier window is animated by a hand, a date for the glass close to 1184, when the swinging mantle, which also serves as a space filler. corona was nearing completion, seems rather early There is a reduction in plasticity, especially in the in view of the economical border and certain as- handling of the drapery over the thigh. The dif-

pects of the figure style. ferent appearance of the corona designs cannot

As with the rinceaux, some of the figure com- therefore be imputed entirely to different models. positions from the third typological window were Loss of clarity in composition and in individual taken over and modified in the corona east win- articulation is also clear from a comparison of dow. These modifications document a trend away Christ among the Doctors with the similarly comfrom the distilled clarity of the Methuselah Master posed scene of Pentecost. and towards a more agitated and dramatic repre- The figures in the corona east window are anisentation of events. The Ascent of Enoch, like the mated but also stereotyped. Frequently they assume Calling of Nathanael by the Master of the Public a pose of half-kneeling or leaping, the legs in the life of Christ, is represented in two episodes as same position in both (figs. 137, 201). Hemlines continuous narrative. Some of the types are bal- are agitated and mantles swirl up in a variety of anced against each other in pairs, as for instance floating drapery patterns. All these basic elements the Ascent of Enoch with the Ascent of Elijah, of design suggest that a single master planned the the Consecration of Aaron and His Sons with whole window. In some cases the Methuselah MasMoses and Jethro, and Moses Striking the Rock ter provided him with a point of departure, but with the Signum Tau (fig. 137), but the visual his work also reflects the pictorial richness of the similarity of types to antitypes is not great and Master of the Public Life of Christ and the movemany of the scenes have a direct narrative import ment suggested by the Master of the Parable of the that belies the anagogical inscriptions. The “dis- Sower. His innovations are in the adoption of a appearing Christ” bears only a conceptual resem- very limited repertory of poses and a compression

blance to Enoch or Elijah. of pictorial space. The rocky hill from which Moses

Extension of space beyond the picture frame, so strikes water, for instance, rises vertically in the evident in the Ascension, is carried even further in plane of the window, instead of receding in layers the summit of the window, where the flames of to a distant skyline as in the Sower (figs. 204, 89). 151John Newman, North East and East Kent (The as a sudden importation, perhaps by English William. Buildings of England, ed. N. Pevsner), Harmondsworth, 152 The early date is supported by comparison with a 1969, pp. 174-75, figs. 27 and 28; cf. Cave, 1935, p. 46, who boss in the Madeleine at Vézelay, dated by Sauerlander saw the naturalistic foliage of the Trinity Chapel bosses (1966, Pl. 4, pp. 16-17) about 1180-1190.

THE TRANSITIONAL WINDOWS 77 Analysis of the painting styles is hampered by a loss of vigor in the pupil’s figures (figs. 105, 204). the very large number of restored heads in this On the other hand, he developed shorthand schewindow. The draperies are characterized by man- mata for draperies that were reiterated in the eastnerisms that suggest the execution was divided ernmost windows of the Trinity Chapel, and that between at least two painters. One may be called there became a salient feature of the new Gothic the Crumpled Silk Painter, for his painstaking style. Figures in profile wear deeply bloused tunics representation of bulky naturalistic folds. These masking the belt almost entirely; these are deare generally, as in the Pentecost, swept aside, so scribed by regular loops radiating from a point just that they do not altogether mask the articulation of behind the shoulder, which tend to flatten the the limbs, yet the eye dwells on the rich draperies torso, arm, and shoulder (figs. 205, 206). The legs rather than on the human forms (fig. 137). This are delineated by means of V-folds and the knees interest in the complex behavior of materials is are clearly indicated, often appearing bony and part of a broader stylistic phenomenon, as already prominent. The brushwork is at times very broad observed in the Jesse Master’s work. The Pentecost and sweeping, lacking the finesse of the Crumpled figures, with their quick rhythms of crumpled dra- Silk Painter. In this, it breaks away from the minipery, compare well with a group of Apostles in the aturesque effects that had been exploited by other Ingeborg Psalter by the older master.*** There is painters of the middle group. one trait, however, which is oddly stylized. In the Ascent of Enoch the ends of his mantle are swept up into a tight shell-like motif, a static and hori- THE PETRONELLA MASTER

zontal form that is common in English art of the This artist is the most miniaturesque of all the twelfth century; it occurs with regularity in the Canterbury glass painters, and also the most Dover Bible and occasionally in the Great Canter- French-looking. He provided Window n:IV in the

bury Psalter in Paris.*** Trinity Chapel, much of n:III, and the figures of The other hand I identify as the Fitz-Eisulf Amminadab and Nahshon for clerestory N:X, Master, whose mature work is in the Trinity Chap- which is over the steps to the Trinity Chapel, imel. His style is generally much less archaic than mediately to the east of the 1180 partition (plan).

that of the Crumpled Silk Painter, although some All are on the north side, but the ironwork in aspects derive frcm the Master of the Parable of Trinity Chapel s:III and IV matches n:III and IV, the Sower. In the Sundial of Hezekiah, and in the which face them, and there is a strong probability skirt of Moses Striking the Rock, drapery folds are that these were glazed by the same team.*”* The large and heavy, the material frozen into writhing master is named for the scenes dealing with the pleats. A relation to the Sower on Stony Ground cure of Petronella, an epileptic nun (Col. Pl. mz). is evident, but the swirling motion has been ar- It is problematic whether he should be included rested (figs. 89, 137). These hard pleats appeared in the middle period, or attached to the late phase; already in the Life of St. Martin in the northeast many aspects of his work are conservative, how-

transept chapel dedicated to the Saint, judging ever, and it is only the design and some of the from the sole surviving fragment;*”* this increases ornament in Window ni:lIII that suggest he may the probability that the younger painter was a have collaborated with the Fitz-Eisulf Master. The direct follower of the Master of the Parable of the armature design for clerestory N:X is a tentative Sower, who provided two or three windows in the and very slight departure from the straight-bar same transept. Comparison of the Moses in the type that prevailed to the west; the horizontals are oculus with Moses Striking the Rock demonstrates still firmly drawn across the figures, and only the

153 Deuchler, 1967, fig. 34. 156 None of the glass now in Window s:IV is in situ; 154 Boase, 1953, Pls. 56c, 57a; Psautier, Pls. xviii, xx, Caviness, 1967, p. I13. 155 Rackham, 1949, Pl. 31b (skirt of St. Martin’s tunic).

THE TRANSITIONAL WINDOWS 78 vertical bars, which before would have marked off Window n:III in the Trinity Chapel. Bosses in the border, are bowed out into a series of undula- Lincoln Cathedral are remarkably similar in detions, so that the elbows and knees of the figures sign, though with fewer leaves.**® in each case are comfortably framed in part of an In spite of the harsh coloring and bold design ellipse (figs. 151, 152). This is the only “transi- of the border, and the use of red edging bands tional” armature in the Trinity Chapel clerestory; round the figure compositions, the predominant the others provide pairs of clearly described geo- aspect of Window n:IV is subtle, delicate, and metric shapes with a marked reduction in scale of highly wrought. The master characteristically modthe figures. Chronologically this tentative step ified the blue grounds to his figures, in the clereshould come before the fully evolved new type story by the addition of red roundels, in the lower that appeared in the next window, N:IX; this was window by a thin grey wash in which tendrils are painted by the Jesse Tree Master, and has been picked out. Against this soft blue the delicate placed as early as the 1180s to 1190s on stylistic shades of the draperies are better seen—pale pinks, grounds. The Petronella Master may have been ac- mid- or acid green, white, some cool yellow, and tive then, too, although he worked in quite a dif- little red. Petronella wears a pale green tunic over

ferent idiom. a long bluish-white robe; these subtle colors are

No ornament from the clerestory window has barely seen from a distance (Col. Pl. m1). been identified, but the Trinity Chapel windows The Petronella Master had a tendency to decoare quite complete in this respect. Window n:IV rate every surface, not only the grounds; he added is very conservative in composition, consisting of marble graining to the tomb of Becket and the two tiers of roundels inscribed in irons that are throne of Nahshon, a lozenge pattern to the tomb predominantly vertical and horizontal, but that top and to the throne of Amminadab, and palcircle small ornamental bosses between the figure mette ornament to architraves. The clerestory figsubjects. The border is of the sideways-growing ures have robes decorated with bands of blue, yelvariety favored by the Fogg Medallion Master, but low, or green, which, far from emphasizing the the plant forms are richer and more varied than three-dimensionality of the figures, as they did in his; it somewhat resembles the border now in the the Methuselah Master’s work, appear as elegant crypt, which I conjecture came from the choir surface decoration (figs. 151, 152, 8). clerestory (figs. 3, 172), but closer parallels are on The architectural settings likewise have no spathe continent, especially examples formerly at Sois- _ tial existence; they are reduced to exquisitely orsons. Other examples can be cited in St.-Quentin, dered, symmetrical aediculae, generally no more Chalons-sur-Marne, and St.-Remi of Rheims, al- than an arch and lintel over four slender columns,

though the latter—in the clerestory—is much with the inscription frequently placed in the cordrier.°’ The border is the most brilliantly colored nice (fig. 159); in the outdoor scene with Petroelement in window n:IV, with sharp accents of nella the inscription alone forms an arch between green and yellow against the red and blue ground two doorways (Col. Pl. m1). The way in which areas. The ornamental bosses are delicate in color- the aediculae function within the circular medaling and drawing, with fragile heads of pink and lions brings to mind early Byzantine metalwork, green foliage on a soft blue ground centered on a notably the Missorium of Emperor Theodosius of pale blue quatrefoil; this plant type had already A.D. 388 or the sixth-century Cyprus treasure.’°? The

appeared in the border of clerestory Window even spacing of columns recalls canon tables; the S:XIV, and it is used again in the rinceaux of use of structures resembling canon tables to frame 157 One ancient panel is preserved in the first lancet of la Historia, see Volbach, 1961, p. 24, Pl. 53. For the Cyprus

the first bay from the west, on the south side. treasure, divided between the Metropolitan Museum, New

158 Day, 1913, fig. 10, cf. fig. 14. York, and Nicosia, see zzd., p. 41. 159 For the Missorium in the Madrid Real Academia de

THE TRANSITIONAL WINDOWS 79 scenes seems to occur in South Italian manuscripts over the knees, and hangs in finely looped folds early in the thirteenth century.’®° A more probable behind the thighs (Col. Pl. m1). The figures, alderivation for the Canterbury aediculae is St. Augus- ready slender in outline, appear extremely fragile tine’s Gospels, a sixth-century Roman book pre- and even gaunt from the light handling of paint. served in Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS There is no reduction of folds to a bold, linear de286, in which the portrait of St. Luke and scenes sign, as in the work of the Fitz-Eisulf Master. The from his gospel are framed by four columns with clerestory figures are equally exquisite and refined, lintel and arch; an inscription is placed in the cor- soft draperies clinging to their narrow shoulders nice and there is much embellishment of the archi- and gaunt limbs; quite remarkable is the way in tecture with ornament and marbling (fig. 161) ;*®" which Nahshon’s mantle settles into tiny rucks the book was in the library of St. Augustine’s dur- around his neck (fig. 152). The figures are quietly ing the Middle Ages, and the restrained quality of outlined, with none of the contained power of the its decoration may have had great appeal to the choir figures or the uncouthness of the transept deglass painters during the antiguisant phase of their signs. The whole aspect is one of elegance and art;"** the flat, ornamental quality of this aedicula composure. was readily adopted by the Gothic artist in prefer- Recognition of these figures as perfectly preence to the sturdy three-dimensional structures that served examples of this very distinctive Master’s

the Methuselah Master culled from the Utrecht work has great importance for an understanding

Psalter tradition. of Canterbury’s relation to the continent in this The aediculae are a backdrop to dramas enacted period.*®* They are the only figures preserved from in a shallow space, which is generally closed off by the clerestory that suggest a complete rapprochethe tomb in the right foreground. Slender figures ment with the St.Remi choir clerestory figures. seem to dance across this stage, the direction of They confirm my earlier conclusion that the aumovement tending to converge on the center. They thor of Window n:IV was a French artist, or one are represented in a great variety of postures; ex- such as the architect, English William, who was pressive gestures and swirling draperies add to the profoundly influenced by developments in the redrama, and a variety of facial types and expres- gion of northeast France.*** sions is suggested. ‘There is a marked contrast be- The affinities between the St.-Remi figures and tween these tiny, lithe figures and the more stiff, Nahshon and Amminadab are manifold (figs. 83, impassive and large figures by the Fogg Medallion 154, 151, 152). They have the same serene aspect,

Master in the neighboring window to the west with a degree of ponderation. They adopt similar

(figs. 159, 120). poses, with their feet firmly planted on the same

The figures in Window n:IV are very delicately level and the hands grasping a scroll or the folds painted, with little use of back-painting except in of their garments. The draperies fall softly in catethe broadest shading of draperies. These are light nary folds and elegant loops, and are ornamented and clinging, with varied and subtle modeling and with many-colored trimmings. The rather more a minuteness in the strokes similar to some pas- slender proportions of the Petronella Master’s fig-

sages by the Methuselah Master (fig. 55). The ures may also reflect a similar tendency in the group of nuns around Petronella have skirts in Crucifixion, and it is tempting to claim that the which the material is caught up into tiny rucks Petronella Master must have seen the glazing of *8° For example, a Sicilian medical manuscript, illus. 163 No photographs of them seem to have existed before Theodore Meyer-Steineg and Karl Sudhoff, Geschichte 1971. Perhaps their authenticity had been in doubt, as the der Medizin im Uberblick mit Abbildungen, Jena, 1921, exterior surface of the glass is relatively little pitted or

fig. 95. patinated.

161 Wormald, 1954, Pl. 1. 164 Caviness, 1970, p. I00. *62'The importance of models of this period was

stressed by Kitzinger, 1966a, p. 41.

THE TRANSITIONAL WINDOWS 80 St.-Remi as it was nearing its completion. Why columns are in all cases lacking, however, and the he modified the armature design from this proto- sense of surface design is not as developed as at type is not yet explained, but it could have been Canterbury. In spite of a more robust canon of

an afterthought. proportion in the Parisian figures, comparison

Lafond has already suggested a Parisian deriva- may be made with the Petronella Master in the tion for the diapered blue ground in Window n:IV sensitive handling of draperies, resulting in the of the Trinity Chapel ambulatory.*®® This decora- proliferation of minute folds and loops, as behind tive technique was used at Le Champ about 1160, the thighs, and a subtle use of half-tones. On the Troyes about 1170, Notre-Dame of Paris about other hand, this sensitivity is not prevalent in the 1180, Lincoln about 1200, and Strasbourg about northeast of France, whereas Ayres has pointed 1200 and later.’®° The technique was also known out that it was present in some English work early at Bourges.’®’ Examples in Denmark and in the in the 1190s; the Crucifixion miniature in the church of the Pantocrator in Istanbul may be im- Bodleian Library, MS Tanner 169, published by puted to German influences,**® and Grodecki’s him, provides certain afhnities with the Notreclaim that it is essentially a Rhenish, Mosan, and Dame glass.*”? English feature remains valid.**° Comparable de- Even closer than the Notre-Dame fragments are signs appear also in some northern French manu- the two windows with a life of St. Peter in the

scripts.’7° Lady Chapel of Troyes Cathedral, which have

Comparison with the Parisian glass—late been described in the previous chapter. The medaltwelfth-century panels with scenes from the life of lions have triple edgings of red, white bead, and St. Matthew that have been incorporated at some blue with a schematized cufic motif. Gestures are time into the south rose window of Notre-Dame— dramatically silhouetted between groups of figures, demonstrates other affinities with the Petronella and architectural setting is reduced to a minimum. Master (fig. 156, Col. Pl. 111). In the Notre-Dame The figures are more attenuated than the earlier panels, curved inscriptions are used above the fig- ones from Notre-Dame, and minutely painted draures and in one instance this curved band func- peries tend to flatten the limbs; skirts are blown tions as an arch on which is supported a super- back to create an effect of movement, and mantles

structure of turrets and roofs.’”* Supporting cling round the shoulders. The colors of the dra165 Lafond, 1946, p. 153. For the technique see Jean three panels with donors, but they were already “disLafond, Trots Etudes sur la technique du vitrail, Rouen, persés.” 1943, p- 25; Jean-Jacques Gruber, in Vztrail, p. 65, who 168 Corpus, Scandinavia 1, pp. 164, 170, Pls. 1, 31, 32, cited the twelfth-century treatise of Theophilus; Frodl- IV, 393; pp. 302-303, Pl. 13g. The Pantocrator fragments Kraft, 1970, pp. 39-40. The scrollwork of these grounds were first published by A.H.S. Megaw, “Notes on Recent is in reserve against a grey wash, which lends a deeper Work of the Byzantine Institute in Istanbul,” Dumbarton tone to the blue; in painting, the whole piece of glass was Oaks Papers 17 (1963), 333-71, who dated them ca. 1130. covered with grisaille, the design being then drawn with Cf. Jean Lafond, “Découverte de vitraux historiés du a blunt instrument before the paint was fired. The same moyen age 4 Constantinople,” Cahters archéologiques 18 technique was used in most of the Canterbury inscriptions. (1968), 231-38 (1204-1261), and Frodl-Kraft, 1970, pp. 166 Te Champ (Isére), Vitrail, Pl. x1. I am grateful to 27-28. Mrs. Ernest Brummer of New York for allowing me to 169 Review of Megaw, Bulletin Monumental 123 (1965), see the Troyes pieces in her late husband’s collection, the 84. most important of which were exhibited in New York 170 As a background to lettering or in a framing band; in 1968 (Medieval Art, no. 182, illus.). Another Brummer e.g., Paris, Bibliothéque Nationale, MS Lat. 11535, ff-74, piece with diaper ground is in the Wellesley College Art 144, 166v, and the Bible of St. André-au-Bois, Boulogne, Museum, no. 1949.19. For Notre-Dame see Corpus, France Bibliothéque Municipale, MS 2, illus. Rosy Schilling, “The

1, Pl. 9, G17. For Strasbourg, see Ahnne and Beyer, 1960, Decretum Gratiani formerly in the C. W. Dyson Perrins Pls. 1 and 2, dated after 1190 and between 1235 and 1240 Collection,” Journal of the British Archaeological Assoc.

respectively (p. 16). Other Rhenish examples are in 3rd series 26 (1963), Pl. 1. Wentzel, 1954, Pls. 18, 22, 25, 36. For Lincoln see Lafond, 171 Jus. Vetrail, fig. 76.

1946, Pl. xxu, pp. 153-54 and n. 89. 172 Ayres, 1969, fig. 5a, pp. 47-48. 167 Cahier and Martin, 1841, Pl. xvis-c, illustrated

THE TRANSITIONAL WINDOWS 81 peries are two tones of green, with white, hot yel- in its composition, border design, and some of the low, or very pale blue; less often a brownish-purple _ figure painting, seems to betray the influence of is used. Red is employed sparingly in architectural the Fitz-Eisulf Master, although the designing and settings and details of costume. But for the hotter delicate coloring must be attributed to the Petro-

tone of the yellow, this is the palette of the Petro- nella Master. The mature work of the Fitz-Eisulf | nella Master, and the details of figure drawing are Master is so closely connected with the Sens glazalso extremely close to his work (figs. 155, 159). ing that a fuller discussion of Window n:III will Unfortunately the provenance of a panel of glass be in order later.

that might have direct bearing on the training of The relation of the Petronella Master to manuthe Petronella Master cannot be established; this is script painting on both sides of the Channel is the tiny figure of Synagogue, now in a private col- equally ambivalent. The author portrait in a Beslection in America, which came there with the tiary in Cambridge; University Library, MS I1.4.26, alleged provenance of St-Remi (fig. 157).*7* De- seems a mannered variant of his elegant style, with spite Grodecki’s claim that it is English,’’* I can an extreme sensitivity to complex drapery folds

find no place for it on the English side of the and resulting fragility and elongation of form; it Channel—except at Canterbury, and there it does has been dated late in the twelfth century.*”* The . not fit any of the armatures. The ornament, rather portrait is framed by slender columns, and has an meager and dry, is close to that of the east window exuberance of sculpted decoration in the capitals of Orbais Abbey Church, near Rheims. The figure and lectern that are readily paralleled in Window is only slightly less sensitive in handling than n:III of the Trinity Chapel (fig. 164). The prolifPetronella, and the use of green and cool yellow in eration of folds in the lower hem of the garment the draperies, of a red edging band round the suggests a date later than the Petronella Master. figure, and of a pale blue edging with palmette This tendency is also present in the prefatory pages design around the missing larger panels, would be to a Psalter of Augustinian use, Cambridge Trinity

in keeping with the Master’s work. College, MS B.11.4, in which the translation of Once more the sculpture of Sens is relevant to Becket occurs in the calendar, thus dating it after the discussion. Whereas the robust figures of the 1220.°"" Tall, wiry figures are partially enveloped Jesse Tree Master draw close to the Liberal Arts in fluttering draperies, and their tense movements of the central portal at Sens, the expressive style are very close in feeling to the twisting figures in of the Petronella Master has affinities with the Window n:Ill (figs. 167, 168). In English manuarchivolt reliefs of the slightly earlier portal of St. scripts this rather exaggerated figure style was proJohn, which Sauerlander dates between 1184 and longed to an extreme phase in the middle of the 1200 (figs. 162, 163).*”° In the scenes illustrated, the thirteenth century, as in the books associated with

coverlet clings and swirls over the reclining figures, Salisbury, such as the Chichester Missal.* The clearly outlining their legs and the edge of the bed, =~ ~—Petronella Master’s figures are quite free of the without any monumental simplification. Paradoxi- extravagance and nervousness even of the Psalter

cally, the glass in the ambulatory at Sens is more in Cambridge. In view of the precocious trend of harshly painted than either Window n:IV or n:III the Tanner manuscript of 1192-93 and the relaat Canterbury. On the other hand, Window n:II, tionship to French works of the 1180s to 1190s, a 173 Formerly with Demotte in New York, see Catalogue 176 Boase, 1953, pp. 287-88, 295, Pl. 53b.

of an Exhibition of Stained Glass, New York, [1928], no. 177M, R. James, The Western Manuscripts in the La6. I am grateful to David DuBon of the Philadelphia brary of Trinity College, Cambridge, 1 (1900), pp. 331-373 Museum of Art for helping me locate this panel. It was Brieger, 1957, pp. 92-94, Pl. 23b: Rickert, 1965, pp. 98-99. later exhibited in New York, Medieval Art, no. 190, with 178 Manchester, John Rylands Library, MS Lat. R. 24.

a suggested provenance of Sens. See Hollaender, 1942-1944, pp. 232-38, Pls. 1-v; Rickert,

175 Sauerlander, 1970, pp. 99-102. 174 Verbal communication, 1970. 1965, pp. 106-107, Pl. 108.

THE TRANSITIONAL WINDOWS 82 date well before 1220 must be proposed for his greens with yellow and pale blues and pinks are

work. identical to those of the Petronella Master. The

Mannerisms are also present in the “Psalter of illustrations are closely related in iconography to Blanche of Castile,” traditionally dated 1200- those in the Manerius Bible, Paris, Bibliothéque 12233778 the heads are rather large, the bodies ema- Sainte-Geneviéve, MS 8-10, which was written in ciated, and there is a tendency in some drapery France by a Canterbury ‘scribe. Neither book can passages for the underlying form to disintegrate. be closely dated, but they must be ca. 1200. The clinging draperies in the Visitation, with tiny Both the internal chronology of glazing and the loops behind the thigh and trailing hems, and the dated comparisons would allow that the clerestory

stiffly uplifted ends of the mantles, are close to figures were designed in the two decades after those of the nuns in the scene with Petronella, 1180. The first design may have been modified by but the formula has become hardened (fig. 158, the addition of a curved armature under the imCol. Pl. mr). The style of the Petronella Mas- pact of the Jesse Master’s design for the neighborter, who was most probably French in training, ing window, which has been dated in the 1180s to could be developed in different directions and thus 1190s. In the 1190s one might expect the full imform the basis of the diverging French court and pact of St.-Remi to be felt in the figures; the PetroEnglish styles of about 1220. Closest to his style is nella Master was evidently aware of the latest a Bible in two volumes, Paris, Bibliothéque Nation- developments there. The conservative nature of ale, MS Lat. 11535-34, now attributed to Cham- Window n:IV in the Trinity Chapel would allow

pagne or the Ile-de-France, but once associated a date in the same period; the exile of 1207 may with Canterbury.**° The drawing and coloring of be accepted as the terminus ante quem, as for the the miniatures is delicate, the figures are elongate work of the Jesse Master. Reasons for placing the and at times sensitive. The palette of this minia- later work of the Petronella Master—in Window turist differs from the glass painter in the use of n:IJI and another clerestory window—after the orange and buff, but his subtle combinations of exile will be considered in the following chapter. 179 Paris, Bibliothéque de l’Arsenal, MS 1186; for the 180 The Year 1200 1, no. 246, 247-48, with bibliography. date, Henry Martin, Les Joyaux de [Arsenal I: Psautier The association with Canterbury was made by Ellen Beer, de Saint Louis et de Blanche de Castille, Paris, [1909], Corpus, Switzerland, 1, 51-52, figs. 17, 18. p. Il.

eee V. The Gothic Windows: Sens, Canterbury, and Chartres

“et, licet nos non ediderit una civitas, patriam In spire oF the historical fact of the exile of the famen nobis unum esse non ambigit, qui patri- Christ Church community in 1207-1213, there is

am fortium, quae nobis individua est et quam . _ ostendit Carmentis, reducit ad mentem.” no evidence for a complete break in the glazing of John of Salisbury? the eastern. part of the church; the Master whose

style dominates the rest of the surviving Trinity Chapel ambulatory windows (n and s:IJ, and s:VI and VII) had already participated in the glazing of the east window of the corona. He is named for

the series of scenes in Window n:II relating events in the household of Jordan Fitz-Eisulf (fig. 197).

| There is confirmation in Window s:VII that he was a pupil of the Master of the Parable of the Sower, and thus within the Canterbury tradition. It cannot be said, then, that French glaziers were recruited during the exile and that they brought the Gothic style to Canterbury. On the other hand, the easternmost windows on the north and south >

sides (n and s:II) show significant changes in composition, especially in the role of ornament, and a complete mastery of the new style. These windows have much in common with those of the French Gothic cathedrals—Bourges, Rouen, Chartres—in the intensity of colors, combining somber and brilliant effects. They also achieve unity of design by the principle of subdivision, as compared to the additive designs of an earlier phase; and ornament is subordinated to the historiated scenes. Both ornament and figure scenes are reduced to essentials, the ornament frequently 1 Paraphrased by R. L. Poole, Studies in Chronology and History, Oxford, 1934, p. 297. The reference to Car-

mentis is from Ovid’s Fasti, i, 493. “And, although the same city did not give us birth, nevertheless one who calls to mind the native country of the brave, which is indivisible so far as we are concerned and which Carmentis mentions, does not doubt that we have the same native

country.” I am indebted to Professor Janet Martin of Princeton for the translation.

THE GOTHIC WINDOWS 84 sacrificed in naturalistic quality in order to fill the Methuselah Master’s exploration of the physical

ground and to harmonize in color. In the same world and in the exegesis of the Bible; here the way naturalistic detail is suppressed in the scenes dim lighting heightens the awareness of the brilin favor of a more generalized representation; fig- liance of chromatic effects, but at the same time ures, draperies, and landscape are abstractly treated analytic visual experience is replaced by a series of and kept in the plane of the window. The result vivid impressions.” It is almost impossible to stand is an extremely effective dramatic mode, in which still and analyze the Trinity Chapel windows in movement and gesture are silhouetted against the detail, so strong is the total impact of vibrant color blue grounds, but in which everything is subor- and movement apprehended in shifting, diagonal dinated ultimately to the unity of the Gothic build- views. For many of the pilgrims, as they moved ing. The viewer’s experience in the Trinity Chapel past the shrine, their mystical experience must is a radically different one from that in the choir have been intensified by the colors and forms in the aisle; there the limpid colors are in harmony with windows, even if these impressions were not cona mood of rational clarity, which is present in the sciously received.

The Canterbury—Sens Designer: composition and ornament*

A prrect line of development can be traced from with Chartres, and concluded that the windows of early typological windows of Canterbury, and the both Sens and Canterbury stemmed from Charcorona east window of the middle group, to the tres.° Heaton derived the Sens windows from Canfour choir ambulatory windows of Sens Cathedral, terbury.” Frankl attributed the Joseph Window in and back to the easternmost windows of the Trin- Chartres to a Sens designer.® Arnold referred looseity Chapel ambulatory.* In the same tradition is ly to a deterioration in some of the Trinity Chapel the Joseph Window in the nave of Chartres Cathe- windows, which he supposed were painted after dral.> The chronology is inescapable in the face of the exile, and he seemed to be referring to Winthe visual evidence, and stands quite apart from dows n:III and n:IV.’ In an unpublished master’s historical probability. Exchange with Sens was very thesis Sulkis has reached conclusions similar to my likely to have occurred at any time during the en- own, although we differ on many points of detail, tire period 1160-1220, and it remains hypothetical among them the inclusion of the Chartres window whether the Sens windows were provided by mem- in this group. Her thesis was not well received in bers of the Canterbury atelier when they were in France,’® but more assiduous attention to compoexile, or composed from patterns carried between sition, ornament, and iconography, as well as figure

the two centers. style, must give it a firmer base.

Correspondences in ornamental motifs between There is a progressive tendency at Canterbury to Sens and Canterbury were noted and illustrated by somber color effects; the most dramatic change is Westlake in 1881; he also made loose connections in the intensity of the blues. The north choir aisle

2 Johnson, 1965, pp. 15-16. : 123, 139; Sulkis, 1964. Dates given vary from soon after

3 Much of the material in this and the third section of 1184 to 1225. this chapter, was presented at the Eighth Conference on 5 Delaporte and Houvert, 1926, Window LX], pp. 395Medieval Studies sponsored by the Medieval Institute of 98, Pls. cixir-cuxvi, colored Pls. x1v—xv1. Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, in April-May 8 Westlake, 1, 1881, pp. 110-13, Pl. yxut. 1973, in a paper entitled “Sens and Canterbury: 1175- 7 Heaton, 1907, p. 173.

1220.” 8 Frankl, 1963, p. 316.

4For the Sens glass see: Lucien Bégule, La Cathédrale ® Arnold and Saint, 1939, pp. 70, 75. de Sens, Lyon, 1929, pp. 43-54; Grodecki in Vutrail, pp. 10 Grodecki, Bulletin Monumental 125 (1967), p. 107.

THE GOTHIC WINDOWS 85 windows at lower and “triforium” level, and the of the nave stand out from the rest for their bluish surviving panels from the choir clerestory, are appearance; the St. Eustace Window, for which dominated by a limpid blue, which on close exte- Grodecki has demonstrated an origin in the northrior examination proves to be exceptionally well east of France,* and its neighbor, the Joseph Winpreserved. When one passes into the Trinity Chap- dow (Appendix fig. 3, LXI, LXII). The former el, it is as if a cloud suddenly covered the sun; the is cool and delicate in hue, with pink, white, green, blue grounds are somber, greenish in hue, and turn and some pale yellow floating against soft blue, out to be heavily patinated, no doubt due to differ- and warm reds in the ornament; to this palette the ent facture (Col. Pls. 1, 1; cf. m1, 1v). The same Joseph Master added hot yellow. These are the col-

difference is, of course, observable at Chartres, bee ors, too, of the west rose and some clerestory lights : tween the mid-twelfth-century west windows and on the north side of the nave.*? the thirteenth-century glazing of the new building. These observations are sufficiently reinforced by Window n:V of the Trinity Chapel ambulatory a study of the composition and ornament to justify and the east window of the corona have some of an attribution to a single atelier that worked sucthe limpid blues, but now used sparingly in the cessively at Sens, Canterbury, and Chartres; relarinceaux, whereas the blues that predominate are tively minor changes in the design or execution of denser. It was perhaps to enliven these heavier the ornament in this group of windows indicate blues that the Petronella Master used a diaper de- the chronology of work. The windows that are sign in Window n:IV in the Trinity Chapel, and most intimately associated with Sens are the cointroduced red roundels into the grounds of the rona east window and Trinity Chapel ambulatory panels from Window N:X of the clerestory. Fur- n:lI and III, s:II and III, all of which are attribther east in the Trinity Chapel there is a reduction uted, in whole or in part, to the Fitz-Eisulf Master. in the number of shades uesd; pinks tend to a His personal style, however, appears only fleetingly

monotonous murrey tone, white is common, and at Sens. On the other hand, the figures in the so is mustard yellow. Red, still strongly present in Joseph Window at Chartres might be the work of the grounds of the rinceaux of the “triforium” win- the painter who executed the Prodigal Son Windows of the choir, as in the corona east window dow at Sens. “Atelier” should be defined here in and Window n:V of the Trinity Chapel, is less the broadest sense, as artisans who shared the same emphatic in the more easterly of the Trinity Chap- pattern books. el ambulatory windows; there is, however, individ- Among the many experiments in composition ual variation, and Window n:III appears green and made at Canterbury in the typological windows, red, between the predominantly soft blue with two on the south side arrived at a formula whereby pink, white, and green of Window n:IV, and the the entire “picture surface” of the window (that is,

more intense blue with deep pink, white, and hot the area within the borders) was divided into

yellow of Window n:II. square units; in these cases circles or quatrefoils At Sens an identical range of tonal variation is were inscribed in the squares (Appendix fig. 1, apparent in the ambulatory as in the corona and s:X]I and s:XVI). This principle was taken up and easterly group of Trinity Chapel windows. This used consistently in the related Sens—Canterbury-

impression is strengthened by comparison with Chartres group, in which the classic star pattern : Chartres, where typically red rather than yellow is was developed. the dominant hot accent. At Chartres two windows In Trinity Chapel Windows n and s:III circles

11 Grodecki, 1965, pp. 178-80. CLXX, CLXXII, and CLXXIII-CLXXV; his personal 12°The doublets and their small roses in the clerestory style is less in evidence; see Delaporte and Houvet, 1926, do not always form homogeneous groups of three; it is pp. 514-18, Pls. ccLxx, ccLxxI, ccLxxiv, ccixxu1. The as if the execution of the lights was assigned to different west rose was attributed to the Joseph Master by Groateliers to speed up the glazing of a bay. The cool palette decki, in Vitrail, p. 129, and by Frankl, 1963, p. 316. of the Joseph Master is observable in lights CLXVIII,

THE GOTHIC WINDOWS 86 form the basic unit of design, divided diagonally the north choir aisle, but the crossing of stems is into four quarters; the glass zm situ on the north masked by a leaf, there are no leaf scars or beading,

side shows that each quadrant had a petal-shaped and growth is not consistently in one direction figure panel inscribed. There is a fundamental dif- (figs. 173, 1). So too the rinceaux in this window ference from the tiers of medallions used by the show organic disintegration. The figure panels same Master in Window n:IV, but a similarity to have the same mélange of conventional motif and the typological windows mentioned above (Appen- rapid execution. The palette is dull except in the dix figs. 1, 2). The border design, which is very use of red in the draperies; the blue grounds are similar to others of the Sens—Canterbury group, very dark, and there is much deep pink, green, and and the use of a geometric diaper ground outside white in the figures. Some of the figure groups and

the circles, must be due to new influences. drapery treatment are close to the Master of the These new influences in the work of the Petro- Parable of the Sower in style, but with the loss of nella Master in Window n:III extend to the figure physical strength already noticed in the corona east style as well. Occasionally more robust figure types window (figs. 89, 93). These figures have a new

are introduced; in one panel the leading lame kind of vigor, however, arrived at by exaggerated woman has substantial calf muscles, which are de- postures and bold shorthand treatment of drapery. fined under her long skirt by hairpin-looped dra- A panel in Window s:VI shows some of the more pery folds; the contrast with her emaciated com- meticulous drawing of the Master’s early phase panion is marked (fig. 171). In another panel a (fig. 187). On the other hand, the dry, flaccid vegehorseman rides out of a three-dimensionally con- tal motifs of this window indicate a later date.

ceived city; his rounded stomach, and especially It may be suggested that Windows n:IV-VII the stiff pleats of his tunic and flaring mantle, and s:VI-VII of the Trinity Chapel were largely bring him close to the tradition of the Master of complete before the exile of 1207, as must have the Parable of the Sower and of the Fitz-Eisulf been the corona windows. The impoverished ornaMaster, the roots of which were in English art of ment of the first two windows on the south side the 1170s to 1180s; comparison with a similar fig- is explicable if these windows were hastily abanure in the Worksop Bestiary serves to underline doned in an incomplete state in 1207, and fully the delicacy of touch of the Petronella Master (figs. completed only after the return in 1213. It may 169, 170). That the influences to which the Petro- have been at this time that a representation of the nella Master was subject in Window n:III are not shrine, instead of the tomb, was included in one

entirely due to his Canterbury colleague can be scene. afhrmed by examination of the early work of the The definitive step in the geometric articulation

Fitz-Eisulf Master. of window compositions was made at Sens. ProbNot all of the windows attributed to the Fitz- ably the Canterbury experiments, in the oculi, the Fisulf Master are advanced in composition; Win- floor mosaic, and Windows s:XII and XVI with dow s:VI on the south side is very conservative, its typological subjects, were of some importance, but

neighbor, s:VII, is idiosyncratic and quite in keep- it has already been suggested that these are reing with the experiments of the middle period lated to the continental metalwork tradition. Con(Appendix fig. 1). The composition, consisting of tinuous halving was also used later in the rose interlocking fan shapes, is repeated in the east win- window of Lausanne, but in the Chartrain context dow at St.Quentin, where other windows have the Joseph Window is almost unique for its overt been noticed for their similarity to Windows n and use of such structuring. This seems to be another s:V in the westerly part of the Trinity Chapel instance of “resistance to Chartres” present in an (Appendix fig. 2). The border of Window s:VII autonomous local school that extended from Canis of the same type as that of Window n:XV in terbury to Lausanne.** Each of the designs at Sens

** Bony, 1957-1958, Pp. 47-49. |

THE GOTHIC WINDOWS 87 is developed from a square unit. In one of the most Chapel (Appendix figs. 2, 3).* The Sens armature ~ evolved compositions, that of the typological Good seems to have been designed for the Romanesque Samaritan Window, a canted square is defined in stonework; two and a half units of the design fit the center of each unit by joining the midpoints exactly. There is strict control by ruler and comof the figure three times in succession. Part-circles passes—petals form contrapuntal circles that read

inscribed within the corners of the basic square from the bottom up, or from the top down. The unit are centered on the sides of the first canted Canterbury example proves on analysis to be only square formed by halving (Appendix fig. 4); the an adaptation of the visual pattern, not the georelationships are thus largely hidden. The result is metric structure, to a taller Gothic lancet; the peta more compact grouping of panels related in sub- als do not form larger circles, nor are they deject matter than was provided by the lozenge with scribed by true arcs, and the square in the center four separate circles in the corona east window is not developed by successively joining the mid(Appendix fig. 2). The Prodigal Son Window at points of a series of square figures, as the canted Sens uses the square unit in quite a different way; squares are formed at Sens. This seems to suggest

the armature provides only a regular grid of the primacy of Sens in respect to the latest Cantersquares, but within them each figure composition bury glazing. The modifications at Canterbury alis outlined by a canted square fused with four semi- low greater space for scenes, which now fill the circles, which are centered on the midpoints of the hatchet-shaped areas between the petals as well, but sides (Appendix fig. 4). The two hagiographical this is at the expense of ornament. Meager rinceaux windows, with the lives of Sts. Eustace and Thom- between the circles are on a blue ground, as are as Becket, however, return to the star composi- some in the Becket Window at Sens, and contribtion, although it was better suited to typological ute to the bluish tonality of the window.

windows. The St. Eustace Window has three Window s:II of the Trinity Chapel derives in a canted squares in the center, which are found by similar way from the Becket Window at Sens; at continuous halving, exactly as in the Good Samari- Canterbury the composition is heightened to four tan Window. Within the basic square unit is in- very nearly complete square units, each with a scribed a circle, in ornament, and circles or semi- lozenge inscribed in the ornament. Only the cencircles of the same radius describe four petaloid tral circular figure panels are missing, their posipanels that emanate in a star pattern from the sides tions being occupied by small ornamental bosses, of the canted square; the centers of these arcs fall while greater importance is given to the full circles on the midpoints of the sides of the basic square centered on the midpoints of the sides of the canted (Appendix fig. 4). The design is ingenious, and squares (Appendix fig. 4, fig. 185). The articulamust have been created for this window; the cir- tion of tiers of roundels into basic units of four by

cles echo the round head of the light, and their means of ornament is very subtle, and it is in intersections provide two and a half complete cir- marked contrast to the archaic additive composi-

cles, whether one reads from the top down or from tion of Window n:IV by the Petronella Master. the bottom up. The Becket Window again used the The canted square was used at Canterbury in hidden basic square with a canted square inscribed windows of the middle period, but not as part of a in ornament between the midpoints. Part-circles tightly organized geometric system; in Windows are centered on the sides of the canted square, and n:V and VI, and s:V of the Trinity Chapel, all of a full circle of the same radius is the center of the which may have been the work of the Fogg Medal-

design (Appendix fig. 4; fig. 186). lion Master, canted squares intersect arbitrarily The design of the St. Eustace Window at Sens with circular forms (Appendix fig. 2). Perhaps reis, to my knowledge, very nearly unique—its only lated to these experiments is the tomb of Archcounterpart is in Window n:II of the Trinity bishop Hubert Walter, who died in 1205, which is 14 A comparison implied by Westlake, 1, 1881, p. 110; the Sens armature is illus. Pl. virio.

THE GOTHIC WINDOWS 88 situated under Window s:IV in the ambulatory.*° in north choir aisle Window n:XV and in the Jesse

On the slanted Purbeck lid are canted squares Window (figs. 27, 133).’° Among the rinceaux at linked by circles. These are developed from the Sens appears an almost exact duplicate of those of basic square slabs from which the piece is com- the corona east window; within the circles of the posed, with a much tighter control than is appar- St. Eustace Window are white stems on a red ent in the windows of the middle group (Appen- ground, with green, yellow, blue, and white leafy ' dix fig. 2). Whether it is a precursor to the Sens shoots (figs. 181, 182). The color distribution and developments, or whether execution of the tomb . the leaf types correspond exactly with the corona was deferred until after the exile cannot at present ornament; it will be remembered that these rin-

- be determined.*® ceaux were closely related to similar features in the The composition of the Joseph Window at Char- north choir aisle and the Trinity Chapel capitals tres is another variation on the basic square with (figs. 179, 180). Rinceaux in the Becket Window | continuous halving, much like Window s:II in the at Sens, on the other hand, are less fleshy. Some Trinity Chapel, but with a different distribution are based on the delicate leafy heads used in the of irons (Appendix fig. 4).*” The central rosette is bosses of Window n:IV of the Trinity Chapel, and outlined in iron, as is the large canted square, and they correspond almost exactly with the rinceaux semicircles on the sides of the canted square have of Window n: III, although the colors are different

ornamental edging bands. By subdividing the (figs. 164, 166). The Canterbury origin is again canted square into four, the designer has com- proved by the earlier use of this plant type in a pressed eight scenes into his unit of design. The border of the transept clerestory (fig. 75). In the density of figure compositions and cramping of central spaces of the Becket Window, however, are ornament are comparable to Window n:lII of the more commonplace acanthus scrolls with no orTrinity Chapel, and suggest a date later than Sens. ganic unity; this type is carried back to Canterbury The Sens atelier evidently contributed to devel- in Window s:II (figs. 183, 184). opments at Canterbury, but equally it derived It has never been noticed before that of the four much from the Canterbury tradition. The Thomas Sens border designs, three have almost exact repBecket Window and the typological Good Samari- licas at Canterbury. One of the richest is in the tan Window most probably depend on common Good Samaritan Window; it belongs to the climbmodels or lost Canterbury prototypes for their sub- ing type, and has paired interlocked stems which jects. This dependence is also demonstrated in the much resemble the border of clerestory N:XIV

ornament. (figs. 73, 71). In the clerestory border a pair of

Sens borrowed a repertory of ornamental motifs secondary shoots woven through the interlaced from Canterbury, specifically from the work of the stems make this the focus of the design. At Sens Methuselah Master, the Master of the Redemption the interlace is simplified and a central palmette Window, and the Petronella Master. Among these given greater prominence; growth is less organic, borrowings may have been the “cufic” edgings to the leaf scars being less strongly drawn, and the panels.** Pairs of flat, serrated leaves put to simi- “calyx” of the palmette is inverted. Variants of this lar use in the Prodigal Son Window recall a motif simplified motif occur at Rouen, in the nave clere15. W. H. St. John Hope, “On the Tomb of an Arch- see Gertrude Robinson and H. Urquhart, “Seal Bags in bishop Recently Opened in the Cathedral Church of Can- the Treasury of the Cathedral Church at Canterbury,” terbury,” Vetusta Monumenta vu1.1 (1893), 1-2. Archaeologia 84 (1935), 185-87, Pl. t, 1; S.D.T. Spittle, 16 Professor Zarnecki informed me by letter that in his “Cufic Lettering and Christian Art,” Archaeological Jourview the sculptures cannot be dated with certainty before nal 111 (1954), pp. 148, 151.

1207. 19 The possibility that Sens borrowed from manuscripts 17 Also illus. Westlake, 1, 1881, Pl. vip in the con- cannot be excluded; see, for instance, the eleventh-century

text of the Canterbury armatures. Flemish Gospels, Brussels, Bibliothéque Royale, MS 18 Caviness, 1965, p. 196. Such motifs could have been 18383, f.11v. copied from Middle Eastern silks coming to Canterbury;

THE GOTHIC WINDOWS 89 story of Chartres, at Angers, and elsewhere. In the which are comparable in motif, are in marked examples at Chartres and Angers the design is contrast to the rich, colorful border of Window more loosely organized and the painting is very n:IV; this abrupt change in neighboring windows, brittle, indicative of a later date.*° A similarly des- within the oeuvre of the Petronella Master, might

iccated version appeared in Salisbury well after logically be the result of an interruption in the 1220." The Sens design is in fact very nearly a work and new influences from Sens. The use of replica of an an original Canterbury design, which geometric diaper ground outside the circles in Win-

was copied by Austin in his Jesse Window in the dow n:III has a counterpart in the St. Eustace corona in 1861 (figs. 73, 74). Since he also included Window in Sens, and its appearance at Canterbury replicas of the surviving figures from the original may also be ascribed to continental influences. On Jesse Tree, it is tempting to think the original of the other hand, very meager rosettes in the Joseph

the border had the same provenance.”” The motif Window at Chartres seem to be based on the is repeated at Sens, with the same colors, but with bosses in Window n:IV, and could have come out

a slight simplification of the palmette. of a Canterbury motif book (fig. 198). Two others of the Sens borders have identical The chronology and approximate dates sugcounterparts at Canterbury; rubbings made in Can- gested here are supported by the ornament of con-

terbury and held against the windows in Sens temporary manuscripts. Two dragons that are inproved to fit very closely. One duplicated design is congruously perched on an aedicula in Window in Window n:II of the Trinity Chapel and the n:III may have been taken from a book, an origin Thomas Becket Window in Sens (figs. 175, 176).?° in keeping with the miniaturesque style of the The other is in the St. Eustace Window at Sens, Petronella Master; they are unique in glass of this and an unfortunately misplaced fragment now in period. Dragons with foliate tails are common in the south choir aisle “triforium” (figs. 178, 177).?4 the initials of Christ Church books of the first The equally crisp painting of the leaves in these half of the twelfth century, though Dodwell has borders, as well as the repetition of design and shown that they go back to pre-Conquest art.” colors, would make them virtually interchange- An example such as the one illustrated, from a able; it is not possible to suggest a chronology. Josephus, might explain how the glass painter came The chronology may be argued from comparison to misplace the beading of the vertebra (figs. 164,

with other Canterbury windows. The narrow, 165); others in the same book have more abuneconomical borders of Windows n:JI and IH, dant foliage growing at intervals from the tail.’® 20 For Rouen, see Cahier and Martin, 1841, Mosaiques due to his vague labeling of the figures that Williams N g; for Chartres, see Delaporte and Houvet, 1926, Win- (1897, p. 35) assumed the example in Sens to be in the dow LXXII, Pl. cixxxvi; for Angers, Thomas Becket St. Eustace Window. See also Arnold and Saint, 1939, | Window of about 1225-1235, see Hayward and Grodecki, p. gt. Color reproductions are in Marcel Aubert, Vitraux 1966, p. 38, illus.; see also Victoria and Albert Museum, des cathédrales de France, Xlle et XIlle stécles, Paris, Department of Ceramics, 5460-1858, a French panel, il- 1951, Pl. vir (Becket border) and Baker and Lammer, lus. Rackham, 1936, Pl. 2a (associated with Sens by Jane 1960, Pl. vi, center.

Hayward in Medieval Art, no. 190). 241 am grateful to Frederick Cole for making a rubbing

21 Westlake, 1, 1881, Pl. txrxb (Jesse Window on the and color notes of the Canterbury border for me. The south side of the nave). The Short Chronicle of Matthew Sens border is in Westlake, 1, 1881, Pl. rxunf. Paris ascribes the completion of the glazing to the epis- 25 Dodwell, 1954, p. 23, figs. 14d and e. It may not be copacy of Robert Bingham, 1228-1246 (quoted by Otto purely fortuitous that aediculae and furniture in AngloLehmann-Brockhaus, Lateinische Schriftquellen zur Kunst Saxon manuscripts were sometimes invaded by flora and

in England, u, Munich, 1956, 498, no. 4107). fauna, for example, the mid-eleventh-century Gospels in 22 Mr. Easton agrees that no part of this border is old, Monte Cassino Library, MS BB 437, 439; see Rickert, but that it appears to have been copied from a lost origi- 1965, Pl. 45. The treatment of the lectern and the foliage nal. The two Jesse figures were returned to the cathedral over the arch compare with that in Window n:III, panel

in 1953; see Caviness, 1975, p. 374. 4; Rackham, 1949, Pl. x11.

28 Westlake, 1, 1881, r10, Pl. rxme and i; probably it is 26 Dodwell, 1954, figs. 25a and b.

THE GOTHIC WINDOWS 90 The sculptors borrowed this motif for roof-bosses Bello, and the Morgan Lothian Bible, a St. Albans in the choir aisles prior to 1180,”’ and by 1200 they book of the first quarter of the thirteenth century.** were the commonplace of book illumination;*° The “late” appearance of the rinceaux in the Little they appear in France also, as in the north French Canterbury Psalter in Paris of before 1220 has alBible, Bibliothéque Nationale, MS Lat. 11534, £53. ready been noticed; in the same book is a rosette It is clear from the Bible of Robert de Bello, British much akin to those in Window s:VI of the Trinity Library, Burney MS 3, that the dragon had by then Chapel.

lost its vigor and become no more than a lithe At Chartres rinceaux rarely predominate in a bird-like creature entwined in spiral foliage;* window; they are more often used in conjunction Robert was abbot of St. Augustine’s, Canterbury, with geometric diaper;*” exceptions are the St. Eusfrom 1224 to 1243, but the glass dragons are much tace and Joseph Windows. In the latter (fig. 196)

closer to those in the Josephus of a hundred years they are very cramped, and comparable to the earlier. A date after 1220 seems highly improbable banal palmettes of Window s:II or clerestory N:V

for the glass: (fig. 183). The Prodigal Son Window, near

Rinceaux in manuscripts tend to confirm a date these nave windows but in the north transept, in the first two decades of the thirteenth century should perhaps be placed in the same regional for the Sens and Canterbury group of windows. A group, originating in the northeast of France.** very spindly variation on the oak-leaf type of clus- “Cufic” and beaded edging lines are in the Canter-

ter, which had appeared in the choir aisle and bury-Sens tradition, and the groundwork consists corona, frames an initial in Cambridge, Trinity entirely of palmettes and rinceaux. The palette, College, MS B.11.4, a Psalter with an Augustinian with much red, is not different from that general calendar later than 1220. More stylized rinceaux at Chartres, but it could stem from Laon. The figwith small trefoil leaves and no leaf clusters or leaf ures, however, are less serene and classicizing than

scars appear in one of the Peterborough Psalters those of Laon or Soissons; their wiry physiques, associated with Robert de Lindseye, Abbot 1212- with striding, twisting motion and swinging gar1224;°° these are comparable to the work in Win- ments, may owe much to the Sens—Canterbury tra-

dow s:JI of the Trinity Chapel. Scrolls with sparse dition (fig. 195). leafage occur throughout the Bible of Robert de

The Sens painters |

Tue styles of the four windows in the north choir Window, which she did not include in her study, ambulatory of Sens Cathedral are intimately re- is even more “advanced” looking. Archaism in the lated to all phases of the Canterbury styles. The typological Good Samaritan Window might be extwo modes, biblical and hagiographical, are so plained by the use of an early iconographical guide clearly distinguished at Sens that Sulkis supposed —of Canterbury origin—but the Parable of the the Thomas Becket Window might be a decade Prodigal Son, which is treated at Sens in a selater than the biblical windows;** the St. Eustace quence of twelve narrative scenes, without types, 27 Tllus. Cave, 1935, Pl. 1x 3 and 4, p. 45; he identified 31 New York, Pierpont Morgan Library, MS 7o1; illus. one boss as having ducks with truncated bills, but they Rickert, 1965, Pl. 94. Plummer (p. 5) dated it ca. 1208,

appear to be winged dragons with foliate tails. but it may be later.

28 For example, in the Cuthbert Life of about 1200, 32 Grodecki, 1965, p. 178. London, British Library, Add. MS 39943, f.7v. 33 Grodecki, in Vitrail (p. 129) associated it with Laon.

29 Rickert, 1965, Pl. roo. See Delaporte and Houvet, 1926, Window LVIII, pp. 381-

30 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, MS 12, f.159, Brie- 83, Pls. ct-ciut. ger, 1957, Pl. 26b. 34 Sulkis, 1964, p. 116.

THE GOTHIC WINDOWS 9] was not included in the Canterbury cycle. In both Echoes of the corona east window are as frequent these biblical windows each subject is presented as those of the north choir aisle windows. with the distilled clarity that was seen in the Me- In color, as in style, the four Sens windows dithuselah Master’s work. Figures are grouped or vide into two pairs. The biblical windows have isolated against a limpid blue ground. They are lucid blue grounds, the blues in the hagiographical generally static or slow-moving, and quietly out- windows are more somber. Red is used in large lined. There is almost always a clear central ac- quantities in the Prodigal Son Window, as a surcent. Some of the repertory of individual figures round to the figure compositions, but in the drais shared with the Methuselah Master’s atelier, but peries pink and white predominate, with some these are common in the period; for instance, the mid-green and splashes of hot yellow. Except in servant on the right in figure 188 seems to derive the brilliance of the unbroken reds, it is a typical from the more graceful “skating” pose used fre- palette of the Canterbury middle period, as in the quently by the Methuselah Master, as in the Gen- corona east window, the Public Life of Christ, or tile looking back at the pagan idol (fig. 37). The the Jesse Master’s work. The Good Samaritan Winfamiliar pose of the Prophet of 1 Kings 13 is re- dow, with less red and more green and yellow, is peated in Christ before Pilate in the Good Samari- very close indeed to the coloring of the Calling of tan Window (figs. 55, 58). Such a comparison Nathanael from the Public Life of Christ, but the serves to underline the substantial appearance of refinement of tints is reminiscent of the Methusethe Methuselah Master’s figures, and the slighter lah Master’s work; there is a full range of pinks,

treatment are given Sens. Thethe Queen of from hear-white to deep green Sheba wasthey painted by anatassistant, V-fold appears in two hues, as purple, well asyevowish a mid-green. A Painter, whose insistent drapery folds whittled very pale blue is also used, as in the hill behind away the lower legs (fig. 44); this tendency, which the wounded traveller, where it stands out clearly

belongs to the middle phase at Canterbury, is seen from the mid-blue ground. | quite clearly at Sens in such figures as the harlots The ihe sphica! wincows ntnered . we

with the Prodigal Son (fig. 45). These composi- west, are darker and bluer; the grounds to the hgtions in the Sens glass are clarified to the point of ures are greenish, and more blue is used in the appearing stark and denuded; such isolation of ornament than in either of the other windows. The three or four figures in a row was practiced at St. Eustace Window is cold in tone, with much

times by the Master of the Parable of the Sower white in yeures ‘nd ae velle Pine ane (fig. 100), but like him also the artist of the Prodi- Breen, anc touches of red’ or pale yellow. Lhe et

; ,; .Window fect is much likenot thatafraid of Window n:IV in the gal son was of Becket setting oneTrin, is, . , ity Chapel at Canterbury. The Window figure in an extensive landscape if the subject de- ay: 7 . more brilliant, by the addition of mustard yellow,

manded it, asooinand themore scene of the Sonuse asofa varied swine-greens ; subtle in the and

herd. Yet there is an aridity. pinks; in this landscape, to ake: ayy: , its counterpart is Window n:II of| the Trin-

be found in the Redemption Window of the mid- ity Chapel dle phase of Canterbury but not in the earlier The hagiographical windows share a common scenes with the Sower. So, C00, the swirling man- repertory of simplified and symmetrical aediculae, tles that are used occasionally in the windows at consisting essentially of an architrave with slender, Sens as space-fillers and to activate the figures, are evenly spaced columns, and hangings (figs. 186, as stiff as those of the Redemption Master (figs. 200). These appeared at Canterbury in the panels 137, 138, 188). Moses in the scene with the golden ascribed to the Parable of the Sower, Fogg Medalcalf in the Good Samaritan Window (fig. 207) lion, and Redemption Masters, and are a constant

could be taken from the same motif book as feature of the later Trinity Chapel designs. The Enoch by the Crumpled Silk Painter (fig. 137). Sens compositions are crowded, but restrained; the

THE GOTHIC WINDOWS 92 figures are generally static, upright, and often source of the Sens biblical styles; it remains to ingrouped in massed verticals. The Becket medal- vestigate more fully the other elements. A certain lions are composed in the manner of the Fogg refinement and metallic precision brings the Sens Medallion Master, the figures contained within a painters closer to the Mosan tradition and to the squared-off architectural unit, and confronting one idealized classicism of the continent. So, too, the another with stabbing gestures across a brief cae- denuded compositions may be a legacy of north sura (figs. 186, 115). Draperies are generally, French and Mosan metalwork or the Chalons-surthough not always, quietly outlined, and the fig- Marne glass.*> Whether the robust, classicizing figures are slender and insubstantial. Compared with ures of the harlots derive entirely from the Methuthe comely harlots in the Prodigal Son Window, selah Master’s designs, or whether they depend al-

a group of women and children demonstrate a so on the sculptures of the central west portal delack of plasticity in the harsh relentless lines of pends ultimately on the chronology accepted; the their drapery (figs. 203, 45); these women and date of 1190-1200 generally given to these portal children should be compared with the work of the sculptures is earlier than that recently ascribed to Fitz-Eisulf Master as it appears in the corona. the ambulatory glass. On the other hand, there is Other traits in both of the Sens hagiographical the possibility that the Methuselah Master’s work windows suggest a very close link with the corona was known in Sens before 1190, and might thereeast window painters; the kneeling figure of St. fore have influenced the sculptors in a general way. Eustace’s wife is comparable to Elisha at Canter- More specific are resemblances between some of bury in the bloused tunic and the system of V-folds the sculpted figures, especially the Virgins (fig. which fall from the thigh and at the same time 104), and the isolated standing figures of the Masdelineate the knee and calf (figs. 200, 137). The ter of the Parable of the Sower (fig. 103). Both are messenger kneeling before Thomas Becket has dra- attenuated, elegant in proportion and stance, with pery comparable to that of Enoch even in the up- heavy draperies either clinging to the limbs or falllifted shell-fold of the skirt of his tunic, and in ing rather stiffly to frame the sinuous outlines of both figures the thigh appears rounded and short- the body. The mysterious origins of this classicizened by the bunching of “crumpled silk” folds at ing style in the central portal may then lie outside the back (figs. 202, 137). Elsewhere the mantle of France, in the Canterbury glass paintings of about St. Eustace fans out in pleats that are almost as 1180. The Jesse Master, whose late work has been harsh as those in the Sundial of Hezekiah (figs. dated about 1200, provides a double link with the 137, 138). The heads in this panel reproduce the Sens glass and sculpture. Conversely, the Petronelsame types that are preserved in Moses with Jethro. la Master’s style may have owed something to the What, then, is the precise nature of the relation- previous stylistic phase in the sculpture, of the St. ship of the Sens styles to the Canterbury glass? In John portal of the 1180s to 1190s. the biblical windows the coincidences are eclectic; The best explanation available at the present time

they consist mainly in borrowed motifs from the seems to be that a single “Canterbury-Sens DeCanterbury windows of the early and middle pe- signer” was responsible for the composition and riods. They could be explained by the use of a ornament of all four windows at Sens; reusing ormotif book in conjunction with the iconographical namental motifs from Canterbury, he consolidated guide for the Good Samaritan Window, which is the design formula that he had used in the corona almost certainly of Canterbury origin. This inter- east window to create unified “star” compositions. pretation makes allowance for the great difference The execution of the biblical windows may have in style between the two Sens windows, and it been given to local artists. The Becket Window avoids the postulate that Canterbury is the sole was probably based on designs by the Fogg Medal35 Cf, also Berlin, Kupferstichkabinett, MS 78 A 6; Rosalie Green brought this to my attention. Swarzenski, 1967, p. 58, fig. 259, from Liége, ca. 1160; Dr.

ce THE GOTHIC WINDOWS 93

lion Master, previously used at Canterbury, but the already been applied in the typological scenes of execution of this and the St. Eustace Window is the east window of the corona. At Sens there was most closely related to the corona east window. perhaps an awareness that this style was most suitThe painters occasionally added floating draperies able for hagiography, whereas a more archaic and to the Becket designs, just as they had to Jethro in classicizing one would lend dignity to biblical the corona, to animate the figures. Rapid brush- events. At Chartres the new style permeated bibliwork, staccato gestures, and the subordination of cal narrative in the Joseph and Prodigal Son Winindividual figures to the action result in a success- dows. ful hagiographical mode, one which, however, had

The development of the style of the Fitz-Eisulf Master at Canterbury

Tue career of this painter has been traced from the ter’s windows (figs. 205, 208, 159). The figures are

corona east window and windows s:VI and VII small, wiry, and active, and more scenes are of the Trinity Chapel ambulatory to Sens. The crowded into each window than in Window n:V. next phase of his style is seen in the easternmost An excited mood pervades all of these windows; windows of the Trinity Chapel. It belongs to the narrative and meaning are communicated without late stage of Canterbury glazing, to which a date the use of labels, and even the inscriptions provided

after 1220 has frequently been given.” are somewhat redundant. Apart from these gen-

Beyond the first bay of the Trinity Chapel the eral similarities, however, it is as if the Petronella composition of the clerestory and ambulatory win- Master and the Fitz-Eisulf Master began at differdows was controlled by an overseer who saw that ent poles in Windows n:IV and s:VII; their styles

the armature designs were in most cases paired grew together, with mutual exchanges, in Winfacing each other. Though not coinciding exactly dows n:II and III and s:II. The impact of Sens with this new plan, the surviving Becket miracle during the years of exile may have something to scenes in Windows n:II-IV and s:JI-VII of the do with this, but the debt is less clear in the figure ambulatory are also homogeneous in design, and painting than in the composition and ornament. the execution of all but Windows n:III and IV is Window s:VII is but a slight departure from the dominated by a single painter, the Fitz-Eisulf Mas- work of the Master of the Parable of the Sower.

ter, whose eponymous work is in Window ail Even the palette, which is dominated by the new (fig. 197). It may be the overseer who insisted on heavy blues, includes much red in the draperies, a canonical representation of the tomb as a recti- such as was used by this Master; the pink, white, linear marble sarcophagus with two elliptical holes and green are otherwise typical of the middle pecut in the side, as it had appeared in Window n:V. riod. Figures are often paired or grouped together In other matters the Petronella Master and the so that several heads are painted on the same piece Fitz-Eisulf Master departed from the tenets of the of glass; the workmen setting out to look for WilFogg Medallion Master. Inscriptions are confined liam of Gloucester are composed as a group much to the hexameters on strips above or below the fig- like the Gentiles following Christ (figs. 93, 37); ures and not supplemented by philacteries with they are taller, however, more like the attenuated speech (figs. 159, 167, 197). Architectures tend to figures of the Master of the Parable of the Sower. be flat, symmetrical, and unrealistic, although this Indeed, the arched back and swirling mantle and

trend is less marked even in the mature work of tunic of one figure are very like the Sower on the Fitz-Eisulf Master than in the Petronella Mas- Stony Ground, but in the execution there is a loss 36 Rackham, 1949, pp. 81-82. This dating is on the basis of two representations of the shrine of St. Thomas.

THE GOTHIC WINDOWS 94 of vigor and plasticity (figs. 93, 89). This panel is or Window s:VII. As at Sens, there is little tendunique in Window s:VII for the use of swirling ency to specific description of individuals or texmantles; elsewhere the drapery is calmly outlined, tures; facial types are quite standardized within

. even where a spinning motion is indicated (figs. broad categories, and the same flesh tint is used 189, 190). The figure in the doorway in s:VII is for all. The greatest change is from the stern, innot unlike the representations of Noah’s sons or expressive figures of Sens to more vital attitudes the three virtuous states (figs. 194, 100, 103). His and facial expressions that aid in the storytelling facial type, with high forehead and cheekbones and at Canterbury. Archaisms such as the uplifted shell close beard, resembles the Byzantine type for St. motif in draperies are not found after a few occurPaul, which was used for the Sower on Good rences at Sens. There is less tendency for draperies Ground (fig. 95). The same grave expression, with to reveal substantial form other than bony knees an archaic furrow shaped like a teardrop between and rotund stomachs; they are boldly and clearly the brows, appears in Window s:VI (fig. 187). One painted, with some use of exterior washes, and pair of figures, the physicians examining Elias of follow schemata such as the looped-fold system,

Reading, has an instructive counterpart in the regardless of the sex or age of the subject. The scene of the Presentation of Samuel in the Temple brushwork is increasingly strong and rapid (figs. by the assistant of the Methuselah Master, the V- 92, 206). fold Painter; the facial types and the insistence on In the masterly sequence of mad Matilda in V-folds are similar, yet the later painting is more Window n:II, the maniac’s violent contortions mannered and elegant, the figures flatter and more gradually subside before the tomb; no flight of vertical (figs. 190, 60). In the composition as a demons is needed to illustrate her cure (figs. 209whole, breadth and clarity have given way to ten- 211). Although the artist probably had recourse to sion and compression. There is an almost total re- early models—the sequence is remarkably like that jection of the classicism of the early masters, in of Luxuria dancing and then reviled from Anglo-

spite of a comparable humanism. Saxon recensions of the Psychomachia*’"—what is In Windows n:II and II and s:II the stronger new is the application of this intensely expressive hues of the Sens hagiographical windows are mode to specific secular persons. On the whole, adopted; the most frequent hot accent is mustard revivals of themes from the more remote past are yellow. Acid yellow-green, little used at Canter- not as important in this Master’s work as is his bury since the early phase except by the Petronella dependence on the designs of his predecessors at Master, reappears as a tint distinct from the more Canterbury and Sens. A common pose shows the usual mid-green. As noted above, each window has weight shifted forward on to one slightly bent leg, distinct tinctorial qualities, but there is a new sharp- the other foot pointed and turned out, the body ness. The compositions and figure painting show thrust into frontal view and the shoulders into the

a marked advance beyond even the St. Eustace plane of the picture surface (figs. 93, 199, 209). Window at Sens. Spatial settings are minimized, Essentially this is the Romanesque “skating” pose as they had been in the Petronella Master’s work also used by the Methuselah Master, but a loosenin Window n:IV. Many of the scenes, like his, ing of outline by the addition of swirling draperies, have a strict rhythm of movement that tends to a slackening of joints, and especially a déhanchehold the action within the pictorial field in spite ment have transformed it into one of Gothic eleof overlapping the frames. The figures are articu- gance. The pose is adjusted to the action of the lated more often as individuals and less as crowds figures, varying from a gehende stand to an exthan in the work of the early Canterbury Masters tended movement, and seldom retains the floating, 37 Illus. F. Wormald, English Drawings of the Tenth 1905, Pl. 54, figs. 4, 10, 16; Pl. 59, figs. 1, 9; Pl. 60, fig. 16; and Eleventh Centuries, London, 1952, figs. 6a and b the third manuscript of this group in British Library, MS (British Library, Add. MS 24199, f.18 and Cambridge, Cleo. C viii. Corpus Christi College, MS 23, f.24). See also Stettiner,

THE GOTHIC WINDOWS 95 poised quality of the figures in the north choir in the Good Samaritan Window at Sens (figs. 208,

aisle (fig. 37). 207). We have seen that Moses in turn was related

The cumulative experience of the Canterbury- to Enoch in the corona east window. Ultimately Sens atelier was probably collected in model or one thinks of an early model for the figure, such motif books.** Thus the difficult three-quarter back as the Utrecht Psalter, but the treatment in the view of the blind woman in Window n:II(2), Trinity Chapel is far more successful than that of which is more fussy and exquisite in the painting similar figures in the late twelfth-century copy, MS of draperies than most of the Fitz-Eisulf Mas- Lat. 8846; there is a strong probability that the ter’s work, seems to be copied from the same figure had been filtered through the advanced clasmodel as Moses in the scene of the Golden Calf sicism of the Methuselah Master.

The Joseph Window in Chartres

Tue Joseph Window in Chartres, which has been evenly distributed on either side, and Potiphar’s attributed to the Canterbury-Sens Designer, has to wife and Joseph are seated on either side of a cenbe discussed in relation to this phase of the Can- tral column (figs. 198, 196). So too the figures conterbury glazing, although it has been responsibly front each other in pairs in Trinity Chapel n:II, 2

dated in the first decade of the century. (figs. 197, 208). The lateral scenes are planned with The Chartres window demonstrates the parting a view to overall symmetry, which is slightly more of the ways. There can be no doubt that the designs advanced in the Joseph Window; here twisting figand color scheme link it with the Fitz-Eisulf Mas- ures are used to link paired panels, as in the two ter of Window n:lII, yet many of the figures are representations of the jailer who first leads Joseph robust and classicizing, as if tempered by the style away and then throws him into prison (fig. 196).

of the Prodigal Son painter from Sens. A few of Some of the individual figures are unquestionthe numerous traits that point to the Fitz-Eisulf ably creations of the same artist; sensitive drapery

Master will be enumerated first. folds and clear articulation, combined with a genSeveral of the aediculae are of the extremely sim- tle expressiveness, are marked in Jordan Fitzplified kind used in the Sens hagiographical win- Eisulf and his wife as they are in Joseph and dows and at Canterbury, consisting of a roof or Potiphar’s wife (figs. 196, 97h). One of the boys arches supported on slender columns. Landscapes stoning frogs is from the same model as the jailer aze generally reduced to the groundline and a few throwing Joseph into prison (figs. 199, 196). These, bulbous trees; hills, where they appear, are arid, as however, are among the most plastically rendered

in the corona east window and at Sens. Figures figures of the Fitz-Eisulf Master in the Trinity turn towards each other, singly or in groups, and Chapel, and among the more attenuated in the gesture dramatically across the intervening space; Joseph Window. frequent use is made of the twisting figure, moving Commonly the figures in the Joseph Window one way and turning his head the other. Both Win- are stockier and more robust than the Fitz-Eisulf dow n:II and the Joseph Window have scenes that Master’s; they have impassive, idealized features, are centered in the window and others that are and avoid the more extravagant attitudes of some symmetrically paired to the sides. In both windows, of those at Canterbury. In these qualities they are scenes are designed with a central axis, which tends close to the Prodigal Son Window at Sens; Joseph to act as a focus for the movement. Thus Joseph is before Potiphar is much like the three figures in lowered into the pit by two groups of his brothers the scene of the return of the Prodigal in facial 38 Kitzinger, 1966b, pp. 139-41. Arnold supposed the parchment; Arnold and Saint, 1939, p. 89. glass painters at Sens and Canterbury kept drawings on

THE GOTHIC WINDOWS 96 type, proportions, the strong outlining of his thigh, at about the same time at Canterbury, in the late

and even in the rather fussy uplifted end of his work of the Fitz-Eisulf Master. mantle (figs. 196, 188). The brushwork in general The history of Chartrain glass painting remains

| is more deliberate and less fluid than the late work to be written, and to this point judgments as to the of the Fitz-Eisulf Master. Other motifs suggest a chronology of glazing and identity of artists are close relationship to the Prodigal Son painter; tentative. One of the complexities of Chartres is among them are the trefoil arches that frame Joseph that there was surely a productive interaction be-

and Potiphar’s wife. tween the artists who worked alongside each other,

The aspect of idealized classicism present in the which eventually resulted in the formation of a Joseph Window is shared with other windows of more or less prevalent Chartrain style. In the nave the nave; its neighbor, the St. Eustace Window, windows various regional styles are reflected, also by an artist from the region north and east of which reinforces the argument that they were the Paris, represents another branch. It is rather calmer first to be glazed. The Joseph Master may now be and more uniform in proportion of figures and in said with some certainty to have come from Sens, drapery, close to glass at Laon and Soissons and in as the St. Eustace Master came from the region the same tradition as the younger master of the of St.-Quentin. The Prodigal Son Window has Ingeborg Psalter.*® Much less common in the Char- traits of ornament and figure painting that also train styles is the frenetic activity of the figures and suggest a northern artist. The palette is more like the immediacy of the narrative events in the Joseph the eastern windows of Laon Cathedral than the Window. The hagiographical mode, so successful Canterbury-Sens group, and a close connection | in the St. Eustace Window at Sens and in the Beck- with Sens is unlikely in view of the almost comet miracle series has been transposed into biblical plete lack of coincidence with the Prodigal Son narrative. The influence of the Fitz-Eisulf Master compositions there. The Prodigal Son Window is the most likely explanation for this rejection of serves to underline the importance of the Petrothe slow-moving clarity of the Prodigal Son Win- nella Master’s style; conventions of dramatic rep-

dow at Sens. resentation that were still fresh in Window nilll

Grodecki has attributed the west rose of Chartres of the Trinity Chapel ambulatory have become stiff to the Joseph Master, an attribution that is justified and mannered, and there is a contrived clarity in from its color and figure style. He has viewed the the compositions (figs. 167, 195). On the other stronger, looser brushwork appearing in these large hand, the Christ in Majesty from the summit of figures as a possible result of Parisian influence in the window is strictly comparable to the latest of the later work of the Master.*® Other possibilities the Trinity Chapel clerestory figures, Hezekiah should be borne in mind; one is an adjustment to and Josiah from Window N:V, notably in his painting at clerestory level, such as the Methuselah jointless arms, elegant swathes of drapery, and unand Jesse Masters had already made at Canterbury. dulating hems (figs. 195, 216). By this period there The other is the parallel development that occurred was most probably an exchange of ideas with the Chartres painters.

The dates of the Trinity Chapel ambulatory windows

Two Christ Church productions can be firmly These are the Little Canterbury Psalter in Paris dated in or before 1220, and thus have considerable and the Trinity Chapel vault paintings, which bearing on the date of the Trinity Chapel windows. were sketched before their destruction in the nine-

37, 38. Dame).

39 Deuchler, 1967, p. 121, figs. 25, 26, 30, 31, 32, 35, 36, 40 Vitrail, p. 129 (cf. the Last Judgment rose of Notre-

THE GOTHIC WINDOWS 97 teenth century. Both are far more advanced in style chronology, even in respect of the latest Canterbury than even the latest work of the Fitz-Eisulf Mas- glazing. A date for the Bible in the region of 1225-

ter. 1230 would accord well with the Little Canterbury The Psalter, Paris, Bibliothéque Nationale, MS Psalter. The Trinity Chapel ambulatory glass

Lat. 770, can be dated before 1220 by the absence should be placed significantly earlier.

in the calendar of the feast of the translation of It has been overlooked until recently that the Becket’s relics on 7 July.* In spite of being rather vaults of the Trinity Chapel were, until the mid- | poorly drawn, the illustrations in this book betray dle of the nineteenth century, decorated with mannerisms rooted in the style of the Trinity Chap- paintings.** Before these disappeared completely, el glass; the impact of the Christ Church windows sketches were made by the elder Austin. The style

is also apparent in that the very unusual subject of they suggest is comparable to the drawing by Julian and Maurice, the rich men of the Parable of Brother William preserved in the St. Albans scripthe Sower, is copied (figs. 97, 98). Elsewhere, flared torium, which can be dated before ca. 1232.** The tunics, outlined in much the same fashion as in the figures are thickset, with a heavy outline. The dra-

later glass, are flattened by a straight white line peries fall vertically or are caught up over the arm, that emphasizes the horizontal Khem and allows no and the hems are delineated by serpentine lines fine and sensitive pleating of the sort so conspicu- (fig. 193). The paintings are dated by inscription ous 1D the glass of all periods (fig. 192). The folds in the year of the translation, and it is highly probare delineated in a dry manner OVEr a thick col- able that the windows of the Chapel had been ree wash their “istration "f uncertain and has completed sometime before. The internal evidence

i. “ od in vi . under a an wen are has suggested that Windows n:IV—VII were glazed istorted In violent action, their hands exagger- before 1207, and s:IV-VII partially finished. Win-

atedly large. Occasional more sensitive passages, on dows n:lII

and III and s:II could have been comespecially in the figure of Christ in and the the Flagella, . pleted in 1213-1216, finishing. 4: touches put tion (fig. 192), or the seminude river gods of the

s:VI and VII; plans were already underway for Beatus page (fig., to126), are a distant echo of the i, , i, a the shrine in 1216, so that its representation in two

Methuselah Master; the torso of Christ is con- . a th ad . a € th

: . . . 4 ‘ 45

structed much like that of Adam (fig. 6), and the nenclars nt “se oI vehi ma Sheet meet ° ' © grace and unity of this figure contrast with the trans oe 1s quite plausible. Colored paving ies

caricatured flagellants. A second manuscript of were PFO ably laid on the eastern part of the TrinCanterbury provenance is the Bible of Robert de ity Chapel floor in the same period; they are closely Bello (London, British Library, Burney MS 3), related to dalles at St-Bertin of St-Omer, which which can be dated approximately in the period was the first home of the monks in exile.** The 1224-1253. It has been cited by Rackham and van vault paintings commemorate the translation cereder Boom as an example of the influence of the mony, recording the presence of Henry II, and early Christ Church glass on local manuscript must have been done in 1220. They were perhaps painting.*? In view of the short figures with overly the last stage in “perfecting” the building, the declarge heads, the occasionally agitated hemlines oration of which had absorbed much of the enerpicked out in white, and the loss of all classical, gies and financial resources of the community since easeful pose, it seems impossible to reverse this the 1170s. 41 See above, Chapter Three, n.61. Chronica Majora; Brieger, 1957, p. 161, Pl. 55a, and A. G. #2 Rackham, 1949, p. 12; van der Boom, 1960, p. 120. Little, ed., Franciscan History and Legend in English

43 Caviness, 1974. Medieval Art, Manchester, 1937, p. 37, Pl. 1. Brother Wil4* London, British Library, MS Cotton Nero C 4, £.156, liam died about 1232.

a miscellaneous collection containing additions to the 45 See Chapter Four, n.125.

THE GOTHIC WINDOWS 98 The chronology of the Trinity Chapel clerestory glazing

Less easily resolved is the question of whether the of the building the predominant mode of clerestory Trinity Chapel clerestory was completely glazed by glazing is with single standing figures—as also at July 1220. Some of the surviving figures and orna- Bourges and the cathedral of Rheims. More rarely ment are perplexing, because of a mélange of archaic at Chartres there are series of three scenes set in and advanced traits. Possibly, as in the lower win- rinceaux or geometric diaper, but always with

dows, these are indicative of a break in the work straight-bar armatures.** The few examples at and its hasty completion. In few cases are attribu- Chartres of seated figures in the clerestory should tions to the major painters of the lower windows be seen as the last flowering of a tradition that possible. Exceptions are the figures of Nahshon and came from the northeast. There are many arguAmminadab already attributed to the Petronella ments to support the primacy of Canterbury, at Master, and Salmon and Boaz attributed to the least in inception. Jesse Master, which are from adjacent windows on Nineteen figures are preserved from the Trinity the north side at the entrance to the Chapel; they Chapel clerestory; the series from the north side is fit into the oeuvre of these masters of the 1180s to complete for Windows N:V-N:X, and there is one t1gos, and the exile would be a firm terminus ante figure from Window N:IV.* Their condition is quem. The decision to change to the new armature poor, however; even where most of the glass 1s design was made at this time, perhaps after the ancient, the panels have been cut down or altered Petronella Master had done his drawings (App. fig. to fit the great perpendicular windows in which 5). No precedent for the new design has survived they are now set, and some of the figures have been on the continent; following St.-Remi there are sev- distorted in early releading. The quality of original eral series of seated clerestory figures, placed two painting is remarkably uneven, and several artists in each window, but none are in curved armatures. seem to have executed this part of the series, as if At Strasbourg are figures of ca. 1200. Extant exam- the work were hurried. There is a certain consisples zm situ at Orbais may be as late as 1230. At tency in the designs after the first bay where, as

Soissons are four figures of ancestors of Christ in we have seen, two distinctive masters worked the choir clerestory. Related figures are scattered alongside each other on the north side, the Petroin American collections.** Only at Chartres, on the nella Master and the Jesse Master. While modifynorth side of the nave, are seated figures framed ing the armature designs of their windows, they in ellipses and quatrefoils, but the armatures are kept the figures large; circles used by the Jesse not curved (fig. 212).*7 The added height of these Master in Window N:IX allow the figures to exlancets allows three units of design, with ornamen- pand much more than do the quatrefoils and eltal bosses between and grounds of rinceaux or lipses to the east (App. fig. 15). These two masters geometric diaper. The color and ornament of these set certain canons for the rest of the series; roundels windows are closely related to the Sens—Canterbury were afterwards used sporadically in the blue group. On the south side, and in the eastern part grounds, and following the Jesse Master’s designs, 46Tn the Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore, and the City from N:IX, certainly the figures now in the southwest Art Museum, St. Louis; cf. also The Year 1200 1, no. 202, transept window, M2 and M7; Obed and Jesse from

pp. 195-96. N: VIII, now west window, I2 and I6; David and Nathan

47 Delaporte and Houvet, 1926, Window CLXV, Pl. from N:VII, now southwest transept window, H4 and Hs; ccLtxvill, Window CLXXIII, Pl. ccrxxi; cf. the man- Rehoboam and Abijah from N:VI, now west window, [3 nered geometries of Window CXXII, Pl. ccxxx, which and I5; Hezekiah and Josiah from N:V, now southwest

is in the apse. transept window, M3 and M6; Jeconiah from N:IV, now

48 Tbid., Windows CLII and CLIII, Pls. ccrxm and west window, Ix. A figure identified by Mason and RackccLxin over the Prodigal Son Window in the transept. ham as Salathiel, now west window Iy¥, is almost entirely 49 The figures are: Amminadab and Nahshon from N:X, modern. Cf. Rackham, 1949, pp. 36-309. now in the west window, L6 and L2; Salmon and Boaz

THE GOTHIC WINDOWS 99 most others employed leads in the grounds in par- nella Master, or of the Crumpled Silk Painter in allel with the geometric figure of the armature the corona east window. This fine, miniaturesque (figs. 127, 151, 152, 213-216). This feature links handling belongs to the period before the exile. them with a tradition known in Chalons-sur-Marne The head, with its tight sculptural curls, is almost in the latter half of the twelfth century.*° It is not classical in appearance, markedly different from used in the comparable clerestory panels at Char- Hezekiah (fig. 216). The dryly painted zigzag bor-

tres. The consistent features, and the pairing of der of this window may be of later date, comarmature designs across the Trinity Chapel after pleted, like the ornament of the first bay in the the first bay, indicate a single overseer, and the ambulatory, after the exile. individual figures are sufficiently related in pose On the north side, small figures of Obed and and scale to bear this out. The situation is analo- Jesse in quatrefoils from Window N:VIII could gous to that in the clerestory of the transepts. be by the Petronella Master; Obed, particularly, The ancestors of Christ return to restless poses has a facial type similar to Amminadab, and delithat, on a miniature scale, mimic the dynamic fig- cate drapery folds quite typical of the Petronella ures of the Methuselah Master or the Jesse Master. Master’s work (fig. 153). As in Window n:lIII in Several are seated with their knees turned side- the ambulatory, he had accommodated himself to ways, or with one leg drawn up into a leaping pos- new principles of design, and this window too may ture. They gesture widely, with arms akimbo or postdate the exile. hands thrust out to the sides. There is a return to Surprisingly, the next four figures on the north distinctive attributes, other than the scrolls that all side, David and Nathan from N:VII, Rehoboam carry. Architectural features are abandoned, and and Abijah from N:VI, have some pronounced settings are of the simplest kind, with benches or archaisms. Draperies are organized into patterns of arcs and no footstools. The effect is flat and dec- firm, crisp lines; distinctly Romanesque is the torso orative. The new compositions give greater space of Rehoboam with its high belt and flat mantle, to ornament than previously. The colors tend to which invites comparison with the central figure be somber, deep blues, greens, and purples, enliv- in the Signum Tau panel from St.-Denis (figs. 214, ened chiefly by white. The palette is less delicate 49). Equally archaic is his companion, Abijah,

than that of the Petronella Master. whose thighs are outlined in damp-fold drapery One of the earliest-looking figures is Cosam, and ornamented with semicircles that recall Anfrom Window S:X on the south side of the first glo-Saxon drawings or German metalwork.” The bay (fig. 218).°* In spite of distortions of the shoul- original head of this figure, identified by Oakeshott,

ders and arms to fill a quatrefoil, there is an at- has since disappeared; it is strong and linear, contempt to render draperies plastically, especially over firming the metallic impression (fig. 215).°° The the knees and thigh, and to give them texture. The bold style of the inscriptions could indicate an tiny rucks and folds recall the work of the Petro- early date, or an extreme archaism. Restorations 5° Grodecki, Vitrail, p. 108, fig. 78, Pl. x11; cf. also the has been compared by Heimann to a figure in the Great

glass of Normée, zOid., fig. 37. Canterbury Psalter (The Year 1200, 111, 323, figs. 22, 23). "1 Gostling’s record that this figure was in Window 53 Oakeshott, 1951, recognized the original head in S:X has to be accepted; the quatrefoil exactly fits the Rackham, 1949, Pl. 50a. He remarked on its general reironwork of that window, and the figure is evidently de- semblance to the early twelfth-century wall paintings in signed for a quatrefoil. Rackham, following Austin, as- Canterbury, that is, in the apse of St. Gabriel’s Chapel;

signed Cosam to Window S:XI (p. 41). cf. Tristram, 1944, frontispiece and Pls. 1, 11, 12, 14, 15, 52 As in a few figures in the Aelfric Pentateuch from 19, and Suppl. Pls. 2a and b, and Rickert, 1967, Pl. 77. The St. Augustine’s, London, British Library, Cotton MS paintings have deteriorated severely since the Courtauld Claudius B.1v, e.g. £.38v, and the figure of Matthew on the photographs were taken early in the 1950s: see Eve Baker, portable altar of Eilbertus from the Guelph Treasure, now “St. Gabriel’s Chapel, Canterbury Cathedral,” C.C.C. 64

in the Berlin Museum; see Swarzenski, 1967, fig. 241, (1969), pp. 4-7. dated in the second third of the twelfth century. Rehoboam

THE GOTHIC WINDOWS 100 and releading may prevent any solution to the mys- richer treatment, with white flowers in the latticetery of these figures; their production after 1213 work ground, and a border of the climbing variety seems almost incredible, but there are other exam- with delicate foliage of the type used by the Petroples of archaism in English art,°* and the explana- nella Master. The borders confirm the continuity tion may lie in the use of an early model. Similarly of the Canterbury atelier in spite of new influences. harsh lines in David and Nathan suggest the same Enigmatically, the only panel which must, from its painter, but here traits such as the looped end of large dimensions, come from the axial window, Nathan’s mantle and the use of hairpin folds be- and which appropriately represents the Last Judgtray the late date. Nathan, quietly outlined and ment, is in a style close to that of the corona east rigidly frontal, might be a provincial repetition of window;** especially notable are the draperies, a figure such as Daniel from the Chartres nave which curve softly over the shoulders of the figures clerestory (figs. 213, 212). Chartrain connections, (figs. 137, 146). The early date proposed for this with Canterbury propa now she oh trom oars group may be defended by comparison with one of een suggested for Hezekiah and Josiah trom Ane the stray panels in the south rose of Notre-Dame,

dow N:V. The poorly preserved figure of Jeconiah, ; , and gestures, as well as color in which draperies

from the next window to the east, isscheme, attributed , ; to the Last Judgment are almostto identical

the Fitz-Eisulf Master, on the basis of the painterly , ; (fig. 147). Lafond dated this panel in the last quarar attribution ter of the twelfth century, buta he suspected later bench ends; the confirms a date after . overpainting;windows, in view of the panel, the 1213 for asCanterbury does ; , ,these paint easterly may be considered original, butthe thecharhand 1s treatment of his mantle as it fans out over the

acter of the rinceaux surrounding Hezekiah and dict ¢ hat of th ¢ che St. Matth

Jeconiah (figs. 216, 217). Insistent hairpin folds in or “ey that nr nh Fest oF the of, Matthew the draperies of Jeconiah, and of two very small series (cf. fig. 156). © Last Judgment is anfigures that may be from Window N:lll, are a other example of the close affinity between the Canhardening of the muldenfaltenstil, which was used terbury painters and French work in the period

with greater effect at Chartres.” before 1207; most probably the axial window was In the three windows of the apse there is a radi- planned, and work begun on the figure panels, cal change in ornament, which may also be attrib- before the exile, as it was also at the lower level. uted to continental influences; the grounds are of Panels painted at that time may have been set bold geometric designs in red, blue, and white. In hastily into grounds of the new time-saving variety Window N:lI is an unpainted diagonal lattice, in at the time of the 1220 translation. If a date before Window S:1I an unpainted scale pattern. The bor- 1210-1215 is accepted for the glazing of the nave ders are identical, with leaves arranged in fours of Chartres, there is little difficulty in assigning to

in the manner of the Jesse Master, but poor in all of the Trinity Chapel windows a date before execution. The axial window is given a slightly July 1220. 54 See, for instance, the prefatory pages of the unglossed 55 For example, in the clerestory of the south transept, Psalter of Robert de Lindesey, London, Society of Ant- Delaporte and Houvet, 1926, Pl. cc (Ezechiel). quaries, MS 59a, Brieger, 1957, p. 82 and Pl. 24b, and 56 Caviness, 1973, p. 13. also the pages by W. de Brailes in Baltimore, Walters Art 57 Corpus, France 1, 56, 61. Lafond was unable to make Gallery, MS 500 (zd., p. 89, Pl. 28), for which Swar- a close examination of the glass in the roses. zenski suggested that an early model was used.

.&*

; ] = Cc ("srl AT : ~ + a 2 i

f.sNews 4| am Pa =47! ~~ ee» -= . zs “iBil (seAwoe ae ane. 1S Soe ey As * P ; ae & Py >}! (444 f me

| \ ; VT LOTh SAL ST VR NERE SPICE HAT PRODI BETVR

: a . S . os

—~-. : | -| ..‘ia a wa :Peony L4G:iy 7 7 “oer ; pp et mags f wart) ays Yet c Cy We ee ce PWS 5 | ayy = = nN Sree a yy is / ’ : Sy ig! a a5We Ss ys id . ¥\hi:P~wy! yg } 3*yi 7i7)_" I\\;ngOy }J a4\ fJ¢\ :Wey . Ss Py

iN , ‘igen . Q nd ys yi G : Py A — ; A “4 Pia |! ) == ; $s 2 aS py. att wi

TO ay | er Sad Pe ba’ Fan = MT Ay SS Sa | | ao oa ib po Pk aoy i ae RINE WH pe

a,. ‘> ff ei" So| \g - 4sy, . | =paae, Ae | , -\ = aw,"S, OA*p . ~ o~ 15 I

T“iS se > 3 Vs %we) lk istn ei \\ ~ Vj ,av anoh Fatal ig A % arawness. ° AWS Ss rt en iaGil Hh » 3 | its me , SE ba BE Pp fe $7 \ ASE \ i eg. a SF =

Zegls _ *s ath tol© % yer ne ee.aS adOo fa 2 ph! x > \ BO ‘ ae 5ee =

ie: aasWA eee eee dC Sn eRe Pe ae) Gia : (Ae?AY i | esae‘ (8?: fon .Cas Yn S27 /

\NI YY ¢ y |yy, ’a %. ,

\, ps \° & aw Bray aa. rn 3 % . . ? (*Ee “Adify » 5 r & e | o “ae tee SM A %, ~°°‘ tj, ao J 4 { 2a , f, p Bb < o ; 8 ef < 2 a Se D4 ; (* = + eames haiinal ita, oN 9 athe?

mes © % 4 4, ™ el Sec a, wes * : Git S) ® ITA >of 4 a ; 4 >B+ae®\jS5,3 ® se ‘ Pi :f mae ” ?ad . (ET EFi i? ; \S\ toe f @oe, ee |yw ‘ewhalo Pri ;e.6 €; é PyBs | ae ee&| by 4 a~Ay : a' Sy) Ssxy . feos

Moe Ow ivable? eam P| ethos

y ete. e 3 pha “ # s, leIYi odsm : ySX Oe pd eg = & fn ¥ ef. a7 LS \ es4 a,ry\* ~a%@®afs,.‘%© $‘e( *o —_ 8aeS A. ma §;”>ap mad A la e€ & *s* ‘ ed sasestady * nseah Cedeg 2 aes “ pe a ge” : oO s, 5 f \ *, ae SB eePa ®0, reeSEES ih[oe irae fF xD} i>,“oo a. stale2eget See jy| .' 2M FN

. . @ ,e -y F,) iJeee .,®ae@ ay . r&» 6? ;as_——~ @| rtetf? a 4., SS > Ys ThLy wTF *.=i’ ;"@ y/ edeS - \Fie3 ¥.> o~% eee? een‘ oor” OF“eoA

2ew ‘%min .ms :Sa < Creation of and the Creation of Eve, which are not at Sens but Adam (1 line) which were in one scene +(2. lines) cf.3probably God showing . . at Canterbury, 3 Creation of Adam & Eve are included as separate episodes. A few of the Sens

Eve (1 line) the tree and Bourges scenes are alike,**’ but for most of 4 The Fall— +(1 line) 4 these an earlier prototype can be found that is

they eat fruit closer to Sens. (2 lines) No single pictorial model can be found for the

ass .

[5 Conviction] [+] (2 lines) 5 Sens window. Examination of each cycle in turn

6 Expulsion +(2 lines) 6 indicates that it was put together from separate

[7 Beginning sources, and that types were not adapted so as to of Toil] — — resemble each other or their antitype visually. First,

8 The Priest — t(1 line) 7 the three essential scenes to illustrate the parable

and me Levite were chosen; to these were added scenes from a

- a (2 lines) Genesis cycle, others from a Moses cycle, and ? and Pharaoh, 1¢2 lines . finally those from the Passion.***

to Tau written _ _ The four scenes that recount the parable of the

on lintel Good Samaritan bear some resemblance to prefa-

1 Exodus +(2 lines) cf.8 The Burning tory drawings in an early twelfth-century New Bush Testament from Bury St. Edmunds, Cambridge,

12 Law given _ _ Pembroke College, MS 120, f.2. However, Parker 13 Golden Calf +(2 lines) 10 has indicated the probable dependence of these on

14 Brazen +(2 lines) 1 an Ottonian model, because of their close relation-

Serpent ship to the cycle in the Golden Gospels of Henry

15 The Samaritan +(no verse) 1D III in Madrid.**? The Sens cycle shows a similar

takes him to adaptation from such a model by contracting the

the inn passing by of the Priest and the Levite into one 16 The Betrayal +(2 lines) — moment in time. A similarly contracted cycle ap— ChristPilate befsrons 13 186 Cahier and Martin, 1841, Pl. vi, pp. 191-219; Male,

(x line) 1958, p. 199. Examples in Chartres and Rouen do not have the types grouped around antitypes. 17 The Scourging — 14 187 Alike are: God Showing Adam and Eve the Tree,

(no verse) Adam and Eve Eating the Apple (reversed), The Priest

18 The Crucifixion (2 lines) 15 and Levite Pass By, The Traveller Led to the Inn, and the Flagellation.

19 The Entombment _ — 188 There is a marked similarity between some of the (no verse) scenes from the Moses and Passion cycles at Sens and 20 The Resurrection — — prefatory paintings in the Ingeborg Psalter, viz. the

(no verse) Burning Bush and the Golden Calf, and Christ before

he W & 29, 30.

ot The Angel and +(2 lines) 6 Pilate and the Scourging; Deuchler, 1967, figs. 16, 17,

the women 189 Madrid, Escorial Real Biblioteca, Vit. 17, f.109v;

+ indicates the presence of the title in the manuscript. Parker, 1969, p. 281, Pls. xxxiv, xivira.

BIBLICAL SUBJECTS 137 peared in the now lost Gospel Book of Henry the rose, compares with the great figure of Adam only

Lion, of ca. 1175. A priori judgment cannot be in the hair loincloth and spade, which we have made as to whether Sens depended on an Eng- seen are “Canterbury” features; the rather meager, lish model from Canterbury or on continental tra- delicate figures appear later in date. So too, Christ ditions. Arnold claimed the primacy of Canterbury among the Doctors, also now in the north rose at chiefly on the ground that the Sens window has Lincoln, is a simplified version of the scene combeen isolated from a series.’®° The inscriptions have pared with the panel in north choir aisle n:XIV; been discarded, as they were at St.-Quentin, which there is no aedicula, and no inscription. Noah’s might argue for a later date, but there is at present Ark, now in the south choir aisle at Lincoln, occuno iconographical evidence to prove this chronol- pies a full circle, whereas the Canterbury repre-

ogy. sentations are both semicircles. As already re-

There is one more striking parallel with a lost marked, the ark at Lincoln has a boatlike hull, as Canterbury typological window. In 1946 Lafond has that in the Peterborough Psalter, but Cantersuggested that several of the fragmentary panels bury followed a different tradition. The Crossing preserved in Lincoln Cathedral should be regarded of the Red Sea served as a companion type to the as part of a typological sequence, and he was able Baptism of Christ at Lincoln as at Canterbury, but to suggest a reconstruction for the Last Supper again with a discrepancy in shape between the with two types, David Bearing Himself on His circle preserved at Lincoln and the lost semicircle Hands and the Fall of Manna (Appendix fig. from Canterbury. There are no fragments at Lin18b)."** The reconstruction, based on measure- coln to suggest that the typological series there had ments and careful observation as well as a broad extensive inscriptions; probably they had only knowledge of window compositions, is entirely labels, as at Sens. Corresponding ornamental convincing. Quite independently, in working out motifs show that the examples at Lincoln are the disposition of the lost Canterbury subjects in slightly simplified, and a later date is also sugthe existing armatures, I found that the same gested by stylistic comparison and by the absence three subjects belonged in an identical composition of inscriptions. The inception of the Canterbury in the eleventh window (Appendix fig. 18a). Al- program about 1177-1178 was certainly before that though the subject of David Bearing Himself on of the glazing of Lincoln Cathedral, where buildHis Hands in the manner of an acrobat has been ing was begun only in rrg2.'®* It seems that one of traced by Heimann to the first half of the twelfth the sources for the Lincoln program was Cantercentury,’*” it must have been quite rare to warrant bury. A typological Passion window may have a lengthy explanation by the author of Pzctor in been a replica of the eleventh window in the Carmine. And although Pictor names both David Canterbury series; the three subjects at Lincoln and the Fall of Manna among other types of the were probably in the top of a lancet, where they Last Supper,’®** the precise coincidence of window were least likely to be destroyed, and that is the composition at Canterbury and Lincoln can only position they occupied at Canterbury also. Lincoln

be explained by direct contacts. was otherwise richer in the range of purely narraWhere the same subject is preserved at Canter- tive subjects than Canterbury; several popular bury and at Lincoln, on the other hand, corres- saints’ lives were included, and Lafond has repondences in style are not close. A medallion with marked that they seem to have begun in the botAdam digging and Eve spinning, now in the north tom of each window. This, as well as many other 190 Arnold and Saint, 1939, pp. 88-809. 194 Nikolaus Pevsner, The Chotr of Lincoln Cathedral: 191 Lafond, 1946, pp. 126-27, 130-31. An Interpretation, London, 1963, pp. 3-5. Lafond, 1946,

192 Heimann, 1965, pp. 103-104. p. 150, placed the glass ca. 1200-1220. 193 James, 1951, pp. 148, 160.

BIBLICAL SUBJECTS 138 factors, suggests continental influence, perhaps lish programs, which preclude strong or specific predominantly Chartrain. It would be surprising if continental influences. In overall tenor the program influence from Chartres did not supersede that of seems to reflect the intellects of men who were in Canterbury in the second decade of the thirteenth Canterbury in the seventies. For specific design

century.*°° sources the artists drew heavily on early manuscripts in the Canterbury libraries, although to Tuts survey of the intellectual trends reflected in some extent they also borrowed motifs from Bythe choice of biblical subjects, and of some of the zantine sources, most probably from Sicilian art

specific sources for them, leads to a number of before the execution of the Monreale mosaics in important conclusions. One is that, while reflecting the eighties. In all probability, then, these ambitious twelfth-century trends in exegesis and _ pictorial programs were planned as the building progressed, typology on the continent, the Canterbury program beginning about 1175. There is evidence to suggest

could have been composed in Canterbury itself that the Canterbury windows, particularly the about 1175-1180. There are some specific angli- typological cycle, which was evidently famous in cisms, in the ordering of subjects in the windows, the Middle Ages, had some influence on the Gothic and in the coincidence of subjects with other Eng- glazing of cathedrals on both sides of the Channel. 195 Lafond, 1946, pp. 146-47 has suggested that the Perche, who died in Lincoln in 1217, and for whom a Thomas mentioned in an inscription may be the Comte de memorial window was given in Chartres.

VIII. Hagiographical Subjects

“Aula di claris radiat speciosa metallis THE BIBLICAL programs in the Canterbury windows

In qua plus fidet lux prettosa micat . are grandiose in conception and lie beyond the

Martyribus medicts populo spes certa salutis . ; Venit et ex sacro crevit honore locus.” grasp, both intellectual and physical, of the ordiApse mosaic, nary viewer; their ramifications in space and their Santa Maria Maggiore? layers of meaning require long study (text fig. 2c). Such contemplation, as experienced by Abbot

| Suger, would be more leisurely for the monks, who saw the windows for hours ‘daily from their choir, than for the pilgrims.? These typological biblical subjects predominate in the program of

the choir and eastern transepts, but even here a few more directly narrative lives of the saints are thinly interspersed. As the viewer passed behind the high altar and mounted the pilgrim steps to the Trinity Chapel, his experience was of a quite different kind. As remarked earlier, the intense colors of the glass,

though more somber, draw closer and create a total ambience of colored light (text fig. 2d). Reasoned contemplation gives way to devotion before the many dramatic images of miracles of healing at

the tomb of St. Thomas, “the best physician of virtuous sick people.”* In the fifty years after his death the cult of the saint grew prodigiously, his fame based as much on the posthumous miracles 1“The house of God shines with the brilliancy of the purest metals, and the light of the faith glows there more preciously, the physician martyrs have assumed the salvation of the people, and a sacred honor has been attached to this place.” Translated by Edgar Waterman Anthony, A History of Mosaics, New York, 1968, p. 81. The apse

mosaics of Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome date from the thirteenth century. 2 For the often-quoted passage from De Administratione,

Chapter 33, “. . . worthy meditation has induced me to reflect, transferring that which is material to that which is immaterial,” see Teresa G. Frisch, Gothic Art 1140-¢.1450:

Sources and Documents, Englewood Cliffs, 1971, p. 9. 8 A pilgrim’s ampulla preserved in Canterbury, Guildhall Museum, is inscribed: opTIMUS EGRORUM MEDICUS FIT THOMA BONORUM; quoted by Borenius, 1932, p. 45.

HAGIOGRAPHICAL SUBJECTS 140 as on his living actions.* Within a decade the new rather different from those of the last. Hagiographenlarged upper chapel had been planned, with its ical subject matter is more limited than biblical, roomy ambulatory, to accommodate his relics in in the sense that a saint may be of predominantly a shrine and the crowds who would visit them. local importance, and also—depending when he To those who had known Becket, or who had lived—representation of his life will not have the visited his miracle-working tomb in the crypt, the great antiquity of tradition that hangs so heavily setting for the shrine must have been dramatic on biblical subjects. Then again, no_ pictorial indeed. The twelve typological windows so pon- sources have been found for the treatment of the derously laid out in the western part of the building saints whose lives are represented at Canterbury; were now complimented by a phalanx of twelve speculation as to the nature of models, if any great windows, which shed their jeweled light on existed, must rely on stylistic rather than iconothe shrine, and which recounted in over two graphic judgments. It is possible, however, to view hundred scenes the life and miracles of the “Lamb the subjects in relation both to the framework of

of Canterbury.” the rest of the program, and to prevailing attitudes The methods of this chapter are necessarily that would have governed their choice.

The cycles: changes in emphasis , Tue hagiographical windows incorporated earlier Chapel on the north side (n:X).° A panel from into the scheme of glazing are poorly preserved, the Nelson-Hunt collection now in the Virginia but they do provide some basis of comparison with Museum of Fine Arts may represent an early epithe Becket cycle. The most extensive remains are sode in the Life of St. Stephen, whose chapel was

scenes from the lives of the Canterbury Arch- also in the north transept; a saint is shown in bishops Dunstan and Alphage, now in the three disputation with Jews.” An engraving published in windows at triforium level on the north side of 1836 shows two panels of figured glass in the top the choir. The junior Caldwell and Rackham of each of these windows.* No doubt the preserved supposed that they were originally in the lower scene of St. Martin dividing his cloak, which ocwindows of the presbytery near their altars (n: VIII curred before his entry into the church, was one and s:VIII, plan),° but we have used these win- of the earliest in the sequence. The order of scenes,

dows for the reconstruction of the typological then, must have been from the top down, in the cycle, and the large medallions and one quatrefoil Canterbury tradition. On the south side were the of the hagiographical series would not fit the iron- chapels of St. John the Evangelist and St. Gregory

work. Clearly they were intended for the “tri- the Great (with windows s:IX, s:X, see plan). foria” from the beginning, where they would be The scribe of the fourteenth-century roll added readily visible from the saints’ altars. The only five subjects from a Life of St. Gregory to the existing armature which could have accommo- twelfth window, no doubt by mistake; the four dated the quatrefoil with St. Dunstan is in this pairs of leonine hexameters recorded indicate that

“triforium” on the south side. the Gregory window too was heavily inscribed.° The single narrow lancet in each of the four To some extent hagiographical and biblical wintransept chapels probably had short lives of saints; dows were also interwoven in the eastern extension;

one fragmentary panel remains in St. Martin’s the twelve Becket windows were capped by the * For reflections in literature and art see Walberg, 19209, * Caviness, 1973, p. 7. and Borenius, 1932. ® Britton, 1836, Pl. v. 5 Rackham, 1949, pp. 68-69. ® James, 1901, p. 26. 6 Rackham, 1949, pp. 111-12, fig. 31b.

HAGIOGRAPHICAL SUBJECTS 141 Redemption in the east window of the corona. the source was probably liturgical, as the episode About 1643 Richard Culmer claimed that an image was included in the life read on Gregory’s feast of St. Augustine was broken in a window to the day at Hyde, although there is some doubt that east of the shrine of Becket;*® it may have been the lesson was read at Christ Church.** Such a

with christological scenes in the corona. source, however, would not have been illustrated, With the exception of the Evangelist, if his life and whether pictorial models would have been was included, all the saints represented in the available to the glass painters is a question less glass were churchmen with strong Canterbury con- easily resolved. Related to it is the origin of the nections; they spanned the history of the Church verses used as tztuli, and their connection with from the time of the mission of St. Augustine, who the prose sources.

was sent by Gregory the Great, through the era At Canterbury the Life of St. Gregory and the of monastic reforms under Dunstan, the persecu- Miracles of St. Thomas were supplied with lengthy tions by the Danes under Alphage, and finally the inscriptions, and there is some slight evidence that very recent events of the martyrdom and miracles such was the case also with the Sts. Dunstan and of Becket. A few scenes from saints’ lives had been Alphage series.” In the attention given to inscripincluded in the typological cycle, and no doubt the tions, the Canterbury hagiographical cycles differ full lives of canonized churchmen were also to be from those surviving in Notre-Dame, Paris, and

read in the context of events before and under in Sens, Chartres, and Bourges, to name only a grace. As in most hagiographical cycles, there are few of the contemporary cycles in glass. The hagivisual references to the life of Christ; these will be ographical verses may well have been composed by

considered in more detail later. members of Christ Church.

Textual sources for the lives would have been Although the occurrence of t#tuli is rare in thirreadily available. The Lives of Sts. Dunstan and teenth-century pictorial lives, the practice of comAlphage, as well as the prose accounts of the mira- bining pictures with verses was an old one, as was cles of Becket, were all written at Christ Church. the inclusion of scenes from the lives of the saints Alphage and Dunstan had been treated by Osbern, in church decoration.*® Such titulz, and presumably Dunstan again by Eadmer; lives of Thomas were the illustrations that accompanied them, were often

written by John of Salisbury, Herbert of Bosham, connected with the translation of relics. Thus, and the monks Benedict and William. The non- verses on the Life of St. Wulfstan were probably English saints, on the other hand, were widely ven- composed for his translation in 1218, and they were

erated and a variety of texts might have been used in slightly modified form in the windows in available. It is notable that the appearance of Christ the cloister at Worcester.** Tztulz and illustrations

to Gregory while he washes the hands of the poor might be drawn from more than one textual was included in the glass but was not recounted in source. In the case of the Guthlac roll in the British

the English lives by the Whitby monk and Bede; Library (MS Harl. Y.6) at least one scene is not 10 Culmer, c.1643, p. 311. I am grateful to Dr. Urry Hoare, “the story of the several Archbishops of Canter-

for this reference. bury, engrossed in vellum, to hang up in Canterbury

11 Tolhurst, ed., 1937, £227, lesson xi. The burned Cathedral in tables, in lieu of the old ones, which are Breviary, Canterbury Cathedral Library, MS Add. 6, has almost worn out” (Evelyn, 1955-1959, 0, p. 559, n.2); been transcribed by Dr. C. S. Phillips. The office for perhaps these were transcripts of inscriptions in the St. Gregory began on f.20; lessons ix—xii of Hyde, how- glass, like the fourteenth-century roll, but they may ever, are not extant. The vision was later included in thé have been for the archbishops’ tombs. I am grateful to

Golden Legend, p. 182. Dr. Urry for help on this question.

12Fastry’s list of Christ Church books included a 13 Wormald, 1952-1953, pp. 253-54. In conversation in Passio Sancti Elphegt, versifice; James, 1903, p. 49, no. 281. 1967 he was, however, quite skeptical about illustrations Somner, 1640, pp. 241, 243, 262, 256, 265, refers to tables in glass evolving independently of illustrated texts in the hung in the church, but all seem to be connected with later Middle Ages. tombs. In 1665 Pepys saw some calligraphy by Richard 14 Ibid., pp. 252-53.

HAGIOGRAPHICAL SUBJECTS 142 drawn from the Life by Felix. This series also may Bede wrote his Life of St. Cuthbert, and later his have been designed in connection with the transla- Ecclestastical History, he was able to take as his tion, which took place in 1198, possibly for plaques model the Dialogues of Gregory the Great.** He

on the shrine itself.” preferred to record miracles of healing rather than

, Also pertinent to the composition of the windows the perhaps more popular magical events that were was the tradition of lbelli, or sumptuously illus- rooted in Celtic superstition. Disease was a manitrated manuscripts with the life and miracles of a festation of the devil, and in combating it the saints particular saint, which Wormald conjectured were imitated Christ.”* Bede’s Life was based on earlier kept in the treasury rather than the library.*° He texts and traditions, but events were selected with has cited a number of English examples from the an eye to papal authority.”* In his Ecclesiastical twelfth century and the turn of the thirteenth— History he quoted a letter from Gregory to Augussuch as the two Cuthbert Lives, Oxford, University tine in which the pope warned: “you may rejoice College, MS 165, and British Library, Add. MS because the souls of the English are by outward 39943.." Libelli devoted to one of the Canterbury miracles drawn to inward grace; but [it is necessaints would have been an ideal model for the glass sary| that you fear, lest amidst the wonders that painters, yet there is no evidence that such existed.** are wrought, the weak mind may be puffed up by Around 1200, indeed, the time of the glazing, its own presumption.””* As we shall see, this advice libelli were going out of fashion.*® But if the win- was not always heeded, but the Becket miracle dows at Chartres have the character of a compila- series is very close to the spirit of Gregory and tion of vitae sanctorum, the Trinity Chapel at Can- Bede. terbury resembles a libellus; and of these windows The literalness of the depictions of disease and

as of the /zbelli it may be said that “they were injury in the Trinity Chapel reflect a much later manifestations of the pride and grandeur of the development. Some time in the twelfth century the monastic houses between the beginning of the recording of miracles became almost a legal exerCluniac reforms and the coming of the friars.”*® cise; many of the compilations of that era were The attitude manifested in the selection of scenes made with the canonization of a local saintly perto illustrate the lives of the Anglo-Saxon arch- sonage in mind. Thus, Thomas Becket commis-

bishops is profoundly different from that in the sioned a work on Anselm of Canterbury, but selection of miracles of St. Thomas. The latter are ironically it was eclipsed by his own martyrdom more humanistic, representing the saint in the role and sainthood.” The process of canonization beof martyr physician, while the former stress the came more and more rigorous after the end of the

supernatural. These differing attitudes can be century. By 1219, when Stephen Langton, archdocumented in the English hagiographical tradi- bishop of Canterbury and one of the new generation. As early as about 720, when the Venerable tion of schoolmen, was named head of a commission

15 Tbid., pp. 262-63. spatromanischen Wandmalereien im Dome zu _ Braun16 Wormald, 1952-1953, p. 256. schweig,” Niedersachsisches Jahrbuch fiir Landesgeschichte

17 See Mary Evelyn Stringer, “The Twelfth-Century It (1934), 1-60. Illustrations of the Life of Saint Cuthbert,” Ph.D. disser- 19 Wormald, 1952-1953, p. 261.

tation, Harvard University, 1973. 20 Tbid., p. 262.

18 Alleged representations of the miracles of Becket in 21C, Grant Loomis, “The Miracle Traditions of the fourteenth-century glass in York Chapter House (Boren- Venerable Bede,” Speculum 21 (1946), 405.

ius, 1932, p. 44) provide no close parallels to the Trinity 22 Ibid., p. 41l. Chapel compositions, and may represent the tomb of some 23 Thid., pp. 416-18. other saint. The Life of Becket, on the other hand, was 2+ Bede’s Ecclestastical History of the English Nation, illustrated in late twelfth or early thirteenth-century wall tr. J. Stevens, London and New York, 1910, p. 54. paintings in Sta. Maria de Tarrasa, Spain, and Brunswick 25 Southern, 1963, pp. 337-39; Becket presented an Cathedral, Germany; see Boase, 1953, p. 204; Borenius, account of Anselm’s life and miracles to Pope Alexander 1932, pp. 48-54; E. W. Anthony, Romanesque Frescoes, Ill at the Council of Tours in May 1163, with a request

Princeton, 1951, p. 174, figs. 423, 424; J. Gerhardt, “Die for canonization. -

HAGIOGRAPHICAL SUBJECTS 143 to inquire into the miracles of St. Hugh of Lincoln, to pilgrims in the chapter house, an extension of the task required a very exacting examination of the usual monastic custom of liturgical readings the evidence.”* Miracles were no longer vaguely set and of readings to the brethren at meals.?® The down from hearsay, as they had been at an earlier Christ church readings seem to have had a precetime. The names of the subjects of miraculous dent on the pilgrim routes; it has been demoncures, sometimes their age, their place of dwelling, strated that the chanson de geste owed much to the their ailment, and the manner in which the story recitation of lives of the saints.*® One of the early © was collected were all recorded. This was done in ltbellz, a collection of materials relating to St. James two texts compiled at Canterbury in 1173 and 1172- of Compostela, was most probably recited in this 1174, which describe the miracles of St. Thomas. way." Extended hagiographical compilations alThat of William dates from 1173, the year of the most always emanated from the place that housed canonization, which was “in response to popular the relics of a saint, generally a monastery, which demand. Many lives of the saint, variously his gave them the stamp of authenticity. Thus Eadmer, torical and hagiographical, were also written about in rewriting Osbern’s life of St. Dunstan, wished

3907 . ; ; - -

; . 33

the same. time.”* BothanBenedict and William added 1 Copies ae. 39 . of to produce accurate and official life.** a eo book to their textsaccounts to bring them up be to date, ., such official might presented to royalty William in 1178-1179 andhouse, Benedictserving in or afterperhaps 1179. , , ; , ; , or to a sister

suppress It is. .possible thisbased was done in hearsay. thetohope of distorted that versions on mere Again

completing the translation in the near since . ye . . in the case of Christ Church, gifts future, of the Miracult

the building was nearing completion. However, Sencts T the event was again postponed until 1220, the ancti Thomae were made to Henry II, and over-

fiftieth anniversary of the martyrdom. seas to the monastery of Igny.** Copies were also Verisimilitude must have served not only to im- available in the library; one was signed out to press on the reader the sanctity of Thomas, but Edward II and never returned.** Since the library also to emphasize that the Canterbury texts were copies were probably very plain, it cannot be the most authentic. In the period before the trans- claimed that they disseminated an iconographic lation, Benedict’s account of the miracles was read tradition.** It is probable, however, that those who 26 C. H. Lawrence, St. Edmund of Abingdon: A Study of the reign of Richard I (see Robertson, 1v, 1879, xix—xx).

in Hagiography and Htstory, Oxford, 1960, pp. 10-12. 29 Walberg, 1929, pp. 59-60. Under Innocent III, witnesses to the miracles had to 3° Joseph Bédier, Les Légendes épiques: Recherches sur appear in person, as in the applications for Gilbert of la formation des Chansons de Geste, 3rd ed. 11, Paris, Sempringham in 1201 and for Wulfstan of Worcester in 1929, 1orff.

1203. *1 Ibid., pp. 75-76; the Liber Jacobus was compiled be-

27’ The canonization took place on February 21, 1173 tween 1173 and 1179. Its contents, listed zdzd., pp. 76-78, (see Poole, 1955, p. 214). According to Walberg, 1929, make it a typical libellus as defined by Wormald, 1952p. 73, William, a monk of Christ Church, compiled his 1953, Pp. 249-50. first five books in 1172-1174/75 (from internal evidence); 32 Stubbs, 1874, p. xxxiii. Benedict, also of Christ Church, wrote his first three 33 Robertson, 1, 1875, pp. xxvii-xxvili. From William’s books in 1171-1173 (zdid., p. 61). In 1178-1179, William text, pp. 137-38, it is clear that his book of miracles was added his Book v1, and in 1179 Benedict wrote his Book v presented to the king and that he himself went to Lon(Walberg, pp. 57, 72-73, and Benedict, ed. Robertson, don on that occasion. The gift to Igny was sent by Odo, 1876, p. xxiii, n. 1); Books vi and vir of Benedict were abbot of Battle, who had been prior of Christ Church to added later by another author (see Benedict, ed. Robertson, 1175. This must be the Cistercian abbey at Igny, between

1876, p. xxvi). the Vesle and the Marne; see M. A. Dimier, “The Cister-

28 The Vita Sancti Thomae, by “the annonymous of cian Abbey of Vauclair: Historical Summary,” Gesta 5 Lambeth” was composed in 1172-1173 (Walberg, 19209, (1966), 47, n. I. p. 60). Four other authors had completed lives by 1198- 34 James, 1903, p. xlvi. The entry, no. 29 in the “De 1199: William of Canterbury and three of Becket’s col- defectibus librorum” of 1337 (Register 1 in the Chapter leagues, John of Salisbury, Alan of Tewkesbury, and Library), is printed ibid., p. 148. Herbert of Bosham. These four were used in the Quad- 35 The extant recensions are plain and unillustrated. rilogus compiled by E(lias) of Evesham in the last year Six of Benedict’s texts are known: 1) London, Lambeth

HAGIOGRAPHICAL SUBJECTS 144 saw the windows accepted them in much the same finally entirely suppressed. Represented are the

spirit as the written “eyewitness” accounts. diseases and failings of ordinary people. Stressed The concern with miracles of healing did not are the necessity of faith, the avoidance of futile extend long into the thirteenth century. Wolpers medical treatments, and the offering at the shrine has shown that hagiographical writing changed of the thanks, gifts, and ex-votos that were due to rapidly under the impact of the new scholasticism the saint. These lessons, and not the christological and of the friars; spiritual qualities were empha- nature of the saint, are emphasized in the ¢ztultz;

sized above miraculous events, and the great references to the public life of Christ are purely tradition from Bede to Eadmer, which had been visual. The prose texts laid somewhat more emphaprolonged by such minor authors as William and sis on moral and spiritual interpretations. In one Benedict, died out.** With their emphasis on mira- passage Benedict stressed the spiritual benefits of cles of healing, with their tztuli based, as we shall the miracles, pointing out that each person who see, on two texts, with their creation intimately came to beg for a cure at the tomb had to repent connected both with the translation of the relics of his sins and resolve to lead a better life.** Wilthey surrounded and with the influx of pilgrims, liam held that the saint’s miracles raising people the St. Thomas windows represent the culmina- from the dead confirmed the doctrine of resurrection of twelfth-century hagiography. Like the read- tion, and elsewhere commented that the doctrine ings in the chapter house—which they may have of transubstantiation was thought by some to be superseded—they were designed to popularize the confirmed by miraculous changes in the blood of saint, and no doubt to encourage further miracles.*” St. Thomas.*® There are very few miracles in which

The Celtic element that continued, in spite of supernatural beings figure, and none has survived Bede, in the lives of the Anglo-Saxon saints, was in the glass except in Window n:V. The lives of Sts. Dunstan and Alphage

Tue scenes from the Lives of Sts. Dunstan and Thomas. Their enemies were the pagan Danes, Alphage are somewhat archaic, being distinctly the king, rebellious churchmen, and the devil. The less humanistic. The saints were of great political miracles represented were in the Celtic magical importance to Canterbury, as predecessors of St. tradition, and demonstrated the potency of the Palace Library, MS 135, ff.26-117v, probably a Christ no. 1842/732); 6) See no. 2 below. Of William’s text there Church book, twelfth-thirteenth century (M. R. James, are only the two manuscripts known to Robertson: 1) “The Manuscripts in the Library at Lambeth Palace,” Winchester College Library, a gift of William of WykeCambridge Antiquarian Society 30 [1900], 214-15); 2) ham, late thirteenth century (Robertson, 1, 1875, xxxCambridge, Trinity College, MS B.14.37, from St. Augus- xxxi); 2) Montpellier Bibliothéque de Il’Ecole de Medicine,

tine’s, twelfth-thirteenth century (M. R. James, The MS 2, late twelfth century from Clairvaux (Robertson, 1v, Western Manuscripts in the Library of Trinity College, 1879, pp. xxiv-xxvi). Besides Books 1-v1 of William, this Cambridge, Cambridge, 1900, 1, 436); 3) Paris, Biblio- also contains Books 1-1v of Benedict, and the Life of théque Nationale, MS cod. sig. no. 5320, thirteenth cen- Becket by John of Salisbury. tury (formerly Count Bethun, MS Regius C.4187, Hagi- 36 Theodor Wolpers, Die englische Heiligenlegende des ographi Bollandiani, Catalogus Codicum Hagtographico- Mittelalters, Tubingen, 1964, pp. 157-61. See also Southrum Latinorum Antiquiorum Saeculo XVI qui Asservan- ern, 1953, Pp. 255tur in Bibliotheca Nationals Paristensi, 11, Brussels, 1890, 37 Walberg, 1929, pp. 59-60, quoted William Fitz-Steph197); 4) Brussels, Bibliothéque Royale, MS 3190, thir- en, who died in 1191 (from Robertson, 111, 1877, 151, xvi). teenth century (cod. sig. no. 7959-61, J. van den Gheyn, It is not known how long the custom of public readings Catalogue des manuscrits de la Bibliothéque Royale de was continued. Belgique, v, Brussels, 1905, 165-66); 5) Formerly Chel- 38 Benedict, ed. Robertson, 1876, Book m1, ch. 11, p. 126. tenham, Phillipps Collection, from the Cistercian house 39 William, ed. Robertson, 1875, Book rv, chs. 45 and 49, of Aulne, thirteenth century (Catalogus Librorum Manu- pp. 355-56 and 360. seriptorum in Bibliotheca Thomae Phillipps, Bart., 1837,

HAGIOGRAPHICAL SUBJECTS 145 saints against their enemies. The selection seems The present series from the Lives comprises only to have been politically motivated and leaves the four authentic scenes of St. Dunstan and three of observer in no doubt where the right lay, in spite St. Alphage (figs. 109, 113). All follow Osbern’s of the fact that the inscriptions have been lost. accounts. In the case of St. Alphage, this was the These scenes would not, however, have carried the official Life.*? St. Dunstan, as we have seen, had

popular appeal of the Thomas series. had other biographers in the twelfth century.** Southern has demonstrated the importance to Osbern’s Life of about 1080-1090 and the corrected the inmates of Canterbury of their saints’ relics. version by Eadmer of some twenty to thirty years He quoted Gervase, who apologized for his descrip- later are, for our purposes, identical;** all the scenes

tion of the pre-Conquest church: “Jt was not my represented in the glass are recorded in both texts. plan to describe the disposition of stones: but I do Osbern and Eadmer were both precentors of Christ so here because I cannot fully explain the arrange- Church, so either work would have been acceptable ment of the bodies of the saints in different parts as the official account, though Eadmer’s seems of the church, unless, with the help of Eadmer who never to have equalled Osbern’s in popularity.*® saw these things, I first describe the places where It is clear, however, that some of the scenes could they lay.” In the choir consecrated in 1130, Dunstan not have been taken from the Lives of St. Dunstan and Alphage were given pride of place; their efh- composed before Osbern’s.*’ If any conclusions can gies were placed on either side of Christ in Glory be drawn from the four scenes preserved, one over the high altar.*° During the time of Anselm, would agree with Stubbs that “Dunstan is the feasts added in their honor made them the equals prophet of the evil days, the intercessor for better of Gregory. Some new impetus to the cult of days to come, the great monastic reformer.”** Three St. Dunstan may have been given later by a dispute scenes are rather ordinary, including a much re-

with Glastonbury as to the true location of his stored ordination, and two supernatural occurrelics.*? After the rebuilding of the choir in 1174- rences, Dunstan transported by angels into a closed 1180, it was natural in a conservative monastic chapel at Glastonbury, and his vision on Ascension church to honor these early saints in the glass that Day (fig. 110).*® The other two are relevant to later

was the glory of the new building; in 1180 the Church history. Dunstan was persecuted by King relics once more assumed their traditional place Eadwy during his life but when he saw him sufferon either side of the high altar, as had most prob- ing in hell he was moved to pray for his release;

ably been planned from the beginning.” the scene shows the saint at the gate of hell, like 40 Southern, 1963, pp. 262, 265. 45 For the date of Osbern, see Stubbs, 1874, p. xxx1; and

“1 Thid., pp. 266-67, 282. Eleanor S. Duckett, St. Dunstan of Canterbury, London,

42 Gervase, ed. Stubbs, 1879, p. 22. Gervase points out 1956, p. 234. Eadmer wrote in Anselm’s lifetime, probably

(p. 24) that the other holy archbishops were all placed before rrog (Stubbs, 1874, p. xxxiv).

“as they were formerly.” 46 Stubbs found many thirteenth-century recensions of

43 The “Vita S. Elphegi Archiepiscopi Cantuariensis, Osbern’s Life, but only two complete manuscripts of Eadauthore (sic) Osberno,” was printed in [Henry Wharton], mer’s (Stubbs, 1874, pp. xxxil, xxxiv). Anglia Sacra, sive Collectio Htstoriarum Antiquitus 47 Stubbs, 1874, p. Ixv; among Osbern’s additions to the Scriptarum de Archiepiscopis et Eptscopis Angliae, uy, story were the release of King Eadwy from hell and the

London, 1691, 122-42. miracle at Calne, both of which are represented in the 44 The extant Lives were edited by Stubbs, 1874, that glass (north choir aisle “triforium,” nt:XI [I,1] and nt:X

is, those of Osbern, Eadmer, and William of Malmesbury. [11,3], see Caviness, 1967, pp. 207, 214). See Osbern, pp. The latter wrote, after 1120, for Glastonbury Abbey. There 104-105 and 113-14, of Stubbs’s edition, and Eadmer, in has been some confusion about these texts; Mason, 1925, Stubbs, 1874, pp. 196 and 213.

p. 46, mentioned a Life by Osbert, but this is a mistake 48 Stubbs, 1874, p. [xiii perpetuated by Jean Mabillon, Acta Sanctorum Ordinis S. 49 These are among the earliest and latest manifestaBenedicti in Saeculorum Classes Distributa, Venice, 1'733- tions of his sanctity (Osbern in Stubbs, 1874, pp. 76 and 1840, vir, 691-95, who followed Surius (Stubbs, 1874, p. 120-21, and Eadmer, zid., pp. 167 and 217). xxxiv); the text given in the Acta Sanctorum is actually that of Eadmer.

HAGIOGRAPHICAL SUBJECTS 146 Christ visiting Limbo to release the souls.*° This at the end of his life—the siege of Canterbury by forceful image of the power of an archbishop over the Danes, their massacre of the monks and townshis kingly tormentor would be appreciated by the people, and Alphage taken on board their ship as advocates of Thomas Becket under Henry II or of a prisoner.°* The scenes are reminiscent of Old Stephen Langton in the reign of King John. The Testament history, and we have seen that one, at other scene relates to Dunstan’s struggle against least, may have been modeled on the leaf in New the clergy in the course of his monastic reforms;** York (figs. 113, 114).°° But the dignity of Alphage his enemies in the Scottish Church who met to in his humiliation is reminiscent of the Passion of

complain to him at Calne were miraculously de- Christ, and the final scene of the stoning must stroyed by a collapse of the floor (fig. 111),°? an have resembled the martyrdom of Stephen. There episode that responds to the monks’ dislike of is reference also to events to come; the'saint mensecular churchmen. The choice of subjects seems aced by armed knights brings to mind the more to bear the imprint of the same vindictiveness and recent martyrdom of Becket, and the murderers tenacity to be found in the monks’ letters during of Becket would conversely be equated with the the disputes with Baldwin and his successor, Hu- pagan Danes. One senses the same awareness of

bert Walter.** continuity with the past that spurred Anselm, The three surviving scenes with St. Alphage are Becket, Langton, and finally Edmund Rich to go scant evidence of selection; all show violent events into exile, as Dunstan had been the first to do.*® The Becket windows

Tue different emphasis in this series may be im- occurred there or of which they heard from pilputed in part to the relatively late compilation of grims or by letter.°” Benedict and William comthe texts, and to the fact that such recent events piled prose accounts of these miracles in 1172-1174; were being treated. My purpose here is to explore their works are remarkably similar in motivation in more detail the relation of the scenes to the and contents, but there is seldom a textual dependprose texts, with special attention to the ideas be- ence of one on the other, even where they recount hind the choice and ordering of the miracles for the same events; and each includes some miracles the windows, and also to return to the question of that the other omits. The accounts have an extraor-

interpretation. dinary verisimilitude, but a comparison between It seems that from the time of the first pilgrim two versions of the same story sometimes shows to St. Thomas’s tomb in the crypt, within a year of that what might appear as verbatim recording of his death, some sort of record was kept by the speech is actually freely invented by the compiler.** custodians of the tomb of the miracles that either We have seen that the attention to detail, especially

59 Tllus. Rackham, 1949, fig. 27b. 54 North choir aisle “triforium,” nt:IX (III,1, 3, and 2)

°1 In one scene he expells the secular canons, while re- respectively. instating the monks, now north choir aisle “triforium” °° Pierpont Morgan Library, MS 724, cf. Paris, Bibliont:XI (1,3). This illustrates Osbern, in Stubbs, 1874, p. theque Nationale, MS Lat. 8846, £.76 (Psautier, fig. 52). 113, or Eadmer, zbid., p. 211, but the degree of recent res- 58 Becket was intensely interested in Anselm, Langton toration and lack of earlier documentation for the panel in Becket, and Edmond Rich in Becket and Langton.

make it entirely suspect. Langton made gifts to the abbey of St-Bertin to offset

°2 North choir aisle “triforium,” nt:X (II,3); Osbern, the hospitality given to Becket as well as to his own monks in Stubbs, 1874, pp. 113-14, and Eadmer, idid., p. 213. (Marténe and Durand, 1717, col. 1813). Considerable restorations by Caldwell, Jr. to the right half 57 Benedict, 1876, pp. XXiV, 35, 37.

of the panel do not alter this identification. 58Cf., for instance, the two versions of the story of °3 For the letters for the period 1187-1199 see Stubbs, Eilward of Westoning, Benedict, ed. Robertson, 1876, 1865. Book 1, ch. 2, pp. 173-82, and William, ed. Robertson, 1875, Book 11, ch. 3, pp. 156-58.

HAGIOGRAPHICAL SUBJECTS 147 in recording names, ages, locations, and the manner and not specific enough for exact identification.

in which the story reached Canterbury, is very There is none that could positively not be identiclose to that of the hearings that became part of fied from the existing texts. the process of canonization around 1200, but the Why Benedict’s account is preferred is not imcompilations were continued after St. Thomas’s mediately clear; it was William’s that was precanonization in 1173. The accounts were extended sented to Henry II. On the other hand, Benedict’s by both writers in 1178-1179, at which time each was read in the chapter house.*® There is another

added a book to the existing three or four of his curious imbalance in the selection; eight of the text. William was still a monk at Christ Church fifteen miracles from Benedict’s work are taken and probably had some office at the tomb, but from Book 1v, which was added in or after 1179, Benedict, who had been prior from 1175, had de- when he was at Peterborough. None, however, can parted for Peterborough in 1177, where he was be proved to have been taken from William’s abbot. Book rv of his Miraculi Sanctt Thomae must Book vi, which was added in 1178-1179. Benedict have been composed away from Canterbury, and had five books copied at Peterborough some time at about the same time that he may have had some after 1177. If these were William’s, as Robertson connection with the inscriptions and an icono- and Walberg supposed, by about 1179 Benedict had graphical guide used in the typological windows; access to precisely those books from both works it is tempting to think that the addition to his from which subjects were selected for the glass.°° account of the miracles may also have been con- At about the same time, he may either have sent

nected with the glazing program. verses to Canterbury for use in the choir windows, Appendix figure 1 is a table of the textual or brought verses from Canterbury for use in the sources of each of the surviving series; “B.” repre- choir stalls at Peterborough. It is tempting to think sents Benedict’s text, “W.” William’s, and the refer- that he may have composed the series of verses for ences are to the book and chapter in which the the Trinity Chapel windows. His facility with verse

miracle is recorded. Where both authors recorded composition is proved by his authorship of the the same miracle, the version followed in the glass rhymed office of St. Thomas, known as the Studens is put first, the other in brackets after. If it is not Livor.®’ There are, however, other candidates for

possible to say which text is closer to the glass, authorship of the titulz. Nigel of Whiteacre was a both references are given as alternatives. It is seen contemporary of Benedict’s at Christ Church. In that, at least in the random panels surviving, Bene- the later period Stephen Langton also composed dict’s text is used more frequently than William’s: verses.°* About the time of the translation the lay fifteen miracles are from Benedict (three of them poet Henry of Avranches was commissioned by the told differently by William), seven are from Wil- prior to write verses on the miracles of Becket; he liam (two of them also told by Benedict), two or labored on them for a week, but destroyed his three are told by both; sixteen or seventeen of the efforts, and about 1221 complained to Langton total forty-one or forty-two are unidentified, but that he had received no payment.®? His Life of this is either because they represent such common Becket and account of the translation, also in verse, diseases as lameness or leprosy, or because they are are extant.** From a comparison of the work atisolated scenes such as thanksgiving at the tomb, tributed to these various poets it may be possible °9 William, ed. Robertson, 1875, pp. XXVII-XXVII1, XXX, 62 William Morris, ed., Laudes Beatae Mariae Virginis,

137-38. Hammersmith, 1896. See also M. Dulong, “Etienne Lang-

1876, p. XXIiL. 183-90.

6° Walberg, 1929, p. 73, from Benedict, ed. Robertson, ton versificateur,’ Mélanges Mandonnet, Paris, 1930, 1,

§1 See R. W. Hunt, “Notes on the Distinctiones Monas- 63 Josiah Cox Russell and John Paul Hieronimus, The ticae et Morales,” Liber Floridus: Mittellateinische Studien Shorter Latin Poems of Master Henry of Avranches Re(Paul Lehman Festschrift), ed. Bernhard Bischoff and lating to England, Cambridge, Mass., 1935, pp. 88-93.

Suso Brechter, St. Ottilien, 1950, pp. 359~60. 84 Tbid., pp. 64-78.

HAGIOGRAPHICAL SUBJECTS 148 for others to resolve the question of the date and proportionate to the length of the original text.

authorship of the stzlz. The grouping of panels coincides with the designs

The subjects in the glass represent a unique of ironwork, and the two must have been recipromingling of the two prose texts, such as is known cally planned. Thus in Window n:IV subjects are in none of the extant recensions. No other series paired, in Window n:II they are in threes, sixes, of illustrations of the miracles of Thomas is known, or nines, the latter representing a full unit of the

which would indicate that the Canterbury win- ironwork. As in the typological windows, the dows are part of a tradition stemming from tituli order is from top to bottom and from left to right. based on both texts.°° The organization of the sub- The narrative is made clear in most cases by a jects in the windows is curious. Clearly it is not consistent use of the same color of garments and chronological although one of the earliest miracles, the same facial type in the several representations that of William, a priest of London, occurs in Win- of an individual. Each moment in time is separated dow n:V. The accounts themselves were not, into a distinct scene, even if changes in the positions however, chronologically ordered, as their authors of the figures are minimal, as in the case of Win-

i_, oo, en . . . . . i i 66 noted. William seems to have grouped miracles dow n:IV(15,16) (fig. 159). In this case the loosely according to type for didactic purposes. verses are rather repetitive and do not indicate a Thus in Book ty, he collected together Me « al mur sequence of events. In another case, however, where

aces * show that nv thomas was a © et a couplet suggested two distinct scenes, the verse

people trom t © Cede, My Order fo strengt en dene was divided into two [Window n:IV(13, 14)];

in the resurrection. Similarly theinalternative the glass, Window , . . . would have been to provide a single s:V has subjects of which all, or all but scene one,with involve two actions, but there are no examples people raised from the dead. Reference the ; oe ;. —_ , oo, of continuous narrative in the to miracle windows resurrection is not ,;made in the inscriptions, but the ,win,, ; such as were rarely found in the typological parallel would beThis obvious to a medieval . dows. more modern approach toaudience. the narrative In each of the other windows, cures of ailments, . ; . mode is explicable by the fact that no precise models

including madness, are; mingled with rescue from :; could have existed prior to 1179; there are not

natural calamity, prevention of miscarriage of h les of spl; ‘ justice in the secular courts, release from torment oe ede. ¢ 1 Spur couplets £0 SUPP ose t at

by demons, and one case of raising from the dead. an early cycle of illustrated tstuls with continuous The identifiable subjects in Window n:V are based narrative scenes existed as a model for the Blass.

on Benedict’s Book 1, in Window n:IV there is a It seems that the miracle windows, unlike the

preponderance of subjects from his Book u, and all typological series, could be read as distinct units, the episodes in Window n:II are from his Book 1, in any order. Only the westernmost two windows but in other windows the order of the texts is not on the north side should have been read together, clear. The stories are variously told in two scenes since they contained a Life of Thomas Becket.

or more; there are as many as nine in the case of They were thus prefixed to the miracles in the the Plague in the House of Jordan Fitz-Eisulf in same way that one of the lives of Becket was often Window n:lII. The number of scenes is not always prefixed to the text of the miracles.°’ The prime 6° The late Professor Wormald suggested to me that a not sufficiently complete for one to be certain of this; muxed selection from both works might have had a place Rackham, 1949, p. 88. in the liturgy of Christ Church, but the evidence from 67 Benedict, ed. Robertson, 1876, pp. xxi-xxii. Benedict the Burned Breviary and another fragmentary Breviary in wrote a “Passio,” which is largely lost. William wrote a the Cathedral Library, MS Add. 3, of fourteenth-century Life, which is found complete in the Winchester manudate, is negative; f.r9v has the feast of the translation, script, prefacing his account of the miracles (William, ed. 7 July, but there are no readings from the miracles. Robertson, 1875, pp. xxvi-xxvii). In the Montpellier man66 In the rest of the glass only the inscriptions in n:IV uscript of William’s account, John of Salisbury’s Life was (3 and 4), might have belonged together, but they are given (Robertson, 1v, 1879, xxv). In manuscripts the life

HAGIOGRAPHICAL SUBJECTS 149 meaning of the miracle series was evidently narra- to be imbibed.”’* The cult of the blood of Thomas tive, and there seems to be little theological signif- began very early; John of Salisbury carried two

icance in the choice of stories or their grouping. phials with him to Chartres in 1176, Benedict of Certain didactic themes, however, are emphasized. Peterborough took some to his new abbey in 1177,

One is the rendering of dues to the saint, taught and Reginald Fitzjocelin, bishop of Bath, gave by scenes of thanksgiving and offering at the tomb, some to Queen Margaret of Sicily between 1174 and of calamities that befell those who vowed pil- and 1183."* The first miracle in which it was used grimage but did not go.°* These are lessons made was that of the priest William of London, repreclear in the texts, too.®° As we have noted, another _ sented in Window n:V, which occurred on Janutheme is the healing power of the saint, who was ary 5, 1171."° Many inscriptions stress the use of referred to at least once as medicus."® In one series blood. It would not be possible for a Christian audiin Window n:lII scenes of the futile administration ence to think of this without reference to Christ’s of medication and of the efficacious use of the blood blood, and the relationship was emphasized in of St. Thomas are juxtaposed, so that the acts be- Benedict’s text: “Just as the blood of Christ brings come typological (fig. 162)."" The persuasiveness eternal life to the soul which has been called back of such imagery must be understood in an historical from the finality of death, so also the blood of the context when the task of healing was passing from martyr gives back temporal life to the body di-

the monasteries to the universities.” vested of its soul.”’® If one looks at representations There are, however, deeper meanings. The use of the blood and water given at the tomb, the visof the blood of a saint, mixed with water and ad- ual overtone is clearly that of the sacrament (figs. ministered as a potion, was unique to Canterbury. 159, 208). Two monks stand behind the tomb, on Benedict said of the first use of blood: “I do not which are candles. The laity approach, fall on their believe any previous case existed in which God al- knees, and are offered the cup to drink from.” lowed this prerogative; thus alone in the whole That this was allowed to them, whereas the blood world the blood of the Lamb of Bethlehem and of Christ in the Eucharist was forbidden, would the blood of the Lamb of Canterbury were chosen be significant. Saints’ tombs had, of course, served did not always precede the miracles of a saint; the /zbellus nances, between 1131 and 1215, that restricted the clergy of St. Edmund in the Pierpont Morgan Library (MS 736) in medical practice. gives the martyrdom, miracles, and life in that order. 73 Benedict, ed. Robertson, 1876, Book 1, ch. 12, p. 43. 68 Scenes of thanksgiving at the tomb are very frequent, 74 A niello reliquary in the Metropolitan Museum in with offerings of money, candles, or ex-voto coils of wire, New York was once thought to have been made for John crutches, and so on. Stories of calamity are those of Jor- of Salisbury; see Joseph Breck, Bulletin of the Metropolt-

dan Fitz-Eisulf, Window n:JI(25-33), and William of tan Museum of Art 13 (1918), 220-24, also Borenius,

Kellett, s:11(9-12). 1932, pp. 78-79 and Pl. xxix 1 and 2, and Swarzenski,

6° Benedict, ed. Robertson, 1876, Book iv, ch. 64, pp. 1943, p. 50, fig. 71. Cf. The Year 1200 1, no. 85, 78-79. A 229-34; William, ed. Robertson, 1875, Book 1, ch. 15, second reliquary, commemorating Reginald of Bath’s gift, p. 274, who concluded his story of William of Kellett, is also in the Metropolitan Museum (acq. no. 63.160); see ‘ft is better, then, not to take an oath, than to take one Thomas P. F. Hoving, “A Newly Discovered Reliquary

and not keep it.” of St. Thomas Becket,” Gesta 4 (1965), 28-29. It is doubt-

70 Window s:II(16) has the end of an inscription: .. . ful that the piece is of English workmanship; Dr. Swar-

MEDICE PRECES ET MUNERA (“to the physician prayers and zenski believes it to be south Italian. For Benedict, see

gifts”). Stanley, 1904, p. 192, who quoted Robert of Swaftham,

72 Window n:III(20 and 19), from the story of Hugh ed. Sparke, 1723, p. 101. of Jervaulx. Rackham, 1949, p. 95, followed Mason in 75 Benedict, ed. Robertson, 1876, Book 1, ch. 12, p. 42. identifying one scene as the administration of Extreme 76 [bid., Book 1, ch. 65, p. 234. Unction, but the “abbot” is clearly one of the laity, pre- 77 Cf. Christ offering bread and wine to the Apostles sumably a physician (see Caviness, 1967, pp. 62, 63). on the sixth-century paten from Riha; Marvin C. Ross, 72C, H. Talbot, Medicine in Medieval England, Lon- Catalogue of the Byzantine and Early Medtaeval Antiqdon, 1967, pp. 50-51, has documented the series of ordi- uities in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection, 1, Washington, D.C., 1962, pp. 12-15, Pl. x1.

HAGIOGRAPHICAL SUBJECTS 150 as altars through the twelfth century, and some ple as they circled the shrine (text fig. 2d). They ancient sarcophagi are still in use as both tombs were also the most immediate in their realistic porand altars.’* The act of drinking blood at an “altar” trayal of the unfortunate and the diseased. In alof this kind would take on some of the significance most all cases the names of the individuals have of the sacrament. St. Thomas, in giving his blood been suppresesd in the inscription, so that they befor the cure of those who followed him, partook came universal portrayals of lepers, cripples, and of the nature of Christ and was his spiritual de- other afflicted people.*? The artists showed their

scendant. skills in depicting such an agitated figure as the

There are other visual overtones, possibly arising madwoman in Window n:II; no issue of demons from the authority of scriptural illustration and the was needed to demonstrate her cure (figs. 209fact that it provided a repertory for the artist wish- 211).°* Almost nowhere are labels necessary, as ing to create a new scene. However, borrowings - were used in the north choir aisle.** The sorrowing from scriptural scenes become metaphorical. Two parents of William Fitz-Eisulf are readily identicures effected by touching strongly resemble the fied, as are the distraught parents of Rodbertulus laying on of hands that occurs in the miracles of (fig. 197). As we have seen, the painters of some Christ; they might be compared with a scene in of the Trinity Chapel windows are closely related the Christological cycle of the Great Canterbury to those working on the north choir aisle windows, Psalter, Paris, Bibliothéque Nationale, MS Lat. yet their style is transformed, infused with new 8846." St. Thomas emerging from his shrine to energy and reaiism. The events depicted are not as appear to the sleeping author, cross in hand, ap- highly charged with symbolism as were those of pears as Christ rising from his tomb (fig. 164). the typological windows. This direct narrative William of Gloucester buried by a fall of earth and mode could equally be applied to biblical stories, later dug out is like Joseph in the pit, a type of as it was at Chartres in the Joseph Window (fig. Christ’s Burial and Resurrection (fig. 191). So also, 196). In the second or third decade of the thirteenth

in the same window, is the child buried in a col- century, English Bible illustrations were also inlapsed house and miraculously dug out un- fused with a new realism involving a greater reperharmed.*° Christ is thus not only the type of St. tory of scenes.*> The Canterbury glass demonThomas the healer, but also of the suffering peo- strates how rapidly this transformation could take

ple.** These most recent manifestations of his place, with a change of subject matter and of nature are aptly placed between the cycle of his purpose. The creation of a series of illustrations life and death and the windows of the eastern end for events of such recent history gave the artists

with his Ascension and Second Coming. an opportunity to work without reference to a The Trinity Chapel ambulatory windows, set long tradition or a revered model, and without a low in the wall, were closest physically to the peo- complex iconographical apparatus. 78 As for instance in Saint-Sauveur, Aix-en-Provence; see For the early concept of Christus medicus, see Ernst H. E. LeBlant, Les Sarcophages chrétiens de la Gaule, Paris, Kantorowicz, “The Baptism of the Apostles,” Dumbarton

1886, pp. 43-44, Pl. Lyi, 2. Oaks Papers 9-10 (1956), pp. 239-40, who cites Origen.

79 Window n:IV, panel 2, and Window s:VI, panel 13. 82 The only surviving inscription in which a name 8° ‘Window s:VII, panels 13-20, and 3-6; Joseph dug figures is that in Window n:V, panel 9, with the name of

out of the pit is represented in the east window of the William, priest of London. corona and that panel is an exact replica of s:VII(20). 83 Cf. scenes in the Monreale mosaics and in the WinLittle glass in it is old, however, except the inscription, chester Bible, Kitzinger, 1966b, figs. 108, 100. and it is not known whether Austin restored the original 84 Only in Window n:V, panel 9g, are there labels “‘Sanor merely copied from the scene in Window s:VII. guis” and “Aqua,” referring to the mixing of the two 81 As in Matthew 25:35-40; this passage was illustrated as a potion. literally in a mid-fourteenth-century window in the *5 Plummer, 1953, pp. 46-47, with reference to the narthex of Strasbourg Cathedral (Ahnne and Beyer, 1960, Morgan Lothian Bible. pp. 12, 18 and Pl. 14) but earlier illustrations are rare.

IX. Conclusions

“Senlis, Laon or Sens... will only be under- In THE foregoing chapters we have seen that, in stood if regarded in a large network of possible spite of the nineteenth and twentieth-century resinterrelations which may reach as far as Mon- ; ; reale, Canterbury, Liege, and elsewhere. And torations, the painted glass of Canterbury Cathe-

here sertous work has barely begun, and the dral provides invaluable material for a study of

great problems seem all unresolved.” painting styles. It has been possible to trace the Willibald Sauerlander* ramifications of these styles over two or three generations, in the work of the artists who executed a program of glazing according to a single master plan laid out about 1175-1180 for the whole projected building. The hypothesis has been argued that the execution of this plan was essentially complete by the time the relics of Thomas Becket were translated to the Trinity Chapel in July 1220. The chronology of glazing proposed here is more compact and slightly earlier for the later glass than that of Rackham twenty-five years ago. More radical, perhaps, will appear my acceptance of his early date for the choir clerestory glass, and my claim that the lower windows of the choir are almost equally early. A date before 1180 places the Methuselah Master’s mature style slightly ahead of Nicholas of Verdun’s commission for the Klosterneuburg Ambo, and the Morgan Master’s work

on the Winchester Bible. The origins of his style lie not, as I once thought, in the region that produced the Troyes glass and related manuscripts, but probably for the most part in England itself. The logical background for the formation of such a strong classicizing style was in the south of England after about mid-century; it was in England that scholarship in the classical “humanities” was most highly developed, notably by John of Salisbury, who spent several years in Rome and was Jater in Canterbury; the admiration of pagan antique sculpture seems to have been a particular failing of the English, who variously described the 1 Willibald Sauerlander, “Sculpture on Early Gothic Churches: The State of Research and Open Questions,” Gesta 9 (1970), 42.

CONCLUSIONS 152 statues of classical gods, visited them longingly, or dows before 1180. What is more, the use of Sicilian

even carried them home.’ The aesthetic attitudes marbles in the columns of the Trinity Chapel in that were prevalent in the 1160s and 1170s explain the 1180s demonstrates that contact with Sicily was the ready assimilation of a variety of antiquisant still close during the period of the Monreale deco-

models in the work of the Methuselah Master. ration, and Mediterranean ties might have been Since investigation of the variety and richness strengthened under the Beneventan prior, Master of these models has been divided between two Alan.* chapters, it is of interest here to notice how con- I have suggested that the classicism of the Mesistent they are in kind, and how strongly they in- thuselah Master has nothing to do with that of dicate a preference for the antique. Both design the Antique Master of Rheims; the one now sources and iconographical borrowings lead to emerges as a genuine manifestation of the twelfthworks of antique flavor—the fourth-century reli- century renascence, the other is more general and quary in Milan, the sixth-century ampullae in idealized, and warrants the term “proto-Gothic.” Monza, a Prudentius manuscript, the Utrecht Psal- The two phases can be compared approximately ter, and the Cottow Aelfric, and most recently the with the somewhat eclectic Early Renaissance asPalatina mosaics. In almost every case, however, similation of classical quotation, combined with a the Master has infused his model with a higher realism of parts, and the High Renaissance recredegree of humanism, and his interpretation is ation of the antique without obvious reference to often closer to works of genuine antiquity than specific models, though this is not to claim that the was the supposed model or its genre; this is very medieval renascences were comparable in scale. clear in the case of the Exodus scene, ostensibly Our understanding of the proto-Renaissance of modeled on the Utrecht Psalter, and yet closer in the twelfth century has been advanced by many style to the Ara Pacis (figs. 30, 35, 36). The survey scholars since the formulations of Panofsky in of these models is also of interest for the works 1960. It is no longer necessary to envisage such a neglected. The Master showed no interest in the latency in the north of Europe between the remanuscripts of the immediately preceding genera- vival in the humanities, which was accomplished tion, the Dover and Lambeth Bibles and the Ead- about mid-century, and the development of an wine Psalter, rich though they are in iconographic “intrinsic” classicism in the visual arts until the material. It is also notable that there is no trace of thirteenth-century (sic) sculpture of “Laon, Senlis, influence from the Monreale cycle. It is a curious Chartres and Paris”—albeit “with Nicholas of Verturnabout that, whereas the Dover Bible artists of | dun in the van of the development.’” Not only about 1160 preferred the newest dynamic style from have the accepted dates for the sculptures of Laon Sicily, which Kitzinger has traced to the latest mo- and Senlis been moved back into the twelfth censaics of the Palatina, the Methuselah Master— tury through the perceptions of Sauerlander,® but though perhaps contemporary with the Monreale also fundamental questions about the genesis and artists—preferred the serener mode of the early development of “proto-Gothic” art in the north Palatina.? That the impact of Monreale was so of France, which were raised by Grodecki in 1961,

immediately felt in the Winchester Bible after have been pursued in a variety of media.’ Of 1180 is further argument for dating the choir win- foremost importance was Deuchler’s publication 2? Erwin Panofsky, Renaissance and Renascences in West- Canterbury,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Inern Art, Stockholm [1960], pp. 68-69, 71-73. Part of the stitutes 30 (1970), 313. For Master Alan, prior of Christ “Pagan Antiquities” of Master Gregory has been edited Church 1179-1186, formerly a canon of Benevento, see in translation by Caecilia Davis-Weyer, Early Medieval Knowles, Brooke, and London, 1972, p. 34. Art 300-1150: Sources and Documents, Englewood Cliffs, 5 Panofsky, Renaissance and Renascences, p. 62.

IQ7I, pp. 159-62. 6 Most recently in Gesta 9 (1970), 42, 43, with bibliog-

3 Kitzinger, 1966b, p. 137. raphy.

4For the use of Sicilian marble, Kenneth W. Severens, 7 Grodecki, 1963; see also his earlier discussion of “William of Sens and the Double Columns at Sens and “Gothic” style in painting, 1955, pp. 611, 619.

CONCLUSIONS 153 of the Ingeborg Psalter, as well as his organization It is in the period following the work of the in 1970 of the “Year 1200” exhibition and sympo- Methuselah Master—that is, perhaps, after 1180— sium.® Yet there is still much to be done in this that Canterbury enters a truly transitional “middle

enigmatic field, and any conclusions drawn at the phase,” one that is chaotic and eclectic, and in present time must be tentative. The burden of evi- which there are signs of intensified contacts with dence, however, suggests that the Methuselah Mas- the continent. The assimilation of a new style, if ter and the Morgan Master may take their places it is imported, requires first a certain affinity with quite naturally alongside Nicholas of Verdun as it—one might cite the impact of the Impressionists part of a nascent revival of the antique, which may in Japan, which was possible because the Impresbe directly related to almost contemporary devel- sionists in turn had been influenced by Japanese opments in the humanities.? The literary revival art. During the middle period at Canterbury the was the only cultural force, in the north, which styles of the early masters were neutralized; while could have transformed the succesive stylizations contacts seem to have been maintained with the of the Romanesque into a more profound classi- “late” Winchester hands and perhaps with the cis, the first attempt fo render figures more plas- Palatina mosaics, there enters a new elegance that tically and organically was aborted in the styliza- is close to contemporary French works. One painter

of we anire “rapeny eee be Co (the Petronella Master) may even have been Wir h the 4 © C en) of Biois, he . 1 trained in France, but the style that he brought was , ththe ne ane ae 1170s by "i see this ved not ar Gothic, nor advance was it radically late and“ly1180s more co,different ; oo from a

y 708 ane poy eclassicism. ; trend current in latency English art. By this“protime—perhaps and confident The between . J, . oa ; approaching 1200 and extending into the thirteenth

to-humanism” and thiswas firstmore stageclearly of genuine clas._ — , century—there a single artistic sical revival in the visual arts is therefore narrowed 4

; ays province, which included Canterbury as a northern to about twenty-five years,and which still gives the through much of _ outpost, which extended

famed scholars a generation’s lead over the anony-

northeastern France. Theother mainstream of developmous. ..artists whom they—or patrons—trained ment in this region may have been an idealized

. ; 2. classicizin . bor

to an appreciation of the antique. The real dichot- lacsici: ; “1 the Ingebors Peal 1 omy lies in the fact that this classicizing style had 7 “ styles 4 h me a en sa ter, t ;

a limited appeal; it was an expression of a short- 56 win "hich me WINGOWS OF SOISSOS alt lived humanism that gave way abruptly to scholas- t-Quentin, which had an mp act on Chartres. But ticism on the one hand and a more popular spiritu- other strands must be recognized; one that is radi-

° ce * 9)

ality on the other.’* The end of the revival in letters cally opposed to this “p roto-Gothic style may have is often associated with the death of John of Salis- grown out of the eclecticism of the middle phase bury in 1180; more final perhaps is the countercur- at Canterbury, and was carried to Sens and Char-

rent, expressed at Paris in 1210 by a decree prohib- tres, only to rebound in a pronouncedly Gothic iting the reading or study of Aristotle’s books on phase in the last windows to be glazed at Canternatural science.t? Around 1200 art had once more bury, in the eastern part of the Trinity Chapel to find a new mode, in keeping with the religious ambulatory. The possible reasons for the ultimate

trends of the time. triumph of this style at Canterbury will be dis8 Deuchler, 1967; The Year 1200 1, especially pp. xxxiv— 11 The esoteric nature of the use of classical sources by

xxxv, by Konrad Hoffmann. See also the critique by John of Salisbury and his circle has been stressed by Janet

Sauerlander, 1971, pp. 506-507. Martin, “Uses of Tradition: Gellius, Petronius, and John

® Otto Demus, “Nicholas of Verdun,” Encyclopedia of of Salisbury,” Imitation and Adaptation: The Classical

World Art 10, London, 1965, cols. 634-40; Ayres, 1974, pp. Tradition in the Middle Ages, ed. Dennis M. Kratz, Co-

212-16, 221-23. lumbus (Ohio), in press. 10 As in the so-called Psalter of Henry of Blois; most 12 Southern, 1953, p. 220, n.I. recently, Francis Wormald, The Winchester Psalter: British Museum Cotton MS Nero C IV, London, 1972.

CONCLUSIONS 154

cussed after I have tabulated the dating proposed . date | here with that of related monuments. ea. Proposed quem u : ante .quem In the first three decades or so of this century

,;..t,—

early dates were accepted only with great caution, Sens St. John

and there has been a tendency to put such works portal 1184 €.1185-90 — as the Ingeborg Psalter, the Guthlac Roll, the Brit- Sens fan al ;

ish Library Cuthbert Life, and the Sigena frescoes pos nhs CEO 0 7

in the thirteenth rather than the twelfth century. Ingeborg Psalter 1193 C.IIQ3-1210——-T195/1213 This, in fact, left one with a few surprisingly pre- Canterbury cocious works firmly dated in the twelfth century, Canterb anterbur such as the Klosterneuburg Ambo and the Work- Trinity Chapel

. - corona 1184 I19Q5—1207 1207/1220

sop Bestiary. The following table of chronology n:IV-n:VII 1184 1185-1207 1207/1220 gives termini a quo and ante quem from archaeo- Canterbury logical evidence, where this is available, and sug- clerestory

gests a hypothetical chronology and dating based N:Xand NIX 1184 1185-1207 1207/1220

P 6 YT MS 26 — IIQO-I2I0 — date Orbais east

in part on the arguments of this book.*® Cuthbert Life

terminus proposed terminus window €-1200 T200~I0 _ a quo here ante quem Sens ambulatory ——_—————— en ———onwnrr windows 1184 1207-13 — Canterbury Paul 6 Psalter of Blanche Pang, ot Faulk 1130 cE T00 1175 of Castille 1200 I210-20 1225 Troyes glass — 1170-80 P1188 St.-Quentin

Klosterneuburg Lady Chapel

Ambo 1181 1181 1181 windows C.12I5-20 C.1225 —

i_P

Worksop Bestiary — C1185 1187 Chartres

Rheims, St-Remi von— II 74 1210-20 — choir glass c.1180 Nine 1180-90

Canterbury rose and choir clerestory 1178 1178-80 P1180 typological cycle 1192 ©. 1200-20 _ Lincoln north

Can ter bur y Canterbury n. choir aisle and ; Trinity Chapel

Canterbury s:I-VH, Psalter, Lat. 8846 — L1'75—-90 — & clerestory 1184 1213-15/20 1220

oculi 1178/79 1179-80 P1180 nll & III,

Canterbury choir Canterbury “triforium”’ 1178 c.1180 >t 180 Psalter Lat. 770 1173 1215-20 1220

CanterburyTrinity Canterbury clerestory Chapel of transepts 179 c.1180-90 ?1207 vault paintings 1220 1220 1220

organ Lea ;

Winchester Bible,

Ne s “ ne Listed in the chronology are a few English works and of the. which, though not produced at Canterbury, belong “Gothic Majesty” 1180 1180-90 118614 to the same general development as the Canterbury 13 Full references for the archaeological evidence cited 14 Ayres, 1970, p. 322; 1974, p. 212. here have generally been given elsewhere, and may be 1° Deuchler, 1967, p. 148, cf. Reiner Haussherr, “Florens

found through the indices. Deuchler: Der Ingeborgpsalter” (review), Zeitschrift fiir Kunstgeschichte 32. (1969), 54.

CONCLUSIONS 155 glass. Foremost in importance are the works in a style of painting is well suited to the content; many “Winchester” style, the Great Bible and, one might of the scenes based on biblical history are repreadd, the Sigena frescoes, which are closely allied to sented as concepts rather than events, eternally the “Canterbury” styles of the Methuselah Master equated with each other intellectually and visually and the Great Psalter in Paris’® These works of by their exegetical juxtapositions. The individual biblical subject matter were followed by new es- figures are poised, as if suspended. In the Trinity

says in the hagiographical mode. Chapel the action of the narrative is more fully The Becket windows, the Cuthbert Life, and the told, and the symbolic element, though present, is lives of the saints at Sens were produced in a pe- reduced. The painter’s repertory acquired a variety riod when the great monastic scriptoria were rap- of easily recognizable poses and facial types. If in idly changing and styles were becoming common the twelfth century it was the biblical commentarproperty. The cult of saints tended still to center ies that provided the artists with their richest subon the monasteries where their relics were kept, ject matter, in the thirteenth century it was the lives but the idiom of hagiographical writing and illus- of the saints. Even stripped of their learned verses, tration was an international one. Canterbury was the replicas of Canterbury windows in the secular not alone among the English centers in participat- churches of Sens, Lincoln, and St.-Quentin must ing in the development of this idiom. The realism still have seemed esoteric and lifeless to the laity. that was a feature of the classicizing styles of south- It was hagiographical cycles that filled the lacuna ern England and northern France around 1175- left by the schoolmen, whose dialectic was not ma1200 became more poignant in illustrations to the terial to inspire the visual arts. Thus, even in the lives of saints. At the same time, perhaps partially period when the new universities had supplanted under the duress of the exploding demand for hag- the monasteries as intellectual centers, the monasiographical illustrations, the painstakingly modeled teries for a time retained their artistic supremacy. figures of the classicizing style were transformed They were eventually superseded, first by the sec-

into the dynamic, shorthand representations of ular cathedrals and then by the court centers of the Gothic. Greater attention was given to action Paris and London, which played the leading role and emotion and less to ponderation and easeful in the further development of the High Gothic balance of form. In the north choir aisle panels the style. 16 For the Winchester connections of Sigena, see Walter 1974, pp. 210ff., esp. n.g5. The question of dating remains

Oakeshott, Stgena: Romanesque Paintings in Spain and unresolved; one hopes that it can be determined indethe Winchester Bible Artists, London, 1972; and Ayres, pendently of the dating of the Winchester Bible.

BLANK PAGE

Appendix: Figures

BLANK PAGE

SB i ES (0) Be as AA ert EG ek PON Ed 1. mem Docc) Beek Resa) TR-AW pS

Feet bed bod sh A mee pO PO (Oy eel is ID (SEX FR PR GS M) FEY AIO re tT} [Lt po) eke Pe Egon) To) Or 635 oo) ipael OO] BSe DX Ay LSEp (Lomle [ex] ae! Bed

LES fA (OD ATE

SS FA fe a \ | Shunammite’s \ Tau, yi | ‘12~{ 1350 a“ NL? \ 14 Gaza \ swallowed 11 \ / / 16817 ‘, 15 / 18819 >. ; P ) f aZen on the red heifer

serpent \ cross

Abel; piisha deposition |! Moses & Van

| ee ; ran ~

Samson in fffentombment Jonah

a oN

/ David & harrowing \ ; ; Samson ;&A \ with gates / \ & dragon /

lamb, Samson of hell lion, Daniel X( |

a — ~ 22 f \ y | / 23 ~. \24/ c2 »\ ] {lion ~N 7 NL 2 — ns PN a oo oo oo a Qcae ee [eet ‘ ee vO ‘ Noe 4 _—

20 / | 21 \J David letfrom K( Jonah resurrection ff down

casrup A 7 window

| reviving fp mgstand Joss

fo + 2 3 4 #%S 6 F

Appendix fig. 19. Reconstruction of Appendix fig. 20. “Thirteenth” Twelfth Typological Window (s: XV). Typological Window, (corona east window, 1).

APPENDIX: FIGURES 175 _ ‘NI 6N CARRY-

23 MAJESTY Chose 4

ING 5,6, 7 CARRYING THE CROSS

22 CONSECRATION OF AARON =
.=2c =. -@; _ Ai

Gl 5cca,>.Z>4] ceAe (eee aOM == >&ae |ipo 2 if ach so my e Py ) oO ~ Zz if ms > _ me = A; : Le m Zz xs.t enn =nm? *“ 2 MN if :> Eee Ra po S2ESR °roel yf, aSN — H i& ad “Mr Gg ,; on f~xen ’ = > eR = o x Pe % ~ , .>U 2 +. 5x oNi£x™ OK, “xe YY ° l{ne er ae a re ee on On Iden Bbed >- ey = ft“éo™NI as zt 'er mind ‘o) Sy T a re i‘) aoa en or 53400 a ; * A u, U, hee oT ~ A. Z ‘amet , a = 5 ~=.& \|OW .' >

‘. an ene ee | :

2 z . a = it ~ > > Z Pe ee ee ee go of SHE ee OSPR Rie ee - 4 = A : 4S,Bs *5 zozs 3 y Z=-:ev Zz2_* *6 3SX S ro: ex A | Es >— “cece oe 39° a ~, z ~)&xsi. Poa : 3 FY] ?,

0pkBe *-m;= -aS i:4| — 7 ‘ - FY &aman v,eo -‘oe 4a =,—— =, \etae 4A: =— = p~~~ SE STat wenlermnla a,. Wael

>= , °c 1 1~*~ rose Va)— —_— « . _ ~ Pol bal 2 -! . = . . : a _ ‘.) W ~ «! - 4 Er. vA = a “a. ww 2 —, & wh) o

on ao xe e . SS vy vn: ~ 2 > ne ne r= “8 . § . a « = O | _ = re i = 4 || = x » >< an bam — ° ae * i “s Pad a oo TY > — eh 3 6 Li 58 ” *: CF mm FL x ‘ daa Fo oe os --- wm :Lid by Z. @ > ‘ < an — oe "> alu g4 = T) > om be —o) ~~ I Pa si ee oo {| te x H _: oa — ales - i ed *, aRm one c _o6 en a>we ey Fe)OE : + ff}

—| x > NT °c cllPet om xes>wy G oAm- =Fie Ss Bog )>Ssao0g 3

- Suni] x 8“ ~oad mS _ £2 &i)5& o 4 ' . a —(NM i Zz> >S i= < foSs=>wD = es me -O -2 |y EOD ~) a ig = a, " OD = OT 3 Zo 2 S>2~~ < c Zz cPa | OCA we, OBA |yb » “© 5 >®QO, Y > 52 Bd — a ° 6~~>< %wQO |vw OD = |o> m7 cme u Z, 2 > w . —,—- QoS s Fsé x Se NES mort yeD> 48Oo ~< O& ee rw S Be = x Hae ” Cte a 48S 8any J ce a § a I

|i n oe \ ee Q § 2 ws ' ay a Ja — Cc Ou os) |7 allied ay ‘jae j _ mo =~ c reo7s. N s = bf ; © QO i oO a —~eee

~ s ii . k { c {=—_r 14 re

i Ps ; 2s “ an r of

BLANK PAGE

Bibliography

ABBREVIATED TITLES USED IN REFERENCES

C.C.C. Canterbury Cathedral Chronicle, published by the Friends of Canterbury Cathedral.

Corpus, France 1. Corpus Vitrearum Mediu Aevt, France 1. Marcel Aubert, Louis Grodecki, Jean Lafond, and Jean Verrier, Les Vitraux de Notre-

Dame et de la Sainte Chapelle de Paris. Paris, 1959.

Corpus, France 1. Corpus Vitrearum Medu Aeut, France 1v-2/1. Jean Lafond, Les Vitraux de l’église Saint-Ouen de Rouen. Paris, 1970. Corpus, Scandinavia 1. Corpus Vitrearum Mediu Aevt,

Scandinavia 1. Aaron Anderson, Sigrid Christie,

Carl Axel Nordman, and Aage Roussell, Die Glasmalereien des Mittelalters in Skandinavien. Stockholm, 1964. Corpus, Switzerland 1. Corpus Vitrearum Mediu Aevt,

Schweitz 1. Ellen J. Beer, Die Glasmalereiten der

Schweitz vom 12. bis zum Begin des 14. Jahrhunderts. Basel, 1956.

Golden Legend. Granger Ryan and Helmut Ripperger, The Golden Legend of Jacobus de Voragine Translated and Adapted from the Latin. 2 vols., London, 1941.

Medieval Art. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Medieval Art from Private Collections—A Special

Exhibition at the Cloisters October 30, 1968 through March 5, 1969. New York, 1968. Intro-

| duction and catalogue by Carmen Gomez-Moreno. P.L. J. P. Migne, ed. Patrologiae cursus completus [Latin]. Paris, 1844-64. Psautier. Bibliothéque Nationale, Paris, Département des Manuscrits, Psautier tllustré (XIII siécle), Reproduction des 107 miniatures du manuserit

latin 8846. Paris [1906]. Preface by H[enri] O[ mont]. Vitrail. Musée des Arts Décoratifs de Paris, Le Vitrail

francais. Paris, 1958. Text by Marcel Aubert, André Chastel, Louis Grodecki, Jean-Jacques Gruber, Jean Lafond, Francois Mathey, Jean Taralon, and Jean Verrier. Williams Coll. Canterbury Cathedral Library, Emily

Williams Collection. Tracings and drawings made for Emily Williams before 1897.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 180 The Year 1200 1. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, of the British Archaeological Association, 3rd ser.

The Year 1200: A Centennial Exhibition at the 20-21, 35-52. Metropolitan Museum of Art, I, Catalogue (The Borenius, Tancred, 1932. St. Thomas Becket in Art.

Cloisters Studies in Medieval Art 1). New York, London. 1970. Catalogue by Konrad Hoffmann. Brieger, Peter, 1957. English Art 1216-1307. Oxford. The Year 1200 u. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Britton, John, 1836. Historical and Descriptive AcThe Year 1200: Background Survey (The Clois- count of the Metropolitan Cathedrals of Canter-

ters Studies in Medieval Art m1). New York, bury and York (The Cathedral Antiquities, 1).

1970. Edited by Florens Deuchler. London.

The Year 1200 11. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Cahier and Martin, les Péres, 1841. Monographie de la The Year 1200: A Symposium, texts by Francois Cathédrale de Bourges. 2 vols., Paris.

Avril, Rudiger Becksmann et al., New York, Caldwell, Samuel, Jr., 1951. “Memories of a Crafts-

1975. man,” 24th Annual Report of the Friends of Canterbury Cathedral, pp. 22-23. Cave, CJ.P., 1934. “The Roof-bosses in Canterbury

WORKS CITED Cathedral,” Archaeologia 84, 41-61.

Ahnne, Paul, and Beyer, Victor, 1960. Les Vitraux de Caviness, Madeline Harrison, 1965. “A Panel of Thir-

la cathédrale de Strasbourg. Strasbourg. teenth Century Stained Glass from Canterbury in Arnold, Hugh, and Saint, Lawrence B., 1939. Stained America,” Antiquaries Journal 45, 192-99. Glass of the Middle Ages in England and France. ——, 1967. Catalogue of the Stained Glass of the

London, (1st ed. 1913). Trinity Chapel, Corona and North Choir Aisle

Austin, George, Sr., 1849. Obituary in The Gentle- Triforium Windows of Canterbury Cathedral man’s Magazine 185, N.S. 31 (June 1849), 659- (Transcripts in the Victoria and Albert Museum,

60. Dept. of Ceramics and in Canterbury Cathedral

Ayres, L. M., 1969. “A Tanner Manuscript in the Library).

Bodleian Library and Some Notes on English ———., 1970. “The Stained Glass of the Trinity Chapel

Painting of the Late Twelfth Century,” Journal Ambulatory of Canterbury Cathedral.” Ph.D. dis-

of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 31, sertation, Harvard University.

41-54. ———, 1973. “Canterbury Stained Glass,” Arts in Vir-

——., 1970. “Studies in the Winchester Bible.” Ph.D. ginid 13, 4-15.

dissertation, Harvard University. ——, 1974. “A Lost Cycle of Canterbury Paintings

———., 1974. “The Work of the Morgan Master at of 1220,” Antquartes Journal 54:1, 66-74. Winchester and English Painting of the Early ———, 1975. “The Canterbury Jesse Window,” The

Gothic Period,” Art Bulletin 56, 201-23. Year 1200 111, 373-98.

Baker, John, and Lammer, Alfred, 1960. English Clayton and Bell, 1895. Album of Water-colours u, in

Stained Glass. New York. the Victoria and Albert Museum, London, Dept.

Barnes, Patricia M., and Powell, Raymond, eds., 1960. of Prints, 94. J. 34. Interdict Documents (Pipe Roll Society N.S. 34). Cox, Lady Trenchard [Mary Désirée Anderson], 1959.

London. “The Twelfth-Century Design Sources of the

Beer, Ellen J., 1952. Die Rose der Kathedrale von Worcester Cathedral Misericords,” Archaeologia Lausanne und der kosmologische Bilderkreis des 79, 165-78. Mittelalters (Berner Schriften zur Kunst). Edited Culmer, Richard, ca. 1643. “Cathedral Newes from

by Hans Hahnloser. Berne. Canterbury” reprinted by G. S[ mith], CAronolog-

Benedict of Peterborough, 1876. “Miracula Sancti ical History of Canterbury Cathedral. Canterbury,

Thomae Cantuariensis, auctore Benedicto, Ab- 1883, pp. 310-11.

bate Petriburgensi,” in James Craigie Robertson, Day, Lewis F., 1913. Stained Glass (Victoria and Al-

ed., Materials for the History of Thomas Becket bert Museum Handbooks). London. (Rolls Series No. 67). London, m1, 21-298. Delaporte, Yves, and Houvet, Emile, 1926. Les V7Boase, T.S.R., 1953. English Art rroo—1216. Oxford. traux de la cathédrale de Chartres. 4 vols., CharBony, Jean, 1949. “French Influence on the Origins of tres. English Gothic Architecture,” Journal of the War- Demus, Otto, 1949. The Mosaics of Norman Sicily.

burg and Courtauld Institutes 12, 1-15. London.

——, 1957-1958. “The Resistance to Chartres in Demus, Otto, and Hirmer, Max, 1970. Romanesque Early Thirteenth Century Architecture,” Journal Mural Painting. New York.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 181 Deuchler, Florens, 1967. Der Ingeborgpsalter. Berlin. Gransden, Antonia, 1972. “Realistic Observation in

Dodwell, Christopher R., 1954. The Canterbury Twelfth Century England,” Speculum 47, 29-51.

School of Illumination. Cambridge. Grodecki, Louis, 1948. “A Stained Glass Atelier of

Dudley, Colin, 1969. “Sacred Geometry,” Canterbury the Thirteenth Century,” Journal of the Warburg

Cathedral Chronicle 64, 17-32. and Courtauld Institutes 11, pp. 87-110.

Evelyn, John, 1955-1959. The Diary of John Evelyn. ———, 1950. “The Ancient Glass of Canterbury Ca-

Edited by E. S. de Beer. 6 vols., London. thedral,” Burlington Magazine 92, 294-97. Evetts, L. C., 1941. “Genealogical Windows at Can- ———, 1951. “The Ancient Glass of Canterbury terbury Cathedral,” Burlington Magazine 78, 95- Cathedral,” Burlington Magazine 93, 94.

98, 112-18. ———, 1955. “Les Problémes de la peinture go-

Fleury, Edouard, 1882. Antiquités et monuments du thique,” Critique 98 (July 1955), 610-24.

département de I’ Aisne. Vol. 1, Paris. ——. 1961a. “Les Vitraux allégoriques de Saint-

Foreville, Raymonde, 1958. Le Jubilé de saint Thomas Denis,” Art de France 1, 19-46. Becket du XIIT* au XV° siécle (1220-1470): Etude ——, 1961b. “Les Vitraux de Saint-Denis: L’En-

et documents. Paris. fance du Christ,” De Artibus Opuscula (xu Es-

Frankl, Paul, 1963. “The Chronology of the Stained says in Honor of Erwin Panofsky). Edited by Glass in Chartres Cathedral,’ Art Bulletin 45, Millard Meiss. New York, pp. 170-86.

301-22. , ———, 1963. “Problémes de la peinture en Champagne

Frodl-Kraft, Eva, 1970. Die Glasmalerai: Entwicklung, pendant la seconde moitié du douziéme siécle,” in

Technik, Eigenart. Vienna and Munich. Romanesque and Gothic Art; Studies in Western Gervase (Gervasius), 1879. Tractatus de Combustione Art (Acts of the Twentieth International Conet Reparatione Cantuariensis Ecclesiae, ed. in full, gress of the History of Art, 1). Princeton, pp.

Gervasit Cantuariensis Opera Historica (Rolls Se- 129-41. |

ries 73). Edited by W. Stubbs. 1, London, pp. 3- ——> 1965. “Le Maitre de Saint Eustache de la

29; English translations in R. Willis. Architectural cathédrale de Chartres,” in Gedenkschrif t Ernst ,

History of Canterbury Cathedral. London, 1845, Gall. Edited by Margarete Kuhn and Louis Gro-

pp. 36-62; and in Charles Cotton. Of the Burning decki. Munich, Pp. 171-94. .

and Repair of the Church of Canterbury in the > 1973: Nouvelles découvertes sur les vitraux Year 1174. Canterbury, 1930, pp. 6-24 (incom- de la cathédrale de Troyes, in Intuition und

I | Kunstwissenschaft: Festschrift fir HannsBuddenSwarplete). . ; . zenski. Edited by Peter Bloch, Tilmann ———, Actus Pontificum, ; ;Beraa oo.1880. ,; ; sieg, Alfred Hentzen, in andGervasit TheodorCantuMiiller. ariensis Opera Historica (Rolls Series 73). Edited lin, pp. 191-203 , by Ww. Stubbs. 1, London. ; —-, 1975. “Les Plus Anciens Vitraux de Saint-

Gilbert, Sir John, 1842. Fragments towards the History Remi de Reims,” Beitrige zur Kunst des Mittelal-

of Stained Glass and the Sister Arts of the Mid- ters: Festschrift fiir Hans Wentzel, Berlin, pp. dle Ages. London. . 65—77. Giles, John Allen, ed., 1845. Vita Sancu Thomae. nu, ——, 1976. Les vitraux de Saint-Denis: Etude sur le

London. . vitrail au XIT° stécle. 1, Paris.

Glunz, H. H., 1933. The History of the Vulgate in Haskins, C. H., 1927. The Renatssance of the Twelfth

England from Alcuin to Roger Bacon. Cam- Century. Cambridge, Mass.

bridge. Hasted, Edward, 1797-1801. The History and Topo-

Goldschmidt, Adolph, 1926. Die Elfenbeinskulpturen , graphical Survey of the County of Kent. 2nd ed.,

aus der Romanischen Zeit, XI-XII. Jahrhundert. 12 vols., Canterbury.

iv, Berlin. Hayward, Jane, and Grodecki, Louis, 1966. “Les

Gostling, William, 1744. 4 Walk in and about the Vitraux de la cathédrale d’Angers,” Bulletin City of Canterbury. Canterbury; 2nd ed., 1777. Monumental 124 (1966), 7-67.

Gough Nichols, John, 1875. Desidertus Erasmus: Pul- Heaton, Clement, 1907. “The Origin of the Early grimages to Saint Mary of Walsingham and Satnt Stained Glass in Canterbury Cathedral,” Burling-

Thomas of Canterbury. 2nd ed., Westminster. ton Magazine 11, 172-76. Grabar, André, and Nordenfalk, Carl, 1958. The Heimann, Adelheid, 1965. “A Twelfth-Century ManGreat Centuries of Painting: Romanesque Paint- uscript from Winchcombe and Its Illustrations: ing from the Eleventh to the Thirteenth Century. Dublin, Trinity College, MS 53,” Journal of the

Geneva. Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 28, 86-109.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 182 Henderson, G., 1963. “The Sources of the Genesis Knowles, David, 1951. The Episcopal Colleagues of Cycle at Saint-Savin-sur-Gartrempe [sic ],” Journal Archbishop Thomas Becket. Cambridge. of the British Archaeological Association 26, 11- Knowles, David; Brooke, C.N.L.; and London, Vera,

26. 1972. The Heads of Religious Houses: England

Hollaender, A., 1942-1944. “The Sarum [lluminator and Wales 940-1216. Cambridge. and His School,” Wiltshire Archaeological and Lafond, Jean, 1946. “The Stained Glass of Lincoln

Natural History Magazine 1, 230-62. Cathedral in the Thirteenth Century,” Archaco-

Homburger, Otto, 1958. “Zur Stilbestimmung der logical Journal 103, 119-56.

Figurlichen Kunst Deutschlands und des West- ———., 1955. “Les Vitraux de la cathédrale Saint-

lichen Europas in Zeitraum zwischen Irgo und Pierre de Troyes,” Congrés archéologique de 1250,” in Formosttas Romanica. Edited by J. France 113, 29-48. Gantner. Frauenfeldt, pp. 31-45. Loftie, W. J., 1876. “Early Glass in Canterbury CatheHudson, O., 1848. Water-color Tracings in the Vic- dral,” Archaeological Journal 33, 1-14. toria and Albert Museum, Dept. of Prints, Nos. Male, Emile, 1953. L’Art religieux du XII° siecle en

178-94. ; ;

AI54. I-17. France. 6th ed., Paris.

James, Montague Rhodes, 1897. “On the Paintings ——., 1958. L’Art religieux du XIII’ siecle en Formerly in the Choir at Peterborough,” Proceed- France. oth ed., Paris. ings of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society 9, Marténe, Edmond, and Durand, Ursin, eds., 1717.

_o Thesaurus Novus Anecdotorum 1. Paris.

———, 1901. The Verses Formerly Inscribed on Mason, A. J., 1925. Guide to the Ancient Glass of Twelve Windows in the Choir of Canterbury Canterbury Cathedral. Canterbury. Cathedral (Cambridge Antiquarian Society Oc- ———~7 1920. What Became of the Bones of St. Thom-

tavo Publication No. 38). Cambridge. as? Cambridge. .

——_, 1903. The Ancient Libraries of Canterbury Matthaei Parisiensis Monachi Sancti Albani, 1866. His-

and Dover: the Catalogue of the Libraries of toria Anglorum stve Historia Minor. Edited by Christ Church Priory and St. Augustine’s Abbey F rederic Madden. Vol. 25 London. .

Cambridge. and, 1170-1500. London. |

at Canterbury and of St. Martin’s Priory at Dover. Nelson, Philip 1913: Ancient Painted Glass in Eng-

I-23, pls. i-viil. ” , . ;

, 1936-1937. “Four Leaves of an English sacs alter 1945. The Artists of the Winches-

Twelfth Century Psalter,” Walpole Society 25, 7en Oke On

Laas ———, 1951. “The Ancient Glass of Canterbury by cen , 59 . Bernard Rackham,” review in The Antiquaries —., 1951, “Pictor in Carmine,” Archaeologia ga, Journal 31, 86-8 141-66. , [Omont Hy 1908 Evan tiles avec peintures byzanJohnson, James Rosser, 1965. The Radiance of Char- kines du rye cidele Pari § y tres. New York. Omont, H., 1929. Miniatures des pl ens MS Joyce, J. G., 1841. Specimens of the Ancient Stained > The 1929. CUBES GES prus anciens °

grecs de la Bibliothéque Nationale. Paris. Glass in Canterbury Cathedral Drawn for Thom- « ; ; ; a Pacht, Otto, 1961. “A Cycle of English as Willement. Victoria and Albert Museum, LonSpain.” ; . Frescoes in

don, Dept. of Prints, 93.H.29. . i, oo, pain,’ Burlington Magazine 103, 166-75.

——, 1962. The Rise of Pictorial Narrative in Katzenellenbogen, Adolf, 1964. The Sculptural Pro- Twelfth Century England. Oxford grams of Chartres Cat hedral: Christ-Mary-Eccle- Pacht, Otto; Dodwell, C. R.; and Wormald, Francis,

sia. New York; first ed., Baltimore, 1959. 1960. The St. Albans Psalter (Albani Psalter). Kitzinger, Ernst, 1960. The Mosaics of Monreale. London.

h and Thi h ies,”

Palermo. . a Parker, Elizabeth, 1969. “A Twelfth-Century Cycle of

———., 1966a. “The Byzantine Contribution to West- New Testament Drawings from Bury St. Edern Art of the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries, munds Abbey,” The Proceedings of the Suffolk

Dumbarton Oaks Papers 20, 25-47. Institute of Archaeology 31, 263-302.

———., 1966b. “Norman Sicily as a Source of Byzan- Plummer, John H., 1953. “The Lothian Morgan

tine Influence on Western Art in the Twelfth Bible: A Study in English Illumination of the Century,’ Byzantine Art—An European Art. Early Thirteenth Century.” Ph.D. dissertation,

955 y

Edited by Department of Antiquities and Archae- Columbia University.

ological Restoration, Office of the Minister to the Poole, Austin Lane, 1955. From Domesday Book to

Prime Minister, Athens, pp. 121-46. Magna Carta, 1087-1216. 2nd ed., Oxford.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 183 Powicke, F. M., 1929. Stephen Langton (Ford Lec- [Sparke, Joseph, ed.], 1723. Hu¢storiae Anglicanae

ures, Oxford, 1927). Oxford. Scriptores varit. 1, London.

Rackham, Bernard, 1928. “The Early Stained Glass of Stanley, Arthur P., 1904. Historical Memorials of Can-

Canterbury Cathedral,” Burlington Magazine 52, terbury. roth ed., London.

33-41 and 106. | Stettiner, Richard, 1895-1905. Die Illustrierten Pru-

——, 1936. Victoria and Albert Museum, Depart- dentius-handschriften. Berlin. of Sit of emis 4 Guide to the Collecuons Strzygowski, Joseph, 1899. Der Bilderkreis des griech-

’Z9..

Of OIIRE A586 ONEOD. ischen Physiologus. Leipzig.

oO C., the Ancient Glass of Canterbury Cathe- Stubbs, William, ed., 1865. Chronicles and Memorials

he ; ee erp Ancient Glass of Canterbu of the Reign of Richard I. Vol. u, Epistolae CanCheon > Burlineton Ma ene oo anrerony taurtenses, the Letters of the Prior and Convent ———, 1951. “The Ancient Glass of C2nterbury of Ost church omereary » from AD. 1187

Cathedral,” Burlington Magazine to 93,A.D. 94-95.. i‘; 199. once .

1959. The Stained Glass Windows of Can- ———,, 1874. Memorials of St. Dunstan, Archbishop

; erbury Cathedral. Canterbury of Canterbury (Rerum Britannicarum Medii Read, Herbert, 1926. English Stained Glass. London. S aera eidies 63). ‘ ondon. ; ,

Rickert, Margaret, 1965. Painting in Britain: The wikis, Ellen L. 1964. “The Four Stained Glass Ww a Middle Ages. 2nd ed., London and Baltimore. dows of the North Ambulatory of Saint Etienne Ritter, G., 1926. Les Vitraux de la cathédrale de Rouen. of Sens: Dating Dispute.” Master's thesis, Colum-

Cognac. bia University.

Robertson, James Craigie, ed., 1875-1885. Materials Swarzenski, Hanns, 1936. Die lateinischen illuminier-

for the History of Thomas Becket (Roll Series ten Handschriften des 13. Jahrhunderts in den

No. 67). 7 vols., London Landern am Rhein, Main und an der Donau. Rohrig, Floridus, 1955. Der Verduner Altar. Vienna Berlin. , ,

and Munich. ——s 1943. The Berthold Missal, Pierpont Morgan

Sauerlander, Willibald, 1966. Von Sens bis Strassburg: farary aN one ie Seriptorium of WeinEin Bettrag zur Kunstgeschichilichen Stellung der gar 6 MU, 5 NCW TOTS. Strassburger Querhausskulpturen. Berlin. Ay T9907: Check Te, of Romanesque Art, che

——, 1970. Gotische Skulptur in Frankreich. Edited i of ane reasures in North-Western

by Max Hirmer. Munich. Europe. 2nd ed., London.

——, 1971. “Exhibition Review, ‘The Year 1200,’ Tolburst, J.B.L., ed., 1937. Breviary of Hyde Abbey, A Centennial Exhibition at the Metropolitan Mu- VY inchester mt (Henry Bradshaw Society 76).

seum of Art,” Art Bulletin 53, 506-16. _ encon. . .

Saunders, O. E., 1932. A History of English Art in Tristram, E. W., 1944. English Medieval Wall Paint-

the Middle Ages. Oxford ing: The Twelfth Century. Oxford.

Saxl, Fritz, 1954. English Sculptures of the Twelfth Urry, William, 1967. Canterbury under the Angevin

London. x1x). London.

Century. Edited by H. Swarzenski. Boston and Kings (University of London Historical Studies

Smith, RA.L., 1940. “The Central Financial System van den Gheyn, J., 1906. Le Psautier de Peterborough.

of Christ Church, Canterbury, 1186-1512,” Eng- Haarlem.

lish Historical Review 55, 353-60. van der Boom, A., 1960. De Kunst der Glazniers in ———, 1943. Canterbury Cathedral Priory: A Study Europa 1100-1600. Amsterdam.

in Monastic Administration. Cambridge. Volbach, Wolfgang F., 1961. Early Christian Art. Sommer Johannes, 1966. Das Deckenbild der Michael- New York.

iskirche xu Hildesheim. Hildesheim. Walberg, E., 1929. La Tradition hagiographique de

bury. London. Paris.

Somner, William, 1640. The Antiquities of Canter- Saint Thomas Becket avant la fin du XH° siécle.

Southern, R. W., 1953. The Making of the Middle Warner, G., 1928. The Guthlac Roll (Roxburghe

grap 934 y pny

Ages. New Haven and London. Club). Oxford.

———, 1963. St. Anselm and His Biographer: A Watson, Arthur, 1934. The Early Iconography of the Study of Monastic Life and Thought, 1059-c.11 30. Tree of Jesse. Oxford and London.

Cambridge. Webb, Clement C. J., 1932. John of Salisbury. London.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 184 Wentzel, Hans, 1954. Meisterwerke der Glasmaleret. Paintings, especially in England, with Hints on

Berlin. Glass Painting. 2 vols., Oxford.

Westlake, N.H.J., 1881-1894. 4 History of Design in Woodruff, C. Eveleigh, 1925. “The Chronicle of Wil-

Painted Glass. 4 vols., London. liam Glastynbury, Monk of the Priory of Christ

William of Canterbury, 1875. “Miraculorum Gloriosi Church, Canterbury, 1419-1448,” Archaeologia Martyris Thomae, Cantuariensis Archiepiscopi,” Cantiana 37, 121-51. in Materials for the History of Thomas Becket ——, 1932. “The Financial Aspect of the Cult of (Rolls Series No. 67). Edited by James Craigie St. Thomas of Canterbury,” Archaeologia Can-

Robertson. 1, London, 137-546. tana 44, 13-32.

William of Malmesbury, 1870. De Gestis Pontificum ——, 1936. “The Sacrist’s Rolls of Christ Church, Anglorum. Edited by N.E.S.A. Hamilton. Lon- Canterbury,” Archaeologia Cantiana 48, 38-80.

don. Woodruff, Helen, 1929. “The Illustrated Manuscripts

| Williams, Emily], 1897. Notes on the Painted Glass of Prudentius,” Art Studies 7, 33-79.

in Canterbury Cathedral. Aberdeen. Wormald, Francis, 1939. English Benedictine KalenWillis, Robert, 1972. Architectural History of Canter- dars after rr00 (Henry Bradshaw Society 77). 2

bury Cathedral. London, 1845. Reprinted as vols., London.

Architectural History of Some English Cathe- —, 1943. “The Development of English Illumina-

drals, 1, Chicheley. tion in the Twelfth Century,” Journal of the

Wilson, Canon, 1913. “On Some Twelfth Century British Archaeological Association 3rd ser. 8,

Paintings on the Vaulted Roof of the Chapter 31-49.

House of Worcester Cathedral,” Associated Ar- ———, 1952-1953. “Some Illustrated Manuscripts of

chitectural Societies’ Reports and Papers 32, the Lives of the Saints,” Bulletin of the John

132-48. Rylands Library, Manchester 35, 248-66.

[ Winston, Charles], 1847. dn Inquiry into the Dif- —§, 1954. The Miniatures in the Gospels of St.

ference of Style Observable in Ancient Glass Augustine. Cambridge.

Index

Subjects tabulated in Appendix figs.6 & 8-21 are not listed in the index unless they are discussed in the text.

fig. 137 figs. 19, 20

Aaron and his sons, 76, 118, 126, Balaam, 53, 54, 65, I21, 134,

Abel, 112, 133 Baldwin, archbishop, 11, 23, 24-25, Abijah, 99, 108, 115, fig. 215 30, 31, 66, 146, fig. 112

Abiud, 38, 39 Baptism, 118, 125-26

Abraham, 55, 60, 61, 107, 110, 112, Basil, St., 129 127, figs. 56, 78. See also Isaac, Beatus of Liebana, 126

sacrifice of Becket, see Thomas Becket, St. Paul, 118 Benedict of Peterborough, 24, 102, 106, Achim, 108 III, 120-2], 141, 147, 148n; muiracult Absolution given by Sts. Peter & Bede, 113, 117, I4I, 142, 144

Adam, 26, 52, 53, 56, 61, 97, 104, sanctt thomae of, 32, 143, 144n,

107, 108, III, 112, 113, 127, 137, 146-49 figs. 6, 7; and Eve, 127, 136 Benedictional of St. Ethelworld, see

Adam of Dore, 103 manuscripts, London, British

Aelfric, 111-12. See also manuscripts, Library, Add. 49598 London, British Library, Cotton Bethlehem, church of the Nativity, 109g

Claudius B. iv Biblia Pauperum, 117 Alan, Prior, 31, 152 Boaz, 71-73, 98

Alphage, Archbishop (St.), 141; Bourges Cathedral: stained glass: 4, 6, scenes of life, 26, 27, 66-67, 68, 8, 33, 42, 44, 80, 82, 98, 102, 106, 105, 140, 144, 146, fig. 113; texts 117; Good Samaritan window, -117, of life, 106, 145; relics, 31, 145 136; Redemption window, 41, 117,

Amiens Cathedral, 135 130, 131, 133

Amminadab, 40, 48, 77-79, 98, 99, Brailes, W. de, 47, 125

fig. 151 Braisne, Abbey of St.-Yved, 40

Ancestors of Christ, 14, 18, 26, 38, Bury St. Edmunds, Abbey, 31; cross,

40, 47-48, 52, 60-61, 73, 98-100, 102, II9 103, 104, 106, 107-15, 127 Bury Bible, see manuscripts, CamAngers Cathedral, 27, 43, 89 bridge, Corpus Christi College 2 Annunciation, 38, 105, 131, 134, 135,

fig. 158 ‘“Caedmon,” see manuscripts, Oxford, 142, 146 Cain, 112; sacrifice of Cain and Abel, Ara Pacis reliefs, 125, 152, fig. 36 133 Aram, see Ram Cainan, 40, 114, fig. 15 Aristotle, 153 Caldwell, Samuel Jr., 6, 7, 16, 18n, Anselm, Archbishop (St.), 24, 31, 46, Bodleian Library, Junius 11

Augsburg Cathedral, 42 IQ-2I, 22, 140

Augustine of Canterbury, St., 141, 142 Caldwell, Samuel Sr., 15, 17, 19, 20,

Augustine of Hippo, St., 126, 127 22 Austin, George Jr., 14, 16-19, 20, 22, Canterbury, Christ Church, 11, 30-31,

89, 104, 108, 131, figs. 74, 86 74; archbishops, see Anselm, BaldAustin, George Sr., 5, 16, 18, 97, win, Lanfranc, Stephen Langton,

fig. 193 Richard, Theobald, Thomas Becket,

Austin, Harry, 17 Hubert Walter; breviaries, see

Auxerre, Cathedral, 43 manuscripts, Canterbury, Cathedral

INDEX 186 Canterbury, Christ Church (cont.) Christ, 26, 102-103, 104, 105, 107-108, Ely Cathedral, 69 Library, Add. 3 and 6; priors, see Ir0, 112, 118, 146, 150; among the Enoch, ascent of, 52, 53, 61, 76, 77, Alan, Benedict of Peterborough, doctors, 76, 122; ascension of, 105, QI, 92, 108, III, 112, I14, 132, 133,

Conrad, Ernulf, Henry of Eastry 116, 133, figs. 137, 142; baptism, figs. 9, IO, II, 137

Canterbury, Christ Church Cathedral: 118, 125-26, 137; before Pilate, 91, Ernulf, Prior, 46 chapels: St. Anselm, 55; St. Edward fig. 58; calling Nathanael, 62, 76, Esrom, 111 the Confessor, 4; St. Gabriel, 56, oI, 118, 126, 127, fig. 88; carrying Ethelbert, St., 31 69; St. Gregory the Great, 140; the cross, 130, fig. 192; crucifixion Ethelred, St., 31 St. John the Evangelist, 140; Lady of, 17, 38, 39, 63, 75, 80, 116, 120, Eucharist, types of, 118, 123, 149 Chapel, 4; St. Martin, 26, 105, 140; 130, 131; early life of, 59, 118, Euclidian geometry, 42, 71 St. Stephen, 63, 140; Trinity 133-34. See also Chartres Cathedral, Eustace, St., see Chartres, Sens Chapel, 26, 31, 106; cloister: 34; Infancy window; entombment, 116, Exodus of the Israelites, 54, 55, 56, corona: 26, 30; crypt: 22, 51, 78, 126, 150; flagellation, 131, fig. 192; 120, 122, 124-25, 152, figs. 30, 32,

105, fig. 3; nave: 5, 17, 26, 107; last supper, 137; leading the gentiles, 34, 35

pavement: 71, 86, 97; rebuilding of 54, 58, 64, 91, 94-95, 120, 122, figs. Ezechiel, 72, figs. 130, 154 east end: 3, 11, 24, 26-32; sculpture: 37, 41; in majesty, 74, 96, 131, figs.

capitals, 75-76, 88, fig. 180; from 135, 137, 195; miracle at Cana, 62, ; choir enclosure, 56, fig. 33; roof 127; passion of, 118, 136; presenta- ne aaa hg. 42 bosses, 51n, 90; tomb of Hubert tion of, 122, 123, 133-34, figs. 209, Fite isulf Jordan 148. 140n. 10 Walter, 26, 87-88, Appendix fig. 2; 63, 64, 65; public life of, 91, 116, Go , > 95» 140, 149n, 150,

ao ; Fitz-Eisulf Master, 77, 79, 81, 83-86,

“triforia’: 26; wall and vault 118, 122, 126ff; reading in the 18. E97

paintings: 35, 55, 56-57, 96, 97, synagogue, 118; resurrection of, 75,

154, fig. 193 105, 116, 126, 130, 132; sermon Fitsionlin Revinwld. h £ Batl

Canterbury, Christ Church Priory; on the mount of, 118, 126; tempta- Hizyjocelin, Reginald, bishop of bath,

; Flight into Egypt, 133-34 25, 27,7, 10, 34-35, 97, Christ F Medallion, Medalli finances, II, 23-24,83, 25, 288, Clayton and134; Bell, glaziers, 1 ogg 9, 16, 67, Pl. IV,

benefactors, 32; exile of monks, tion of, 122. See also ancestors of 749

, 7) 2 > 3 4; 5» 75 y : > g > 7 figs. I15 118

- 72, 78, 79, 87, 91, 92

31-33, 345 lands, 73, T9 Conrad, Priors 4 46, 105 Fogg Medallion Master, 61, 66, 67-70, Canterbury, manuscript illumination, Constantine, Emperor, 118

7, 45-50, 97 Cosam, 99, 108, fig. 218 fraterniti Canterbury, St. Augustine’s Abbey, 70, Croyland, Abbey, 31 rarernittes, 31, 32 go, 112, 119; abbots see Robert de Crumpled Silk Painter, 77, 91, 99

. Bello and Roger Cuthbert, St., 47, 142 gentiles, 64, 118, 119, 120; Church of

Canterbury, synagogue in, I19 Gentiles, 118, 127. See also Christ Canterbury-Sens Designer, 92ff, 133 Daniel, 73, 100, 122, figs. 131, 212. leading the gentiles

Canterbury, town of, 23n, 146, See also Three Righteous Men Gerald of Wales, 23

fig. 113 David, 65, 99, 100, 107, 112, I15, 127; Gervase, monk, 4, 5, II, 24-27, 30,

Capucines Bible, see manuscripts, bearing himself on his hands, 130, 46, 102, 103, 145

Paris, Bibliothéque Nationale, 137 Glastonbury, 145

lat. 16743-46 Doctors of the Church, 118 Glastynbury, William, monk, 116, 135

Celestine III, Pope, 31 Dover Bible, see manuscripts, Cam- Glossa ordinaria, 111, 112, 117, 118n,

ChAalons-sur-Marne Cathedral, 44, 46, bridge, Corpus Christi College, 3-4 11g

59, 70, 71, 78, 92, 99, fig. 124 Dover Priory, 34 Golden Gospels of Henry III, see

Channel School, 8, 44, 74 Dunstan, Archbishop (St.), 141; manuscripts, Madrid, Escorial Real Chartres, Cathedral of Notre-Dame, 46, scenes from life, 26, 27, 66-67, 68, Biblioteca, Vit. 17 57, 149; sculpture: 102, 115, 1523 105, 140, 144-46, figs. 109, II0, IIT; Golden Legend, 128, 141n stained glass: 4, 7-8, 9, 22, 33, 40-41, texts of life, 106, 143, 145; relics, Gospel Book of Henry the Lion, see

A2, 43, 44, 47, 73, 83ff, 89, 90, 96, 31, 145 manuscripts, Gmunden

98, 100, 101, 102, 106, I15, 117, Great Canterbury Psalter, see manu138, 142, 153, fig. 212; St. Eustace Eadmer, precentor, 141, 143, 144, 145 scripts, Paris, Bibliothéque

window, 44, 51, 75, 85, 90, fig. 4; Eadwine Psalter, see manuscripts, Nationale, lat. 8846 Good Samaritan window, 113; Cambridge, Trinity College, R. 17. 1 Gregory VIII, Pope, 25

Infancy of Christ window, 49, 123; Eadwy, king, 145 Gregory of Nazianzus, 126, 128,

Joseph window, 44, 84, 86, 88, go, Easton, George, 14, 15, 20, 21, 22, 27 129-30. See also manuscripts, Paris,

93, 95, 150, 154, figs. 196, 198; Ecclesia, 38, 39, 63, 104, fig. 100 Bibliotheque Nationale, grec. 510

Prodigal Son window, 44, 74, 90, Edward II, 143 Gregory the Great, St., 105, 118, 1209, 93, 96, 154, fig. 195; Redemption Elias of Dereham, 25, 34 141, 142, 145. See also Registrum

window, 59, 75, 130-31, 133, Appen- Elias of Reading, monk, 94, fig. 190 Gregori

dix fig. 21. Elyah, ascent of, 76, 112, 132, fig. 137 grisalle windows, 39, 43, 44

Child among the Disciples, 118 Elisha, 92, 132, figs. 68, 137 Gumbertus Bible, see manuscripts,

INDEX 187 121 figs. 55, 59 116, 118, fig. 146

Erlangen, Universitatsbibliothek, Jeroboam, 38; sacrifice by, 64, 122, Last Judgment, 100, 103, 104, 105,

Guthlac, St., 31, 141 Jerome, St., 113 Lausanne Cathedral, 7, 86

Guthlac Roll, see manuscripts, Jesse, 99 Le Champ, 80

London, British Library, Harl. Y 6 Jesse, Tree of, 17, 20, 26, 42, 71ff, 89, Le Mans, 117, 130 102, 105, 109, I10, 115, figs. 133, 134 Lincoln Cathedral, 137; stained glass, Hackington, chapel of St. Stephen Jesse Tree Master, 63, 71, 75, 77, 78, 12, 78, 80, 125, 154; typological

& St. Thomas, 24, 31 81, 82, 91, 92, 96, 98, 100 subjects, 103, 106, 117, 130, 137, Hebrew, 115 Jews, 112, 119, 127; disputation with, 155, Appendix fig. 18b Henry II, king of England, 23, 31, 35, 63, 140; turning from Christ, 64, lion cubs, 118

109, 130, 143, 146, 147 118-19, fig. 94 Little Canterbury Psalter, see

Henry III, king of England, 9, 35, 97 Joanna, 55, 60, 61, 68, 108, fig. 82 manuscripts, Paris, Bibliothéque

Henry VIII, king of England, 34 Joanna Master, 60-61, 72, 75, 116 Nationale, lat. 770 Henry of Avranches, 147 John, king of England, 23, 25, 34, 146 Louis VII, king of France, 32 Henry of Blois, bishop of Winchester, John of Beverley, St., 31 Louis VIII, king of France, 35

58, 153 John of Salisbury, 24, 58, 84, 109, Lucius III, Pope, 25

Henry of Eastry, Prior, 113 I1Q, 129, 141, 149, I51, 153n Lyon, I17

Herbert of Bosham, 57, 115, 141 John the Deacon, 129 Herod, 124, fig. 81. See also Magi John, St. (officer of Constantia), 128 Magi, adoration of, 124, 133, figs.

before Herod Jonah, 126, 131 24-26, 29; before Herod, 53, 56, 61,

Hezekiah, 77, 92, 96, 99, 100, 108, Joseph, 54, 57, 60, 108, 124, figs. 48, 124, figs. 27, 29; riding to Bethle115, 132, figs. 137, 140, 216 50, 168. See also Chartres Cathedral hem, 53, 121, 122, 124, figs. 23, 24,

Hezron, 60 Joseph, St., 38, 108, 109, 134, 29; warned in a dream, 122 High priest, 118, 132, fig. 137 figs. 63-65 Malmesbury ciborium, 177

Hildesheim, 73; St. Michael’s, rog—10 Joseph Master of Chartres, 96 Manerius Bible, see manuscripts, Hohler, Christopher, see “the word Josephus, 113. See also manuscripts, Paris, Bibliothéque Ste-Geneviéve,

choked” under Parable of the Sower Berlin; Cambridge, St. John’s 8-10

Honorius III, Pope, 23 College, A. 8

Honorius of Autun, 120, 135 Joshua, 112 MANUSCRIPTS Hortus Deliciarum, 128, 135, fig. 91 Josiah, 72, 74, 96, 98n, 108, 115, Aschaffenburg: Schlossbibliothek

Hosea, 61, 74, fig. 83 fig. 134 13, I10

Huesca Missal, see manuscripts, Judah, 60, 67 Baltimore: Walters Gallery 500

Huesca Julian the Apostate, 128-30, Pl. II, (W. de Brailes), 125

Hugh, bishop of Lincoln (St.), 25, 143 figs. 97, 98, 99. See also “the word Berlin: Preussische Staatsbiblio-

Hugh of St. Victor, 119, 135 choked” under Parable of the thek lat. F. 226 (Josephus), 132

Hyde breviary, 128, 141 Sower Bern: Burgerbibliothek 264 Juliana of Rochester (Puintel), 95, (Psychomachia), 123, fig. 42

Igny, Cistercian Abbey, 143 fig. 208 Boulogne: Public Library 11 Imola Psalter, see manuscripts, Jupiter, 58, fig. 4o (St. Bertin Gospels), 110 Imola, Biblioteca Communale, 100 Brussels: Bibliotheque Royale Ingeborg Psalter, see manuscripts, Kennet ciborium, 65, 69n, 117, 9961-62 (Peterborough Psalter),

Chantilly, Musée Condé, 1695 fig. IO1 120-22, 124, 125, 126, 133, 13%,

Innocent III, Pope, 31 kings, 108-109, 110, 118, 130, 144, 146 figs. 20, 22, 28, 34, 41, 46, 50, 59, inscriptions, 10, 102, 108, 147-48; Klosterneuburg ambo, 51, 72, 73, 103, 61, 64, 141; 9968-72 (Psycho-

hagiographical, 141, 148, 150; II4, 117, 120, 151, 154 machia), 124

typological, 4, 6, 106, 115-16, 121, Cambridge: Corpus Christi 2 130, 131, 135, 137 Lambeth, 25, 31 (Bury Bible), 54, 60, fig. 72; 3-4

Interdict of 1207-1213, 9, 10 Lambeth Bible, see manuscripts, (Dover Bible), 46, 56, 64, 77, 114, Isaac, 38, 60, 109, I10, 112; circum- London, Lambeth Palace Library, 132, 152; 200 (Baldwin), 66, fig.

cision of, 65, fig. 101; sacrifice of, 3-4 112; 286 (St. Augustine’s Gospels), Isaiah, 121-22, 134, figs. 21, 22 figs. 13, 17 verses), 115. Fitzwilliam Museum 4I, 131, figs. 148-50 Lamech, 52, 61, III, I12, 114, 79, 119, fig. 161; 400 (typological

Isidore of Seville, 129 Lanfranc, Archbishop, 4, 31 12 (Peterborough Psalter), 90; 330 Istanbul, church of the Pantocrator, Langton, Simon, 25 (W. de Brailes), 113. Pembroke

80; Kariye Djami, 110 Langton, Stephen, Archbishop, 11, College 120 (Bury St. Edmunds New 23, 25, 32, 35, 107, 134, 142, 146, 147 Testament drawings), 119, 136.

Jacob, 110, 112, 114 Laon Cathedral, school of, rr, rr1, St. John’s College A. 8 (Josephus), Jared, 52, 55, 61, 112, 114, figs. 8, 11 117; sculpture, 135, 152; stained 89, fig. 165. Trinity College B. 2. 36 Jeconiah, 40, 100, 108, 115, 127, fig. 217 glass, 4, 7, 39, 44, 45, 90, 96, (Christ Church miscellany), 69;

Jeremiah, 72, 73, fig. 129 102, I52 B. 11. 4 (Psalter), 81, 90, 125,

INDEX 188 MANUSCRIPTS (cont.) Royal ro A. xiii (Smaragdus), 66; Vienna: National Library Cod. fig. 168; R. 17. 1 (Eadwine Psalter), Royal 14 C. vii (Matthew Paris), 48; Vindob. theol. graec. 31 (Vienna

45, 125, 128, 152. University Yates Thompson 26, see Add. Genesis), 126

Library li. 4. 26 (Bestiary), 81; 39945. Lambeth Palace Library Winchester: Cathedral Library, Kk. 4. 25 (Bestiary with Treatise 3-4 (Lambeth Bible), 55, 58, 152, Winchester Bible, 7, 8, 9-10, 46, 52, on the angels), 73, fig. 132 fig. 39. Victoria and Albert Museum, 54, 55, 61, 152, 154, 155, figs. 14,

Canterbury: Cathedral Library 661 (Psalter leaf), 119 31, 38, 56, 68, 84, 119

and Archives Add. 3 (breviary), Madrid: Escorial Real Biblioteca,

148n; Add. 6 (burned breviary), Vit. 17 (Golden Gospels of Henry Marcion, 111 |

128, r41n, 148n. Cathedral Library IIL), 136 Margaret, queen of Sicily, 149

C 246 (typological verses), 4, 6, Manchester: John Rylands Library Martin, St., 66, 77, 105, 140 115, 135; Register K. Rental Y Lat. R. 24 (Chichester Missal), 81 Mary of Egypt, St., 118 (Christ Church Register), 69, fig. New York: Pierpont Morgan Master of the Parable of the Sower,

125 Library 81 (Worksop Bestiary), 69, 63-67, 68, 70, 75, 77, 83, 86, 91, 93,

Chantilly: Musée Condé 1695 86, 154, figs. 117, 170; 338 (Psalter), 94, 128 (Ingeborg Psalter), 7, 8n, 64, 70, 125, 132, figs. 52, 149; 521, 724 Master of the Public Life of Christ, 73, 74, 77, 96, 125, 134, 136n, 153, (Psalter leaves), 66, 119, 146, fig. 62-63, 76, 128

154, fig. 81 114; 619 (Morgan leaf), 123; 638 Master of the Redemption Window, Dublin: Trinity College 53 (Bible picture book), 113; 736 75-77, 88, QI

(Winchcombe Gospels), 110, 115, (St. Edmund Life), 149n; 791 Matilda of Cologne, 94, 150, figs.

127, 132 (Morgan Lothian Bible), 90 209-11 Erlangen: Universitatsbibliothek Oxford: Bodleian Library, Bod. Matthew Paris of St. Albans, 25, 47, 121 (Gumbertus Bible), 102, 132, 130 (Herbal), 50; Bodl. 270b 48

fig. 140 (Bible Moralisée), 132; Bodl. 614 Maurice Tiberius, see “the word

Gmunden: (formerly) Collection (astronomical treatise), 114, fig. 18; choked” under Parable of the of the Duke of Brunswick (Gospel Junius 11 (“Caedmon”’), 66n, 113, Sower

Book of Henry the Lion), 137 133; Tanner 169, 80, 81. Methuselah, 38(?), 52, 55, III, 112, Hildesheim: Library of St. Corpus Christi 256 (William 114, figs. 12, 16 Godehard (St. Albans Psalter), Glastynbury), 116, 135. Methuselah Master, 49-58, 62, 108, 51, 54, 72, 123, 124 University College 165 (Cuthbert 112, 114, 120, 123-24, 151-53;

Huesca: Municipal Library Life), 142 assistant (V-fold painter), 58, 94;

(Missal), 56 Paris: Bibliothéque de l’Arsenal influence of, 61, 64, 69, 75, 88, 91, Imola: Biblioteca Communale 1186 (Psalter of Blanche of Castille), 95, 131

100 (Psalter), 109 74, 82, 154, fig. 158. Bibliothéque Milan candlestick, 56

Klagenfurt: Karten Collection Nationale grec 39 (Paris Psalter), Milan reliquary, 124, 152 6/19 (Millstatt Genesis), 126 133; grec 74 (Gospels), 54, 117, 125, Miraculous Draught of Fishes, 62, London: British Library Add. 128n, fig. 54; grec 510 (Homilies of 127, fig. 87 11639 (Hebrew Bible), 126; Add. Gregory Nazianzus), 126, 128, figs. Moissac, Abbey, 110, 129 15452 (Bible), 73, 74; Add. 28106-7 99, 145; lat. 770 (Little Canterbury Monreale Cathedral, 4, 64-65, 109,

(Stavelot Bible), 123; Add. 37472 Psalter), 46, 47, 69, 97, 130, 154, 113, 125, 132, 152 (Psalter leaf), 119, 127; Add. figs. 98, 126, 192; lat. 8846 (Great Monza, ampulla, 124, 152, fig. 26 39945 (Cuthbert Life), 47, 69, 142, Canterbury Psalter), 46, 47, 56, 57, Morgan leaf, see manuscripts, New

154; Add. 42497 (flabellum), 64; 65, 66, 69, 77, 95, 109, 113, 123, York, Morgan Library, Ms. 619 Add. 49598 (Benedictional of St. 124, 127, 128, 150, 154, figs. 29, 57, Mosaic law, 128, 135 Ethelwold), 123; Burney 3 (Bible of 96, 102, 108; lat. 11534-35 (Bible), Moses, 63, 64, 77, 104, 126, 127, 136, Robert de Bello), 47n, 90, 97, 114; 50, 80n, 82, go; lat. 16743-46 figs. 105, 141; and the burning bush, Cotton Claudius B. iv (Aelfric), (Capucines Bible), 37, 125; Biblio- 131; and the golden calf, 95, fig. gQN, ILI-I5, 121, 124, 125, 132, 152, theque Ste.-Geneviéve 8-10 207; and Jethro, 76, 118, 122, 131,

figs. 7, 15, 16, 32, 43, 69; Cotton (Manerius Bible), 8n, 36n, 82 figs. 137, 139; receiving the law, 126, Nero C. i (CAronica Majora), 97; Prague: University Library XIV 131, 133, fig. 137; striking the rock, Cotton Nero C. iv (Psalter of Henry A 13 (VySehrad Gospels), 110 46, 77, fig. 204. See also Exodus,

of Blois), 56, 124, 153n, fig. 24; Rome: Vatican Library Reg. Lat. Signum tau

Cotton Tiberius E. viii, 33; Harl. 12 (Bury St. Edmunds Psalter), 132 603 (Utrecht Psalter copy), 128, Rouen: Bibliothéque Publique Nahshon, 48, 77-79, 98, fig. 152 132, fig. 90; Harl. 624 (Christ Y 7 (‘Benedictional” of Archbishop Nathan, 99, 100, 115, fig. 213

Church Passionale), 69; Harl. 1366 Robert), 51 Nathanael, see Christ calling (R. Scarlet), 5, 33; Harl. Y 6 Utrecht: University Library 32 Nathanael

(Guthlac Roll), 70, 141, 154; Laud. (formerly script. eccl. 484) (Utrecht Neri, 60, 108, fig. 70 Misc. 509 (Aelfric), 112; Royal 2 A. Psalter), 66, 79, 95, 125, 128, 152, Nicholas of Verdun, 46, 114, 151,

xxil (Westminster Psalter), 56, 75; fig. 35 153. See also Klosterneuburg ambo

INDEX 189 Nigel of Whiteacre, monk, 24, 102, Petronella of Polesworth, 77, 78, 79, St. Denis, Abbey Church, stained

129-30, 147 Pl. Il glass: 4, 9, 46, 102; composition and

Noah, 52, 55, 60, 62, 66n, 72, 76, Petronella Master, 77-82, 85, 88, 89, ornament, 43, 50, 59, 75; typological

108, I12, I14, 125-26, 131, 137, figs. 93, 94; 98, 153, 154 subjects, 57> 99; 116, 120, 139; other

66, 69, 143, 144, 145; three sons of, Pharaoh, 120, 124, figs. 30, 32, 34 subjects, 59, IIO-II, 115, fig. 49 63, 65, 94, fig. 100. See also Three Phares, 60, 61, 67, 70, 111, fig. 80 St. Gall, 117

Righteous Men Philippe Auguste, king of France, 39 St.-Germain-lés-Corbeil, 74 Normeée, 113 physicians, 94, 140, 142, 149, figs. St.-Omer, Abbey of St.-Bertin, 25, 97,

162, 190 134

Obed, 99, fig. 153 Pictor in Carmine, 103, 108, 116, 117, St.-Quentin, Collegiate Church, stained

Orbais, Abbey Church of St-Pierre, 132, 137 glass: 39, 40; composition and 37, 39, 44, 45, 60, 63, 98, 130, 154 pilgrims, 31, 32, 140, 144, figs. 120, ornament, 44, 45, 70, 78; typological Origen, III 159, 169, 171, 197f, 1971, 209-11 subjects, 106, 117, 130, 133-35, ornament, 6, 9, 36, 41ff; “cufic” Pontigny Abbey, 57, 134 figs. 62, 65 motifs, 88, 90; designs in reserve priesthood, 118 St.-Savin-sur-Gartempe, 114, fig. ro (diaper), 41, 78, 80, 86; “mosaic” Pruclence, 65, 104, fig. 106 Salathiel, 40, 98n

grounds (geometric diaper), 43, 86, Prudentius, 117n. See also Psycho- Salisbury Cathedral, 11, 12, 89

98, 100; rinceaux grounds, 43, 44, machtia Salmon, 71, 72-73, 98, fig. 127 45, 56-57, 67-68, 69, 75, 88, 90, 98 Psalter of Henry of Blois, see manu- Salvius, St., 129

Osbern, 141, 143, 145 scripts, London, British Library, Samson in Gaza, 131

Oswin, St, 31 Cotton Nero C, iv Samuel, presentation of, 94, 123, 134,

| pseudo-Methodius, 113 figs. 60, 61, 62

Palermo, Cappella Palatina, 65, 113, Psychomachia, 94, 123, 126, fig. 42 Semei, 18, 60, 61, figs. 85, 86

115, 125, 131, 152, 153; Martorana, . ; Sens, Cathedral of St.-Etienne: 74;

65 Ralph, Archbishop of Reims, 32 sculpture: 51, 74, 81, 92, 154,

Parables: 118,servants, 119; DenteIIeaten PY Ram is fellow amsey, 31 (Aram), 60, III figs. 104, 163; stained glass: 9, 11,

’ ’ ee 90, 92, 93, 102, 106, 154; Becket

Samaritan “6. 19 130. 135-37. Redemption windows, 130ff 39, 43) 44, 45) 47 75: 84, 85, 87-88, See also Chartres Cathedral; Sens Registrum Gregori, 129 window, 74, 87, 88, 89, 90, 92-96 Cathedral; Good Shepherd, 119; Rehoboam, 99, 108, 115, fig. 214 figs. 135, 160, 166, 176, 184, 186, Great Supper, 119; Marriage Feast, Reu, 60, 62, ig. 76 | 202, 203; St. Eustace window, 87, 89, 119; Net and the Harvest, 119; Rheims, Abbey Church of St.-Rem1, 90, 91, 93-96, figs. 138, 178, 181, Prodigal Son, see Chartres Cathe- stained glass: 38-39, 154; borders, 200; Good Samaritan window, 87, dral; Sens Cathedral; Sower, 14-15, 43, 44, 45, 51, 07, 70, 72, 78, fig. 5; 88, 90-92, 95, 117, 135-37, figs. 58, 47, 63-64, 77, 97, 118, 119, 128, figures, 42, 61, 63, 74, 81, 82, 98, 103, 73, 207; Prodigal Son window, 85,

89, 94, 95; “the word choked,” 109, figs. 83, 154, 157(?) 85, 90, 92, 06, figs. 45, 188 6figs. Pl. JI, figs. 8; 97, Rheims, of Notre-Dam 4,128-30, 97; 39, » ABS. 9; °Cathedral alne, Seth, 111, 112anne ae

Three Measures of Meal, 63, 119 sculpture, 51, 57, 152; archbishops, ‘ , Paris, Cathedral of Notre-Dame, 7, see Ralph, William of Joinville, ane * 60, 61, a 68, fig "7 j

46, 80, 96, 100, 152, figs. 147, 156; William of the White Hands THs TO0s 133, 13% TAQ, 152 O66 ASO

Sainte-Chapelle 102, 105; Monreale, p » 30, 43, 44,Rhesa, 102,60105; ’ ' Palermo

school of, 11, 25, 102, 106, 153 Rich, Edmund, Archbishop, 146 Sigena Convent, Chapter House,

Paul, St., 94, 117, 118, 127 Richard I, king of England, 74, 10; 56, 103, 109, IIT, 113, 155

Paul, St. (officer of Constantia), 128 fig. 136 Signum Tau: 131; tau on forehead,

Peleg, 60 Richard, Archbishop, 24, 31 57-58, 99; fig. 493 tau on lintel, Penitence, 118 Richard the Crusader, monk, 32 126, hg. 201

Pentecost, 75, 76, 105, 115, 116, 118, Robert de Bello, 90 SIX Ages of Man, 127

126 Rodbertulus of Rochester, 150, fig. 199 Six Ages of the World, 113, 127

Peter, St., 37, 80, 118, 127, figs. 155, Roger, Abbot of St. Augustine’s, 113 Sodom, destruction of, 54, 125, 132

193 Roger of Pont-l’Evéque, 38, 46 Pl. 1; men of, 124, fig. 43

Peter of Celles, 38 Rome and Romans, 58, 119, 129, Soissons Cathedral, 37, 39-40, 44, 70,

Peter the Lombard, 111, 117 151-52 74, 78, 96, 98

Peter of Poitiers, 109 Rouen, Abbey of St. Quen, 13n Solomon, 112; and Sheba, 53, 58, 91, Peterborough Abbey, 11, 24, 147, ~ Rouen Cathedral, 22, 83, 88, 117, 122, 124, 134, figs. 44, 46, 47;

149; typological cycles, 6, 54, 103, 130 Temple of, 115

106, 116, 117, 121ff, 130, 131, 134, Spies with the Grapes of Eshcol, 118, 147. See also Peterborough Psalter St. Albans, 25 131

Peterborough Psalter, see manuscripts, St. Albans Psalter, see manuscripts, stained glass atelier, 36-37, 60, 85,

Brussels, Bibliotheque Royale, Hildesheim, Library of St. 95, 99 9961-62 Godehard Stavelot Altar, 71

INDEX 190 Stavelot Bible, see manuscripts, Troyes, Cathedral of St.-Pierre, 9, Westminster Psalter, see manuscripts,

28106-7 fig. 155 2 A. xxil

London, British Library Add. 37, 43, 44, 57, 73, 74, 80, 152, London, British Library Royal

Stephen, St., 63, 66, 105, 118, 140, 146 Tynemouth, 31 Willement, Thomas, 16, 18

Strasbourg Cathedral, 80, 98 typological subjects, 116-17. See also William, monk, 33, 102, 148n; his Synagogue, 38, 39, 63, 65, 81, 104, Bourges Redemption window, miraculorum gloriosi martyris

figs. 105, 157 Chartres Redemption window, thomae, 106, 141, 143, 144n, 146-47 Orbais, Peterborough, St.-Denis, William, priest of London, 148, 149

Temperance, 64, fig. 107 St.-Quentin, Sens Good Samaritan William of Gloucester, 150, figs. 191,

Terah, 60, 61, 62,William 115, fig. of 77Joinville, window 194 Tertullian, 126 Archbishop of

Theobald, Archbishop, 46 Urban III, Pope, 25, 31 Rheims, 35

Theophilus, miracle of, 118 Utrecht Psalter, see manuscripts, William of Kellett, 47, t49n, figs. 92, Thomas Becket, St.: 11, 23, 24, 31, 57, Utrecht, University Library 32 206

69, 109, 142, 146, 147; figure of, William of Malmesbury, 4, 46, 129 20; life of, 105, 106, 140, 148. See William of Sens, 24, 26, 106

also Fogg Medallion, Sens Cathe- Vienna Genesis, see manuscripts, William of Waterville, r16n, 121 dral; miracles of (texts), 143-44n, Vienna, National Library, Cod. William of the White Hands, 39

147. See also Benedict of Peter- Vindob. theol. grace. 31 William the Englishman, 24, 26, 30,

borough, William; tomb of, 68-69, Virtues, four cardinal, 104. See also 79, 106

78, 93, 105, 146, 149, figs. I20, 159, Prudence, Temperance Winchester, 103, 155 160, 197f, 207, 210, 211; translation Visitation, 82, fig. 158 Winchester Bible, see manuscripts,

of relics of, 24, 25, 30. 34, 97, 106, | Winchester Cathedral Library

140, 143, 151; shrine of, 27, 33-34, Walter, Hubert, Archbishop, 25, 32, Worcester Cathedral, 11, 31, 103,

71, 86, 97, 105, 140, fig. 164 34, 146; tomb of, see Canterbury, 141

Three Righteous Men (Daniel, Job, Christ Church Cathedral, sculpture Wulfstan, St., 31, 141

Noah), 63, 64, 128, 129 Walter, Abbot of Bury St. Edmunds,

Three Virtuous States (Virginity, 12 York Minster, 38, 46, 50, 51, 70. See Constancy, Widowhood). 64, 94, Walter of Colchester, 25 also Roger of Pont-l’Evéque

fig. 103 Warwick ciborium, 117

Tours Cathedral, 111, 130 Westminster Abbey, 11, 74 Zorobabel, 60

Plates

BLANK PAGE

|| i- yet (of de ff ee SF : +7—=— S: i 5od SS: \ =) | : oa baa 2 q "E .¥ ij \

NIE

'«s ee ze ‘ts Fo

, a 4 oD

NAN rack ok > ‘ ; A ee < \

A {-

2 , ‘s ’ , 1. North choir aisle n:XV, border

-cs aNee

oe _—— ix %

Ay “ae | «

¢ 7Ji S% a te a%nal Ys

— ce G; : éAl . "~ % = oid Bo fe y . : = * : r

aS > ¢'

— ~_— |. 2. North choir aisle n: XIV, border

\ ea ’ ‘s ae \ Or a ee at Aes BBY US Ee) ge a af aA al| AeziNe. [ = ee ee ae be 1) ae *. » &.

DS aye ls p Gi Mey Hie Sa

os AGqT : f RoeN in? Sai Ta eee gira Oe o. iy i & a LLY ey j Le oe

tee «6 le Haralheeraee ed al { WeJ¢ Pee

eee) | UU a ot Dome 4 hy4‘ i) | a Sa i: € lee Be :1AOat

ee Ze 34

Bi\ be 38) i Le \%, cr fi Ie mu G ay Kea SY 4: he 67> Jgit f ts | #

per BSSha St| a) ) Sa)! @ bl Dp,=Lae eeGESO i NTO

ai i ve q SENS SOT Se ean ool pn, = V7 “ 3. Crypt, east window, border Veg ~AS fe (|“44.“s Chartres, Eustace window, borderSt. and rinceaux

i> (OX) :

} ¥; Ca. \ ‘* 5. Rheims, St.-Remi, clerestory border ~*~

ork P at ’ 4

aa ie

R.SWS :4 GM S&S4

(,| gW.Fm a + -- NA"

EX *S5 oe QN

sm

5

eeu,® Vim Sd 4 sai $= = a “is ~ al ee. ~ we '

wes eee Pe eae a “ig Le Pipge? « ORs :

”~—— — Fa~.eae eeele iy6NA a» Pa pe >} | ray ® Gee 2: BS eG Ge MRE » , wees ia er, Sap eee se \ ae

| Pe is W ‘iA BEWSA\"er |oe Hepa. : e SS \e % \ Yer lia 8

— Se =" “7G = "y " : f ¥) “a fs WE. > 1 {Bee @

i \ 5 ) 7 ’ > }) . “ : ’ to. ef wo . ¢"S f 33 gf | i erm ~ ' s ‘s ) ) a A cue VE

Lag el | 44 (ed i Cae [Ps

X 13 ig % ae3P3iM } }WNT : & LEA SadanNia, 4Yeep PG, ae Lae : ce -.w gis, “ 9 COG 6A SS Py eo ee SE f tT OR gl Teens Cee oat we - x ee ae * | | ANY Wa ea Fim cif ma

een, Oe a Mi ilo Ee Re te |

g ie. gee fo ce. ,3~aD, ke) i ee ty » be ig 2ek a\\SW Re OP Net /fear | Z Wier E-) o_o ealde sec/ye:¥di f z ” tee » a amet yeas Fo f “4 4 P tg Cale Le |hy : i AVN W Bea ! GS Fon eh Pipe, : © om caYs Ve >ak 6% YA ey A |yell STSG. RRaCane WAT ,eas! SMe ‘ ®, ssyap tap © ce. 5iV f ihKY i |; iY YS .saff :t eeeefa:oe @re* hile if [ a Wee © { ‘ee a i + oa ar ee Rf ’ : li [ k ui Z, Te | ie : A. i 4 ‘ ae ait A o

Nah MO. ewee aaE Sts 4,oe ey ee(SS cm) Ne eee) s;=May pas GAO ea akIN iE RES TD Me aa are > AE” ei ° - enSE we a.GR hata i eee ee&. =< PcMe ich —— aaa = t ‘ Ff f, , xt 1 he :i ASS) es ee 7 1 tae Ge Pn.» Nemes. - . Heeb cp ahorm ey be sp pike. 7 nage fepuade Semele, re tiths Miwa: atl

£ JA ~ Wipe 4 Ch uid ~~ TOOTS sy Ear 12 4 of oon “he ee SEE . os ee ee Bot, Aabnbel andent Serie § corrmatina Mi Shemar.srah{ ue.

6. Adam, from clerestory N:XXV 7. Aelfric, Pentateuch, British Museum,

Cotton Claudius MS B.IV, f.7v, . detail of Adam

Pim eo* OE ee “af Seaait:. dl “9. 2: oo * wage | \ os 4rads .-RAY 37; “ss sat oe , ad Fe,,? 9 iS eo ¢4I -i.: "i. . -.\* , F‘— #=a AWake 7ime pee-OLA mere ailAee Aiseh, ; ~~ ——— ‘4 aida . BmSed a me :.Se eee Fh caAM om ~LE, ; ~~ gE; eg A)

[jae RY Ae AVA rca NSP ‘~)> eo 8 teoa eejee eeLa A wo Wa oy Oa St Co (ae ‘tram 7 ae wr be —~ . — nf ie ae : 4 } a, ” 4 4 = Ge" : . ons ATR age ar i z ; Eos oe oA ) (4 "ea Sa

rpa“Se PG ..osears oS Ky care a ae!Le SCO

2. et ; “o -2,+— as ¥oN y. pe agee Bick iPass .. Brot as Py Qe— — — ee ae AG ted zi bo —-xae 4 sy wher , A.ee, tes eee ‘i ay ¥Se aa a4 Es ;weiss . ys 2 -:ons épc oe i 4‘is: a he rd. a> sama oiseee, isa Bh. 2a 5ag “ :*Te ,ce3 — Oa ee ee age oe Bare er es 3 ne ey Gane hg UE Riana i OE) eaee aa :rs)cute ON Sit 4d ‘aye OT, ge“asliPE. ES ae a a: That Fees We a?Fee RS oe SS Seaaaeee pe. 7 ae me 7 . ; Pig —— ih np nies pe wie Tapia ge. ee Re bu. rade i tl ee glee wat ‘

8. Jared, from clerestory N:XXII 10. St. Savin-sur-Gartempe, vault painting, Enoch

aSite ae ERO Pa.j #;./\ae ,atiys, eS: :_. eesONS SSaaa~yee i 2k, “a a = y See - a atte tiie :

oatsa.J}yee a bogs i, Rtti,apes 2 :FP, Co ‘/, : prt z sill 14

| SB C2 s ee PN x iLike .*! .¥Cyr area. ‘. bi wey oY&3 a g bane , ae ree dle BF Sy be ahd i , °*

hase 3 Pw se

v| aSiisit ;ee,y ae Y| ‘SS) j “Ds \r 4gage p) Ciaos cyPane SE aa E : heetmjc: j }} 4nvJ . f s , a te A? > hog Oe Te , “a i! |

ee A Eee Leo.*NS gr tiQefi ¥doletrsns $= +a a7 24 SLY * ‘ |Vag

: tj mes foe ee ip a iid ‘Lay. noch rynde marhupalam dahepa'p pip “|piyas :adh «og | Se, EY. /¥ — ddan Lge hegepoiynoe ir RS ae Bs AJ aA, “4 iSe x ij atta ae kiee o 2of

PN NY SS Te eR

tte5 do SEA |. Ss Se, 08 Ses || a ti gS i ee ee ih 4 ue : p?eee; (a 4.4 Sg gter

f » , ‘ A% PE a e.8 3 ees" ae ae We ix < Ae ai > Saee as oe Sages a

3 >. a ieee mma N.C Le he \\ ee \ Se Wier 2 es ae a 6 Tit ez RT =

ce CS Oli ae, 8 a aa 3 e PO A a a | Ie 1 Gre ' See

eas mf ane A oe fife. ms * ia Cutee > hni+_\. Rabe.Bes fi : ye ™ > ae . —th ae) AsIeee, anh 12. Methuselah, from clerestory N:XXI 13. Lamech, from clerestory N:XXI

. Tee -— Ss 3

a4 4 < OWES as aay a a:

| UeAes) >" BAA xe Y, 7 = BRA. a . Se iy a ae —: t ! ~ (Nag 78 f | =—/ ; WI

) AC EC AG, eee ( r pe Neate | WF etn \Y

ts. Off a 4 phe] (Ad ae

J /! i wpa % a ai iii, / ar 14. Winchester Bible, f.169, *% admS ms 4a.AVF ™~ i ‘| initial \\Pentateuch, Y |}I mer % Waiq fioa\| ny AN to Baruch |i,oy ay UD ei pia 15. Aelfric, British © site Smee, q ec oe . Museum, Cotton Claudius —ada a— . MS B.IV, detail of MP ATAee a Ta wood ce malalectf.11, wrai Cainan

a C ed me - | WD, , if \\\ . ee

14 15

|ReeMeee «S| FN 1 Qf TN Ras

_ ~~ "et REY tte! wae ocoe Fy | eae — bg » Piaand rp eee. miata? > 6s | a ee? er i

;— . pei ree: : Pe.1x7 » F fSo os 7oe an me

veaoa ry Fees 0 a) asl dane itegil ahéper te TREY hunod | Sa OT xe ig ek agar ‘- bdr E ¥ 4E— +— oeee pera

: ¥ ORS ee ee , Lee ‘ ; Al ha) : NS ONY Si) Ne 4 SSA TAN |) One eee aa oN ES # DN, kz, 8 J Tat ‘ 7 ae ie \"S a \\ ra aay NS SRE \K S/S} B Rie A: av, } |»MC Ly

8 Se ONAN i aN

Bay Vw itNAN RIM 0Yt PHiMy LA WAS ‘ YY7hy of Fea Yili ie 4 Le a oe| 1/5 } ret fsWA i f i, a: ; ;i‘ /ny i NA AN

‘J“Ay 6\ \' :=a » gy me oN ‘ \ bit. } VA} ; fi Ke | \e wa | ‘\ | IN N i 9 OFF; ire Qi} Museum, Cotton Claudius z TY /O py viene FE am | ANN i my iit lh 16. Aelfric, Pentateuch, British

16 17

7, S| | : af -

< 'F Ks TJeeKX

& wy x A) aM

, esle riAY by tr cy Ses) Sa

é | Xa 6 f- \ t\\; :ROO = r j cor TS eaa “terse \\\ PAS “4 Ee a / \ : an Z| : | 3 4 ps: i a ra: rNe‘ ‘i 'are 1 \\ \\ . 4 i= oq. < er ad 3 Sk rr Wee\ car BeFQi | aata=Ox,‘s

-Sssi)GAS BS a: haa : ay : ’ — mo Py Rsore : EONS AP he Pr ao ©ya aw, “gm Eo re ‘ : A. ¥: :t eS ‘ : a ‘Tl NEN NEN

HI LEW SA I IE

SeetlsSewer: °HES = 7 AA 4 Pd ;

iEaieNe a a tale —, TAY 7% fe ; IL Er f+) as { | ee) | eee ed

Way As | ef We

mc at oka Sl \ Ae ASyeS

: . ta i r , —_—— . ot, Rhy : es = .

D =»f —_@ oS |esaocak > Bmee’ a “ ), wy

ge a Co eo SS °GFr, A a *.a“fs‘3 8 ; Pe ey ve j 4 ~ —" = —— wa >4 Bo : . : fj — : . } — ‘ stows ‘9 wt glia: = er fad

| |rgSyPsSei \Kae o | eee mf| 0’ & 2 4 \\ * L rf PPS po rai . ; a \ | ~~ A ie i's aad all 43

: ¥ SAAT K a ge bee = é . - | ‘ee oa (SWo Me og sie ! a ayki at ' +.\ ie| \vaCais

: ieie: SoaN 3 ‘Nee >/ »ee| \f a“py Bi 7) Seint vase ates -, |)“WN (mg 7 x7=:llnem | (a: oe *. - WN ee :es auPt ae=. 22teMe can ark, oS (py a)Vp @: : e& bh ere : "fe, we my e ; ¢ PY ideal ” Sf 2 Se ae i A

Ge 4oTOA a ~ «omg sO a* Pe ee. 2) 4 ay o om hs a’ ay a, ESF iy ~ “Gf B. Ce Sy by, .*” -— SKER wr" @ ye u, a : » “@ y/a? » | ke = » P. TES A | & a fd «i 7 go AS Ve! ES shacmoe

PUSS i ae N Gay, 44 aS | = iS: 3Xt y ae 7 ON 6 7 As AS eS) S\ aw ri i¥;

esmal iW 1& a hnata é‘ es =f @ eeeiy|| * 4 N 24 9 ff >, ai 1 Me wea CaN i

— ~\ fy 2 + eal aw x , oy € oI | e: Bk YZ) Pp 4) VO imey fee WF, | i | q zs 2 |

of % 2 ae! tH & ay / io aie {2 a| ae ) iPR | s Vi ‘Weeks , édi oea«Jey a Ay

”, aN ye A a: | e Sy | .% x g8 a=etan @ ° eS. yA eG £ |

or Pes : i i

» = Be CEE Ler oo ee 2 ome 6h (BY of se

Baz @ ~~ Figgtee oe ain. SS fe i Peas tee. ‘ Ms a &. 5 * if s . , : rm " , i» SP 2, as %see Sheyprth a ah LP i 2 ie Se Ie = 27. North choir aisle n:XV (5), Magi before Herod Ee ado BRICSS eek

28. Peterborough Psalter, Brussels, NGG eee 7 | Bibliothéque Royale, MS 9961-62, f.rrv, Say) /~ Ci TaN A:

detail of Magi before HerodYAN iy bes NO | ait INVARRIAG OMY UBS ee Ss

TybyNice) ih aS p’ :IIT 4:; rT LAY INNATE ae

: Rb | BER 4 Ilomead I : Pita: :;

« OSs IN ay \ Win” aS aie paaen a Cy) wa e ur ( , SF i a ae ee: QF > ‘ H

Se SS i ‘wl ‘ era Se aera eS he: “Sf hi at!

meer, Bir, ball ere Ne TS raed Cah — SU LN al teal NAS ey we) ELL ¥ Ve ae uO / SES. » aN OPA DD vy Aap” (eeaewece Wy) ali | [4s J==/4 |

WM ea Vi NS ea a MA NYC A a ge’ a

PWN eset s I Ty Vy SE Ey ee Ne 3) | FCA i) bl Joell) 77 DF PE Ai)

hos AN eae NY Gq =H NS BPA ENG - NAN

DON f PNG NS eo LJ » — NVA SS aN YC % — ‘CG -< +P 4 »

\ ay Sea . Am A fas -waa) a ~ 3 r,Se=| |4Ee \ Sigay a Pee { :. "\ \ ‘2 J oS Pi)Ae | | |KASS nee wt //) fa

ey SE SD SSS AN Atl b \ SET ||| ae Ss : / AANA 4 os, > i oe it | We > x ft | 4 i 1 he ;)

| SER sae i

wliko nai 7 jee) 0 7 = AWG — — RAST, rs 1) ae Ae ——— ST GEM ZL ‘1 29. Great Canterbury Psalter, Paris, Bibliothéque Nationale, MS Lat. 8846, f.4v, detail, magi cycle and presentation

Aq\ AC et Se

2 TE ee “SS cna “ements See” Lt

' \ _ , OSs ems wR Re go “f # re |

Ping : | ] r. Ate a > La — fies re Shed %

ANY; £ecQ.. Seer cums f$ :, :»r\: ea is & ha | 8).A, “A ‘ yeifY:ow w,

jEsf ate,NL- GS 5 Za 3 | Si a | a “* Fl beets ae THT AON) UL} :Hi TL, A, 7 4SONTAG 4” ANS N\ ™ | ‘* ~~ & Ry —/ | 1 Kh Cer a mF AS } é ‘ : “v SDLe)tg a be \\ ‘ (es fe ry#. ?WON ate, Y, on x Bb ah \\. Ni ae ee at g eg \ Ae ut ig/ Fara, (¢; =riz nee| fat EN CSS py) a lUde

OK ; : ess SS ! Y, ye / ~

¢ Bs Yj al BAe 39. Lambeth Bible, London, Lambeth Palace oer Wa > |eitt aa5ayom 40. Bronze statuette of Jupiter, a ie\ 2nd—3rd century, Utrecht, Provincial

a Oudheidkundig Museum

Ro See ek oh See Ze eae ae one “o/xe /| fs at ae 56)SY LNT an Jz By ; nis Si es .B SAKE H(t lP E> im 3 fa 3 f‘My, ‘) (aIN eelNai Leh\or: NEY 4 4 4 a a ‘ TREAD ey 7 es, ey m © NLT VRA DE ORV ge |

Srila mamsluiractabliar rerhiny a i perets 4! COM ULTNTTIN er Ee" ee 4 é i

Pe NERA aS Gam ee

a os-)

FES ON ga pane = ES, Ee ree afer; Pi, 3 oa ee a e eI 2 = “4 UPLRS

Taalyoull: | - Sk, “HG A pa ; way . giWeer 1 a & S PAde e | esAY 3P ka eae f: "ag HyLif O74 4|:‘ 2th) well 41 ES. i i fam mS ZU (OOO i "| hes) Wi aS ae : BoP eae —* a ipa. Bi Pid \ f \ Pete ai ~ ae = an fia. i. =: j {

SAWN) a=: _ a ae oe Pisco) / \e 4 | TE cn BOLL, 220 ct : Hl i e : 4 z ) Bh fe i _ ee a

4 ot Ate bY 4 ¢ | Ps / ; : || y1MF i 1)) wil i rhi :&Neen Ds:Bs¥ om bh)bss aeAy LeeeWV (a 2 ee ee 2 ae

4] 42

. F I | P be L r pee F ii nal Z2 Bibliotheque Royale,

st? PorLcUudOT’tan fj Se YH tulle d& ” : an gooe : vA 4I. Peterborough Psalter, Brussels,

EMH (Fis pac subes, kt? beeen sa ne (C4 MS 9061-62, f.11v, detail of Christ

oh eRCie feke he (fig. Kee eee A Lian \n OS OFV4 he leading the Gentiles Roa, ar, OR AN MERI of NSIS ESCarias ay a aTaae) di I iO

NM OY Sar Oe li SARK *\ Vy J 42. Psychomachia of Prudentius, Bern,

LAO) (cy as ) LO, Siu = 5 £0 6 \ TSAR) Ye Burgerbibliothek, MS 264 p. 68, 4 To iene NAN Le Ss | SAP A KAT LE Wei) combat between faith and the

At\AfARS) NASR YS? We ofof the god ad aw bo NY | ge ee AS Ase, ||:It cult the gods vf ~ ] f h St % Noth ad 1 } t A } ae ‘ ‘a . \ >British x: : Ps rE, 4 < \ & ERS Ae oldoN) AP aieeYL NY 43. Aelfric, Pentateuch, Museum, j yore 1 Jill ESA, @ Th ON ie ~T ep if SOS y)} 9g} | hs po Was ty Cotton Claudius MS B.IV, f.23Vv. | df @Pit to > ee :i detail of thebymen Sodom ofnee YHcmtere ensnared theofDevil

Q > ~~ 1, i ‘ r 2 % °

hiv ARR WL ee % a rs regnragta OC IAs SS ( Bs as > of :

4 ~ }- ES Cees a

ne-ucameempbe vey ‘dunaatt p-bablonul7¢.}9 peelitrar vin bade sensi le gs Tirm Ahem veg oaroy2 ferunehanc. tape onl fabdim err monartho alin 43

TS” eee ee Qn ett a ae a Pay } Eo ‘ “ «? LSB: i G OF KS * oe, a

oo £ pa: é Ge = ,

a re Bs, A) Pa kes Sap. hah . eA coe: le aan z . x E

48. North choir aisle n:XV (9), Joseph and his brethren

RAS ee i js GE Be eae 4

AEP Ee

Gav veer. cA —)

a \eme 4 % iN ages mT

iy esPe 4 § a Y | , Tm PRS 7 yh b's ary Pr." “" | | ead 3 ie We sos. rt " sy 1 ‘"Aes L. IWS, ve . Fi

wee ig.

Ary i wes all’ Sar Bp

A \SOHyt 2 - 2. YF Sey

49. St.-Denis, Signum Tau

elp elForalenincelo dl QA a

N mn olay Pa A

Zeus, GN NEN A fe Gs ya. Gn = ay IF fey RWG NS

hao

uu aes OAV, a” \f F hI

mt ID\y¥ 3 one, Re AS we ‘4\\y,, * Pog

i ee \| AN \ \Bi

i , m(SEZ Ney§ef; >)% ely REEt 1 ot ae ae SER Y wet ta hy BPRS Nee aah fOr: oh ies | f “e BI ae oo

Bayer Mele AS ae or .LAN wd Ee Lisersmumeecees a5 BYE oo, © Sons yy BaSod AANA SS LBOE Coase ec : ‘‘Cte aa)£3|.Ak bh :CeWard: | ‘a irena 4 te: Ba

fBa : hgkeAN SH),\ 7 insPAT a) wiz 7bY ye Geb? “Ss SPNed P tanAN att rfSea tyesos a) tn.Qi: 4ain re -f3Eel? thet Lplea a] +i fff ma: aee! ae.yrYF ‘ah| ae fe {OL care aE fedue22its Ci Fg ptiLh fo .igs F pee ee ane /het S L? phe. oe a his; fie \O sin sg iaeeers ’ ;Le ! RRS .eam eSntteeres gh- ie ——— Epes masots PNG Oy ‘ Ppt i Fd we BS 4 % ’EP E a4 ee — Mil eee |OF, 1 ON PF, = MPreaae:be eA ;, Ae ;&.ame eeev7,Ea Vink: vegies Ta vAAT a af NEE ec + Pr| 7‘OO rm ; gpss BP “Soh BRM A? at id ¢ y e-

Pini atl DS Ae le, By SP ) fh iat

oe. ee NG) 5ae |1;ae cae Eg 2% Aoh REopwa eG PARADA OI ereen Ph) hi ev A tgs Bish Re3 HO. See7 aoe et”Pk

“CE Ta a |bswae aeMyBin 2ay. aideSees SESSA? aoe OF ett: cape ae: 5A(a, pd .v"a Pee (ey f7%\\ goAe ee fl ae aug NG oe éHall > an bi § Rint ° “3‘ ‘hsby - te ee PN BRS i oe. Sys ‘ef ce

CS og SNS Ta? hae zi= st Fy we Pr2 -2; ‘* % .Se GF EF Wer st + i if: :e yeee 28 rs ~~ . By fi Ee wey Pe wert? Py aSg 2j s.a* . «.7 - ; ey at mete fig ” 21) 24 i;age.ge 4eat oa aa. See ; 0. 4- wo.ty me ca|.re 7+, ya hehe irfe“a.he

Pore pe Pm a7) eee peedscs i hs e ae 0 Fe > fe AVINTRAT: cea 9 2

ae ee raepi aie vee TEi aj. ote POO” Ser tik 2 °C MioOF Chen Eior-t ak a ne oe Ve 7 7) -elena. Van . “S ee tack.” y Te ho hs 20 daisies , Mf fx fr. AE ga tte BI be yy os te ei ¢ . ae oy

Se eyeeSRaik Bisy :* CVINKE sa Reese aR «ae £24 :a eo, : Se DA SN ee ieee - mae Se|nein = Wee peas oY if Pe Vi LSAy tayae ice ges, Se 7 azatys VNR DR eee SN A7 ‘pple : {BBieeeBsonoT —y + 2S Siffee Z eae :5t ip i eel !eSinS So = ge TA Ke BS Winey CAD, ipso) ¥ rit xri“Sa war. 4 Fae Ted etleat if om4 > gy aarny ‘ US BAP Cua sibs = ae Hy 6S ale IBae bok be SAR i «a a wl

53. . r rile 7 - eae cone > : te f 3 a a5 x if

‘ ~~ s a Ww & ois womrtom ¢ MY" 53: Palermo, Capella Palatiof ‘ fee 7 destru . a atina, mosaic PY or, _

“t ; Wik “thiid. esi, 4hai. (J+)ret. jWy ieseeehatee , . a, bs aa wo f} AP, ifyYA (ie >os 54. at Gospels, SAGAR ) iea2ie Se. i e century, “74, » Faris Of 4 TS } ae Sees 4h eee Nationale, MSeleventh grec. p.Pari 147

(Mt aa«Jee nt JA } ,id:WY y¢ sh Sit a et ’of‘ Sodom - 9 ° es f rity prs K’ fee Ry Pins een a ay :ail‘ of destruction fie , bi > e &e) RS det Pd ae pana hf TER AN re (> SET Gi ‘a6 4 “Cah: AeAad vayQs preGe viaBee @ih meee Arey, ay a BD it, PS ee 7 J cape - _ hoe fe ite STH 4 ‘gs bs om a ad hye ; es eo i RAY eae ~ i =.| emia AVY ey4 ee ee Wyay e=> fi; =o jos Be: ? Ba Pek ti abe ey Vy ie Fi i e ; sg { Put oar uf PREY 5 a - , ee \- Jv poms o Be j2s: 4

|W eal | +BS evan ie faaerty wihi ee| pdt be fa \ joe tire: oe ee: pe 4 7 EE. ae tC) ee’, ae . pak censticiommemate ™ mu fi) es om, BN .

-7;

ero ay oe PSR f armen 7 ba ,a . * 4 aes —— Es hrese

Be ee ee eee Val Xe ee aie A eT u~ a , APR AR. . y ~ a ET es a Mee P r ; 5 : > « : ie a =?

> ORE St SSETY R REDE Me GRP LEA OK SS

ye Sen J Nye ::c pee, om al Ie |e ae : 2 ; AGES ¥ }

T! .PAINS (lg é | .TRE 5 ihe vis ee : = . Mieieicconees 4 ks ih. a wee ) se !i CQ” EinePS. eae? a 3 ae ‘o>1S hS; yy ea> Be ie |,Pes

24) Hoe 5 we. & 1 YF. Ole an 8,

el ae TwNe > OC8 ta te . Wes Ee F \ , Pa aePE } ~iy2)| )iAx pes & ce PLB : ae 7-t -: oy a ne; ‘) Aahé ei

Ae: aMn 4gce ex ASkG wihta, ake 29+} 7 Le ma | a@,Cae” - 6aksolos yas 4} . ee io9§& | ;Sy Soe WR:

be” (OZAD calt Pe a

ae i — van ’ i — gt “eh . “y i on, \ c ame P é BS ae : *

oh he AE ly NE AAA A \ ore : ‘ ’ y } j &| 1 PU ernie remem a® PA *: ’ \ oar oat f ; . oe : 3

* \y y *Wittean Bc xe; aS ! “Titre A| sea a)eiE55 ye aistaeEY 2 *ue : pe Av & Se iweb Fea. & Ree oy » la Se / « > %* Yi 4 FVe I Bee‘ (es &feb;+ |*ry.: peesa‘ in sti\ewe ee Bescp7 G a3 oN Y +* 4 aS) Bal Is poo ae re \ ot rill Pa - as

: . rist

tek : ie¥ ge: a Sex Wee Nk . * |Bar : >:ee ap>, P ms a SS J)Al ' - OF Ay Ra, - Tae ey oa

3 eiui ee%ie,wePaee——, aa ta» 3e:63. North choir(14), aisle : - ~ vee = ~~"; ee ee = mins b n:XV ge e Geese Sete cc’ TNT |) sete Home te YMRS ae ei

°MTS i Vf a \ fc z x ALS Aim XN ¥

= © Suen De tiind ope Ee te ee soe ae ;

IVLACE IBY AAT! mein».a Be 7) \ Nea NATE H /j ole 4 \y, er i.é:he se . iae“sae :A a,«4.ee eeAe A} ne {& .4 hs Si 5» ese RY a Pian e@ % 7 , 7&f (» = 3 is 2 Bur os a aw > Fe. ; Re Re Ea Ny Sent Gide < « i 77. Terah, from clerestory N:XIV 78. Abraham, from clerestory N:XIV

PT tee Se hy an Se gt SE

ee -%," 2 _ OSE, Rw ee i SF ey oS SOE J

ane, aN es NSE fr Sete. a ay os

*SeAy Se ry, : aSS >> ~~ ' 5~ow OL Oe rm SS BS ayo TA nie ~ Ps) ee : a -_ \4 gO ai See Oe “ . Auer Ma o a A a= rs Q's Pi ea eee pee Te Met ot Ge SYNi Ree OSPe Gg BRee de

ry = way ue el \eal ; oA Se! an ie : 3 4 43 ES aS VS y | Bic MAINO BPE :

te NC Ca f

S " .\; SOTEVA \ goes + \ x \ b —. 5ge 9 | et Mier eee Pa. A AS oe 2 ig’ foal di pr + RS \: “4 Q = Mi

ig AD: eo i: Bee SN227) ae yeeeAtou ZZ et y< yf \ \¥ é\ isa We ipsiad 3 ,wg :a ro ‘a Teotomnns spo Ane Uo ee, Cal me Ba Gaia Se a ee Sins” 4 EY rr Hi Ay ye ea VatNS Coe Ba i Ph // ppm aepag Se Rg) oy Se, Fa Bet ee: aie wens abe: ~~» @e? eae 1 \\ Rais | A ew OT | tee Ste

;Pee o/ vn WX. =i Se 2 ia ee ee ./. . ee ‘ . ( p eo Hf aN \ ¢ RS fe -—

Fk4h)fc) }feeOy 7 AV SS: ge eeer(3Yas ory eae4 i lg ie oeeo-Lew asBig i ;Gee : ' z|.eae art Nf ;ija Ys A pied A ab OS. ie eee Ai WW 113 ARS eel >}4Dy «o> >fi1) \\ A i*Ae *RSamB oe 3wee 5 ;S% tL eee aBREEN Qs espF os i 41» —h -em aye

| RESERS NRA AM | Oe Qe, ¢a CAPA beads We(ates, le Ve 11:72 BURY : ' , fUNE 5 “"« iP .

|e

eet Lh, Sere . ‘ wo ff iy we A” ons ve”) ud acess a | SN] | bi hy gee a Oe RY cep coe SPy ez el 1b —WN WSS 3 7} WAS Bc Seat ag tes) eenade | ete4 &y” NS »? Ty Se Reey QS ea| Nm | S&® “se Pig Wes Ak A Es Pte he i}oe ae > Ai aoeke ALAee } . Mie ed 1 Rap CR |: i 4oti i = M eB. WR Mf ||): Hgs \CHE: 33 if We b AS ’“4:poo aOo ' : f ah , tba ws4:3 ar aiNN 5Sikes A #th ’ n =} ‘ ae -oy wIGNE. Ae La pre a ihe j NA aap | a me Bai fi Ss ey 2 Ne = se 7 rr . a — a i er gue ]

IAS BZA x% 4B DN ee |

a Vw is RAE AAS Seeee i hsaebfnak a € WS) Se ea, BY Sa i; iSree aeEMI ee ee 7 5CySe a asFsjet

79 80

‘e}tag > ES es EB Se.=O bssAz é.aaf iy eesSER; 3 a. assaosnll AHO | a CoN ie Pe eS) dsp a 5, ee Ye:See: fe bsaN 5 ge ie oon i "i Fi ae

ep PAGne|]2 °aaae, YY>| RSAY. See*. oe %‘ee ee all z - A\ : Sbe.¥ a®¥VS . f hee a : si ag + ,7 Y

ep ny; . ;aR: =f 7»o 4 ¥a fem pia Z wees ex j er! a oe $ Saee >

ei) 7 hg} gen 2 . . wae M : , : dis J 4 en : Ss : ee ae : aid229m 4 8 i q Rik het ragt=joe ‘ araens a A. od ne .;es, 4 aren. es 7 eRe eg bi eyif

:eke : A Fearne ~~, @wiea.MES eT. SS . Cer ee»raeae S ay, ee se

et [3/4 A \ Nad: We & i a”

85. Semei, from clerestory S:XV 86. Victoria and Albert Museum, original head of Semei

SWpeee 7 a me” PS a: : 3 : ee ee #2 ~eo v xht a aeaf, a | a ae \Sw’s ». y™ - peas “ech \ ag , ‘ sigs Ki ¢ le ad al, 4 i * edt ae =

¢- ds . J aos a | a «ig = A é és ) iypts | ie siee! Be. BSaat‘\\x : ee “ , BS pe raa,IS € 5: iF e Ps ae oe | \ 4 ou ©, if lene PA ae AS NN 3 Poms, ElAF &=hi: 1 hed § \aa , 5et| gm sm Nig a? = % 8 EA g Zs i \' ey I \ ; err RL =. ‘aff i Ye © : P/E TN OOS | git ta ;NS * . oe ee ‘7 oY he ee \:ee~~ rte € ¢ OE. ee ‘we Vis ene Nia wie e aS a eeGt ay Mitad

ee* gy cae 0 ‘e.; ; a Cae MS ‘ Se 4 i ”aesGhar? N RS —eex :A, “PhYS, yy nea Reig 3. we / } SF py] ~~ E i hs say. a or Sas Se DI : oy | De Nf ey ‘oa .ea i POA Noah - 2° 2AUT ew| a et OUa\CUS

RNA BPA AA, Ase, ee SE ST SF eS ae Lap a +m . ish r ~~ a . | >.’ = a SS = =~ Ps #ae *;} ee i> MS 3SS Se ES SS SS te Se’Na fi, wfwi iy ano aeSISS SS

| Ee. = . ety, Pon RENE : | ) ee . 2 oat oe ree oS «Me \ a SS —— ae Ege. FRE _ me “ye “oe ZR ? , HRS

\as Bz, a AY, eo Jest ae ae: Ye yk s f e< Pe > vi ad in . ‘ a or Hal J gl | Pal Fae eden ogee: ere - Oy Nes be, y } fi % ¥~S,, P “3 > : a8

ie ee ey le? nat asa ree beee _4Lee :BAY a - AY ; ;2 «teet *‘ae “i p ie &|2em we 8) cheat i =i rag (ty ‘.2 ay We SOR cee 1S! pen | ” 4 apts “ar? : . d - sind vt ; ‘7 Be q: €‘.arpe }ys eo, oy "ag Mea ‘4 .;“se ¢€ ; ee : g4aae A Pig a%: efiPs, a- 4Rs 7 o-& Pjte*:a]6z; : EY" | oo >. Sa. yy ¥ BS ee % ee wae ‘ 1 F on " , .s a wv.

oe Ve:RS 4 ee OR TESuy Ee 8'Y OS BR ots *far: £7 6,nh 67° 2= >So 2S => xX: “Se he 2Vg, ER. i.) ee. ; 4 ve r BE ~~ ‘ a ry ‘ . bee s \ 4 Sag ey &| «OR we eobes sig. om TP Bs WY3Mem gistaf5 & ry paca ag pp “4 cycues 3ey : . res awe: %sd :15 ¥Ps °fh“5NES oz. oy

eo FOL Wem, 4O 8eexOe a ae a / ree y Ag aa was a wr = “% sO ae | ere marr Sgt HF a es OOS Cee SC, ee oxsusiontaay rs“ Si, : ae i rR Were eo? é ’ “Ee = : * a be y NSEoe FNS BSTURAE NE~ Se aeSAD eeeRTFaw 8S . Pd aa % a We OP ge a ‘as. or D.- Ms , F “3 a« see te ATT aga p® OMe “4g me ok “Rae a ed se be ae NY

92. Trinity Chapel s:II (12), William of Kellett returning to work

ee )

2 ld< .*@Qe6. QP a 4- a

{LS “di ~~. &.‘Se ‘ 3 2 rr an’ . = . npr ' .

} FO, > a 5 "kMee Ss AS \ at ‘ We : s 4 pie A" |:)fi5 iFa ; “e ; b | zEiegx / >»+saad Ws\3 a ix

oe Ra rm es a

5 ose im a \ a NY y) : " # WF ao CE be *)

@ % & 4 ny a “el } - _ 4 ari i! | S Ati A A ~ ‘ ‘> . 5e £'\: : . fit \4% : *AeyF=x == . |

= b , SS 2 iy & of: , ; 1? SS ages é 4 Ep. e Gis

& x “Ss & SY se . : q = : theres cone &

ee & ee y Pome ~S ; aah, < Reece 4

one es eei,eee“mae