The Project Gutenberg eBook ofMediaeval Church VaultingThis ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online atwww.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.Title: Mediaeval Church VaultingAuthor: Clarence WardRelease date: January 7, 2016 [eBook #50873]Most recently updated: October 22, 2024Language: EnglishCredits: Produced by Chuck Greif, deaurider and the OnlineDistributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (Thisfile was produced from images generously made availableby The Internet Archive)*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK MEDIAEVAL CHURCH VAULTING ***
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online atwww.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
Title: Mediaeval Church VaultingAuthor: Clarence WardRelease date: January 7, 2016 [eBook #50873]Most recently updated: October 22, 2024Language: EnglishCredits: Produced by Chuck Greif, deaurider and the OnlineDistributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (Thisfile was produced from images generously made availableby The Internet Archive)
Title: Mediaeval Church Vaulting
Author: Clarence Ward
Author: Clarence Ward
Release date: January 7, 2016 [eBook #50873]Most recently updated: October 22, 2024
Language: English
Credits: Produced by Chuck Greif, deaurider and the OnlineDistributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (Thisfile was produced from images generously made availableby The Internet Archive)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK MEDIAEVAL CHURCH VAULTING ***
Contents.List of Illustrations(In certain versions of this etext [in certain browsers] clicking on this symbol, or directly on the image, will bring up a larger version of the illustration.)BibliographyIndex:A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M,N,O,P,Q,R,S,T,U,V,W,X,Y,Z(etext transcriber's note)
MEDIAEVAL CHURCH VAULTING
Princeton Monographs in Art and Archaeology V
BYCLARENCE WARDASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF ARCHITECTURE, RUTGERS COLLEGELECTURER ON ARCHITECTURE, PRINCETON UNIVERSITYPRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESSPRINCETONLONDON: HUMPHREY MILFORDOXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS1915Copyright, 1915, byPrinceton University Press——Published November, 1915
To A. M.WITH THE LASTING AFFECTION OF THE AUTHOR,WHO IS INDEBTED TO HIM FOR MUCH INSPIRATION
The student of Mediaeval architecture, especially of the Gothic era, finds perhaps its strongest appeal in the peculiar structural character which it possesses. Greek architecture, even at its best, strongly reflects a preceding art of building in wood. Roman architecture, when it does not closely follow its Greek prototype, often depends upon a mere revetment or surface treatment for its effects, and the Renaissance builders in general followed this lead. Only in the Middle Ages was the structure truly allowed to furnish its own decoration, and the decoration itself made structural. And by far the greatest single problem of construction was that of vaulting. A knowledge of vaulting is, therefore, essential for the thorough student of Mediaeval architecture. On the vaulting system depend in a large measure the shape of piers and buttresses, the size and form of windows and arches, and a host of decorative mouldings and details which form the complex whole of Mediaeval construction.
Inheriting from Early Christian times a church of well-established plan, the builders of the eleventh to the sixteenth centuries set themselves the problem of substituting for the wooden roof of this Early Christian Basilica a covering of masonry which would resist the conflagrations that were among the most destructive forces of the Middle Ages. It is with these efforts that the following pages are to deal. It has been my purpose to classify and to discuss in a systematic manner what has been gathered from authorities here and abroad and from a study of the monuments themselves.
Especial emphasis has been laid upon the connection between the vaulting and lighting problem. Some vaults, such as those of six-part and five-part form, are shown to have probably derived this form from theclerestory, while other vaults of nave, apse, and ambulatory are proved to be very closely related to the position of the windows beneath them. In the discussion of Romanesque vaulting, a number of churches are suggested as forming a “School of the Loire,” in addition to the schools which are generally listed. Suggestions are made regarding the form of the centering employed in Perigord, and there is a somewhat extended account of the purpose served by the triforia of Auvergne. In dealing with ribbed vaults the use of caryatid figures for the support of the ribs, the non-essential character of the wall rib, the origin and development of six-part vaulting, and the types of chevet vaults are subjects especially treated. But these and other novelties are all subordinate to the real purpose of the work, which is to give in a compact and systematic form a thorough résumé of all the principal forms of vaulting employed in the middle ages. For the sake of this systematic treatment the different portions of the church, nave and aisles, choir and transepts, apse and ambulatory have been taken up in separate chapters, though in each case there has been an effort to keep as closely as possible to the chronological sequence of the monuments. This matter of chronology has, in fact, led to an effort to date as accurately as possible all the buildings mentioned. For this purpose the author has consulted many authorities and in the case of doubtful monuments has arrived at the dates given only after an analysis of the various claims advanced.
The illustrations are in large measure from photographs taken by the author or purchased in Europe. The following, however, are from publications, Figs. 31, 34 and 39 from Gurlitt,Baukunst in Frankreich(J. Bleyl Nacht, Dresden); Fig.12from Baum,Romanische Baukunst in Frankreich(Julius Hoffmann, Stuttgart); Fig.38, from Bond,Gothic Architecture in England(Batsford, London), and Fig.63from Moore,The Mediaeval Church Architecture of England(Macmillan, New York). The drawings are largely based upon plates in Dehio and Von Bezold,Kirchliche Baukunst des Abendlandes(Cotta, Stuttgart), supplemented by the author’s ownnotes. Of course, only a limited number of illustrations were possible and for this reason less well known examples, and those not previously published, were in most cases chosen. To make it possible for the reader to supplement the illustrative material references are made in the footnotes to publications in which reproductions of many of the churches mentioned may be found. The books chosen for reference have, where possible, been those easily accessible to the student.
The principal literary sources for the work are listed in the bibliography, though many works not mentioned were also consulted. Among the sources which proved most useful are the works of Choisy, Enlart, Lasteyrie, Rivoira, Porter and Moore, all of which are especially recommended to the student of vaulting. For personal assistance in the preparation and subsequent reading of the work, the author is much indebted to Professor Howard Crosby Butler and Professor Frank Jewett Mather, Jr., of Princeton University, but especially to Professor Allan Marquand of Princeton, under whose inspiration and encouragement the work was undertaken.
Clarence Ward.
New Brunswick, New Jersey.October, 1915.
(This list does not appear in the original book.)
Fig.1.—Périgueux, Cathedral.Fig.2.—Périgueux, Cathedral.Fig.3.—Angoulême, Cathedral.Fig.4.—Angoulême, Cathedral.Fig.5.—Le Puy, Cathedral.Fig.6.—Le Puy, Cathedral.Fig.7.—Poitiers, Saint Hilaire.Fig.8.—Poitiers, Saint Hilaire.Fig.9.—Loches, Saint Ours.Fig.10.—Loches, Saint Ours.Fig.11.—Souvigny, Abbey Church.Fig.12.—Clermont-ferrand, Notre Dame-du-port.Fig.13.—Saint Benoît-sur-loire, Abbey Church.Fig.14.—Paray-le-monial, Abbey Church.Fig.15.—Paray-le-monial, Abbey Church.Fig.16.—Vézelay, La Madeleine.Fig.17.—Vézelay, La Madeleine.PLATE IFig.18.—Milan, Sant’ Ambrogio.Fig.20.—Lemans, Notre Dame-de-la-couture.Fig.21.—Angers, Saint Serge.Fig.22.—Bury, Church.Fig.23.—Bury, Church.Fig.24.—Loches, Saint Ours.Fig.25.—Nevers, Cathedral.Fig.26.—Caen, Saint Étienne.Fig.27.—Caen, La Trinité.Fig.28.—Sens, Cathedral.Fig.29.—Reims, Saint Jacques.Fig.30.—Angers, La Trinité.Fig.31.—Provins, Saint Quiriace.Fig.33.—Durham, Cathedral.Fig.34.—Albi, Cathedral.Fig.35.—Lincoln, Cathedral.Fig.36.—Lincoln, Cathedral.Fig.37.—Exeter, Cathedral.Fig.38.—Tewkesbury, Abbey Church.Fig.39.—Peterborough, Cathedral.Fig.40.—Gloucester, Cathedral, Cloister.Fig.41.—Noyon, Cathedral, Chapel.Fig.42.—Cléry, Chapel of Saint Jacques.Fig.43.—Senlis, Cathedral, Chapel Vault.Fig.44.—Beauvais, Saint Étienne.Fig.45.—Sens, Cathedral.Fig.46.—Beauvais, Cathedral, Five-part Vault.Fig.47.—Senlis, Cathedral.Fig.48.—Laon, Cathedral.Fig.49.—Clermont-ferrand, Notre Dame-du-port.Fig.50.—Clermont-ferrand, Notre Dame-du-port.Fig.51.—Saint Martin-de-boscherville, Saint Georges.Fig.52.—Saint Martin-de-boscherville, Saint Georges,Fig.53.—Tournai, Cathedral.Fig.54.—Laon, Cathedral, Transept Triforium Chapel.Fig.55.—Laon, Church of The Templars.Fig.56.—Blois, Saint Nicholas.Fig.57.—Florence, Pazzi Chapel.Fig.58.—Worms, Cathedral.Fig.59.—Coutances, Cathedral.Fig.60.—Laon, Cathedral.Fig.61.—Saint Martin-de-boscherville, Saint Georges.PLATE IIFig.62.—Laon, Chapel of The Bishop’s Palace.Fig.63.—Saint Germer-de-fly, Abbey Church.Fig.64.—Reims, Saint Remi.Fig.65.—Paris, Saint Martin-des-champs.Fig.66.—Vézelay, La Madeleine.Fig.67.—Soissons, Cathedral.Fig.68.—Chartres, Cathedral.Fig.69.—Amiens, Cathedral.Fig.70.—Caen, Saint Étienne.Fig.71.—Chalons-sur-marne (Near), NotreFig.72.—Freiburg, Cathedral.Fig.73.—Troyes, Saint Urbain.Fig.74.—Angers, Cathedral.Fig.75.—Auxerre, Cathedral.Fig.76.—Bourges, Cathedral.Fig.77.—Morienval, Church.Fig.78.—Morienval, Church.Fig.79.—Morienval, Church.PLATE IIIFig.80.—Langres, Cathedral.Fig.81.—Saint Leu-d’esserent, Abbey Church.Fig.82.—Coutances, Cathedral.Fig.83.—Reims, Saint Remi.Fig.84.—Auxerre, Cathedral.Fig.85.—Tournai, Cathedral.Fig.86.—Bayonne, Cathedral.Fig.87.—Reims, Saint Remi.PLATE IVFig.88.—Freiburg, Cathedral.Fig.89.—Toulouse, Church of The Jacobins.
During the Romanesque period, or roughly speaking, from the beginning of the eleventh to the middle of the twelfth century, three chief forms of vaulting were employed over the naves and aisles of church edifices. The first of these was the dome, the second the tunnel vault, and the third, groined vaulting. With the development of the ribbed vault, all three gave way to this new method of construction, and the Gothic era was inaugurated.
The dome was employed in two rather distinct ways according to the form of pendentives used for its support. Thus a number of churches continue the tradition of the spherical pendentive, while in others some form of squinch or trumpet arch is found. Both methods are of early origin, dating back, in fact, to the Roman era preceding the reign of Justinian (483-565) and consequently earlier than the Byzantine architecture of which they are so conspicuous a feature. Rivoira[1]has shown the existence of numerous spherical pendentives of the second century A.D. or even earlier, and Lasteyrie[2]has added to these a small cupola at Beurey-Beauguay (Côte-d’Or) in France dating from the second or third century. But even if this method were known at an early date it was not until the Byzantine era that it obtained a wide-spread and extensive usage. During the sixth century it became the principal method of vaulting throughout the Roman Empire, and, as such, had a considerable influence upon Carolingian architecture of the ninth and tenth centuries. This is true even in France, for traces of pendentives were found in 1870 during a restorationof the church of Germigny-des-Prés,[3]a fact of particular interest because it is in France that the principal Romanesque examples of this method are to be seen.
As for the squinch, it may possibly be of Persian origin, but the earliest examples thus far known in Persia are to be found in the palaces of Firouz Abad and Sarvistan, which probably date from the Sassanian period between A.D. 226 and 641, and are therefore of later date than the Roman examples of the first and second centuries to be found in the Palace of the Caesars at Rome and the Villa Adriana at Tivoli (cir. A.D. 138). Whatever its origin, the squinch in its various forms, simple cross lintel,[4]cross arch, trumpet arch, niche head, etc., was employed prior to and during the Byzantine period along with the spherical pendentive. In fact a trumpet arch of domed up character is found in the Baptistery of the cathedral of Naples[5]which dates from the fifth century, while the niche head or half dome type, very commonly employed in Romanesque architecture, has a sixth century prototype in the church of San Vitale at Ravenna,[6]as well as many earlier examples such as those in the Domus Augustana (cir. A.D. 83),[7]or the Thermae of Caracalla (212-216)[8]at Rome. Other types of squinches occasionally appear but they are generally referable to one of the above mentioned forms.
By far the most important group of Romanesque churches employing the dome on spherical pendentives, is situated in that portion of France extending around the city of Périgueux, and constitutes what is known as the architectural school of Perigord. Since Périgueux was a trading post on the route from Venice to the west, it must have felt a good deal of Byzantine influence, and it is the general theory that to this influence is due the almost universal employment of the dome on pendentives in the churches of this school. While this may well be the case, it is nevertheless to be remarked that the dome as a method of vaulting seems to have beenthe only importation, its construction in Perigord differing in almost every particular from that of the Byzantine period. This might even seem to indicate that the Perigord type of dome was not imported, but actually indigenous to this part of France, a theory which has lately been advanced by no less an authority than Lasteyrie.[9]But in any case, the points of difference in construction between the domes of Byzantine architecture and those of the school of Perigord are of more importance in this discussion of vaulting, than is the question of their origin.
Fig. 1.—Périgueux, Cathedral.
Fig. 1.—Périgueux, Cathedral.
Fig. 1.—Périgueux, Cathedral.
These differences have been so admirably summed up by Lasteyrie[10]that a translation of his summary with a few additions will perhaps give the best possible account of them. They are grouped under six chief heads which may all be studied by using the cathedral of Saint Front at Périgueux (Figs.1and2) as a model. First, the French pendentives areborne on pointed instead of semicircular arches; second, the surface of the pendentive at Saint Front rises from the intrados rather than from the extrados of the voussoirs; third, the diagonal profile of the French pendentive is a complex curve[11]instead of a quarter circle; fourth, the oldest French pendentives have their masonry in horizontal courses while the Byzantine frequently have their courses more or less normal to the curve; fifth the springing of the domes of Saint Front is some distance back from the circle formed by the pendentives, the diameter of the dome being thus greater than its impost,[12]while in Byzantine models, the two correspond; and sixth and last, the domes of Saint Front are slightly pointed and, for that matter, all the French domes are at least semicircular, while the Byzantine domes are generally of segmental section. The explanation of all these differences lies in the material employed, for the domes of Perigord are of stone, those of Byzantine architecture are of brick or some other light material. The pointed arch having less thrust than that of semicircular section was better suited for stone construction, a fact which explains the pointed section of many French domes whose outward thrusts were thereby greatly reduced. Moreover, while the light Byzantine material made possible a dome without centering constructed after the manner of the Egyptian “voute-par-tranches,”[13]the heavy stone of the French vault made a centering absolutely necessary, a fact which explains the setting back of the dome from the curve of the pendentives so that the ledge thus formed might serve to support the wooden centering employed.[14]It explains also the horizontal courses since these allowed a greater amount of the weight of each course to be borne by the one beneath it, thus reducing the pressure and making possible a centering of comparative lightness. But these were not the only results of the employment of stone. Since the domes of Perigord are much heavier than the Byzantine domes and exert much more outward thrust it was essential for them to have very firm supports. Perhaps it is with this in view that the churches of this school are for the greater part without side aisles, their outer walls with heavy applied and transverse arches providing suitable support for the domes. Even when aisles exist, they are merely deep wall arches forming transverse tunnel vaults rising from the level of the imposts of the transverse arches of the nave and, with them, furnishing the support for the triangular pendentives. This is the arrangement in the cathedral of Saint Front at Périgueux(Fig. 1), the only church in France of this particular type.[15]
One advantage in the employment of the dome of stone lay in the fact that it might be faced on both the exterior and the interior, or covered directly by tiles without the use of a bonnet of wood and copper, or a roof of wood and tile, so frequently seen in Byzantine work. It is doubtful whether the earliest French domes were treated in this way, however, for indications would seem to point to the original employment of a wooden roof over the domes of the cathedral of Saint Front.[16]Nevertheless, these domes have since been restored with an exterior stone facing(Fig. 2), and a similar treatment is to be seen at Cahors cathedral, and over
Fig. 2.—Périgueux, Cathedral.
Fig. 2.—Périgueux, Cathedral.
Fig. 2.—Périgueux, Cathedral.
the crossing of Angoulême. In these domes the drum is first built up in a slightly ramping wall, to offset the outward thrust of the vault, and the dome itself is crowned by a lantern toward which it has an upward curve,rendering the exterior steep enough to shed water readily. At Angoulême the domes of the nave are entirely concealed by a gable roof, perhaps in the early manner of the school. Still another type of dome covering appears at Saint Étienne in Périgueux,[17]where the curve of the dome does not show on the exterior, but where the drum is first carried up around the haunch, and then surmounted by a flattened conical roof of tile, which rests directly upon the vault beneath.
It has already been noted that the employment of the dome on pendentives over square bays led to the construction of churches with a broad nave without side aisles. Among the earliest of these are the church of Saint Astier (Dordogne), (founded about 1010 but so mutilated as to show little of its original construction),[18]and Saint Avit-Sénieur (Dordogne) (cir. 1117), originally with three domes which were replaced by domed up Anjou vaults in the thirteenth century.[19]The best of the earlier examples remaining for critical study are, first, the cathedral of Saint Pierre at Angoulême, whose western bay was constructed between 1100-1125,—the remaining three being but slightly later—and second, the church of Saint Étienne at Périgueux, originally with four domes, two of which were destroyed in the religious wars of the sixteenth century. Of the two which remain the more recent must be earlier than 1163, and the other would seem from its appearance to be about contemporary with that of the west bay of Angoulême.[20]These two with the cathedral of Saint Front (after 1120) furnish three excellent examples of the school, to which a large number of other churches might be added as illustrating some minor differences in plan or elevation.[21]The cathedral of Angoulême (Figs.3and4) is characteristic of the school. Deep wall, and heavy transverse arches supply substantial impost for the domes. The piers of the western bay are of simple rectangular plan like those of Saint Avit-Sénieur and SaintÉtienne at Périgueux, while those to the east are of a later compound type with transverse arches and wall-arches in two orders instead of the single order of the earlier bay. Except over the crossing, where there is a high circular drum forming a lantern, the domes are not pierced with windows around their base. This is due to the fact that they are covered on the exterior by a wooden roof.[22]It is more usual to find four small windows at the base of each dome as in Périgueux, Saint Front(Fig. 1).[23]The use of stone in the construction of the domes explains the small number of these windows compared to that in Byzantine architecture,[24]since the stability of the vault would be threatened by too many openings. Besides this, the fact that the churches of Perigord have no aisles, properly speaking, permitted sufficient light to enter through windows in the side walls. In fact it seems quite possible that the windows in the domes of the Perigord churches were used to afford resting places for the frame work of the centering even more than for light, a fact which would also seem to be true of the four recesses left in the masonry just above the cornice of the domes of Angoulême cathedral(Fig. 4).
Fig. 3.—Angoulême, Cathedral.
Fig. 3.—Angoulême, Cathedral.
Fig. 3.—Angoulême, Cathedral.
In support of this theory it is possible to point out that if long cross beams were used in building these domes, it would be difficult if not impossible to remove them after the dome was finished. If, however, as at Angoulême, small spaces were left in the masonry it would be possible to tilt a beam bevelled at each end and resting on the ledge of the dome and thus remove it without cutting. Still another argument in favor of this theory is the fact that the open spaces to north and south are above the level of the ledge, which would seem to indicate that they were planned to receive the end of a cross beam at right angles to, and above the one running lengthwise. Of course, when windows took the place of thesesmall recesses the removal of the beam could be made through them. There remain, however, a number of churches in which there are neither windows nor recesses, but in most of these the ledge of the dome is itself wide enough to support a beam which could be removed without striking the vault surface.