: ºr. sº ar E. ºf . º º Fº * 3 º º º º * * * ..º * ſae*。、 §. 7. ******）*, *e, **», - º * （ . ) “I mean by Standard of Living, the stand- ÑÑŅĢĒ SÑșA，````× ŅŅŇŇŅ º º %%→< ）; ~ ~~~~, , 33 --_º >ke- ard of mind and spirit and behavio H A L L. | * * * ‘A \ PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS Mont-Saint-Michel and Chartres • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • - - - --------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -----+---+---+---+---- ******** · * * * · * * * * * * * * · * * * * * * · * * * · * * * * · * * * * * * ·| …|…|…|----|（~~~~ （ ）（~~~~！tae，（~~~~*~~~~--~~~~ ·！！！，”|（~~~~ （）§©®°¶√∞ √（√¶√¶√¶√¶√¶√¶√¶ §§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§ ſäŠÄÄËÄäËëÏï|- ~~~~ ~~¿Tiſ- - - - - - - - - ----（）！№.Ë№ËÄÄ. .ſ. №，*1. –… .|- - - §§ 7，（（\- |- R. //！！！！}\，\，\！ ſae№.N. (Zºſ：（№， № (） §©®°¶√¶ \\{\\{{\}\|，.§§§ • ………………………~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - … …---- ſ ： "… \!-|- |-， ， ( ） ：\， ，ſº z. | 0 ·|×~~ ~~.|- *ae№ ：=）|（~~~~ -. （~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~（~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~§），Ķ ķ ļ（， ; ;]（ſ）; （~~~~ ~~~~ （~~~~ ~ ~ （~~~~----- ~~~~ ~~~~………. ----（±√（√∞， √∞∞∞∞∞∞∞ √∞∞∞∞∞|× ·.Ķſ? ¿¿. ſºº-，:， …，3，… ！！！！！！！！！！！!！ ！！!!！！！！!!！！！！\,_%）...…！！！ !！ ！！！！！！！!!!！！！ ： ~~ · "… . -_- ， · · · - · · · - Chartres: The Tree of Jesse Window (Upper part) AMont-Saint-AMiche/ and Chartres BY HENRY ADAMS WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY RALPH ADAMS CRAM I//ustrated f SC ºſ |º§QºS eC.$7.% º| Rº§S s2 4. itºº #ºº& cº# * N BOSTON AND NEW YORK HOUGHTON MIFFLIN COMPANY @Ibe ſhipergite pregg &lambridge COPYRIGHT, Igo.4, BY HENRY ADAMS ALL RIGHTS RESERVED EIGHTEENTH IMPRESSION, FEBRUARY, IQ28 Oſije 3&fnergíbe 33regg CAMBRIDGE . MASSACHUSETTS PRINTED IN THE U.S.A. Editor's Note ROM the moment when, through the courtesy of my friend Barrett Wendell, I came first to know Mr. Henry Adams's book, Mont- Saint-Michel and Chartres, I was profoundly convinced that this privately printed, jealously guarded volume should be withdrawn from its hiding-place amongst the bibliographical treasures of Col- lectors and amateurs and given that wide publicity demanded alike by its intrinsic nature and the cause it could so admirably serve. To say that the book was a revelation is inadequately to express a fact; at Once all the theology, philosophy, and mysticism, the poli- tics, sociology, and economics, the romance, literature, and art of that greatest epoch of Christian civilization became fused in the alembic of an unique insight and precipitated by the dynamic force of a per- sonal and distinguished style. A judgment that might well have been biased by personal inclination received the endorsement of many in two continents, more competent to pass judgment, better able to speak with authority; and so fortified, I had the honour of saying to Mr. Adams, in the autumn of I912, that the American Institute of Architects asked the distinguished privilege of arranging for the publication of an edition for general sale, under its own imprimatur. The result is the volume now made available for public circulation. In justice to Mr. Adams, it should be said that such publication is, in his opinion, unnecessary and uncalled-for, a conclusion in which neither the American Institute of Architects, the publishers, nor the Editor concurs. Furthermore, the form in which the book is presented is no affair of the author, who, in giving reluctant consent to publication, expressly stipulated that he should have no part or parcel in carrying out SO mad a venture of faith, –as he estimated the project of giving his book to the public. vi EDITOR'S NOTE In this, and for once, his judgment is at fault. Mont-Saint-Michel and Chartres is one of the most distinguished contributions to litera- ture and one of the most valuable adjuncts to the study of mediaeval- ism America thus far has produced. The rediscovery of this great epoch of Christian civilization has had issue in many and valuableworks On its religion, its philosophy, its economics, its politics, and its art, but in nearly every instance, whichever field has been traversed has been considered almost as an isolated phenomenon, with insufficient reference to the other aspects of an era that was singularly united and at one with itself. Hugh of Saint Victor and Saint Thomas Aquinas are fully comprehensible only in their relationship to Saint Anselm, Saint Bernard, and the development of Catholic dogma and life; feu- dalism, the crusades, the guilds and communes weave themselves into this same religious development and into the vicissitudes of cres- cent nationalities; Dante, the cathedral builders, the painters, sculp- tors, and music masters, all are closely knit into the warp and woof of philosophy, statecraft, economics, and religious devotion;–indeed, it may be said that the Middle Ages, more than any other recorded epoch of history, must be considered en bloc, as a period of consistent unity as highly emphasized as was its dynamic force. It is unnecessary to say that Mr. Adams deals with the art of the Middle Ages after this fashion: he is not of those who would deter- mine every element in art from its material antecedents. He realizes very fully that its essential element, the thing that differentiates it from the art that preceded and that which followed, is its spiritual impulse; the manifestation may have been, and probably was, more or less accidental, but that which makes Chartres Cathedral and its glass, the sculptures of Rheims, the Dies Ira, Aucassin and Nicolette, the Song of Roland, the Arthurian Legends, great art and unique, is neither their technical mastery nor their fidelity to the enduring laws of all great art, — though these are singular in their perfection, — but rather the peculiar spiritual impulse which informed the time, and EDITOR'S NOTE vii by its intensity, its penetrating power, and its dynamic force wrought a rounded and complete civilization and manifested this through a thousand varied channels. Greater, perhaps, even than his grasp of the singular entirety of mediaeval civilization, is Mr. Adams's power of merging himself in a long dead time, of thinking and feeling with the men and women thereof, and so breathing on the dead bones of antiquity that again they clothe themselves with flesh and vesture, call back their sev- ered souls, and live again, not only to the consciousness of the reader, but before his very eyes. And it is not a thin simulacrum he raises by some doubtful alchemy: it is no phantasm of the past that shines dimly before us in these magical pages; it is the very time itself in which we are merged. We forgather with the Abbot and his monks, and the crusaders and pilgrims in the Shrine of the Arch- angel: we pay our devoirs to the fair French Queens, – Blanche of Castile, Eleanor of Aquitaine, Mary of Champagne,—fighting their battles for them as liege servants: we dispute with Abélard, Thomas of Aquino, Duns the Scotsman: we take our parts in the Court of Love, or sing the sublime and sounding praises of God with the Canons of Saint Victor: our eyes opened at last, and after many days we kneel before Our Lady of Pity, asking her intercession for her lax but loyal devotees. Seven centuries dissolve and vanish away, being as they were not, and the thirteenth century lives less for us than we live in it and are a part of its gaiety and light-heartedness, its youthful ardour and abounding action, its childlike simplicity and frankness, its normal and healthy and all-embracing devotion. And it is well for us to have this experience. Apart from the de- sirable transformation it effects in preconceived and curiously erron- eous superstitions as to one of the greatest eras in all history, it is vastly heartening and exhilarating. If it gives new and not always flattering standards for the judgment of contemporary men and things, So does it establish new ideals, new goals for attainment. To live for viii EDITOR'S NOTE a day in a world that built Chartres Cathedral, even if it makes the living in a world that creates the “Black Country” of England or an Iron City of America less a thing of joy and gladness than before, equally opens up the far prospect of another thirteenth century in the times that are to come and urges to ardent action toward its attain- ment. But apart from this, the deepest value of Mont-Saint-Michel and Chartres, its importance as a revelation of the eternal glory of mediae- val art and the elements that brought it into being is not lightly to be expressed. To every artist, whatever his chosen form of expression, it must appear unique and invaluable, and to none more than the architect, who, familiar at last with its beauties, its power, and its teaching force, can only applaud the action of the American In- stitute of Architects in making Mr. Adams an Honorary Member, as one who has rendered distinguished services to the art, and voice his gratitude that it has brought the book within his reach and given it publicity before the world. , WHITEHALL, SUDBURY, MASSACHUSETTS, June, 1913. Comfemts PREFACE . I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. IX. . THE COURT OF THE QUEEN OF HEAVEN XI. XII. XIII. XIV. XV. XVI. INDEX SAINT MICHIEL DE LA MER DEL PERIL LA CHANSON DE ROLAND . THE MERVEILLE Normandy AND THE ille DE FRANCE . TOWERS AND PORTALS THE VIRGIN OF CHARTRES ROSES AND APSES THE TWELFTH-CENTURY GLASS THE LEGENDARY WINDOWS THE THREE QUEENs NICOLETTE AND MARION LES MIRACLES DE NOTRE DAME ABéLARD THE MYSTICS . SAINT THOMAS AQUINAS © Q xiii I4. 32 46 62 89 . IOG . I28 . I49 . I 79 . 23O . 25I . 285 . 32O , 347 Illustrations CHARTRES: THE TREE OF JESSE WINDow (UPPER PART) (p. 127) Colored Frontispiece MONT-SAINT-MICHEL . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 MONT-SAINT-MICHEL: THE HALL OF THE KNIGHTS . . . 24 MONT-SAINT-MICHEL: THE REFECTORY . . . . . . 34 COUTANCES CATHEDRAL . . . . . . . . . . 46 CAEN: THE “ABBAYE AUX DAMES '' . . . . . . . 58 CHARTRES CATHEDRAL . . . . . . . . . . 62 CHARTRES: DETAIL OF WEST PORTAL . . . . . . . 70 CHARTRES: THE NORTH PORCH . . . . . . . . 78 CHARTRES: THE South Porch . . . . . . . . 86 CHARTRES: THE NAVE . . . . . . . . . . I IO CHARTRES: THE PRODIGAL SON WINDOW. . . . . . . I74 SAINT THOMAS AQUINAS . . . . . . . . . . .348 Preface [December, 1904.] Some old Elizabethan play or poem contains the lines: — . Who reads me, when I am ashes, Is my Son in wishes . . . . . . . . . The relationship, between reader and writer, of son and father, may have existed in Queen Elizabeth's time, but is much too close to be true for ours. The utmost that any writer could hope of his readers now is that they should consent to regard themselves as nephews, and even then he would expect only a more or less civil refusal from most of them. Indeed, if he had reached a certain age, he would have observed that nephews, as a social class, no longer read at all, and that there is only one familiar instance recorded of a nephew who read his uncle. The exception tends rather to support the rule, since it needed a Macaulay to produce, and two volumes to record it. Finally, the metre does not permit it. One may not say: “Who reads me, when I am ashes, is my nephew in wishes.” The same objections do not apply to the word “niece.” The change restores the verse, and, to a very great degree, the fact. Nieces have been known to read in early youth, and in some cases may have read their uncles. The relationship, too, is convenient and easy, capable of being anything or nothing, at the will of either party, like a Moham- medan or Polynesian or American marriage. No valid objection can be offered to this change in the verse. Niece let it be! The following pages, then, are written for nieces, or for those who are willing, for the time, to be nieces in wish. For convenience of xiv. PREFACE travel in France, where hotels, in out-of-the-way places, are some- times wanting in space as well as luxury, the nieces shall count as one only. As many more may come as like, but one niece is enough for the uncle to talk to, and one niece is much more likely than two to listen. One niece is also more likely than two to carry a kodak and take inter- estin it, since she has nothing else, except her uncle, to interest her, and instances occur when she takes interest neither in the uncle nor in the journey. One cannot assume, even in a niece, too emotional a nature, but one may assume a kodak. The party, then, with such variations of detail as may suit its tastes, has sailed from New York, let us say, early in June for an entire sum- mer in France. One pleasant June morning it has landed at Cherbourg or Havre and takes the train across Normandy to Pontorson, where, with the evening light, the tourists drive along the chaussée, over the sands or through the tide, till they stop at Madame Poulard's famous hotel within the Gate of the Mount. The uncle talks: — Mont-Saint-Michel and Chartres CHAPTER I SAINT MICHIEL DE LA MER DEL PERIL - HE Archangel loved heights. Standing on the summit of the T tower that crowned his church, wings upspread, sword uplifted, the devil crawling beneath, and the cock, symbol of eternal vigilance, perched on his mailed foot, Saint Michael held a place of his own in heaven and on earth which seems, in the eleventh century, to leave hardly room for the Virgin of the Crypt at Chartres, still less for the Beau Christ of the thirteenth century at Amiens. The Archangel stands for Church and State, and both militant. He is the conqueror of Satan, the mightiest of all created spirits, the nearest to God. His place was where the danger was greatest; therefore you find him here. For the same reason he was, while the pagan danger lasted, the patron saint of France. So the Normans, when they were converted to Chris- tianity, put themselves under his powerful protection. So he stood for centuries on his Mount in Peril of the Sea, watching across the tremor of the immense ocean,—immensi tremor oceani, -as Louis XI, inspired for once to poetry, inscribed on the collar of the Order of Saint Michael which he created. So soldiers, nobles, and monarchs went on pilgrimage to his shrine; so the common people followed, and still follow, like ourselves. | The church stands high on the summit of this granite rock, and on its west front is the platform, to which the tourist ought first to climb. From the edge of this platform, the eye plunges down, two hundred and thirty-five feet, to the wide sands or the wider ocean, as the tides recede or advance, under an infinite sky, over a restless sea, which even we tourists can understand and feel without books or guides; but 2 MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES when we turn from the western view, and look at the church door, thirty or forty yards from the parapet where we stand, one needs to be eight centuries old to know what this mass of encrusted architecture meant to its builders, and even then one must still learn to feel it. The man who wanders into the twelfth century is lost, unless he can grow prematurely young. One can do it, as one can play with children. Wordsworth, whose practical sense equalled his intuitive genius, carefully limited us to “a season of calm weather,” which is certainly best; but granting a fair frame of mind, one can still “have sight of that immortal sea” which brought us hither from the twelfth century; one can even travel thither and see the children sporting on the shore. Our sense is par- tially atrophied from disuse, but it is still alive, at least in old people, who alone, as a class, have the time to be young. One needs only to be old enough in order to be as young as one will. From the top of this Abbey Church one looks across the bay to Avranches, and towards Coutances and the Cotentin, - the Constan- tinus pagus, - whose shore, facing us, recalls the coast of New Eng- land. The relation between the granite of one coast and that of the other may be fanciful, but the relation between the people who live on each is as hard and practical a fact as the granite itself. When one enters the church, one notes first the four great triumphal piers or columns, at the intersection of the nave and transepts, and on looking into M. Corroyer's architectural study which is the chief source of all one's acquaintance with the Mount, one learns that these piers were constructed in IO58. Four out of five American tourists will instantly recall the only date of mediaeval history they ever knew, the date of the Norman Conquest. Eight years after these piers were built, in 1066, Duke William of Normandy raised an army of forty thousand men in these parts, and in northern France, whom he took to England, where they mostly stayed. For a hundred and fifty years, until 1204, Normandy and England were united; the Norman peasant went freely SAINT MICHIEL DE LA MER DEL PERIL 3 to England with his lord, spi ºual or temporal; the Norman woman, a very capable person, followed her husband or her parents; Normans held nearly all the English fiefs; filled the English Church; crowded the English Court; created the English law; and we know that French was still currently spoken in England as late as I400, or thereabouts, “After the scole of Stratford atte bowe.” The aristocratic Norman names still survive in part, and if we look up their origin here we shall gener- ally find them in villages so remote and insignificant that their place can hardly be found on any ordinary map; but the common people had no surnames, and cannot be traced, although for every noble whose name or blood survived in England or in Normandy, we must reckon hundreds of peasants. Since the generation which followed William to England in IO66, we can reckon twenty-eight or thirty from father to son, and, if you care to figure up the sum, you will find that you had about two hundred and fifty million arithmetical ancestors living in the middle of the eleventh century. The whole population of England and northern France may then have numbered five million, but if it were fifty it would not much affect the certainty that, if you have any English blood at all, you have also Norman. If we could go back and live again in all our two hundred and fifty million arithmetical ancestors of the eleventh century, we should find ourselves doing many surprising things, but among the rest we should pretty certainly be ploughing most of the fields of the Cotentin and Calvados; going to mass in every parish church in Normandy; rendering military service to every lord, spiritual or temporal, in all this region; and helping to build the Abbey Church at Mont-Saint-Michel. From the roof of the Cathedral of Coutances overyonder, one may look away over the hills and woods, the farms and fields of Normandy, and so familiar, so homelike are they, one can almost take oath that in this, or the other, or in all, one knew life once and has never so fully known it since. Never so fully known it since! For we of the eleventh century, hard- headed, close-fisted, grasping, shrewd, as we were, and as Normans 4. MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES are still said to be, stood more fully in the centre of the world's move. ment than our English descendants ever did. We were a part, and a great part, of the Church, of France, and of Europe. The Leos and Gregories of the tenth and eleventh centuries leaned on us in their great struggle for reform. Our Duke Richard-Sans-Peur, in 966, turned the old canons out of the Mount in order to bring here the highest influence of the time, the Benedictine monks of Monte Cas- sino. Richard II, grandfather of William the Conqueror, began this Abbey Church in Io20, and helped Abbot Hildebert to build it. When William the Conqueror in IO66 set out to conquer England, Pope Alexander II stood behind him and blessed his banner. From that moment our Norman Dukes cast the Kings of France into the shade, Our activity was not limited to northern Europe, or even confined by Anjou and Gascony. When we stop at Coutances, we will drive out to Hauteville to see where Tancred came from, whose sons Robert and Roger were conquering Naples and Sicily at the time when the Abbey Church was building on the Mount. Normans were everywhere in IO66, and everywhere in the lead of their age. We were a serious race. If you want other proof of it, besides our record in war and in politics, you have only to look at our art. Religious art is the measure of human depth and sincerity; any triviality, any weakness, cries aloud. If this church on the Mount is not proof enough of Norman character, we will stop at Coutances for a wider view. Then we will go to Caen and Bayeux. From there, it would almost be worth our while to leap at once to Palermo. It was in the year II31 or thereabouts that Roger began the Cathedral at Cefalu and the Chapel Royal at Palermo; it was about the year II 74 that his grandson William began the Cathedral of Monreale. No art—either Greek or Byzantine, Italian or Arab — has ever created two religious types so beautiful, so serious, so impress- ive, and yet so different, as Mont-Saint-Michel watching over its northern Ocean, and Monreale, looking down over its forests of Orange and lemon, on Palermo and the Sicilian seas. SAINT MICHIEL DE LA MER DEL PERIL 5 Down nearly to the end of the twelfth century the Norman was fairly master of the world in architecture as in arms, although the thirteenth century belonged to France, and we must look for its glories on the Seine and Marne and Loire; but for the present we are in the eleventh century, - tenants of the Duke or of the Church or of small feudal lords who take their names from the neighbourhood, - Beaumont, Carteret, Gréville, Percy, Pierpont, — who, at the Duke's bidding, will each call out his tenants, perhaps ten men-at-arms with their attendants, to fight in Brittany, or in the Vexin toward Paris, or on the great campaign for the conquest of England which is to come within ten years, – the greatest military effort that has been made in western Europe since Charlemagne and Roland were defeated at Roncesvalles three hundred years ago. For the moment, we are helping to quarry granite for the Abbey Church, and to haul it to the Mount, or load it on our boat. We never fail to make our annual pilgrimage to the Mount on the Archangel's Day, October 16. We expect to be called out for a new campaign which Duke William threatens against Brittany, and we hear stories that Harold the Saxon, the powerful Earl of Wessex in England, is a guest, or, as some say, a prisoner or a hostage, at the Duke's Court, and will go with us on the campaign. The year is IO58. All this time we have been standing on the parvis, looking out over the sea and sands which are as good eleventh-century landscape as they ever were; or turning at times towards the church door which is the pons seclorum, the bridge of ages, between us and our ancestors, Now that we have made an attempt, such as it is, to get our minds into a condition to cross the bridge without breaking down in the effort, we enter the church and stand face to face with eleventh-century archi- tecture; a ground-plan which dates from IO2O; a central tower, or its piers, dating from 1058; and a church completed in II35. France can offer few buildings of this importance equally old, with dates So exact. Perhaps the closest parallel to Mont-Saint-Michel is Saint-Benoit-sur- 6 MONT-SAINT-MICHEL AND CHARTRES Loire, above Orléans, which seems to have been a shrine almost as popular as the Mount, at the same time. Chartres was also a famous shrine, but of the Virgin, and the west porch of Chartres, which is to be our peculiar pilgrimage, was a hundred years later than the ground- plan of Mont-Saint-Michel, although Chartres porch is the usual starting-point of northern French art. Queen Matilda's Abbaye-aux- Dames, now the Church of the Trinity, at Caen, dates from IO66. Saint Sernin at Toulouse, the porch of the Abbey Church at Moissac, Notre-Dame-du-Port at Clermont, the Abbey Church at Vezelay, are all said to be twelfth-century. Even San Marco at Venice was new in IO2O. Yet in Io20 Norman art was already too ambitious. Certainly nine hundred years leave their traces on granite as well as on other material. but the granite of Abbot Hildebert would have stood securely enough, if the Abbot had not asked too much from it. Perhaps he asked too much from the Archangel, for the thought of the Archangel's superior- ity was clearly the inspiration of his plan. The apex of the granite rock rose like a sugar-loaf two hundred and forty feet (73.6 metres) above mean sea-level. Instead of cutting the summit away to give his church a secure rock foundation, which would have sacrificed about thirty feet of height, the Abbot took the apex of the rock for his level, and on all sides built out foundations of masonry to support the walls of his church. The apex of the rock is the floor of the croisée, the intersection of nave and transept. On this solid foundation the Abbot rested the chief weight of the church, which was the central tower, supported by the four great piers which still stand; but from the croisée in the centre westward to the parapet of the platform, the Abbot filled the whole space with masonry, and his successors built out still farther, until some two hundred feet of stonework ends now in a perpendicular wall of eighty feet or more. In this space are several ranges of chambers, but the structure might perhaps have proved strong enough to support the light Romanesque front which was usual in the eleventh century, SAINT MICHIEL DE LA MER DEL PERIL 7 had not fashions in architecture changed in the great epoch of build- ing, a hundred and fifty years later, when Abbot Robert de Torigny thought proper to reconstruct the west front, and build out two towers on its flanks. The towers were no doubt beautiful, if one may judge from the towers of Bayeux and Coutances, but their weight broke down the vaulting beneath, and one of them fell in 1300. In 1618 the whole façade 'began to give way, and in 1776 not only the façade but also three of the seven spans of the nave were pulled down. Of Abbot Hildebert's nave, only four arches remain. Still, the overmastering strength of the eleventh century is stamped on a great scale here, not only in the four spans of the nave, and in the transepts, but chiefly in the triumphal columns of the croisée. No one is likely to forget what Norman architecture was, who takes the trouble to pass once through this fragment of its earliest bloom. The dimensions are not great, though greater than safe construction war- ranted. Abbot Hildebert's whole church did not exceed two hundred and thirty feet in length in the interior, and the span of the triumpha’ arch was only about twenty-three feet, if the books can be trusted. The nave of the Abbaye-aux-Dames appears to have about the same width, and probably neither of them was meant to be vaulted. The roof was of timber, and about sixty-three feet high at its apex. Com- pared with the great churches of the thirteenth century, this build- ing is modest, but its size is not what matters to us. Its style is the starting-point of all our future travels. Here is your first eleventh- century church! How does it affect you? Serious and simple to excess! is it not? Young people rarely enjoy it. They prefer the Gothic, even as you see it here, looking at us from the choir, through the great Norman arch. No doubt they are right, since they are young: but men and women who have lived long and are tired, - who want rest, — who have done with aspirations and ambi- tion, — whose life has been a broken arch, – feel this repose and Self- restraint as they feel nothing else. The quiet strength of these curved 8 MONT—SAINT-MICHEL AND CHARTRES lines, the solid support of these heavy columns, the moderate propor. tions, even the modified lights, the absence of display, of effort, of self- consciousness, satisfy them as no other art does. They come back to it to rest, after a long circle of pilgrimage, – the cradle of rest from which their ancestors started. Even here they find the repose none too deep. - Indeed, when you look longer at it, you begin to doubt whether there is any repose in it at all, -whether it is not the most unrepose- ful thought ever put into architectural form. Perched on the extreme point of this abrupt rock, the Church Militant with its aspirant Arch- angel stands high above the world, and seems to threaten heaven itself. The idea is the stronger and more restless because the Church of Saint Michael is surrounded and protected by the world and the society over which it rises, as Duke William rested on his barons and their men Neither the Saint nor the Duke was troubled by doubts about his mission. Church and State, Soul and Body, God and Man, are all one at Mont-Saint-Michel, and the business of all is to fight, each in his own way, or to stand guard for each other. Neither Church nor State is intellectual, or learned, or even strict in dogma. Here we do not feel the Trinity at all; the Virgin but little; Christ hardly more; we feel only the Archangel and the Unity of God. We have little logic here, and simple faith, but we have energy. We cannot do many things which are done in the centre of civilization, at Byzantium, but we can fight, and we can build a church. No doubt we think first of the church, and next of our temporal lord; only in the last instance do we think of our private affairs, and Our private affairs sometimes suffer for it; but we reckon the affairs of Church and State to be ours, too, . and we carry this idea very far. Our church on the Mount is ambi- tious, restless, striving for effect; our conquest of England, with which the Duke is infatuated, is more ambitious still; but all this is a trifle to the outburst which is coming in the next generation; and Saint Michael on his Mount expresses it all. SAINT MICHIEL DE LA MER DEL PERIL 9 Taking architecture as an expression of energy, we can Some day compare Mont-Saint-Michel with Beauvais, and draw from the Com parison whatever moral suits our frame of mind; but you should first note that here, in the eleventh century, the Church, however simple- minded or unschooled, was not cheap. Its self-respect is worth notic- ing, because it was short-lived in its art. Mont-Saint-Michel, through- out, even up to the delicate and intricate stonework of its cloisters, is built of granite. The crypts and substructures are as well constructed as the surfaces most exposed to view. When we get to Chartres, which is largely a twelfth-century work, you will see that the cathedral there, too, is superbly built, of the hardest and heaviest stone within reach, which has nowhere settled or given way; while, beneath, you will find a crypt that rivals the church above. The thirteenth century did not build so. The great cathedrals after I2OO show economy, and sometimes worse. The world grew cheap, as worlds must. You may like it all the better for being less serious, less heroic, less militant, and more what the French call bourgeois, just as you may like the style of Louis XV better than that of Louis XIV, - Madame du Barry better than Madame de Montespan, – for taste is free, and all styles are good which amuse; but since we are now beginning with the earliest, in order to step down gracefully to the stage, whatever it is, where you prefer to stop, we must try to understand a little of the kind of energy which Norman art expressed, or would have expressed if it had thought in our modes. The only word which describes the Norman style is the French word naif. Littré says that naïf comes from natif, as vulgar comes from vulgus, as though native traits must be simple, and Commonness must be vulgar. Both these derivative mean- ings were strange to the eleventh century. Naïveté was simply natural and vulgarity was merely coarse. Norman naïveté was not different in kind from the naïveté of Burgundy or Gascony or Lombardy, but it was slightly different in expression, as you will see when you travel south. Here at Mont-Saint-Michel we have only a mutilated trunk of IO MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES : an eleventh-century church to judge by. We have not even a façade and shall have to stop at some Norman village — at Thaon or Ouistre ham — to find a west front which might suit the Abbey here, but wherever we find it we shall find something a little more serious, more military, and more practical than you will meet in other Romanesque work, farther south. So, too, the central tower or lantern – the most striking feature of Norman churches—has fallen here at Mont-Saint- Michel, and we shall have to replace it from Cérisy-la-Forêt, and Lessay, and Falaise. We shall find much to say about the value of the lantern on a Norman church, and the singular power it expresses. We shall have still more to say of the towers which flank the west front of Norman churches, but these are mostly twelfth-century, and will lead us far beyond Coutances and Bayeux, from flèche to flèche, till we come to the flèche of all flèches, at Chartres. We shall have a whole chapter of study, too, over the eleventh- century apse, but here at Mont-Saint-Michel, Abbot Hildebert's choir went the way of his nave and tower. He built out even more boldly to the east than to the west, and although the choir stood for some four hundred years, which is a sufficient life for most architecture, the foundations gave way at last, and it fell in I42I, in the midst of the English wars, and remained a ruin until 1450. Then it was rebuilt, a monument of the last days of the Gothic, so that now, standing at the western door, you can look down the church, and see the two limits of mediaeval architecture married together, — the earliest Nor- man and the latest French. Through the Romanesque arches of 1058, you look into the exuberant choir of latest Gothic, finished in 1521. Although the two structures are some five hundred years apart, they live pleasantly together. The Gothic died gracefully in France. The choir is charming, — far more charming than the nave, as the beauti- ful woman is more charming than the elderly man. One need not quar- rel about styles of beauty, as long as the man and woman are evidently satisfied and love and admire each other still, with all the solidity of SAINT MICHIEL DE LA MER DEL PERIL II faith to hold them up; but, at least, one cannot help seeing, as one looks from the older to the younger style, that whatever the woman's sixteenth-century charm may be, it is not the man's eleventh-century trait of naïveté; — far from it! The simple, serious, silent dignity and energy of the eleventh century have gone. Something more compli- cated stands in their place; graceful, self-conscious, rhetorical, and beautiful as perfect rhetoric, with its clearness, light, and line, and the wealth of tracery that verges on the florid. | The crypt of the same period, beneath, is almost finer still, and even in seriousness stands up boldly by the side of the Romanesque; but we have no time to run off into the sixteenth century: we have still to learn the alphabet of art in France. One must live deep into the eleventh century in order to understand the twelfth, and even after passing years in the twelfth, we shall find the thirteenth in many ways a world of its own, with a beauty not always inherited, and sometimes not bequeathed. At the Mount we can go no farther into the eleventh as far as concerns architecture. We shall have to follow the Roman- esque to Caen and so up the Seine to the ile de F rance, and across to the Loire and the Rhone, far to the South where its home lay. All the other eleventh-century work has been destroyed here or built over, except at one point, on the level of the splendid crypt we just turned from, called the Gros Piliers, beneath the choir. There, according to M. Corroyer, in a corner between great con- structions of the twelfth century and the vast Merveille of the thir- teenth, the old refectory of the eleventh was left as a passage from one group of buildings to the other. Below it is the kitchen of Hildebert. Above, on the level of the church, was the dormitory. These eleventh- century abbatial buildings faced north and west, and are close to the, present parvis, opposite the last arch of the nave. The lower levels of Hildebert's plan served as supports or buttresses to the church above, and must therefore be older than the nave; probably older than the triumphal piers of IO58. I2 MONT—SAINT-MICHEL AND CHARTRES Hildebert planned them in IO2O, and died after carrying his plans out so far that they could be completed by Abbot Ralph de Beau- mont, who was especially selected by Duke William in IO48, “more for his high birth than for his merits.” Ralph de Beaumont died in IO60, and was succeeded by Abbot Ranulph, an especial favourite of Duchess Matilda, and held in high esteem by Duke William. The list of names shows how much social importance was attributed to the place. The Abbot's duties included that of entertainment on a great scale. The Mount was one of the most famous shrines of northern Europe. We are free to take for granted that all the great people of Normandy slept at the Mount and, supposing M. Corroyer to be right, that they dined in this room, between IO50, when the building must have been in use, down to II22 when the new abbatial quarters were built. How far the monastic rules restricted social habits is a matter for antiquaries to settle if they can, and how far those rules were observed in the case of great secular princes; but the eleventh century was not very strict, and the rule of the Benedictines was always mild, until the Cistercians and Saint Bernard stiffened its discipline toward II2O. Even then the Church showed strong leanings toward secular poetry and popular tastes. The drama belonged to it almost exclusively, and the Mysteries and Miracle plays which were acted under its patronage often contained nothing of religion except the miracle. The greatest poem of the eleventh century was the “Chanson de Roland,” and of that the Church took a sort of possession. At Chartres we shall find Charlemagne and Roland dear to the Virgin, and at about the same time, as far away as at Assisi in the Perugian country, Saint Francis himself — the nearest approach the Western world ever made to an Oriental incarnation of the divine essence — loved the French ro- mans, and typified himself in the “Chanson de Roland.” With Mont- Saint-Michel, the “Chanson de Roland” is almost one. The “Chan- son” is in poetry what the Mount is in architecture. Without the “Chanson,” one cannot approach the feeling which the eleventh SAINT MICHIEL DE LA MER DEL PERIL 13 century built into the Archangel's church. Probably there was never a day, certainly never a week, during several centuries, when portions of the “Chanson” were not sung, or recited, at the Mount, and if there was one room where it was most at home, this one, supposing it to be the old refectory, claims to be the place. CHAPTER II LA CHANSON DE ROLAND Molz pelerins qui vunt al Munt Most pilgrims who come to the Mount Enquierent molte grant dreit unt Enquire much and are quite right, Comment l’igliese fut fundee How the church was founded Premierement et estoree. At first, and established. Cil qui lor dient de l'estoire Those who tell them the story Que cil demandent en memoire That they ask, in memory Ne l’unt pas bien ainz vunt faillant Have it not well, but fall in error En plusors leus e mespernant. In many places, and misapprehension. Por faire la apertement In order to make it clearly Entendre a cels qui escient Intelligible to those who have N’unt de clerzie l’a tornee No knowledge of letters, it has been turned De latin tote et ordenee From the Latin, and wholly rendered Pars veirs romieus novelement In Romanesque verses, newly, Molt en segrei por son convent Much in secret, for his convent, Uns jovencels moine est del Munt By a youth; a monk he is of the Mount. Deus en son reigne part li dunt. God in his kingdom grant him part! Guillaume a non de Saint Paier William is his name, of Saint Pair Cen vei escrit en cest quaier. As is seen written in this book. El tens Robeirt de Torignie In the time of Robert of Torigny Fut cil romanz fait e trove. Was this roman made and invented. HESE verses begin the “Roman du Mont-Saint-Michel,” and if the spelling is corrected, they still read almost as easily as Voltaire; more easily than Verlaine; and much like a nursery rhyme; but as tourists cannot stop to clear their path, or smooth away the pebbles, they must be lifted over the rough spots, even when roughness is beauty. Translation is an evil, chiefly because every one who cares for mediaeval architecture cares for mediaeval French, and ought to care still more for mediaeval English. The language of this “Roman” was the literary language of England. William of Saint-Pair was a subject of Henry II, King of England and Normandy; his verses, like those of Richard Coeur-de-Lion, are monuments of English literature. To this day their ballad measure is better suited to English than to LA CHANSON DE ROLAND I5 French; even the words and idioms are more English than French. Any one who attacks them boldly will find that the “vers romieus” run along like a ballad, singing their own meaning, and troubling themselves very little whether the meaning is exact or not. One's translation is sure to be full of gross blunders, but the Supreme blunder is that of translating at all when one is trying to catch not a fact but a feeling. If translate one must, we had best begin by trying to be literal, under protest that it matters not a straw whether we succeed. Twelfth-century art was not precise; still less “précieuse,” like Molière's famous seventeenth-century prudes. The verses of the young monk, William, who came from the little Norman village of Saint-Pair, near Granville, within sight of the Mount, were verses not meant to be brilliant. Simple human beings like rhyme better than prose, though both may say the same thing, as they like a curved line better than a straight one, or a blue better than a grey; but, apart from the sensual appetite, they chose rhyme in creating their literature for the practical reason that they remembered it better than prose. Men had to carry their libraries in their heads. These lines of William, beginning his story, are valuable because for once they give a name and a date. Abbot Robert of Torigny ruled at the Mount from II54 to II86. We have got to travel again and again between Mont-Saint-Michel and Chartres during these years, but for the moment we must hurry to get back to William the Con- queror and the “Chanson de Roland.” William of Saint-Pair comes in here, out of place, only on account of a pretty description he gave of the annual pilgrimage to the Mount, which is commonly taken to be more or less like what he saw every year on the Archangel's Day, and what had existed ever since the Normans became Christian in 912: — Li jorziert clers e Sanz grant vent. The day was clear, without much wind. Les meschinese les vallez The maidens and the varlets Chascuns d’els dist verz ou Sonnez, Each of them said verse or song; Neis liviellart revunt chantant Even the old people go singing; I6 MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES De leece funt tuit semblant. Qui plus ne seit si chante outree E. Dex aie u Asusee. Cil jugleor la u il vunt Tuit lor vieles traites unt Laiz et sonnez vunt vielant. Li tens est beals la joie est grant. Cil palefrei e cil destrier E cil roncine cil sommier Qui errouent par le chemin Que menouent cil pelerin De totes parz henissant vunt Por la grant joie que il unt, Neis parles bois chantouent tuit Li oiselet grant et petit. Li buef les vaches vunt muant Parles forez e repaissant. Corse boisinese fresteals E fleutes e chalemeals Sonnoent si que les montaignes En retintoent et les pleignes. Que esteit dont les plaiseiz E des forez e des larriz. En cels par a tel Sonneiz Com si ce fust cers acolliz. fºntor le mont el bois follu Cil travetier unt tres tendu Tues unt fait par les chemins. Plentei i out de divers wins Pain e pastez fruite poissons Oisels obleies veneisons De totes parz aveit a vendre Assez en out qui ad que tendre. All have a look of joy. Who knows no more sings Hurrah, Or God help, or Up and On 1 The minstrels there where they go Have all brought their viols; Lays and songs playing as they go. The weather is fine; the joy is great; The palfreys and the chargers, And the hackneys and the packhorses Which wander along the road That the pilgrims follow, On all sides neighing go, For the great joy they feel. Even in the woods sing all The little birds, big and small. The oxen and the cows go lowing Through the forests as they feed. Horns and trumpets and shepherd's pipes And flutes and pipes of reed Sound so that the mountains Echo to them, and the plains. How was it then with the glades And with the forests and the pastures? In these there was such sound As though it were a stag at bay. About the Mount, in the leafy wood, The workmen have tents set up; Streets have made along the roads. Plenty there was of divers wines, Bread and pasties, fruit and fish, Birds, cakes, venison, Everywhere there was for sale. - Enough he had who has the means to pay. If you are not satisfied with this translation, any scholar of French will easily help to make a better, for we are not studying grammar or archaeology, and would rather be inaccurate in such matters than not, if, at that price, a freer feeling of the art could be caught. Better still, you can turn to Chaucer, who wrote his Canterbury Pilgrimage two hundred years afterwards: — LA CHANSON DE ROLAND I? Whanne that April with his shoures sote The droughte of March hath perced to the rote . . . Than longen folk to gon on pilgrimages And palmeres for to Seken strange strondes . . . And especially, from every shires ende Of Englelonde, to Canterbury they wende The holy blisful martyr for to seke, - That hem hath holpen whan that they were seke. The passion for pilgrimages was universal among our ancestors as far back as we can trace them. For at least a thousand years it was their chief delight, and is not yet extinct. To feel the art of Mont-Saint- Michel and Chartres we have got to become pilgrims again: but, just now, the point of most interest is not the pilgrim so much as the min- strel who sang to amuse him, - the jugleor orjongleur, – who was at home in every abbey, castle or cottage, as well as at every shrine. The jugleor became a jongleur and degenerated into the street-juggler; the minstrel, or menestrier, became very early a word of abuse, equivalent to blackguard; and from the beginning the profession seems to have been socially decried, like that of a music-hall singer or dancer in later times; but in the eleventh century, or perhaps earlier still, the jongleur seems to have been a poet, and to have composed the songs he sang. The immense mass of poetry known as the “Chansons de Geste” seems to have been composed as well as sung by the unnamed Homers of France, and of all spots in the many provinces where the French language in its many dialects prevailed, Mont-Saint-Michel should have been the favourite with the jongleur, not only because the swarms of pilgrims assured him food and an occasional small piece of silver, but also because Saint Michael was the saint militant of all the warriors whose exploits in war were the subject of the “Chansons de Geste.” William of Saint-Pair was a priest-poet; he was not a minstrel, and his “Roman” was not a chanson; it was made to read, not to recite; but the “Chanson de Roland” was a different affair. So it was, too, with William's contemporaries and rivals or prede- cessors, the monumental poets of Norman-English literature. Wace, I8 MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES whose rhymed history of the Norman dukes, which he called the “Roman de Rou,” or “Rollo,” is an English classic of the first rank, was a canon of Bayeux when William of Saint-Pair was writing at Mont-Saint-Michel. His rival Benoist, who wrote another famous chronicle on the same subject, was also a historian, and not a singer. In that day literature meant verse; elegance in French prose did not yet exist; but the elegancies of poetry in the twelfth century were as different, in kind, from the grand style of the eleventh, as Virgil was different from Homer. William of Saint-Pair introduces us to the pilgrimage and to the jongleur, as they had existed at least two hundred years before his time, and were to exist two hundred years after him. Of all our two hundred and fifty million arithmetical ancestors who were going on pilgrimages in the middle of the eleventh century, the two who would probably most interest every one, after eight hundred years have passed, would be William the Norman and Harold the Saxon. Through William of Saint-Pair and Wace and Benoist, and f',e most charming literary monument of all, the Bayeux tapestry of Queen Matilda, we can build up the story of such a pilgrimage which shall be as historically exact as the battle of Hastings, and as artistically true as the Abbey Church. According to Wace’s “Roman de Rou,” when Harold's father, Earl Godwin, died, April 15, IO53, Harold wished to obtain the release of certain hostages, a brother and a cousin, whom Godwin had given to Edward the Confessor as security for his good behaviour, and whom Edward had sent to Duke William for safe-keeping. Wace took the story from other and older sources, and its accuracy is much disputed, but the fact that Harold went to Normandy seems to be certain, and you will see at Bayeux the picture of Harold asking permission of King Edward to make the journey, and departing on horseback, with his hawk and hounds and followers, to take ship at Bosham, near Chichester and Portsmouth. The date alone is doubtful. Common sense seems to suggest that the earliest possible date could not be too LA CHANSON DE ROLAND I9 early to explain the rash youth of the aspirant to a throne who put himself in the power of a rival in the eleventh century. When that rival chanced to be William the Bastard, not even boyhood could ex- cuse the folly; but Mr. Freeman, the chief authority on this delicate subject, inclined to think that Harold was forty years old when he committed his blunder, and that the year was about IO64. Between IO54 and IOG4 the historian is free to choose what year he likes, and the tourist is still freer. To save trouble for the memory, the year IO58 will serve, since this is the date of the triumphal arches of the Abbey Church on the Mount. Harold, in sailing from the neighbourhood of Portsmouth, must have been bound for Caen or Rouen, but the usual west winds drove him eastward till he was thrown ashore on the coast of Ponthieu, between Abbéville and Boulogne, where he fell into the hands of the Count of Ponthieu, from whom he was rescued or ran- somed by Duke William of Normandy and taken to Rouen. Accord- ing to Wace and the “Roman de Rou”: — Guillaume tint Heraut maint jour William kept Harold many a day, Si com il dut a grant enor. As was his due in great honour. A maint riche torneiement To many a rich tournament Le fist aller mult noblement. Made him go very nobly. Chevals e armes li dona Horses and arms gave him Et en Bretaigne le mena And into Brittany led him Ne sai de veir treiz faizou quatre I know not truly whether three or four times Quant as Bretons se dut combattre. When he had to make war on the Bretons. Perhaps the allusion to rich tournaments belongs to the time of Wace rather than to that of Harold a century earlier, before the first crusade, but certainly Harold did go with William on at least one raid into Brittany, and the charming tapestry of Bayeux, which tra- dition calls by the name of Queen Matilda, shows William's men-at- arms crossing the sands beneath Mont-Saint-Michel, with the Latin legend: — “Et venerunt ad Montem Michaelis. Hic Harold dux trahebat eos de arena. Venerunt ad flumen Cononis.” They came to Mont-Saint-Michel, and Harold dragged them out of the quicksands. 2O MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES They came to the river Couesnon. Harold must have got great fame by saving life on the sands, to be remembered and recorded by the Normans themselves after they had killed him; but this is the affair of historians. Tourists note only that Harold and William came to the Mount: — “Venerunt ad Montem.” They would never have dared to pass it, on such an errand, without stopping to ask the help of Saint Michael. If William and Harold came to the Mount, they certainly dined or supped in the old refectory, which is where we have lain in wait for them. Where Duke William was, his jongleur — jugleor — was not far, and Wace knew, as every one in Normandy seemed to know, who this favourite was, – his name, his character, and his song. To him Wace owed one of the most famous passages in his story of the assault at Hastings, where Duke William and his battle began their advance against the English lines: — Taillefer qui mult bien chantout Sor un cheval quitost alout Devant le duc alout chantant De Karlemaigne e de Rollant E d’Oliver e des vassals Qui morurent en Rencevals. Quantil orent chevalchie tant Qu'as Engleis vindrent apreismant: “Sire,” dist Taillefer, “merci! Io vos ai longuement servi. Totmon servise me devez. Hui se vos plaist le me rendez. Portot guerredon vos requier E si vos voil forment preier Otreiez mei que io ni faille Le premier colp de la bataille.” Lidus respondi: “Io l'otrei.” Taillefer who was famed for song, Mounted on a charger strong, Rode on before the Duke, and sang Of Roland and of Charlemagne, Oliver and the vassals all Who fell in fight at Roncesvals. When they had ridden till they saw The English battle close before: “Sire,” said Taillefer, “a grace! I have served you long and well; All reward you owe me still; To-day repay me if you please. For all guerdon I require, And ask of you in formal prayer, Grant to me as mine of right The first blow struck in the fight.” The Duke answered: “I grant.” Of course, critics doubt the story, as they very properly doubt every- thing. They maintain that the “Chanson de Roland” was not as old as the battle of Hastings, and certainly Wace gave no sufficient proof of it. Poetry was not usually written to prove facts. Wace wrote a LA CHANSON DE ROLAND 2I hundred years after the battle of Hastings. One is not morally required to be pedantic to the point of knowing more than Wace knew, but the feeling of scepticism, before so serious a monument as Mont-Saint- Michel, is annoying. The “Chanson de Roland” ought not to be trifled with, at least by tourists in search of art. One is shocked at the possibility of being deceived about the starting-point of American genealogy. Taillefer and the song rest on the same evidence that Duke William and Harold and the battle itself rest upon, and to doubt the “Chanson" is to call the very roll of Battle Abbey in ques- tion. The whole fabric of society totters; the British peerage turns pale. Wace did not invent all his facts. William of Malmesbury is sup- posed to have written his prose chronicle about II2O when many of the men who fought at Hastings must have been alive, and William expressly said: “Tunc cantilena Rollandi inchoata ut martium viri exemplum pugnaturos accenderet, inclamatogue dei auxilio, praelium consertum.” Starting the “Chanson de Roland” to inflame the fighting temper of the men, battle was joined. This seems enough proof to satisfy any sceptic, yet critics still suggest that the “cantilena Rollandi” must have been a Norman “Chanson de Rou,” or “Rollo,” or at best an earlier version of the “Chanson de Roland”; but no Nor- man chanson would have inflamed the martial spirit of William's army, which was largely French; and as for the age of the version, it is quite immaterial for Mont-Saint-Michel; the actual version is old enough. Taillefer himself is more vital to the interest of the dinner in the refectory, and his name was not mentioned by William of Malmes- bury. If the song was started by the Duke's order, it was certainly started by the Duke's jongleur, and the name of this jongleur happens to be known on still better authority than that of William of Malmes- bury. Guy of Amiens went to England in IO68 as almoner of Queen Matilda, and there wrote a Latin poem on the battle of Hastings which must have been complete within ten years after the battle was 22 MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES fought, for Guy died in Ioz6. Taillefer, he said, led the Duke's bat- tle: — Incisor-ferri mimus cognomine dictus. “Taillefer, a jongleur known by that name.” A mime was a singer, but Taillefer was also an actor: — Histrio cor audax nimium quem nobilitabat. “A jongleur whom a very brave heart ennobled.” The jongleur was not noble by birth, but was ennobled by his bravery. Hortatur Gallos verbis et territat Anglos Alte projiciens ludit et ense suo. Like a drum-major with his staff, he threw his sword high in the air and caught it, while he chanted his song to the French, and terrified the English. The rhymed chronicle of Geoffroy Gaimer who wrote about II 50, and that of Benoist who was Wace's rival, added the story that Taillefer died in the mêlée. The most unlikely part of the tale was, after all, not the singing of the “Chanson,” but the prayer of Taillefer to the Duke: — “Otreiez mei que io ni faille Le premier colp de la bataille.” Legally translated, Taillefer asked to be ennobled, and offered to pay for it with his life. The request of a jongleur to lead the Duke's battle seems incredible. In early French “bataille” meant battalion, — the column of attack. The Duke's grant: “Io l'otrei!” seems still more fanciful. Yet Guy of Amiens distinctly confirmed the story: “His- trio cor audax nimium quem nobilitabat”; a stage-player — a juggler — the Duke's singer — whose bravery ennobled him. The Duke granted him — octroya – his patent of nobility on the field. All this preamble leads only to unite the “Chanson” with the archi- tecture of the Mount, by means of Duke William and his Breton cam- paign of IO58. The poem and the church are akin; they go together, and explain each other. Their common trait is their military character, LA CHANSON DE ROLAND 23 peculiar to the eleventh century. The round arch is masculine. The “Chanson” is so masculine that, in all its four thousand lines, the only Christian woman so much as mentioned was Alda, the sister of Oliver and the betrothed of Roland, to whom one stanza, exceedingly like a later insertion, was given, toward the end. Never after the first crusade did any great poem rise to such heroism as to sustain itself without a heroine. Even Dante attempted no such feat. Duke William's party, then, is to be considered as assembled at supper in the old refectory, in the year IO58, while the triumpha/ piers of the church above are rising. The Abbot, Ralph of Beaumont, is host; Duke William sits with him on a dais; Harold is by his side “a grant enor"; the Duke's brother, Odo, Bishop of Bayeux, with the other chief vassals, are present; and the Duke's jongleur Taillefer is at his elbow. The room is crowded with soldiers and monks, but all are equally anxious to hear Taillefer sing. As soon as dinner is over, at a nod from the Duke, Taillefer begins: — Carles li reis nostre emperere magnes Charles the king, our emperor, the great, Set anz tuz pleins ad estet en Espaigne Seven years complete has been in Spain, Cunquist latere tresque en la mer altaigne Conquered the land as far as the high seas, Ni ad castel ki devant lui remaigne Nor is there castle that holds against him, Murs ne citez niest remes a fraindre. Nor wall or city left to capture. The “Chanson” opened with these lines, which had such a direct and personal bearing on every one who heard them as to sound like prophecy. Within ten years William was to stand in England where Charlemagne stood in Spain. His mind was full of it, and of the means to attain it; and Harold was even more absorbed than he by the anxiety of the position. Harold had been obliged to take oath that he would support William's claim to the English throne, but he was still undecided, and William knew men too well to feel much confidence in an oath. As Taillefer sang on, he reached the part of Ganelon, the typical traitor, the invariable figure of mediaeval society. No feudal lord was without a Ganelon. Duke William saw them all about him. 24 MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES He might have felt that Harold would play the part, but if Harold should choose rather to be Roland, Duke William could have foretold that his own brother, Bishop Odo, after gorging himself on the plunder of half England, would turn into a Ganelon so dangerous as to require a prison for life. When Taillefer reached the battle-scenes, there was no further need of imagination to realize them. They were scenes of yesterday and to-morrow. For that matter, Charlemagne or his suc- cessor was still at Aix, and the Moors were still in Spain. Archbishop Turpin of Rheims had fought with sword and mace in Spain, while Bishop Odo of Bayeux was to marshal his men at Hastings, like a modern general, with a staff, but both were equally at home on the field of battle. Verse by verse, the song was a literal mirror of the Mount. The battle of Hastings was to be fought on the Archangel's Day. What happened to Roland at Roncesvalles was to happen to Harold at Hastings, and Harold, as he was dying like Roland, was to see his brother Gyrth die like Oliver. Even Taillefer was to be a part, and a distinguished part, of his chanson. Sooner or later, all were to die in the largeand simpleway of the eleventh century. Duke William himself, twenty years later, was to meet a violent death at Mantes in the same spirit, and if Bishop Odo did not die in battle, he died, at least, like an eleventh-century hero, on the first crusade. First or last, the whole company died in fight, or in prison, or on crusade, while the monks shrived them and prayed. - Then Taillefer certainly sang the great death-scenes. Even to this day every French school-boy, if he knows no other poetry, knows these verses by heart. In the eleventh century they wrung the heart of every man-at-arms in Europe, whose School was the field of battle and the hand-to-hand fight. No modern singer ever enjoys such power over an audience as Taillefer exercised over these men who were actors as well as listeners. In the mêlée at Roncesvalles, overborne by innumerable Saracens, Oliver at last calls for help: – LA CHANSON DE ROLAND 25 Munjoie escriet e haltement e cler. Rollant apelet Sun ami e sun per; “Sire compainz a mei karvus justez. A grant dulur ermes hoi deserveret.” Aoi. “Montjoie!” he cries, loud and clear. Roland he calls, his friend and peer: “Sir Friend! ride now to help me here! Parted to-day, great pity were.” Of course the full value of the verse cannot be regained. One knows neither how it was sung nor even how it was pronounced. The asso- nances are beyond recovering; the “laisse” or leash of verses or assonances with the concluding cry, “Aoi,” has long ago vanished from verse or song. The sense is as simple as the “Ballad of Chevy Chase,” but one must imagine the voice and acting. Doubtless Taillefer acted each motive; when Oliver called loud and clear, Taille- fer's voice rose; when Roland spoke “douloement et Suef,” the singer must have sung gently and soft; and when the two friends, with the singular courtesy of knighthood and dignity of soldiers, bowed to each other in parting and turned to face their deaths, Taillefer may have indicated the movement as he sang. The verses gave room for great acting. Hearing Oliver's cry for help, Roland rode up, and at sight of the desperate field, lost for a moment his consciousness: — As vus Rollant sur Sun cheval pasmet E Olivier ki est a mort nafrez! Tant ad sainiet li oil li sunt trublet Ne luinz ne pres ne poet veeir si cler Que reconuisset nisun hume mortel. Sun cumpaignun cum il l'ad encuntret Sil fiert amunt sur l'elme a or gemmet Tut li detrenchet d'ici que al nasel Mais en la teste ne l’ad mie adeset. A icel colp l'ad Rollanz reguardet Si li demandet dulcement et suef “Sire cumpainz, faites le vus de gred? Ja est co Rollanz ki tant vus Soelt amer. Par nule guise ne m'aviez desfiet,” Dist Oliviers: “Or vus oijo parler Io nevus vei. Weied vus damnedeus! Ferut vus ai. Kar le me pardunez!” Rollanz respunt: “Jo n'ai nient de mel. Jolvus parduins ici e devant deu.” A icel mot l'unsal altre ad clinet. Partel amur as les vus desevrez! There Roland sits unconscious on his horse, And Oliver who wounded is to death, So much has bled, his eyes grow dark to him, Nor far nor near can see so clear As to recognize any mortal man. His friend, when he has encountered him, He strikes upon the helmet of gemmed gold, Splits it from the crown to the nose-piece, But to the head he has not reached at all. At this blow Roland looks at him, Asks him gently and softly: “Sir Friend, do you it in earnest? You know 'tis Roland who has so loved you.' In no way have you sent to me defiance.” Says Oliver: “Indeed I hear you speak, I do not see you. May God see and save you! Strike you I did. I pray you pardon me.” Roland replies: “I have no harm at all. I pardon you here and before God!” At this word, one to the other bends himself. With such affection, there they separate. 26 MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES No one should try to render this into English — or, indeed, into modern French — verse, but any one who will take the trouble to catch the metre and will remember that each verse in the “leash” ends in the same sound, - aimer, parler, cler, mortel, damnedé, mel, deu, Suef, masel, - however the terminal syllables may be spelled, can fol- low the feeling of the poetry as well as though it were Greek hexam- eter. He will feel the simple force of the words and action, as he feels Homer. It is the grand style, – the eleventh century: — - Ferut vus ail Kar le me pardunez! Not a syllable is lost, and always the strongest syllable is chosen. Even the sentiment is monosyllabic and curt: — Ja est co Rollanz ki tant vus soelt amer! Taillefer had, in such a libretto, the means of producing dramatic effects that the French comedy or the grand opera never approached, and such as made Bayreuth seem thin and feeble. Duke William's barons must have clung to his voice and action as though they were in the very mêlée, striking at the helmets of gemmed gold. They had all been there, and were to be there again. As the climax approached, they saw the scene itself; probably they had seen it every year, more or less, since they could swing a sword. Taillefer chanted the death of Oliver and of Archbishop Turpin and all the other barons of the rear guard, except Roland, who was left for dead by the Saracens when they fled on hearing the horns of Charlemagne's returning host. Roland came back to consciousness on feeling a Saracen marauder tugging at his sword Durendal. With a blow of his ivory horn — oliphant — he killed the pagan; then feeling death near, he prepared for it. His first thought was for Durendal, his sword, which he could not leave to infidels. In the singular triple repetition which gives more of the same solidity and architectural weight to the verse, he made three attempts to break the sword, with a lament — a plaint — for each. Three times he struck with all his force against the rock; each time the sword rebounded without breaking. The third time – LA CHANSON DE ROLAND 27 Rollanz ferit en une pierre bise Plus en abat que jo nevus sai dire. L'espee cruist ne fruisset ne ne briset Cuntre le ciel amunt est resortie. Quant veit li quens que ne la fraindrat mie Mult dulcement la plainst a sei meisme. “E! Durendal cum ies bele e saintisme! En l'oret punt asez i ad reliques. La dent saint Pierre e del sanc seint Basilie E des chevels mun seignur seint Denisie Del vestment i ad seinte Marie. Il nen est dreiz que paien te baillisent. De chrestiens devez estre servie. Nevus ait hum ki facet cuardie! Mult larges terres de vus averai cunquises Que Carles tient ki la barbe ad flurie. E li emperere en est e ber e riches.” Roland strikes on a grey stone, More of it cuts off than I can tell you. The sword grinds, but shatters not nor breaks, Upward against the sky it rebounds. When the Count sees that he can never break it, Very gently he mourns it to himself: “Ah, Durendal, how fair you are and sacred! In your golden guard are many relics, g The tooth of Saint Peter and blood of Saint Basil, And hair of my seigneur Saint-Denis, Of the garment too of Saint Mary. It is not right that pagans should own you. By Christians you should be served, Nor should man have you who does cowardice. Many wide lands by you I have conquered That Charles holds, who has the white beard, And emperor of them is noble and rich.” This “laisse” is even more eleventh-century than the other, but it appealed no longer to the warriors; it spoke rather to the monks. To the warriors, the sword itself was the religion, and the relics were details of ornament or strength. To the priest, the list of relics was more eloquent than the Regent diamond on the hilt and the Kohinoor on the scabbard. Even to us it is interesting if it is understood. Roland had gone on pilgrimage to the Holy Land. He had stopped at Rome and won the friendship of Saint Peter, as the tooth proved; he had passed through Constantinople and secured the help of Saint Basil; he had reached Jerusalem and gained the affection of the Virgin; he had come home to France and secured the support of his “seigneur” Saint Denis; for Roland, like Hugh Capet, was a liege-man of Saint Denis and French to the heart. France, to him, was Saint Denis, and at most the Île de France, but not Anjou or even Maine. These were countries he had conquered with Durendal: — Jo l'en cunquis e Anjou e Bretaigne Si l'en cunquise Peitou e le Maine Jo l'en cunquis Normendie la franche Si l'en cunquis Provence e Equitaigne. 28 MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES He had conquered these for his emperor Charlemagne with the help of his immediate spiritual lord or seigneur Saint Denis, but the monks knew that he could never have done these feats without the help of Saint Peter, Saint Basil, and Saint Mary the Blessed Virgin, whose relics, in the hilt of his sword, were worth more than any king's ran- som. To this day a tunic of the Virgin is the most precious property of the cathedral at Chartres. Either one of Roland's relics would have made the glory of any shrine in Europe, and every monk knew their enormous value and power better than he knew the value of Ro- land's conquests. - Yet even the religion is martial, as though it were meant for the fighting Archangel and Odo of Bayeux. The relics serve the sword; the sword is not in service of the relics. As the death-scene approaches, the song becomes even more military: — Ço sent Rollanz que la mortle tresprent Then Roland feels that death is taking him; Devers la teste sur le quer li descent. Down from the head upon the heart it falls. Desuzun pin i estalez curanz Beneath a pine he hastens running; Sur l'erbe verte siest culchiez adenz On the green grass he throws himself down; Desuz lui met s'espee e l’olifant Beneath him puts his sword and oliphant, Turnat sa teste vers la paiene gent. Turns his face toward the pagan army. Pur co l'ad fait que il voelt veirement For this he does it, that he wishes greatly Que Carles diet et trestute sa gent That Charles should say and all his men, Li gentils quens quil fut morz Cunqueranz. The gentle Count has died a conqueror. Thus far, not a thought or a word strays from the field of war. With a childlike intensity, every syllable bends toward the single idea — Li gentils quens quil fut morz cunqueranz. Only then the singer allowed the Church to assert some of its rights:— Ço sent Rollanz de Sun tens ni ad plus Then Roland feels that his last hour has come Devers Espaigne gisten unpui agut Facing toward Spain he lies on a steep hill, A l’une main si ad sun piz batut. While with one hand he beats upon his breast: “Deus meie culpe vers les tues vertuz “Mea culpa, God! through force of thy miracles De mes pecchiez des granz e des menuz Pardon my sins, the great as well as small, Que jo ai fait des l’ure que nez fui That I have done from the hour I was born Tresqu'a cest jur que ci Sui consouz.” Down to this day that I have now attained.” Sun destre guant en ad vers deu tendut His right glove toward God he lifted up. Angle del ciel i descendent a lui. Aoi. Angels from heaven descend on him. Aoi. LA CHANSON DE ROLAND - 29 Li quens Rollanz Se jut desuzun pin Envers Espaigne en ad turnet sun vis De plusurs choses a remembrer li prist De tantes terres cume libers cunquist De dulce France des humes de sun lign De Carlemagne sun seignur kil nurrit Ne poet muer men plurt e ne suspirt Mais lui meisme ne voelt metre en ubii Claimet sa culpe si priet deu mercit. “Veire paterne ki unkes ne mentis Seint Lazarun de mort resurrexis E Daniel des liuns guaresis Guaris de mei l'anme de tuz perils Purles pecchiez queen ma vie fis.” Sun destre guant a deu en puroffrit E de sa main seinz Gabriel lad pris Desur sun braz teneit le chief enclin Juintesses mains estalez a sa fin. Deus li tramist sun angle cherubin E Seint Michiel de la mer del peril Ensemble od els Seinz Gabriels i vint L'anme del cunte portent en pareis. Count Roland throws himself beneath a pine And toward Spain has turned his face away. Of many things he called the memory back, Of many lands that he, the brave, had con- * quered, Of gentle France, the men of his lineage, Of Charlemagne his lord, who nurtured him; He cannot help but weep and sigh for these, But for himself will not forget to care; He cries his Culpe, he prays to God for grace. “O God the Father who has never lied, Who raised up Saint Lazarus from death, And Daniel from the lions saved, Save my soul from all the perils For the sins that in my life I did!” His right-hand glove to God he proffered; Saint Gabriel from his hand took it; - Upon his arm he held his head inclined, Folding his hands he passed to his end. God sent to him his angel cherubim And Saint Michael of the Sea in Peril, Together with them came Saint Gabriel. The soul of the Count they bear to Paradise. Our age has lost much of its ear for poetry, as it has its eye for colour and line, and its taste for war and worship, wine and women. Not one man in a hundred thousand could now feel what the eleventh century felt in these verses of the “Chanson,” and there is no reason for trying to do so, but there is a certain use in trying for once to understand not so much the feeling as the meaning. The naïveté of the poetry is that of the society. God the Father was the feudal seigneur, who raised Lazarus — his baron or vassal — from the grave, and freed Daniel, as an evidence of his power and loyalty; a seigneur who never lied, or was false to his word. God the Father, as feudal seigneur, absorbs the Trinity, and, what is more significant, absorbs or excludes also the Virgin, who is not mentioned in the prayer. To this seigneur, Roland in dying, proffered (puroffrit) his right-hand gauntlet. Death was an act of homage. God sent down his Archangel Gabriel as his represen- tative to accept the homage and receive the glove. To Duke William 30 MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES * and his barons nothing could seem more natural and correct. God was not farther away than Charlemagne. Correct as the law may have been, the religion even at that time must have seemed to the monks to need professional advice. Roland's life was not exemplary. The “Chanson” had taken pains to show that the disaster at Roncesvalles was due to Roland's headstrong folly and temper. In dying, Roland had not once thought of these faults, or repented of his worldly ambitions, or mentioned the name of Alda, his betrothed. He had clung to the memory of his wars and conquests, his lineage, his earthly seigneur Charlemagne, and of “douce France.” He had forgotten to give so much as an allusion to Christ. The poet regarded all these matters as the affair of the Church; all the warrior cared for was courage, loyalty, and prowess. The interest of these details lies not in the scholarship or the his- torical truth or even the local colour, so much as in the art. The naïveté of the thought is repeated by the simplicity of the verse. Word and thought are equally monosyllabic. Nothing ever matched it. The words bubble like a stream in the woods: — Ço sent Rollanz de sun tens ni ad plus. Try and put them into modern French, and see what will happen: – Que jo ai fait des l'ure que nez fui. The words may remain exactly the same, but the poetry will have gone out of them. Five hundred years later, even the English critics had so far lost their sense for military poetry that they professed to be shocked by Milton's monosyllables: — Whereat he inly raged, and, as they talked, Smote him into the midriff with a stone That beat out life. Milton's language was indeed more or less archaic and Biblical; it was a Puritan affectation; but the “Chanson” in the refectory act- ually reflected, repeated, echoed, the piers and arches of the Abbey Church just rising above. The verse is built up. The qualities of the LA CHANSON DE ROLAND 3I architecture reproduce themselves in the song: the same directness, simplicity, absence of self-consciousness; the same intensity of pur- pose; even the same material; the prayer is granite: — Guaris de mei l'anme de tuz perils Purles pecchiez que en ma vie fisſ The action of dying is felt, like the dropping of a keystone into the vault, and if the Romanesque arches in the church, which are within hearing, could speak, they would describe what they are doing in the precise words of the poem: — Desur sun braz teneit le chief encling Upon their shoulders have their heads inclined, Juintesses mains est alez a Sa fin. Folded their hands, and sunken to their rest. Many thousands of times these verses must have been sung at the Mount and echoed in every castle and on every battle-field from the Welsh Marches to the shores of the Dead Sea. No modern opera or play ever approached the popularity of the “Chanson.” None has ever expressed with anything like the same completeness the society that produced it. Chanted by every minstrel, - known by heart, from beginning to end, by every man and woman and child, lay or clerica's — translated into every tongue, – more intensely felt, if possible, in Italy and Spain than in Normandy and England, – perhaps most effective, as a work of art, when sung by the Templars in their great castles in the Holy Land, - it is now best felt at Mont-Saint-Michel, and from the first must have been there at home. The proof is the line, evidently inserted for the sake of its local effect, which invoked Saint Michael in Peril of the Sea at the climax of Roland's death, and one needs no original documents or contemporary authorities to prove that, when Taillefer came to this invocation, not only Duke William and his barons, but still more Abbot Ranulf and his monks, broke into a frenzy of sympathy which expressed the masculine and military pas- sions of the Archangel better than it accorded with the rules of Saint Benedict. CHAPTER III THE MERVEILLE THE nineteenth century moved fast and furious, so that one who moved in it felt sometimes giddy, watching it spin; but the eleventh moved faster and more furiously still. The Norman con- quest of England was an immense effort, and its consequences were far-reaching, but the first crusade was altogether the most interesting event in European history. Never has the Western world shown any- thing like the energy and unity with which she then flung herself on the East, and for the moment made the East recoil. Barring her family quarrels, Europe was a unity then, in thought, will, and object. Chris- tianity was the unit. Mont-Saint-Michel and Byzantium were near each other. The Emperor Constantine and the Emperor Charlemagne were figured as allies and friends in the popular legend. The East was the common enemy, always superior in wealth and numbers, fre- quently in energy, and sometimes in thought and art. The outburst of the first crusade was splendid even in a military sense, but it was great beyond comparison in its reflection in architecture, ornament, poetry, colour, religion, and philosophy. Its men were astonishing, and its women were worth all the rest. - Mont-Saint-Michel, better than any other spot in the world, keeps the architectural record of that ferment, much as the Sicilian temples keep the record of the similar outburst of Greek energy, art, poetry, and thought, fifteen hundred years before. Of the eleventh century, it is true, nothing but the church remains at the Mount, and, if studied further, the century has got to be sought elsewhere, which is not diffi- cult, since it is preserved in any number of churches in every path of tourist travel. Normandy is full of it; Bayeux and Caen contain little else. At the Mount, the eleventh-century work was antiquated before THE MERVEILLE 33 it was finished. In the year III2, Abbot Roger II was obliged to plan and construct a new group in such haste that it is said to have been finished in II22. It extends from what we have supposed to be the old refectory to the parvis, and abuts on the three lost spans of the church, covering about one hundred and twenty feet. As usual there were three levels; a crypt or gallery beneath, known as the Aquilon; a cloister or promenoir above; and on the level of the church a dormitory, now lost. The group is one of the most interesting in France, another pons seclorum, an antechamber to the west portal of Chartres, which bears the same date (II IO-25). It is the famous period of Transition, the glory of the twelfth century, the object of our pilgrimage. Art is a fairly large field where no one need jostle his neighbour, and no one need shut himself up in a corner; but, if one insists on taking a corner of preference, one might offer some excuse for choosing the Gothic Transition. The quiet, restrained strength of the Romanesque married to the graceful curves and vaulting imagination of the Gothic makes a union nearer the ideal than is often allowed in marriage. The French, in their best days, loved it with a constancy that has thrown a sort of aureole over their fickleness since. They never tired of its possibilities. Sometimes they put the pointed arch within the round, or above it; sometimes they put the round within the pointed. Some- times a Roman arch covered a cluster of pointed windows, as though protecting and caressing its children; sometimes a huge pointed arch covered a great rose-window spreading across the whole front of an enormous cathedral, with an arcade of Romanesque windows beneath. The French architects felt no discord, and there was none. Even the pure Gothic was put side by side with the pure Roman. You will see no later Gothic than the choir of the Abbey Church above (1450– I521), unless it is the north flèche of Chartres Cathedral (1507–13); and if you will look down the nave, through the triumphal arches, into the pointed choir four hundred years more modern, you can judge whether there is any real discord. For those who feel the art, there is 34 MONT—SAINT-MICHEL AND CHARTRES none; the strength and the grace join hands; the man and woman love each other still. The difference of sex is not imaginary. In IOS8, when the triumphal columns were building, and Taillefer sang to William the Bastard and Harold the Saxon, Roland still prayed his “mea culpa” to God the Father and gave not a thought to Alda his betrothed. In the twelfth century Saint Bernard recited “Ave Stella Maris” in an ecstasy of miracle before the image of the Virgin, and the armies of France in battle cried, “Notre-Dame-Saint-Denis-Montjoie.” What the Roman could not express flowered into the Gothic; what the masculine mind could not idealize in the warrior, it idealized in the woman; no archi- tecture that ever grew on earth, except the Gothic, gave this effect of flinging its passion against the sky. . When men no longer felt the passion, they fell back on themselves, or lower. The architect returned to the round arch, and even further to the flatness of the Greek colonnade; but this was not the fault of the twelfth or thirteenth centuries. What they had to say they said; what they felt they expressed; and if the seventeenth century forgot it, the twentieth in turn has forgotten the seventeenth. History is only a catalogue of the forgotten. The eleventh century is no worse off than its neighbours. The twelfth is, in architecture, rather better off than the nineteenth. These two rooms, the Aquilon and promenoir, which mark the beginning of the Transition, are, on the whole, more modern than Saint-Sulpice, or Il Gesu at Rome. In the same situation, for the same purposes, any architect would be proud to repeat them to-day. The Aquilon, though a hall or gallery of importance in its day, seems to be classed among crypts. M. Camille Enlart, in his “Manual of French Archaeology” (p. 252) gives a list of Romanesque and Tran- sition crypts, about one hundred and twenty, to serve as examples for the study. The Aquilon is not one of them, but the crypt of Saint- Denis and that of Chartres Cathedral would serve to teach any over- curious tourist all that he should want to know about such matters. THE REFECTORY ABBEY OF MONT-SAINT-MICHEL THE MERVEILLE 35 Photographs such as those of the Monuments Historiques answer all the just purposes of underground travel. The Aquilon is one's first lesson in Transition architecture because it is dated (III2); and the crypt of Saint-Denis serves almost equally well because the Abbé Suger must have begun his plans for it about I I22. Both have the same arcs doubleaux and arcs-formerets, though in opposite arrange- ment. Both show the first heavy hint at the broken arch. There are no nervures — no rib-vaulting, — and hardly a suggestion of the Gothic as one sees it in the splendid crypt of the Gros Piliers close at hand, except the elaborately intersecting vaults and the heavy columns; but the promenoir above is an astonishing leap in time and art. The promenoir has the same arrangement and columns as the Aquilon, but the vaults are beautifully arched and pointed, with ribs rising directly from the square capitals and intersecting the central spacings, in a spirit which neither you nor I know how to distinguish from the pure Gothic of the thirteenth century, unless it is that the arches are hardly pointed enough; they seem to the eye almost round. The height ap- pears to be about fourteen feet. The promenoir of Abbot Roger II has an interest to pilgrims who are going on to the shrine of the Virgin, because the date of the pro- menoir seems to be exactly the same as the date which the Abbé Bulteau assigns for the western portal of Chartres. Ordinarily a date is no great matter, but when one has to run forward and back, with the agility of an electric tram, between two or three fixed points, it is convenient to fix them once for all. The Transition is complete here in the promenoir, which was planned as early as III5. The subject of vaulting is far too ambitious for summer travel; it is none too easy for a graduate of the Beaux Arts; and few architectural fields have been so earnestly discussed and disputed. We must not touch it. The age of the “Chanson de Roland” itself is not so dangerous a topic. Our vital needs are met, more or less sufficiently, by taking the promenoir at the Mount, the crypt at Saint-Denis, and the western portal at Chartres, 36 MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES as the trinity of our Transition, and roughly calling their date the years III 5–2O. To overload the memory with dates is the vice of every schoolmaster and the passion of every second-rate scholar. Tourists want as few dates as possible; what they want is poetry. Yet a singu- lar coincidence, with which every classroom is only too familiar, has made of the years—'I5 a curiously convenient group, and the year III5 is as convenient as any for the beginning of the century of Transition. That was the year when Saint Bernard laid the foundations of his Abbey of Clairvaux. Perhaps III.5, or at latest III.7, was the year when Abélard sang love-songs to Héloise in Canon Fulbert's house in the Rue des Chantres, beside the cloister of Notre Dame in Paris. The Abbé Suger, the Abbé Bernard, and the Abbé Abélard are the three interesting men of the French Transition. The promenoir, then, shall pass for the year III5, and, as such, is an exceedingly beautiful hall, uniting the splendid calm and serious- ness of the Romanesque with the exquisite lines of the Gothic. You will hardly see its equal in the twelfth century. At Angers the great hall of the Bishop's Palace survives to give a point of comparison, but commonly the halls of that date were not vaulted; they had timber roofs, and have perished. The promenoir is about sixty feet long, and divided into two aisles, ten feet wide, by a row of columns. If it were used on great occasions as a refectory, eighty or a hundred persons could have been seated at table, and perhaps this may have been about the scale of the Abbey's needs, at that time. Whatever effort of fancy was needed to place Duke William and Harold in the old refectory of IO58, none whatever is required in order to see his successors in the halls of Roger II. With one exception they were not interesting per- sons. The exception was Henry II of England and Anjou, and his wife Eleanor of Guienne, who was for a while Regent of Normandy. One of their children was born at Domfront, just beyond Avranches, and the Abbot was asked to be godfather. In II58, just one hundred years after Duke William's visit, King Henry and his whole suite came to the THE MERVEILLE 37 Abbey, heard mass, and dined in the refectory. “Rex venit ad Mon- tem. Sancti Michaelis, audita missa ad magis altare, comedit in Refec- torio cum baronibus suis.” Abbot Robert of Torigny was his host, and very possibly William of Saint-Pair looked on. Perhaps he recited parts of his “Roman” before the King. One may be quite sure that when Queen Eleanor came to the Mount she asked the poet to recite his verses, for Eleanor gave law to poets. One might linger over Abbot Robert of Torigny, who was a very great man in his day, and an especially great architect, but too ambi- tious. All his work, including the two towers, crumbled and fell for want of proper support. What would correspond to the cathedrals of Noyon and Soissons and the old clocher and flèche of Chartres is lost. We have no choice but to step down into the next century at once, and into the full and perfect Gothic of the great age when the new Chartres was building. In the year I2O3, Philip Augustus expelled the English from Nor- mandy and conquered the province; but, in the course of the war the Duke of Brittany, who was naturally a party to any war that took place under his eyes, happened to burn the town beneath the Abbey, and in doing so, set fire unintentionally to the Abbey itself. The sacri- lege shocked Philip Augustus, and the wish to conciliate so powerful a vassal as Saint Michel, or his abbot, led the King of France to give a large sum of money for repairing the buildings. The Abbot Jordan (1191–1212) at once undertook to Outdo all his predecessors, and, with an immense ambition, planned the huge pile which covers the whole north face of the Mount, and which has always borne the expressive name of the Merveille. The general motive of abbatial building was common to them all. Abbeys were large households. The church was the centre, and at Mont-Saint-Michel the summit, for the situation compelled the ab- bots there to pile one building on another instead of arranging them on a level in squares or parallelograms. The dormitory in any case had to 38 MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES be near a door of the church, because the Rule required constant Serv- ices, day and night. The cloister was also hard-by the church door, and, at the Mount, had to be on the same level in order to be in open air. Naturally the refectory must be immediately beneath one or the other of these two principal structures, and the hall, or place of meet- ing for business with the outside world, or for internal administration, or for guests of importance, must be next the refectory. The kitchen and offices would be placed on the lowest stage, if for no other reason, because the magazines were two hundred feet below at the landing- place, and all supplies, including water, had to be hauled up an in- clined plane by windlass. To administer such a society required the most efficient management. An abbot on this scale was a very great man, indeed, who enjoyed an establishment of his own, close by, with officers in no small number; for the monks alone numbered sixty, and even these were not enough for the regular church services at seasons of pilgrimage. The Abbot was obliged to entertain scores and hun- dreds of guests, and these, too, of the highest importance, with large suites. Every ounce of food must be brought from the mainland, or fished from the sea. All the tenants and their farms, their rents and contributions, must be looked after. No secular prince had a more serious task of administration, and none did it so well. Tenants always preferred an abbot or bishop for landlord. The Abbey was the highest administrative creation of the Middle Ages, and when one has made one's pilgrimage to Chartres, one might well devote another summer to visiting what is left of Clairvaux, Citeaux, Cluny, and the other famous monasteries, with Viollet-le-Duc to guide, in order to satisfy one's mind whether, on the whole, such a life may not have had activity as well as idleness. This is a matter of economics, to be settled with the keepers of more modern hotels, but the art had to suit the conditions, and when Abbot Jordan decided to plaster this huge structure against the side of the Mount, the architect had a relatively simple task to handle. The THE MERVEILLE - 39 engineering difficulties alone were very serious. The architectural plan was plain enough. As the Abbot laid his requirements before the architect, he seems to have begun by fixing the scale for a refectory capable of seating two hundred guests at table. Probably no king in Europe fed more persons at his table than this. According to M. Cor- royer's plan, the length of the new refectory is one hundred and twenty- three feet (37.5 metres). A row of columns down the centre divides it into two aisles, measuring twelve feet clear, from column to column, across the room. If tables were set the whole length of the two aisles, forty persons could have been easily seated, in four rows, or one hundred and sixty persons. Without crowding, the same space would give room for fifty guests, or two hundred in all. Once the scale was fixed, the arrangement was easy. Beginning at the lowest possible level, one plain, very solidly built, vaulted room served as foundation for another, loftier and more delicately vaulted; and this again bore another which stood on the level of the church, and opened directly into the north transept. This arrangement was then doubled; and the second set of rooms, at the west end, contained the cellar on the lower level, another great room or hall above it, and the cloister at the church door, also entering into the north transept. Door- ways, passages, and stairs unite them all. The two heavy halls on the lowest level are now called the almonry and the cellar, which is a distinction between administrative arrangements that does not con- cern us. Architecturally the rooms might, to our untrained eyes, be of the same age with the Aquilon. They are earliest Transition, as far as a tourist can see, or at least they belong to the class of crypts which has an architecture of its own. The rooms that concern us are those imme- diately above: the so-called Salle des Chevaliers at the west end; and the so-called refectory at the east. Every writer gives these rooms different names, and assigns them different purposes, but whatever they were meant for, they are, as halls, the finest in France; the purest in thirteenth-century perfection. 40 MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES The Salle des Chevaliers of the Order of Saint Michael created by Louis XI in 1469 was, or shall be for tourist purposes, the great hall that every palace and castle contained, and in which the life of the château centred. Planned at about the same time with the Cathedral of Chartres (1195–12 Io), and before the Abbey Church of Saint-Denis, this hall and its neighbour the refectory, studied together with the cathedral and the abbey, are an exceedingly liberal education for anybody, tourist or engineer or architect, and would make the fortune of an intelligent historian, if such should happen to exist; but the last thing we ask from them is education or instruction. We want only their poetry, and shall have to look for it elsewhere. Here is only the shell — the dead art — and silence. The hall is about ninety feet long, and sixty feet in its greatest width. It has three ranges of columns making four vaulted aisles which seem to rise about twenty-two feet in height. It is warmed by two huge and heavy cheminées or fireplaces in the outside wall, between the windows. It is lighted beautifully, but mostly from above through round windows in the arching of the vaults. The vaulting is a study for wiser men than we can ever be. More than twenty strong round columns, free or engaged, with Roman- esque capitals, support heavy ribs, or nervures, and while the two cen- tral aisles are eighteen feet wide, the outside aisle, into which the windows open, measures only ten feet in width, and has consequently one of the most sharply pointed vaults we shall ever meet. The whole design is as beautiful a bit of early Gothic as exists, but what would take most time to study, if time were to spare, would be the instinct of the Archangel's presence which has animated his architecture. The masculine, military energy of Saint Michael lives still in every stone. The genius that realized this warlike emotion has stamped his power everywhere, on every centimetre of his work; in every ray of light; on the mass of every shadow; wherever the eye falls; still more strongly on all that the eye divines, and in the shadows that are felt like the lights. The architect intended it all. Any one who doubts has only to THE MERVEILLE - 4I step through the doorway in the corner into the refectory. There the architect has undertaken to express the thirteenth-century idea of the Archangel; he has left the twelfth century behind him. The refectory, which has already served for a measure of the Abbot's scale, is, in feeling, as different as possible from the hall. Six charming columns run down the centre, dividing the room into two vaulted aisles, apparently about twenty-seven feet in height. Wherever the hall was heavy and serious, the refectory was made light and graceful. Hardly a trace of the Romanesque remains. Only the slight, round columns are not yet grooved or fluted, and their round capitals are still slightly severe. Every detail is lightened. The great fireplaces are removed to one end of the room. The most interesting change is in the windows. When you reach Chartres, the great book of archi- tecture will open on the word “Fenestration,” — Fenêtre, — a word as ugly as the thing was beautiful; and then, with pain and sorrow, you will have to toil till you see how the architects of I2OO subordinated every other problem to that of lighting their spaces. Without feeling their lights, you can never feel their shadows. These two halls at Mont-Saint-Michel are antechambers to the nave of Chartres; their fenestration, inside and out, controls the whole design. The lighting of the refectory is superb, but one feels its value in art only when it is taken in relation to the lighting of the hall, and both serve as a simple preamble to the romance of the Chartres windows. The refectory shows what the architect did when, to lighten his effects, he wanted to use every possible square centimetre of light. He has made nine windows; six on the north, two on the east, and one on the south. They are nearly five feet wide, and about twenty feet high. They flood the room. Probably they were intended for glass, and M. Corroyer's volume contains wood-cuts of a few fragments of thir- teenth-century glass discovered in his various excavations; but one may take for granted that with so much light, colour was the object intended. The floors would be tiled in colour; the walls would be hung 42 MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES with colour; probably the vaults were painted in colour; one can see it all in scores of illuminated manuscripts. The thirteenth century had a passion for colour, and made a colour-world of its own which we have got to explore. The two halls remain almost the only monuments of what must be called secular architecture of the early and perfect period of Gothic art (I2OO-IO). Churches enough remain, with Chartres at their head, but all the great abbeys, palaces and châteaux of that day are ruins. Arques, Gaillard, Montargis, Coucy, the old Louvre, Chinon, Angers, as well as Cluny, Clairvaux, Citeaux, Jumièges, Vezelay, Saint-Denis, Poissy, Fontevrault, and a score of other residences, royal or semi- royal, have disappeared wholly, or have lost their residential build- ings. When Viollet-le-Duc, under the Second Empire, was allowed to restore one great château, he chose the latest, Pierrefonds, built by Louis d'Orléans in I390. Vestiges of Saint Louis's palace remain at the Conciergerie, but the first great royal residence to be compared with the Merveille is Amboise, dating from about 1500, three centu- ries later. Civilization made almost a clean sweep of art. Only here, at Mont-Saint-Michel, one may still sit at ease on the stone benches in the embrasures of the refectory windows, looking over the thirteenth- century Ocean and watching the architect as he worked out the details which were to produce or accent his contrasts or harmonies, heighten his effects, or hide his show of effort, and all by means so true, simple, and apparently easy that one seems almost competent to follow him. One learns better in time. One gets to feel that these things were due in part to an instinct that the architect himself might not have been able to explain. The instinct vanishes as time creeps on. The halls at Rouen or at Blois are more easily understood; the Salle des Caryatides of Pierre Lescot at the Louvre, charming as it is, is simpler still; and one feels entirely at home in the Salle des Glaces which filled the ambition of Louis XIV at Versailles. If any lingering doubt remains in regard to the professional clever. THE MERVEILLE 43 ness of the architect and the thoroughness of his study, we had best return to the great hall, and pass through a low door in its extreme outer angle, up a few steps into a little room some thirteen feet Square, beautifully vaulted, lighted, warmed by a large stone fireplace, and in the corner, a spiral staircase leading up to another square room above opening directly into the cloister. It is a little library or charter-house. The arrangement is almost too clever for gravity, as is the case with more than one arrangement in the Merveille. From the outside one can see that at this corner the architect had to provide a heavy buttress against a double strain, and he built up from the rock below a square corner tower as support, into which he worked a spiral staircase lead- ing from the cellar up to the cloisters. Just above the level of the great hall he managed to construct this little room, a gem. The place was near and far; it was quiet and central; William of Saint-Pair, had he been still alive, might have written his “Roman” there; monks might have illuminated missals there. A few steps upward brought them to the cloisters for meditation; a few more brought them to the church for prayer. A few steps downward brought them to the great hall, for business, a few steps more led them into the refectory, for dinner. To contemplate the goodness of God was a simple joy when one had such a room to work in; such a spot as the great hall to walk in, when the storms blew; or the cloisters in which to meditate, when the sun shone; such a dining-room as the refectory; and such a view from one's windows over the infinite Ocean and the guiles of Satan's quicksands. From the battlements of Heaven, William of Saint-Pair looked down on it with envy. Of all parts of the Merveille, in summer, the most charming must always have been the cloisters. Only the Abbey of the Mount was rich and splendid enough to build a cloister like this, all in granite, carved in forms as light as though it were wood; with columns arranged in a peculiar triangular order that excited the admiration of Viollet-le- Duc. “One of the most curious and complete cloisters that we have in 44 MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES France,” he said; although in France there are many beautiful and curious cloisters. For another reason it has value. The architect meant it to reassert, with all the art and grace he could command, the mastery of love, of thought and poetry, in religion, over the masculine, military energy of the great hall below. The thirteenth century rarely let slip a chance to insist on this moral that love is law. Saint Francis was preaching to the birds in I215 at Assisi, and the architect built this cloister in I226 at Mont-Saint-Michel. Both sermons were satu- rated with the feeling of the time, and both are about equally worth noting, if one aspires to feel the art. A conscientious student has yet to climb down the many steps, on the outside, and look up at the Merveille from below. Few buildings in France are better worth the trouble. The horizontal line at the roof measures two hundred and thirty-five feet. The vertical line of the buttresses measures in round numbers one hundred feet. To make walls of that height and length stand up at all was no easy matter, as Robert de Torigny had shown; and so the architect buttressed them from bottom to top with twelve long buttresses against the thrust of the interior arches, and three more, bearing against the interior walls. This gives, on the north front, fifteen strong vertical lines in a space of two hundred and thirty-five feet. Between these lines the windows tell their story; the seven long windows of the refectory on one side; the seven rounded windows of the hall on the other. Even the corner tower with the charter-house becomes as simple as the rest. The sum of this impossible wall, and its exaggerated vertical lines, is strength and intelligence at rest. The whole Mount still kept the grand style; it expressed the unity of Church and State, God and Man, Peace and War, Life and Death, Good and Bad; it solved the whole problem of the universe. The priest and the soldier were both at home here, in 1215 as in III5 or in IOS8; the politician was not outside of it; the sinner was welcome; the poet was made happy in his own spirit, with a sympathy, almost an affec- THE MERVEILLE 45 tion, that suggests a habit of verse in the Abbot as well as in the archi- tect. God reconciles all. The world is an evident, obvious, sacred harmony. Even the discord of war is a detail on which the Abbey refuses to insist. Not till two centuries afterwards did the Mount take on the modern expression of war as a discord in God's providence. Then, in the early years of the fifteenth century, Abbot Pierre le Roy plastered the gate of the châtelet, as you now see it, over the sunny thirteenth-century entrance called Belle Chaise, which had treated mere military construction with a sort of quiet contempt. You will know what a châtelet is when you meet another; it frowns in a spirit quite alien to the twelfth century; it jars on the religion of the place; it forebodes wars of religion; dissolution of society; loss of unity; the end of a world. Nothing is sadder than the catastrophe of Gothic art, religion, and hope. One looks back on it all as a picture; a symbol of unity; an assertion of God and Man in a bolder, stronger, closer union than ever was expressed by other art; and when the idea is absorbed, accepted, and perhaps partially understood, one may move on. CHAPTER IV NORMANDY AND THE ilE DE FRANCE TNROM Mont-Saint-Michel, the architectural road leads across Nor- • mandy, up the Seine to Paris, and not directly through Chartres, which lies a little to the south. In the empire of architecture, Nor- mandy was one kingdom, Brittany another; the ile de France, with Paris, was a third; Touraine and the valley of the Loire were a fourth; and in the centre, the fighting-ground between them all, lay the coun- ties of Chartres and Dreux. Before going to Chartres one should go up the Seine and down the Loire, from Angers to Le Mans, and so enter Chartres from Brittany after a complete circle; but if we set out to do our pleasure on that scale, we must start from the Pyramid of Cheops. We have set out from Mont-Saint-Michel; we will go next to Paris. The architectural highway lies through Coutances, Bayeux, Caen, Rouen, and Mantes. Every great artistic kingdom solved its archi- tectural problems in its own way, as it did its religious, political, and social problems, and no two solutions were ever quite the same; but among them the Norman was commonly the most practical, and sometimes the most dignified. We can test this rule by the standard of the first town we stop at – Coutances. We can test it equally well at Bayeux or Caen, but Coutances comes first after Mont-Saint-Michel; let us begin with it, and state the problems with their Norman solu- tion, so that it may be ready at hand to compare with the French solution, before coming to the solution at Chartres. The cathedral at Coutances is said to be about the age of the Mer- veille (1200–50), but the exact dates are unknown, and the work is so Norman as to stand by itself; yet the architect has grappled with more problems than one need hope to see Solved in any single church COUTANCES CATHEDRAL NORMANDY AND THE fle DE FRANCE 47 in the Île de France. Even at Chartres, although the two stone flèches are, by exception, completed, they are not of the same age, as they are here. Neither at Chartres nor at Paris, nor at Laon or Amiens or Rheims or Bourges, will you see a central tower to compare with the enormous pile at Coutances. Indeed the architects of France failed to solve this particular church problem, and we shall leave it behind us in leaving Normandy, although it is the most effective feature of any possible church. “A clocher of that period (circa 1200), built over the croisée of a cathedral, following lines so happy, should be a monument of the greatest beauty; unfortunately we possess not a single one in France. Fire, and the hand of man more than time, have destroyed them all, and we find on our greatest religious edifices no more than bases and fragments of these beautiful constructions. The cathedral of Coutances alone has preserved its central clocher of the thirteenth century, and even there it is not complete; its stone flèche is wanting. As for its style, it belongs to Norman architecture, and diverges widely from the character of French architecture.” So says Viollet-le-Duc; but although the great churches for the most part never had central clochers, which, on the scale of Amiens, Bourges, or Beauvais, would have required an impossible mass, the smaller churches frequently carry them still, and they are, like the dome, the most effective features they can carry. They were made to dominate the whole. No doubt the flèche is wanting at Coutances, but you can supply it in imagination from the two flèches of the western tower, which are as simple and severe as the spear of a man-at-arms. Supply the flèche, and the meaning of the tower cannot be mistaken; it is as military as the “Chanson de Roland”; it is the man-at-arms himself, mounted and ready for battle, spear in rest. The mere seat of the central tower astride of the church, so firm, so fixed, so serious, so defiant, is Norman, like the seat of the Abbey Church on the Mount; and at Falaise, where William the Bastard was born, we shall see a central tower on the church which is William himself, in armour, on horseback, ready to 48 MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES fight for the Church, and perhaps, in his bad moods, against it. Such militant churches were capable of forcing Heaven itself; all of them look as though they had fought at Hastings or stormed Jerusalem. Wherever the Norman central clocher stands, the Church Militant of the eleventh century survives; – not the Church of Mary Queen, but of Michael the Archangel; – not the Church of Christ, but of God the Father — Who never lied Taken together with the flèches of the façade, this clocher of Cou- tances forms a group such as one very seldom sees. The two towers of the façade are something apart, quite by themselves among the innumerable church-towers of the Gothic time. We have got a happy summer before us, merely in looking for these church-towers. There is no livelier amusement for fine weather than in hunting them as though they were mushrooms, and no study in architecture nearly so delight- ful. No work of man has life like the flèche. One sees it for a greater distance and feels it for a longer time than is possible with any other human structure, unless it be the dome. There is more play of light on the octagonal faces of the fléche as the sun moves around them than can be got out of the square or the cone or any other combination of surfaces. For some reason, the facets of the hexagon or octagon are more pleasing than the rounded surfaces of the cone, and Normandy is said to be peculiarly the home of this particularly Gothic church ornament; yet clochers and flèches are scattered all over France until one gets to look for them on the horizon as though every church in every hamlet were an architectural monument. Hundreds of them literally are so, - Monuments Historiques, – protected by the Government; but when you undertake to compare them, or to decide whether they are more beautiful in Normandy than in the Île de France, or in Burgundy, or on the Loire or the Charente, you are lost. Even the superiority of the octagon is not evident to everyone. Over the little church at Fenioux on the Charente, not very far from La Rochelle, is a conical steeple that an infidel might adore; and if you NORMANDY AND THE II.E DE FRANCE 49 have to decide between provinces, you must reckon with the decision of architects and amateurs, who seem to be agreed that the first of all flèches is at Chartres, the second at Vendôme, not far from Blois in Touraine, and the third at Auxerre in Burgundy. The towers of Coutances are not in the list, nor are those at Bayeux nor those at Caen. France is rich in art. Yet the towers of Coutances are in some ways as interesting, if not as beautiful, as the best. The two stone flèches here, with their octagon faces, do not descend, as in other churches, to their resting-place on a square tower, with the plan of junction more or less disguised; they throw out nests of smaller flèches, and these cover buttressing corner towers, with lines that go directly to the ground. Whether the artist consciously intended it or not, the effect is to broaden the façade and lift it into the air. The façade itself has a distinctly military look, as though a fortress had been altered into a church. A charming arcade at the top has the air of being thrown across in order to disguise the alteration, and perhaps Owes much of its charm to the contrast it makes with the severity of military lines. Even the great west window looks like an afterthought; one's instinct asks for a blank wall. Yet, from the ground up to the cross on the spire, one feels the Norman nature throughout, animating the whole, uniting it all, and crowding into it an intelligent variety of original motives that would build a dozen churches of late Gothic, Nothing about it is stereotyped or conventional, - not even the con- ventionality. If you have any doubts about this, you have only to compare the photograph of Coutances with the photograph of Chartres; and yet, surely, the façade of Chartres is severe enough to satisfy Saint Bernard . himself. With the later fronts of Rheims and Amiens, there is no field for comparison; they have next to nothing in common; yet Coutances is said to be of the same date with Rheims, or nearly so, and one can believe it when one enters the interior. The Normans, as they slowly reveal themselves, disclose most unexpected qualities; one seems to 50 MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES sound subterranean caverns of feeling hidden behind their iron nasals. No other cathedral in France or in Europe has an interior more re- fined – one is tempted to use even the hard-worn adjective, more tender – or more carefully studied. One test is crucial here and every- where. The treatment of the apse and choir is the architect's severest standard. This is a subject not to be touched lightly; one to which we shall have to come back in a humble spirit, prepared for patient study, at Chartres; but the choir of Coutances is a cousin to that of Chartres, as the façades are cousins; Coutances like Chartres belongs to Notre Dame and is felt in the same spirit; the church is built for the choir and apse, rather than for the nave and transepts; for the Virgin rather than for the public. In one respect Coutances is even more delicate in the feminine charm of the Virgin's peculiar grace than Chartres, but this was an afterthought of the fourteenth century. The system of chapels radiating about the apse was extended down the nave, in an arrange- ment “so beautiful and so rare,” according to Viollet-le-Duc, that one shall seek far before finding its equal. Among the unexpected revela- tions of human nature that suddenly astonish historians, one of the least reasonable was the passionate outbreak of religious devotion to the ideal of feminine grace, charity, and love that took place here in Normandy while it was still a part of the English kingdom, and flamed up into almost fanatical frenzy among the most hard-hearted and hard-headed race in Europe. So in this church, in the centre of this arrangement of apse and chapels with their quite unusual — perhaps quite singular – grace, the four huge piers which support the enormous central tower, offer a tour de force almost as exceptional as the refinement of the chapels. At Mont-Saint-Michel, among the monks, the union of strength and grace was striking, but at Coutances it is exaggerated, like Tristram and Iseult, — a roman of chivalry. The four “enormous” columns of the croisée, carry, as Viollet-le-Duc says, the “enormous octagonal tower,” – like Saint Christopher supporting the Christ-child, before NORMANDY AND THE ILE DE FRANCE 5.I the image of the Virgin, in her honour. Nothing like this can be seen at Chartres, or at any of the later palaces which France built for the pleasure of the Queen of Heaven. We are slipping into the thirteenth century again; the temptation is terrible to feeble minds and tourist natures; but a great mass of twelfth- and eleventh-century work remains to be seen and felt. To go back is not so easy as to begin with it; the heavy round arch is like old cognac compared with the champagne of the pointed and fretted spire; one must not quit Coutances without making an excursion to Lessay on the road to Cherbourg, where is a church of the twelfth century, with a Square tower and almost untouched Norman interior, that closely repeats the Abbey Church at Mont-Saint-Michel. “One of the most Complete models of Romanesque architecture to be found in Nor- mandy,” says M. de Caumont. The central clocher will begin a pho- tographic collection of square towers, to replace that which was lost On the Mount; and a second example is near Bayeux, at a small place called Cérisy-la-Forêt, where the church matches that on the Mount, according to M. Corroyer; for Cérisy-la-Forêt was also an abbey, and the church, built by Richard II, Duke of Normandy, at the beginning of the eleventh century, was larger than that on the Mount. It still keeps its central tower. f All this is intensely Norman, and is going to help very little in France; it would be more useful in England; but at Bayeux is a great cathedral much more to the purpose, with two superb western towers crowned by stone flèches, cousins of those at Coutances, and distinctly related to the twelfth-century flèche at Chartres. “The Normans,” says Viollet-le-Duc, “had not that instinct of proportion which the architects of the ile de France, Beauvais, and Soissons possessed to a high degree; yet the boldness of their constructions, their perfect exe- cution, the elevation of the flèches, had evident influence on the French school properly called, and that influence is felt in the old spire of Chartres.” The Norman seemed to show distinction in another 52 MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES respect which the French were less quick to imitate. What they began, they completed. Not one of the great French churches has two stone spires complete, of the same age, while each of the little towns of Coutances, Bayeux, and Caen contains its twin towers and flèches of stone, as solid and perfect now as they were seven hundred years ago. Still another Norman character is worth noting, because this is one part of the influence felt at Chartres. If you look carefully at the two western towers of the Bayeux Cathedral, perhaps you will feel what is said to be the strength of the way they are built up. They rise from their foundation with a quiet confidence of line and support, which passes directly up to the weather-cock on the summit of the flèches. At the plane where the square tower is changed into the Octagon spire, you will see the corner turrets and the long intermediate windows which effect the change without disguising it. One can hardly call it a device; it is so simple and evident a piece of construction that it does not need to be explained; yet you will have to carry a photo- graph of this flèche to Chartres, and from there to Vendôme, for there is to be a great battle of flèches about this point of junction, and the Norman scheme is a sort of standing reproach to the French. Coutances and Bayeux are interesting, but Caen is a Romanesque Mecca. There William the Conqueror dealt with the same architec- tural problems, and put his solution in his Abbaye-aux-Hommes, which bears the name of Saint Stephen. Queen Matilda put her solu- tion into her Abbaye-aux-Femmes, the Church of the Trinity. One Ought particularly to look at the beautiful central clocher of the church at Vaucelles in the suburbs; and one must drive out to Thaon to see its eleventh-century church, with a charming Romanesque blind arcade on the Outside, and a little clocher, “the more interesting to us,” according to Viollet-le-Duc, “because it bears the stamp of the tradi- tions of defence of the primitive towers which were built over the ' Even “a sort of chemin de ronde” remains around the clocher, perhaps once provided with a parapet of defence. “C'est là, porches.’ NORMANDY AND THE fle DE FRANCE 53 du reste, un charmant édifice.” A tower with stone flèche, which actu- ally served for defence in a famous recorded instance, is that of the church at Secoueville, not far off; this beautiful tower, as charming as anything in Norman art, is known to have served as a fortress in I IOS, which gives a valuable date. The pretty old Romanesque front of the little church at Ouistreham, with its portal that seems to come fresh from Poitiers and Moissac, can be taken in, while driving past; but we must on no account fail to make a serious pilgrimage to Saint-Pierre- sur-Dives, where the church-tower and flèche are not only classed among the best in Normandy, but have an exact date, II45, and a very close relation with Chartres, as will appear. Finally, if for no other reason, at least for interest in Arlette, the tanner's daughter, one must go to Falaise, and look at the superb clocher of Saint-Gervais, which was finished and consecrated by II35. ; Some day, if you like, we can follow this Romanesque style to the south, and on even to Italy where it may be supposed to have been born; but France had an architectural life fully a thousand years old when these twelfth-century churches were built, and was long since artistically, as she was politically, independent. The Normans were new in France, but not the Romanesque architecture; they only took the forms and stamped on them their own character. It is the stamp we want to distinguish, in Order to trace up our lines of artistic ances- try. The Norman twelfth-century stamp was not easily effaced. If we have not seen enough of it at Mont-Saint-Michel, Coutances, Bayeux, and Caen, we can go to Rouen, and drive out to Boscherville, and visit the ruined Abbey of Jumièges. Wherever there is a church-tower with a tall flèche, as at Boscherville, Secoueville, Saint-Pierre-sur- Dives, Caen, and Bayeux, Viollet-le-Duc bids notice how the octag- onal steeple is fitted on to the Square tower. Always the passage from the octagon to the square seems to be quite simply made. The Gothic or Romanesque spire had the advantage that a wooden flèche was as reasonable a covering for it as a stone one, and the Normans might 54 MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES have indulged in freaks of form very easily, if they chose, but they seem never to have thought of it. The nearest approach to the free- dom of wooden roofs is not in the lofty flèches, but in the covering of the great square central towers, like Falaise or Vaucelles, a huge four- sided roof which tries to be a flèche, and is as massive as the heavy structure it covers. The last of the Norman towers that Viollet-le-Duc insists upon is the so-called Clocher de Saint-Romain, the northern tower on the west front of the Cathedral of Rouen. Unfortunately it has lost its primi- tive octagon flèche if it ever had one, but “the tower remains entire, and,” according to Viollet-le-Duc, “is certainly one of the most beau- tiful in this part of France; it offers a mixture of the two styles of the ile de France and of N ormandy, in which the former element domin- ates”; it is of the same date as the old tower of Chartres (II40–60), and follows the same interior arrangement; “but here the petty, con- fused disposition of the Norman towers, with their division into stories of equal height, has been adopted by the French master builder, although in submitting to these local customs he has still thrown over his work the grace and finesse, the study of detail, the sobriety in projections, the perfect harmony between the profiles, sculpture, and the general effect of the whole, which belong to the School he came from. He has managed his voids and solids with especial cleverness, giving the more importance to the voids, and enlarging the scale of his details, as the tower rose in height. These details have great beauty; the construction is executed in materials of small dimensions with the care that the twelfth-century architects put into their building; the profiles project little, and, in spite of their extreme finesse, produce much effect; the buttresses are skilfully planted and profiled. The staircase, which, on the east side, deranges the arrangement of the bays, is a chef-d'oeuvre of architecture.” This long panegyric, by Viollet-le-Duc, on French taste at the expense of Norman temper, ought to be read, book in hand, before the Cathedral NORMANDY AND THE II.E DE FRANCE 55 of Rouen, with photographs of Bayeux to compare. Certain it is that the Normans and the French never talked quite the same language, but it is equally certain that the Norman language, to the English ear, expressed itself quite as clearly as the French, and sometimes seemed to have more to express. The complaint of the French artist against the Norman is the “mesquin” treatment of dividing his tower into storeys of equal height. Even in the twelfth century and in religious architecture, artists already struggled over the best solution of this particularly American problem of the twentieth century, and when tourists return to New York, they may look at the twenty-storey towers which deco- rate the city, to see whether the Norman or the French plan has won; but this, at least, will be sure in advance: — the Norman will be the practical scheme which states the facts, and stops; while the French will be the graceful one, which states the beauties, and more or less fits the facts to suit them. Both styles are great: both can sometimes be tiresome. Here we must take leave of Normandy; a small place, but one which, like Attica or Tuscany, has said a great deal to the world, and even goes on saying things — not often in the famous genre ennuyeux — to this day; for Gustave Flaubert's style is singularly like that of the Tour Saint-Romain and the Abbaye-aux-Hommes. Going up the Seine one might read a few pages of his letters, or of “Madame de Bovary,” to see how an old art transmutes itself into a new one, with- out changing its methods. Some critics have thought that at times Flaubert was mesquin like the Norman tower, but these are, as the French say, the defects of his qualities; we can pass over them, and let our eyes rest on the simplicity of the Norman flèche which pierces the line of our horizon. The last of Norman art is seen at Mantes, where there is a little church of Gassicourt that marks the farthest reach of the style. In arms as in architecture, Mantes barred the path of Norman conquest; 56 MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES William the Conqueror met his death here in Io87. Geographically Mantes is in the Île de France, less than forty miles from Paris. Architecturally, it is Paris itself; while, forty miles to the southward, is Chartres, an independent or only feudally dependent country. No matter how hurried the architectural tourist may be, the boundary- line of the Île de France is not to be crossed without stopping. If he came down from the north or east, he would have equally to stop, — either at Beauvais, or at Laon, or Noyon, or Soissons, – because there is an architectural douane to pass, and one's architectural baggage must be opened. Neither Notre Dame de Paris nor Notre Dame de Chartres is quite intelligible unless one has first seen Notre Dame de Mantes, and studied it in the sacred sources of M. Viollet-le-Duc. Notre Dame de Mantes is a sister to the Cathedral of Paris, “built at the same time, perhaps by the same architect, and reproducing its general dispositions, its mode of structure, and some of its details”; but the Cathedral of Paris has been greatly altered, so that its original arrangement is quite changed, while the church at Mantes remains practically as it was, when both were new, about the year I2OO. As nearly as the dates can be guessed, the cathedral was finished, up to its vaulting, in II 70, and was soon afterwards imitated on a smaller scale at Mantes. The scheme seems to have been unsatisfactory because of defects in the lighting, for the whole system of fenestration had been changed at Paris before I230, naturally at great cost, since the alterations, according to Viollet-le-Duc (articles “Cathedral” and “Rose,” and allusions “Triforium”), left little except the ground-plan unchanged. To understand the Paris design of II60–70, which was a long advance from the older plans, one must come to Mantes; and, reflecting that the great triumph of Chartres was its fenestration, which must have been designed immediately after II95, one can under- stand how, in this triangle of churches only forty or fifty miles apart, the architects, watching each other's experiments, were influenced, almost from day to day, by the failures or successes which they saw NORMANDY AND THE ICE DE FRANCE 57 The fenestration which the Paris architect planned in II60–70, and repeated at Mantes, II90–1200, was wholly abandoned, and a new system introduced, immediately after the success of Chartres in I2 IO. As they now stand, Mantes is the oldest. While conscientiously trying to keep as far away as we can from technique, about which we know nothing and should care if possible still less if only ignorance would help us to feel what we do not understand, still the conscience is happier if it gains a little conviction, founded on what it thinks a fact. Even theologians — even the great theologians of the thirteenth century — even Saint Thomas Aquinas himself — did not trust to faith alone, or assume the existence of God; and what Saint Thomas found necessary in philosophy may also be a sure source of consolation in the difficulties of art. The church at Mantes is a very early fact in Gothic art; indeed, it is one of the earliest; for our purposes it will serve as the very earliest of pure Gothic churches, after the Transition, and this we are told to study in its windows. Before one can get near enough fairly to mark the details of the façade, one sees the great rose window which fills a space nearly twenty-seven feet in width. Gothic fanatics commonly reckon the great rose windows of the thirteenth century as the most beautiful creation of their art, among the details of ornament; and this particu- lar rose is the direct parent of that at Chartres, which is classic like the Parthenon, while both of them served as models or guides for that at Paris which dates from 1220, those in the north and south transepts at Rheims, about 1230, and so on, from parent to child, till the rose faded forever. No doubt there were Romanesque roses before I2Oo, and we shall see them, but this rose of Mantes is the first Gothic rose of great dimensions, and that from which the others grew; in its sim- plicity, its honesty, its large liberality of plan, it is also one of the best, if M. Viollet-le-Duc is a true guide; but you will see a hundred roses, first or last, and can choose as you would among the flowers. More interesting than even the great rose of the portal is the remark 58 MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES that the same rose-motive is carried round the church throughout its entire system of fenestration. As one follows it, on the outside, one sees that all the windows are constructed on the same rose-scheme; but the most curious arrangement is in the choir inside the church. You look up to each of the windows through a sort of tunnel or telescope: an arch enlarging outwards, the roses at the end resembling “oeil-de- boeufs,” “oculi.” So curious is this arrangement that Viollet-le-Duc has shown it, under the head “Triforium,” in drawings and sections which any one can study who likes; its interest to us is that this arrangement in the choir was probably the experiment which proved a failure in Notre Dame at Paris, and led to the tearing-out the old windows and substituting those which still stand. Perhaps the rose did not give enough light, although the church at Mantes seems well lighted, and even at Paris the rose windows remain in the transepts and in one bay of the nave. All this is introduction to the windows of Chartres, but these three churches open another conundrum as one learns, bit by bit, a few of the questions to be asked of the forgotten Middle Ages. The church- towers at Mantes are very interesting, inside and out; they are evi- dently studied with love and labour by their designer; yet they have no flèches. How happens it that Notre Dame at Paris also has no flèches, although the towers, according to Viollet-le-Duc, are finished in full preparation for them? This double omission on the part of the French architect seems exceedingly strange, because his rival at Chartres finished his flèche just when the architect of Paris and Mantes was finishing his towers (II.75–1200). The Frenchman was certainly consumed by jealousy at the triumph never attained on any- thing like the same scale by any architect of the Île de France; and he was actually engaged at the time on at least two flèches, close to Paris, one at Saint-Denis, another of Saint-Leu-d'Esserent, which proved the active interest he took in the difficulties conquered at Chartres, and his perfect competence to deal with them. - } } { { | -- | | - - - • • · · · - | - | | | - - | | - º - | | - | | | CAEN : THE ** ABBAYE AUX DAMES '' NORMANDY AND THE ilE DE FRANCE 59 Indeed, one is tempted to say that these twin churches, Paris and Mantes, are the only French churches of the time (I2OO) which were left without a flèche. As we go from Mantes to Paris, we pass, about half-way, at Poissy, under the towers of a very ancient and interesting church which has the additional merit of having witnessed the bap- tism of Saint Louis in I2 I5. Parts of the church at Poissy go back to the seventh and ninth centuries. The square base of the tower dates back before the time of Hugh Capet, to the Carolingian age, and belongs, like the square tower of Saint-Germain-des-Prés at Paris, to the old defensive military architecture; but it has a later, stone flèche and it has, too, by exception a central octagonal clocher, with a timber flèche which dates from near II.O.O. Paris itself has not much to show, but in the immediate neighbourhood are a score of early churches with charming flèches, and at Étampes, about thirty-five miles to the south, is an extremely interesting church with an exquisite flèche, which may claim an afternoon to visit. That at Saint-Leu-d'Esserent is a still easier excursion, for one need only drive over from Chantilly a couple of miles. The fascinating old Abbey Church of Saint-Leu looks down over the valley of the Oise, and is a sort of antechamber to Chartres, as far as concerns architecture. Its flèche, built towards II60, - when that at Chartres was rising, — is unlike any other, and shows how much the French architects valued their lovely French creation. On its Octagonal faces, it carries upright batons, or lances, as a device for relieving the severity of the outlines; a device both intelligent and amusing, though it was never imitated. A little farther from Paris, at Senlis, is another flèche, which shows still more plainly the effort of the French architects to vary and elaborate the Chartres scheme. As for Laon, which is interesting throughout, and altogether the most delightful building in the Ile de France, the flèches are gone, but the towers are there, and you will have to study them, before study- ing those at Chartres, with all the intelligence you have to spare. They were the chef-d'oeuvre of the mediaeval architect, in his own opinion. 6o MONT—SAINT-MICHEL AND CHARTRES' All this makes the absence of flèches at Paris and Mantes the more strange. Want of money was certainly not the cause, since the Paris- ians had money enough to pull their whole cathedral to pieces at the very time when flèches were rising in half the towns within sight of them. Possibly they were too ambitious, and could find no design that seemed to satisfy their ambition. They took pride in their cathedral, and they tried hard to make their shrine of Our Lady rival the great shrine at Chartres. Of course, one must study their beautiful church, but this can be done at leisure, for, as it stands, it is later than Chartres and more conventional. Saint-Germain-des-Prés leads more directly to Chartres; but perhaps the church most useful to know is no longer a church at all, but a part of the Museum of Arts et Métiers, – the desecrated Saint-Martin-des-Champs, a name which shows that it dates from a time when the present Porte-Saint-Martin was far out among fields. The choir of Saint-Martin, which is all that needs noting, is said by M. Enlart to date from about II50. Hidden in a remnant of old Paris near the Pont Notre Dame, where the student life of the Middle Ages was to be most turbulent and the Latin Quarter most renowned, is the little church of Saint-Julien-le-Pauvre, towards II 70. On the whole, further search in Paris would not greatly help us. If one is to pursue the early centuries, one must go farther afield, for the schools of Normandy and the Île de France were only two among half a dozen which flourished in the various provinces that were to be united in the kingdom of Saint Louis and his successors. We have not even looked to the South and east, whence the impulse came. The old Carolingian School, with its centre at Aix-la-Chapelle, is quite beyond Our horizon. The Rhine had a great Romanesque architecture of its own. One broad architectural tide swept up the Rhone and filled the Burgundian provinces as far as the watershed of the Seine. Another lined the Mediterranean, with a centre at Arles. Another spread up the western rivers, the Charente and the Loire, reaching to Le Mans and touching Chartres. Two more lay in the centre of France, spread- NORMANDY AND THE iDE DE FRANCE 61 ing from Périgord and Clermont in Auvergne. All these schools had individual character, and all have charm; but we have set out to go from Mont-Saint-Michel to Chartres in three centuries, the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth, trying to get, on the way, not technical knowl- edge; not accurate information; not correct views either on history, art, or religion; not anything that can possibly be useful or instructive; but only a sense of what those centuries had to say, and a sympathy with their ways of saying it. Let us go straight to Chartres! CHAPTER v TOWERS AND PORTALS OR a first visit to Chartres, choose some pleasant morning when the lights are soft, for one wants to be welcome, and the cathe- dral has moods, at times severe. At best, the Beauce is a country none too gay. - The first glimpse that is caught, and the first that was meant to be caught, is that of the two spires. With all the education that Nor- mandy and the Île de France can give, one is still ignorant. The spire is the simplest part of the Romanesque or Gothic architecture, and needs least study in order to be felt. It is a bit of sentiment almost pure of practical purpose. It tells the whole of its story at a glance, and its story is the best that architecture had to tell, for it typified the aspira- tions of man at the moment when man's aspirations were highest. Yet nine persons out of ten — perhaps ninety-nine in a hundred — who come within sight of the two spires of Chartres will think it a jest if they are told that the smaller of the two, the simpler, the one that impresses them least, is the one which they are expected to recognize as the most perfect piece of architecture in the world. Perhaps the French critics might deny that they make any such absolute claim; in that case you can ask them what their exact claim is; it will always be high enough to astonish the tourist. Astonished or not, we have got to take this southern spire of the Chartres Cathedral as the object of serious study, and before taking it as art, must take it as history. The foundations of this tower — always to be known as the “old tower” — are supposed to have been laid in Io91, before the first crusade. The flèche was probably half a century later (II.45-70). The foundations of the new tower, opposite, were laid not before IIIo, when also the portal which stands between . . . . ---- №- CHARTRES CATHEDRAL TOWERS AND PORTALS 63 them, was begun with the three lancet windows above it, but not the rose. For convenience, this old façade – including the portal and the two towers, but not the flèches, and the three lancet windows, but not the rose — may be dated as complete about II50. Originally the whole portal — the three doors and the three lancets — stood nearly forty feet back, on the line of the interior foundation, or rear wall of the towers. This arrangement threw the towers forward, free on three sides, as at Poitiers, and gave room for a parvis, before the portal, - a porch, roofed over, to protect the pilgrims who always stopped there to pray before entering the church. When the church was rebuilt after the great fire of II94, and the architect was required to enlarge the interior, the old portal and lancets were moved bodily forward, to be flush with the front walls of the two towers, as you see the façade to-day; and the façade itself was heightened, to give room for the rose, and to cover the loftier pignon and vaulting behind. Finally, the wooden roof, above the stone vault, was masked by the Arcade of Kings and its railing, completed in the taste of Philip the Hardy, who reigned from 1270 to 1285. These changes have, of course, altered the values of all the parts. The portal is injured by being thrown into a glare of light, when it was intended to stand in shadow, as you will see in the north and south porches over the transept portals. The towers are hurt by losing relief and shadow; but the old flèche is obliged to suffer the cruellest wrong of all by having its right shoulder hunched up by half of a huge rose and the whole of a row of kings, when it was built to stand free, and to soar above the whole façade from the top of its second storey. One can easily figure it so and replace the lost parts of the old façade, more or less at haphazard, from the front of Noyon. What an Outrage it was you can see by a single glance at the new flèche opposite. The architect of 1500 has flatly refused to submit to such conditions, and has insisted, with very proper self-respect, on starting from the balustrade of the Arcade of Kings as his level. Not 64 MONT—SAINT-MICHEL AND CHART RES even content with that, he has carried up his square tower another lofty storey before he would consent to touch the heart of his problem, the conversion of the square tower into the octagon flèche. In doing this, he has sacrificed once more the old flèche; but his own tower stands free as it should. . At Vendôme, when you go there, you will be in a way to appreciate still better what happened to the Chartres flèche; for the clocher at Vendôme, which is of the same date, –Viollet-le-Duc says earlier, and Enlart, “after II3o,” — stood and still stands free, like an Italian campanile, which gives it a vast advantage. The tower of Saint-Leu- d'Esserent, also after II 30, stands free, above the second storey. Indeed, you will hardly find, in the long list of famous French spires, another which has been treated with so much indignity as this, the greatest and most famous of all; and perhaps the most annoying part of it is that you must be grateful to the architect of II95 for doing no worse. He has, on the contrary, done his best to show respect for the work of his predecessor, and has done so well that, handicapped as it is, the old tower still defies rivalry. Nearly three hundred and fifty feet high, or, to be exact, IO6.5 metres from the church floor, it is built up with an amount of intelligence and refinement that leaves to unpro- fessional visitors no chance to think a criticism — much less to express one. Perhaps — when we have seen more — and feel less —who knows? — but certainly not now! “The greatest and surely the most beautiful monument of this kind that we possess in France,” says Viollet-le-Duc; but although an ignorant spectator must accept the architect's decision on a point of relative merit, no one is compelled to accept his reasons, as final. “There is no need to dwell,” he continues, “upon the beauty and the grandeur of composition in which the artist has given proof of rare sobriety, where all the effects are obtained, not by ornaments, but by the just and skilful proportion of the different parts. The transition, so hard to adjust, between the Square base and the Octagon of the flèche, TOWERS AND PORTALS 65 is managed and carried out with an address which has not been sur- passed in similar monuments.” One stumbles a little at the word “adresse.” One never caught one's self using the word in Norman churches. Your photographs of Bayeux or Boscherville or Secoue- ville will show you at a glance whether the term “adresse” applies to them. Even Vendôme would rather be praised for “droiture” than for “adresse.”—Whether the word “adresse” means cleverness, dex- terity, adroitness, or simple technical skill, the thing itself is some- thing which the French have always admired more than the Normans ever did. Viollet-le-Duc himself seems to be a little uncertain whether to lay most stress on the one or the other quality: “If one tries to appreciate the conception of this tower,” quotes the Abbé Bulteau (II, 84), “one will see that it is as frank as the execution is simple and skilful. Starting from the bottom, one reaches the summit of the flèche without marked break; without anything to interrupt the gen- eral form of the building. This clocher, whose base is broad (pleine), y massive, and free from Ornament, transforms itself, as it springs, into a sharp spire with eight faces, without its being possible to say where the massive construction ends and the light construction begins.” Granting, as one must, that this concealment of the transition is a beauty, one would still like to be quite sure that the Chartres scheme is the best. The Norman clochers being thrown out, and that at Ven- dôme being admittedly simple, the Clocher de Saint-Jean on the Church of Saint-Germain at Auxerre seems to be thought among the next in importance, although it is only about one hundred and sixty feet in height (forty-nine metres), and therefore hardly in the same class with Chartres. Any photograph shows that the Auxerre spire is also simple; and that at Étampes you have seen already to be of the Vendôme rather than of the Chartres type. The clocher at Senlis is more “habile”; it shows an effort to be clever, and offers a standard of comparison; but the mediaeval architects seem to have thought that none of them bore rivalry with Laon for technical skill. One of these 66 MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES professional experts, named Villard de Honnecourt, who lived between 1200 and 1250, left a notebook which you can see in the vitrines of the Bibliothèque Nationale in the Rue Richelieu, and which is the Source of most that is known about the practical ideas of mediaeval architects. He came to Chartres, and, standing here before the doors, where we are standing, he made a rough drawing, not of the tower, but of the rose, which was then probably new, since it must have been planned between I 195 and I2OO. Apparently the tower did not impress him strongly, for he made no note of it; but on the other hand, when he went to Laon, he became vehement in praise of the cathedral tower there, which must have been then quite new: “I have been in many countries, as you can find in this book. In no place have I ever such a tower seen as that of Laon. — J'ai esté en mult de tieres, si cum vus porés trover en cest livre. En aucun liu onques tel torne vicom est cele de Loon.” The reason for this admiration is the same that Viollet- le-Duc gives for admiring the tower of Chartres — the “adresse” with which the square is changed into the octagon. Not only is the tower itself changed into the flèche without visible junction, under cover of four corner tourelles, of open work, on slender columns, which start as squares; but the tourelles also convert themselves into octagons in the very act of rising, and end in Octagon flèches that carry up — or once carried up—the lines of profile to the central flèche that soared above them. Clearly this device far surpassed in cleverness the scheme of Chartres, which was comparatively heavy and structural, the weights being adjusted for their intended work, while the transformation at Laon takes place in the air, and challenges discovery in defiance of one's keenest eyesight. “Regard . . . how the tourelles pass from one disposition to another, in rising! Meditate on it!” The flèche of Laon is gone, but the tower and tourelles are still there to show what the architects of the thirteenth century thought their most brilliant achievement. One cannot compare Chartres directly with any of its contemporary rivals, but one can at least compare the TOWERS AND PORTALS 67 old spire with the new one which stands opposite and rises above it. Perhaps you will like the new best. Built at a time which is commonly agreed to have had the highest standard of taste, it does not encourage tourist or artist to insist on setting up standards of his own against it. Begun in 1507, it was finished in I517. The dome of Saint Peter's at Rome, over which Bramante and Raphael and Michael Angelo toiled, was building at the same time; Leonardo da Vinci was working at Amboise; Jean Bullant, Pierre Lescot, and their patron, Francis I, were beginning their architectural careers. Four hundred years, or thereabouts, separated the old spire from the new one; and four hun- dred more separate the new one from us. If Viollet-le-Duc, who him- self built Gothic spires, had cared to compare his flèches at Clermont- Ferrand with the new flèche at Chartres, he might perhaps have given us a rule where “adresse” ceases to have charm, and where detail becomes tiresome; but in the want of a schoolmaster to lay down a law of taste, you can admire the new flèche as much as you please. Of course, one sees that the lines of the new tower are not clean, like those of the old; the devices that cover the transition from the square to the octagon are rather too obvious; the proportion of the flèche to the tower quite alters the values of the parts; a rigid classical taste might even go so far as to hint that the new tower, in comparison with the old, showed signs of a certain tendency toward a dim and distant vulgarity. There can be no harm in admitting that the new tower is a little wanting in repose for a tower whose business is to counterpoise the very classic lines of the old one; but no law compels you to insist on absolute repose in any form of art; if such a law existed, it would have to deal with Michael Angelo before it dealt with us. The new tower has many faults, but it has great beauties, as you can prove by comparing it with Other late Gothic spires, including those of Viollet-le-Duc. Its chief fault is to be where it is. As a companion to the crusades and to Saint Bernard, it lacks austerity. As a companion to the Virgin of Chartres, it recalls Diane de Poitiers. 68 MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES In fact, the new tower, which in years is four centuries younger than its neighbour, is in feeling fully four hundred years older. It is self- conscious if not vain; its coiffure is elaborately arranged to cover the effects of age, and its neck and shoulders are covered with lace and jewels to hide a certain sharpness of skeleton. Yet it may be beautiful, still; the poets derided the wrinkles of Diane de Poitiers at the very moment when King Henry II idealized her with the homage of a Don Quixote; an atmosphere of physical beauty and decay hangs about the whole Renaissance. One cannot push these resemblances too far, even for the twelfth century and the old tower. Exactly what date the old tower repre- sents, as a social symbol, is a question that might be as much disputed as the beauty of Diane de Poitiers, and yet half the interest of archi- tecture consists in the sincerity of its reflection of the society that builds. In mere time, by actual date, the old tower represents the second crusade, and when, in II 50, Saint Bernard was elected chief of that crusade in this very cathedral, -or rather, in the cathedral of II2O, which was burned, - the workmen were probably setting in mor- tar the stones of the flèche as we now see them; yet the flèche does not represent Saint Bernard in feeling, for Saint Bernard held the whole array of church-towers in horror as signs merely of display, wealth and pride. The flèche rather represents Abbot Suger of Saint-Denis, Abbot Peter the Venerable of Cluny, Abbot Abélard of Saint-Gildas-de- Rhuys, and Queen Eleanor of Guienne, who had married Louis-le- Jeune in II37; who had taken the cross from Saint Bernard in II.47; who returned from the Holy Land in II49; and who compelled Saint Bernard to approve her divorce in II52. Eleanor and Saint Bernard were centuries apart, yet they lived at the same time and in the same church. Speaking exactly, the old tower represents neither of them; the new tower itself is hardly more florid than Eleanor was; perhaps less so, if one can judge from the fashions of the court-dress of her time. The old tower is almost Norman, while Eleanor was wholly TOWERS AND PORTALS - 69 Gascon, and Gascony was always florid without being always correct. The new tower, if it had been built in II50, like the old one, would have expressed Eleanor perfectly, even in height and apparent effort to dwarf its mate, except that Eleanor dwarfed her husband without an effort, and both in art and in history the result lacked harmony. Be the contrast what it may, it does not affect the fact that no other church in France has two spires that need be discussed in comparison with these. Indeed, no other cathedral of the same class has any spires at all, and this superiority of Chartres gave most of its point to a saying that “with the spires of Chartres, the choir of Beauvais, the nave of Amiens, and the façade of Rheims,” one could make a perfect church — for us tourists. The towers have taken much time, though they are the least religious and least complicated part of church architecture, and in no way essential to the church; indeed, Saint Bernard thought them an excrescence due to pride and worldliness, and this is merely Saint Bernard's way of saying that they were an ornament created to gratify the artistic sense of beauty. Beautiful as they are, one's eyes must drop at last down to the church itself. If the spire symbolizes aspiration, the door symbolizes the way; and the portal of Chartres is the type of French doors; it stands first in the history of Gothic art; and, in the opinion of most Gothic artists, first in the interest of all art, though this is no concern of ours. Here is the Way to Eternal Life as it was seen by the Church and the Art of the first crusade! The fortune of this monument has been the best attested Miracle de la Vierge in the long list of the Virgin's miracles, for it comes down. practically unharmed, through what may with literal accuracy be called the jaws of destruction and the flames of hell. Built some time in the first half of the twelfth century, it passed, apparently un- scathed, through the great fire of IIQ4 which burnt out the church behind, and even the timber interior of the towers in front of it. Owing to the enormous mass of timber employed in the structure of 70 MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES the great churches, these recurrent fires were as destructive as fire can be made, yet not only the portals with their statuary and carving, but also the lancet windows with their glass, escaped the flames; and, what is almost equally strange, escaped also the hand of the builder afterwards, who, if he had resembled other architects, would have made a new front of his own, but who, with piety unexampled, tenderly took the old stones down, one by one, and replaced them forty feet in advance of their old position. The English wars and the wars of religion brought new dangers, sieges, and miseries; the revolu- tion of I792 brought actual rapine and waste; boys have flung Stone: at the saints; architects have wreaked their taste within and without" fire after fire has calcined the church vaults; the worst wrecker of all, the restorer of the nineteenth century, has prowled about it; yet the porch still stands, mutilated but not restored, burned but not con- sumed, as eloquent a witness to the power and perfections of Our Lady as it was seven hundred years ago, and perhaps more impressive, You will see portals and porches more or less of the same period elsewhere in many different places, – at Paris, Le Mans, Sens, Autun, Vézelay, Clermont-Ferrand, Moissac, Arles, – a score of them; for the same piety has protected them more than once; but you will see no other so complete or so instructive, and you may search far before you will find another equally good in workmanship. Study of the Chartres portal covers all the rest. The feeling and motive of all are nearly the same, or vary only to suit the character of the patron saint; and the point of all is that this feeling is the architectural child of the first crusade. At Chartres one can read the first crusade in the portal, as at Mont-Saint-Michel in the Aquilon and the promenoir. The Abbé Bulteau gives reason for assuming the year III.7 as the approximate date of the sculpture about the west portal, and you saw at Mont-Saint-Michel, in the promenoir of Abbot Roger II, an accurately dated work of the same decade; but whatever the date of the plan, the actual work and its spirit belong to II45 or thereabouts. |× ： ---- |× -ae ， !|- （ ） |×ſ.|- ： | CHARTRES: DETAIL OF WEST PORTAL TOWERS AND PORTALS 71 Some fifty years had passed since the crusaders streamed through Constantinople to Antioch and Jerusalem, and they were daily going and returning. You can see the ideas they brought back with the relics and missals and enamels they bought in Byzantium. Over the central door is the Christ, which might be sculptured after a Byzantine enamel, with its long nimbus or aureole or glory enclosing the whole figure. Over the left door is an Ascension, bearing the same stamp; and over the right door, the seated Virgin, with her crown and her two attendant archangels, is an empress. Here is the Church, the Way, and the Life of the twelfth century that we have undertaken to feel, if not to understand! First comes the central doorway, and above it is the glory of Christ, as the church at Chartres understood Christ in the year II.5o; for the glories of Christ were many, and the Chartres Christ is one. Whatever Christ may have been in other churches, here, on this portal, he offers himself to his flock as the herald of salvation alone. Among all the imagery of these three doorways, there is no hint of fear, punish- ment, or damnation, and this is the note of the whole time. Before I2OO, the Church seems not to have felt the need of appealing hab- itually to terror ; the promise of hope and happiness was enough ; even the portal at Autun, which displays a Last Judgment, belonged to Saint Lazarus the proof and symbol of resurrection. A hundred years later, every church portal showed Christ not as Saviour but as Judge, and He presided over a Last Judgment at Bourges and Amiens, and here on the south portal, where the despair of the damned is the evident joy of the artist, if it is not even sometimes a little his jest, which is worse. At Chartres Christ is identified with His Mother, the spirit of love and grace, and His Church is the Church Triumphant. Not only is fear absent; there is not even a suggestion of pain; there is not a martyr with the symbol of his martyrdom; and what is still more striking, in the sculptured life of Christ, from the Nativity to the Ascension, which adorns the capitals of the columns, the single scene 72 MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES that has been omitted is the Crucifixion. There, as everywhere in this portal, the artists seem actually to have gone out of their way in order to avoid a suggestion of suffering. They have pictured Christ and His Mother in all the other events of their lives; they have represented evangelists; apostles; the twenty-four old men of the Apocalypse; Saints, prophets, kings, queens, and princes, by the score; the signs of the zodiac, and even the seven liberal arts: grammar, rhetoric, dia- lectics, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music; everything is there except misery. Perhaps Our Lady of Chartres was known to be peculiarly gracious and gentle, and this may partially account also for the extreme popu- larity of her shrine; but whatever the reason, her church was clearly intended to show only this side of her nature, and to impress it on her Son. You can see it in the grave and gracious face and attitude of the Christ, raising His hand to bless you as you enter His kingdom; in the array of long figures which line the entrance to greet you as you pass; in the expression of majesty and mercy of the Virgin herself on her throne above the Southern doorway; never once are you regarded as a possible rebel, or traitor, or a stranger to be treated with suspicion, or as a child to be impressed by fear. - - Equally distinct, perhaps even more emphatic, is the sculptor's earnestness to make you feel, without direct insistence, that you are entering the Court of the Queen of Heaven who is one with her Son and His Church. The central door always bore the name of the “Royal Door,” because it belonged to the celestial majesty of Christ, and naturally bears the stamp of royalty; but the south door belongs to the Virgin and to us. Stop a moment to see how she receives us, remem- bering, or trying to remember, that to the priests and artists who designed the portal, and to the generations that went on the first and second Crusades, the Virgin in her shrine was at least as living, as real, as personal an empress as the Basilissa at Constantinople! On the lintel immediately above the doorway is a succession of small TOWERS AND PORTALS 73 groups: first, the Annunciation; Mary stands to receive the Archangel Gabriel, who comes to announce to her that she is chosen to be the Mother of God. The second is the Visitation, and in this scene also Mary stands, but she already wears a crown; at least, the Abbé Bul- teau says so, although time has dealt harshly with it. Then, in the centre, follows the Nativity; Mary lies on a low bed, beneath, or before, a sort of table or cradle on which lies the Infant, while Saint Joseph stands at the bed's head. Then the angel appears, directing three shepherds to the spot, filling the rest of the space. In correct theology, the Virgin ought not to be represented in bed, for she could not suffer like ordinary women, but her palace at Chartres is not much troubled by theology, and to her, as empress-mother, the pain of child-birth was a pleasure which she wanted her people to share. The Virgin of Chartres was the greatest of all queens, but the most womanly of women, as we shall see; and her double character is sustained throughout her palace. She was also intellectually gifted in the highest degree. In the upper zone you see her again, at the Presentation in the Temple, supporting the Child Jesus on the altar, while Simeon aids. Other figures bring offerings. The voussures of the arch above contain six archangels, with curious wings, offering wor- ship to the Infant and His Imperial Mother. Below are the signs of the zodiac; the Fishes and the Twins. The rest of the arch is filled by the seven liberal arts, with Pythagoras, Aristotle, Cicero, Euclid, Nico- machus, Ptolemy, and Priscian as their representatives, testifying to the Queen's intellectual superiority. In the centre sits Mary, with her crown on her head and her Son in her lap, enthroned, receiving the homage of heaven and earth; of all time, ancient and modern; of all thought, Christian and Pagan; of all men, and all women; including, if you please, your homage and mine, which she receives without question, as her due; which she cannot be said to claim, because she is above making claims; she is empress. Her left hand bore a sceptre; her right supported the Child, Who looks * 74 MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES directly forward, repeating the Mother's attitude, and raises His right hand to bless, while His left rests on the orb of empire. She and her Child are one. All this was noble beyond the nobility of man, but its earthly form was inspired by the Empire rather than by the petty royalty of Louis- le-Gros or his pious queen Alix of Savoy. One mark of the period is the long, oval nimbus; another is the imperial character of the Virgin; a third is her unity with the Christ which is the Church. To us, the mark that will distinguish the Virgin of Chartres, or, if you prefer, the Virgin of the Crusades, is her crown and robes and throne. According to M. Rohault de Fleury's “Iconographie de la Sainte Vierge” (II, 62), the Virgin's headdress and ornaments had been for long ages borrowed from the costume of the Empresses of the East in honour of the Queen of Heaven. No doubt the Virgin of Chartres was the Virgin recog- nized by the Empress Helena, mother of Constantine, and was at least as old as Helena's pilgrimage to Jerusalem in 326. She was not a West- ern, feudalqueen, nor was her Son a feudal king; she typified an author- ity which the people wanted, and the fiefs feared; the Pax Romana; the omnipotence of God in government. In all Europe, at that time, there was no power able to enforce justice or to maintain order, and no sym- bol of such a power except Christ and His Mother and the Imperial Crown. This idea is very different from that which was the object of our pilgrimage to Mont-Saint-Michel; but since all Chartres is to be one long comment upon it, you can lay the history of the matter on the shelf for study at your leisure, if you ever care to study into the weary details of human illusions and disappointments, while here we pray to the Virgin, and absorb ourselves in the art, which is your pleasure and which shall not teach either a moral or a useful lesson. The Empress Mary is receiving you at her portal, and whether you are an imperti- nent child, or a foolish old peasant-woman, or an insolent prince, or a more insolent tourist, she receives you with the same dignity; in fact, TOWERS AND PORTALS 75 she probably sees very little difference between you. An empress of Russia to-day would probably feel little difference in the relative rank of her subjects, and the Virgin was empress over emperors, patriarchs, and popes. Any one, however ignorant, can feel the sustained dignity of the sculptor's work, which is asserted with all the emphasis he could put into it. Not one of these long figures which line the three doorways but is an officer or official in attendance on the Empress or her Son, and bears the stamp of the Imperial Court. They are mutilated, but, if they have been treated with indignity, so were often their temporal rivals, torn to pieces, trampled on, to say nothing of being merely beheaded or poisoned, in the Sacred Palace and the Hippodrome, with- out losing that peculiar Oriental dignity of style which seems to drape the least dignified attitudes. The grand air of the twelfth century is Something like that of a Greek temple; you can, if you like, hammer every separate stone to pieces, but you cannot hammer out the Greek style. There were originally twenty-four of these statues, and nineteen remain. Beginning at the north end, and passing over the first figure, which carries a head that does not belong to it, notice the second, a king with a long sceptre of empire, a book of law, and robes of Byzan- tine official splendour. Beneath his feet is a curious woman's head with heavy braids of hair, and a crown. The third figure is a queen, charm- ing as a woman, but particularly well-dressed, and with details of orna- ment and person elaborately wrought; worth drawing, if one could only draw; worth photographing with utmost care to include the strange support on which she stands: a monkey, two dragons, a dog, a basilisk with a dog's head. Two prophets follow — not so interesting; — prophets rarely interest. Then comes the central bay: two queens who claim particular attention, then a prophet, then a saint next the door- way; then on the Southern jamb-shafts, another saint, a king, a queen, and another king. Last comes the southern bay, the Virgin's own, and there stands first a figure said to be a youthful king; then a strongly sculptured Saint; next the door a figure called also a king, but so 76 MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES charmingly delicate in expression that the robes alone betray his sex; and who this exquisite young aureoled king may have been who stands so close to the Virgin, at her right hand, no one can now reveal. Opposite him is a saint who may be, or should be, the Prince of the Apostles; then a bearded king with a broken sceptre, standing on two dragons; and, at last, a badly mutilated queen. These statues are the Eginetan marbles of French art; from them all modern French sculpture dates, or ought to date. They are singularly interesting; as naïf as the smile on the faces of the Greek warriors, but no more grotesque than they. You will see Gothic grotesques in plenty, and you cannot mistake the two intentions; the twelfth cen- tury would sooner have tempted the tortures of every feudal dungeon in Europe than have put before the Virgin's eyes any figure that could be conceived as displeasing to her. These figures are full of feeling, and saturated with worship; but what is most to our purpose is the feminine side which they proclaim and insist upon. Not only the number of the female figures, and their beauty, but also the singularly youthful beauty of several of the males; the superb robes they wear; the expression of their faces and their figures; the details of hair, stuffs, ornaments, jewels; the refinement and feminine taste of the whole, are enough to startle our interest if we recognize what meaning they had to the twelfth century. These figures looked stiff and long and thin and ridiculous to enlight- ened citizens of the eighteenth century, but they were made to fit the architecture; if you want to know what an enthusiast thinks of them, listen to M. Huysmans's “Cathedral.” “Beyond a doubt, the most beautiful sculpture in the world is in this place.” He can hardly find words to express his admiration for the queens, and particularly for the one on the right of the central doorway. “Never in any period has a more expressive figure been thus wrought by the genius of man; it is the chef-d'oeuvre of infantile grace and holy candour. . . . She is the elder sister of the Prodigal Son, the one of whom Saint Luke does not TOWERS AND PORTALS 77 speak, but who, if she existed, would have pleaded the cause of the absent, and insisted, with the father, that he should kill the fatted calf at his son's return.” The idea is charming if you are the returning son, as many twelfth-century pilgrims must have thought themselves; but, in truth, the figure is that of a queen; an Eleanor of Guienne; her position there is due to her majesty, which bears witness to the celes- tial majesty of the Court in which she is only a lady-in-waiting: and she is hardly more humanly fascinating than her brother, the youth- ful king at the Virgin's right hand, who has nothing of the Prodigal Son, but who certainly has much of Lohengrin, or even – almost – Tristan. The Abbé Bulteau has done his best to name these statues, but the names would be only in your way. That the sculptor meant them for a Queen of Sheba or a King of Israel has little to do with their mean- ing in the twelfth century, when the people were much more likely to have named them after the queens and kings they knew. The whole charm lies for us in the twelfth-century humanity of Mary and her Court; not in the scriptural names under which it was made ortho- dox. Here, in this western portal, it stands as the crusaders of 1100–50 imagined it; but by walking round the church to the porch over the entrance to the north transept, you shall see it again as Blanche of Castile and Saint Louis imagined it, a hundred years later, so that you will know better whether the earthly attributes are exaggerated or un- true. • * Porches, like steeples, were rather a peculiarity of French churches, and were studied, varied, one might even say petted, by French archi- tects to an extent hardly attempted elsewhere; but among all the French porches, those of Chartres are the most famous. There are two: one on the north side, devoted to the Virgin; the other, on the South, devoted to the Son. “The mass of intelligence, knowledge, acquaintance with effects, practical experience, expended on these two porches of Chartres,” says Viollet-le-Duc, “would be enough to 78 MONT—SAINT-MICHEL AND CHARTRES establish the glory of a whole generation of artists.” We begin with the north porch because it belonged to the Virgin; and it belonged to the Virgin because the north was cold, bleak, sunless, windy, and needed warmth, peace, affection, and power to protect against the assaults of Satan and his swarming devils. There the all-suffering but the all-powerful Mother received other mothers who suffered like her, but who, as a rule, were not powerful. Traditionally in the primi- tive church, the northern porch belonged to the women. When they needed help, they came here, because it was the only place in this world or in any other where they had much hope of finding even a recep- tion. See how Mary received them! The porch extends the whole width of the transept, about one hun- dred and twenty feet (37.65 metres), divided into three bays some twenty feet deep, and covered with a stone vaulted roof supported on piers outside. Begun toward I215 under Philip Augustus, the archi- tectural part was finished toward I225 under Louis VIII; and after his death in I226, the decorative work and statuary were carried on under the regency of his widow, Blanche of Castile, and through the reign of her son, Saint Louis (1235–70), until about 1275, when the work was completed by Philip the Hardy. A gift of the royal family of France, all the members of the family seem to have had a share in building it, and several of their statues have been supposed to adorn it. The walls are lined – the porch, in a religious sense, is inhabited — by more than seven hundred figures, great and small, all, in one way or another, devoted to the glory of the Queen of Heaven. You will see that a hundred years have converted the Byzantine Empress into a French Queen, as the same years had converted Alix of Savoy into Blanche of Castile; but the note of majesty is the same, and the asser- tion of power is, if possible, more emphatic. - The highest note is struck at once, in the central bay, over the door, where you see the Coronation of Mary as Queen of Heaven, a favour- ite subject in art from very early times, and the dominant idea of HORIO， I HJL RION GIHAL : SGH （ILRIVHO TOWERS AND PORTALS 79 Mary's church You see Mary on the left, seated on her throne; on the right, seated on a precisely similar throne, is Christ, Who holds up His right hand apparently to bless, since Mary already bears the crown. Mary bends forward, with her hands raised toward her Son, as though in gratitude or adoration or prayer, but certainly not in an attitude of feudal homage. On either side, an archangel swings a CenSer. On the lintel below, on the left, is represented the death of Mary; on the right, Christ carries, in the folds of His mantle, the soul of Mary in the form of a little child, and at the same time blesses the body which is carried away by angels – The Resurrection of Mary. Below the lintel, supporting it, and dividing the doorway in halves, is the trumeau, - the central pier, — a new part of the portal which was unknown to the western door. Usually in the Virgin's churches, as at Rheims, or Amiens or Paris, the Virgin herself, with her Son in her arms, stands against this pier, trampling on the dragon with the woman's head. Here, not the Virgin with the Christ, but her mother Saint Anne stands, with the infant Virgin in her arms; while beneath is, or was, Saint Joachim, her husband, among his flocks, receiving from the Archangel Gabriel the annunciation. So at the entrance the Virgin declares herself divinely Queen in her own right; divinely born; divinely resurrected from death, on the third day; seated by divine right on the throne of Heaven, at the right hand of God, the Son, with Whom she is one. f Unless we feel this assertion of divine right in the Queen of Heaven, apart from the Trinity, yet one with It, Chartres is unintelligible. The extreme emphasis laid upon it at the church door shows what the church means within. Of course, the assertion was not strictly ortho- dox; perhaps, since we are not members of the Church, we might be unnoticed and unrebuked if we start by suspecting that the worship of the Virgin never was strictly orthodox; but Chartres was hers before it ever belonged to the Church, and, like Lourdes in our own 8O MONT—SAINT-MICHEL AND CHARTRES time, was a shrine peculiarly favoured by her presence. The mere fact that it was a bishopric had little share in its sanctity. The bishop was much more afraid of Mary than he was of any Church Council ever held. Critics are doing their best to destroy the peculiar personal interest of this porch, but tourists and pilgrims may be excused for insisting on their traditional rights here, since the porch is singular, even in the thirteenth century, for belonging entirely to them and the royal fam- ily of France, subject only to the Virgin. True artists, turned critics, think also less of rules than of values, and no ignorant public can be trusted to join the critics in losing temper judiciously over the date or correctness of a portrait until they knew something of its motives and merits. The public has always felt certain that some of the statues which stand against the outer piers of this porch are portraits, and they see no force in the objection that such decoration was not customary in the Church. Manythings at Chartres were not customary in the Church, although the Church now prefers not to dwell on them. Therefore the student returns to Viollet-le-Duc with his usual delight at finding at least one critic whose sense of values is stronger than his sense of rule: “Each statue,” he says in his “Dictionary” (III, 166), “possesses its personal character which remains graven on the memory like the recollection of a living being whom one has known. . . . A large part of the statues in the porches of Notre Dame de Chartres, as well as of the portals of the Cathedrals of Amiens and Rheims, possess these individual qualities, and this it is which explains why these statues produce on the crowd so vivid an impression that it names them, knows them, and attaches to each of them an idea, often a legend.” Probably the crowd did so from the first moment they saw the statues, and with good reason. At all events, they have attached to two of the most individual figures on the north porch, two names, perhaps the best known in France in the year 1226, but which since the year I300 can have conveyed only the most shadowy meaning to TOWERS AND PORTALS 8I any but pure antiquarians. The group is so beautiful as to be given a plate to itself in the “Monographie” (number 26), as representing Philip Hurepel and his wife Mahaut de Boulogne. So little could any crowd, or even any antiquarian, at any time within six hundred years have been likely to pitch on just these persons to associate with Blanche of Castile in any kind of family unity, that the mere sugges- tion seems wild; yet Blanche outlived Pierre by nearly twenty years, and her power over this transept and porch ended only with her death as regent in I252. Philippe, nicknamed Hurepel, - Boarskin, – was a “fils de France,” whose father, Philip Augustus, had serious, not to say fatal, difficul- ties with the Church about the legality of his marriage, and was forced to abandon his wife, who died in I2OI, after giving birth to Hurepel in I2Oo. The child was recognized as legitimate, and stood next to the throne, after his half-brother Louis, who was thirteen years older. Almost at his birth he was affianced to Mahaut, Countess of Boulogne, and the marriage was celebrated in 1216. Rich and strongly connected, Hurepel naturally thought himself — and was — head of the royal family next to the King, and when his half-brother, Louis VIII, died in 1226, leaving only a son, afterwards Saint Louis, a ten-year-old boy, to succeed, Hurepel very properly claimed the guardianship of his infant nephew, and deeply resented being excluded by Queen Blanche from what he regarded — perhaps with justice — as his right. Nearly all the great lords and the members of the royal family sided with him, and entered into a civil war against Blanche, at the moment when these two porches of Chartres were building, between I228 and 1230. The two greatest leaders of the conspiracy were Hurepel, whom we are expected to recognize on the pier of this porch, and Pierre Mauclerc, of Brittany and Dreux, whom we have no choice but to admit on the trumeau of the other. In those days every great feudal lord was more or less related by blood to the Crown, and although Blanche of Castile was also a cousin as well as queen-mother, they 82 MONT—SAINT-MICHEL AND CHARTRES hated her as a Spanish intruder with such hatred as men felt in an age when passions were real. That these two men should be found here, associated with Blanche in the same work, at the same time, under the same roof, is a fantastic idea, and students can feel in this political difficulty a much stronger objection to admitting Hurepel to Queen Blanche's porch than any supposed rule of Church custom; yet the first privilege of tourist ig- norance is the right to see, or try to see, their thirteenth century with thirteenth-century eyes. Passing by the statues of Philip and Mahaut, and stepping inside the church door, almost the first figure that the visitor sees on lifting his eyes to the upper windows of the transept is another figure of Philippe Hurepel, in glass, on his knees, with clasped hands, before an altar; and to prevent possibility of mistake his blazoned coat bears the words: “Phi: Conte de Bolone.” Apparently he is the donor, for, in the rose above, he sits in arms on a white horse with a shield bearing the blazon of France. Obliged to make his peace with the Queen in 1230, Hurepel died in I233 or 1234, while Blanche was still regent, and instantly took his place as of right side by side with Blanche's castles of Castile among the great benefactors of the church. Beneath the next rose is Mahaut herself, as donor, bearing her husband's arms of France, suggesting that the windows must have been given together, probably before Philip's death in I233, since Mahaut was married again in I238, this time to Alfonso of Portugal, who re- pudiated her in 1249, and left her to die in her own town of Boulogne in 1258. Lastly, in the third window of the series, is her daughter Jeanne, – “Iehenne,” — who was probably born before 1220, and who was married in I236 to Gaucher de Chatillon, one of the greatest warriors of his time. Jeanne also – according to the Abbé Bulteau (III, 225) – bears the arms of her father and mother; which seems to suggest that she gave this window before her marriage. These three windows, therefore, have the air of dating at least as early as 1233 when Philip Hurepel died, while next them follow two more roses, and TOWERS AND PORTALS 83 the great rose of France, presumably of the same date, all scattered over with the castles of Queen Blanche. The motive of the porch outside is repeated in the glass, as it should be, and as the Saint Anne of the Rose of France, within, repeats the Saint Anne on the trumeau of the portal. The personal stamp of the royal family is intense, but the stamp of the Virgin's personality is intenser still. In the presence of Mary, not only did princes hide their quarrels, but they also put on their most courte- ous manners and the most refined and even austere address. The Byzantine display of luxury and adornment had vanished. All the figures suggest the sanctity of the King and his sister Isabel; the court has the air of a convent; but the idea of Mary's majesty is asserted through it all. The artists and donors and priests forgot nothing which, in their judgment, could set off the authority, elegance, and refinement of the Queen of Heaven; even the young ladies-in-waiting are there, figured by the twelve Virtues and the fourteen Beatitudes; and, in- deed, though men are plenty and Some of them are handsome, women give the tone, the charm, and mostly the intelligence. The Court of Mary is feminine, and its charms are Grace and Love; perhaps even more grace than love, in a Social sense, if you look at Beauty and Friendship among Beatitudes. - M. Huysmans insists that this sculpture is poor in comparison with his twelfth-century Prodigal Daughter, and I hope you can enter into the spirit of his enthusiasm; but other people prefer the thirteenth- century work, and think it equals the best Greek. Approaching, or surpassing this, – as you like, – is the sculpture you will see at Rheims, of the same period, and perhaps the same hands; but, for our purpose, the Queen of Sheba, here in the right-hand bay, is enough, because you can compare it on the spot with M. Huysmans's figure on the western portal, which may also be a Queen of Sheba, who, as spouse of Solomon, typified the Church, and therefore prefigured Mary herself. Both are types of Court beauty and grace, one from the twelfth century, the other from the thirteenth, and you can prefer which you please; but 84 MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES you want to bear in mind that each, in her time, pleased the Virgin. You can even take for a settled fact that these were the types of femi- nine beauty and grace which pleased the Virgin beyond all others. The purity of taste, feeling, and manners which stamps the art of these centuries, as it did the Court of Saint Louis and his mother, is Something you will not wholly appreciate till you reach the depravity of the Valois; but still you can see how exquisite the Virgin's taste was, and how pure. You can also see how she shrank from the sight of pain. Here, in the central bay, next to King David, who stands at her right hand, is the great figure of Abraham about to sacrifice Isaac. If there is one subject more revolting than another to a woman who typifies the Mother, it is this subject of Abraham and Isaac, with its compound horror of masculine stupidity and brutality. The sculptor has tried to make even this motive a pleasing one. He has placed Abraham against the column in the correct harshness of attitude, with his face turned aside and up, listening for his orders; but the little Isaac, with hands and feet tied, leans like a bundle of sticks against his father's knee with an expression of perfect faith and confidence, while Abraham's left hand quiets him and caresses the boy's face, with a movement that must have gone straight to Mary's heart, for Isaac always pre- figured Christ. The glory of Mary was not one of terror, and her porch contains no appeal to any emotion but those of her perfect grace. If we were to stay here for weeks, we should find only this idea worked into every detail. The Virgin of the thirteenth century is no longer an Empress; she is Queen Mother, — an idealized Blanche of Castile; — too high to want, or suffer, or to revenge, or to aspire, but not too high to pity, to punish, or to pardon. The women went to her porch for help as naturally as babies to their mother; and the men, in her presence, fell on their knees because they feared her intelligence and her anger. Not that all the men showed equal docility! We must go next, round the church, to the South porch, which was the gift of Pierre TOWERS AND PORTALS 85 Mauclerc, Comte de Dreux, another member of the royal family, great- grandson of Louis VI, and therefore second cousin to Louis VIII and Philip Hurepel. Philip Augustus, his father's first cousin, married the young man, in I212, to Alix, heiress of the Duchy of Brittany, and this marriage made him one of the most powerful vassals of the Crown. He joined Philip Hurepel in resisting the regency of Queen Blanche in 1227, and Blanche, after a long struggle, caused him to be deposed in 1230. Pierre was obliged to submit, and was pardoned. Until 1236, he remained in control of the Duchy of Brittany, but then was obliged to surrender his power to his son, and turned his turbulent activity against the infidels in Syria and Egypt, dying in I250, on his return from Saint Louis's disastrous crusade. Pierre de Dreux was a mascu- line character, — a bad cleric, as his nickname Mauclerc testified, but a gentleman, a soldier, and a scholar, and, what is more to our purpose, a man of taste. He built the South porch at Chartres, apparently as a memorial of his marriage with Alix in I2I2, and the statuary is of the same date with that of the north porch, but, like that, it was not fin- ished when Pierre died in I250. One would like to know whether Pierre preferred to take the southern entrance, or whether he was driven there by the royal claim to the Virgin's favour. The southern porch belongs to the Son, as the northern belongs to the Mother. Pierre never showed much defer- ence to women, and probably felt more at his ease under the protec- tion of the Son than of Mary; but in any case he showed as clearly as possible what he thought on this question of persons. To Pierre, Christ was first, and he asserted his opinion as emphatically as Blanche as- serted hers. Which porch is the more beautiful is a question for artists to discuss and decide, if they can. Either is good enough for us, whose pose is ignorance, and whose pose is strictly correct; but apart from its beauty or its art, there is also the question of feeling, of motive, which puts the Porche de Dreux in contrast with the Porche de France, and this is 86 MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES wholly within our competence. At the outset, the central bay displays, above the doorway, Christ, on a throne, raising His hands to show the Stigmata, the wounds which were the proof of man's salvation. At His right hand sits the Mother, — without her crown; on His left, in equal rank with the Mother, sits Saint John the Evangelist. Both are in the same attitude of supplication as intercessors; there is no distinction in rank or power between Mary and John, since neither has any power except what Christ gives them. Pierre did not, indeed, put the Mother on her knees before the Son, as you can see her at Amiens and in later churches, – certainly bad taste in Mary's own palace; but he al- lowed her no distinction which is nother strict right. The angels above and around bear the symbols of the Passion; they are unconscious of Mary's presence; they are absorbed in the perfections of the Son. On the lintel just below is the Last Judgment, where Saint Michael re- appears, weighing the souls of the dead which Mary and John above are trying to save from the strict justice of Christ. The whole melo- drama of Church terrors appears after the manner of the thirteenth century, on this church door, without regard to Mary's feelings; and below, against the trumeau, stands the great figure of Christ, — the whole Church, – trampling on the lion and dragon. On either side of the doorway stand six great figures of the Apostles asserting them- selves as the columns of the Church, and looking down at us with an expression no longer calculated to calm Our fears or encourage extrav- agant hopes. No figure on this porch suggests a portrait or recalls a memory. - Very grand, indeed, is this doorway; dignified, impressive, and masculine to a degree seldom if ever equalled in art; and the left bay rivals it. There, in the tympanum, Christ appears again; standing; bearing on His head the crown royal; alone, except for the two angels who adore, and surrounded only by the martyrs, His witnesses. The right bay is devoted to Saint Nicholas and the Saints Confessors who bear witness to the authority of Christ in faith. Of the twenty-eight --~~~~~~º -: - |- º º, \\º º --- Wºº - --- - -- - >- - --- - - - * - º - ºº::= =º-º-º: - º sº º * - "sº tº-----aº º -- TOWERS AND PORTALS 87 great figures, the officers of the royal court, who make thus the strength of the Church beneath Christ, not one is a woman. The masculine orthodoxy of Pierre Mauclerc has spared neither sex nor youth; all are of a maturity which chills the blood, excepting two, whose youthful beauty is heightened by the severity of their surroundings, so that the Abbé Bulteau makes bold even to say that “the two statues of Saint George and of Saint Theodore may be regarded as the most beautiful —of our cathedral, perhaps even as the two masterpieces of statuary at the end of the thirteenth century.” On that point, let every one follow his taste; but one reflection at least seems to force itself on the mind in comparing these twenty-eight figures. Certainly the sword, however it may compare with the pen in other directions, is in art more power- ful than all the pens, or volumes, or crosiers ever made. Your “Golden Legend” and Roman Breviary are here the only guide-books worth consulting, and the stories of young George and Theodore stand there recorded; as their miracle under the walls of Antioch, during the first crusade, is matter of history; but among these magnificent figures one detects at a glance that it is not the religion or sacred purity of the sub- ject, or even the miracles or the sufferings, which inspire passion for Saint George and Saint Theodore, under the Abbé's robe; it is with him, as with the plain boy and girl, simply youth, with lance and sword and shield. These two figures stand in the outer embrasures of the left bay, where they can be best admired, and perhaps this arrangement shows what Perron de Dreux, as he was commonly called, loved most, in his heart of hearts; but elsewhere, even in this porch, he relaxed his severity, and became at times almost gracious to women. Good judges have, indeed, preferred this porch to the northern one; but, be that as you please, it contains seven hundred and eighty-three figures, large and small, to serve for comparison. Among these, the female element has its share, though not a conspicuous one; and even the Virgin gets her rights, though not beside her Son. To see her, you 88 MONT-SAINT-MICHEL AND CHARTRES must stand outside in the square and, with a glass, look at the central pignon, or gable, of the porch. There, just above the point of the arch, you will see Mary on her throne, crowned, wearing her royal robes, and holding the Child on her knees, with the two archangels on either side offering incense. Pierre de Dreux, or some one else, admitted at last that she was Queen Regent, although evidently not eager to do so; and if you turn your glass up to the gable of the transept itself, above the great rose and the colonnade over it, you can see another and a colossal statue of the Virgin, but standing, with the Child on her left arm. She seems to be crowned, and to hold the globe in her right hand; but the Abbé Bulteau says it is a flower. The two archangels are still there. This figure is thought to have been a part of the finishing decoration added by Philip the Fair in I3O4. In theology, Pierre de Dreux seems to show himself a more learned clerk than his cousins of France, and, as an expression of the meaning the church of Mary should externally display, the Porche de Dreux, if not as personal, is as energetic as the Porche de France, or the western portal. As we pass into the Cathedral, under the great Christ, on the trumeau, you must stop to look at Pierre himself. A bridegroom, crowned with flowers on his wedding-day, he kneels in prayer, while two servants distribute bread to the poor. Below, you see him again, seated with his wife Alix before a table with one loaf, assisting at the meal they give to the poor. Pierre kneels to God; he and his wife bow before the Virgin and the poor; — but not to Queen Blanche! Now let us enter!— CHAPTER VI THE VIRGIN OF CHARTRES E must take ten minutes to accustom our eyes to the light, and ~ we had better use them to seek the reason why we come to Chartres rather than to Rheims or Amiens or Bourges, for the cathe- dral that fills our ideal. The truth is, there are several reasons; there generally are, for doing the things we like; and after you have studied Chartres to the ground, and got your reasons settled, you will never find an antiquarian to agree with you; the architects will probably listen to you with contempt; and even these excellent priests, whose kindness is great, whose patience is heavenly, and whose good opinion you would so gladly gain, will turn from you with pain, if not with horror. The Gothic is singular in this; one seems easily at home in the Renaissance; one is not too strange in the Byzantine; as for the Ro- man, it is ourselves; and we could walk blindfolded through every chink and cranny of the Greek mind; all these styles seem modern, when we come close to them; but the Gothic gets away. No two men think alike about it, and no woman agrees with either man. The Church itself never agreed about it, and the architects agree even less than the priests. To most minds it casts too many shadows; it wraps itself in mystery; and when people talk of mystery, they commonly mean fear. To others, the Gothic seems hoary with age and decrepitude, and its shadows mean death. What is curious to watch is the fanatical conviction of the Gothic enthusiast, to whom the twelfth century means exuberant youth, the eternal child of Wordsworth, over whom its immortality broods like the day; it is so simple and yet so complicated; it sees so much and so little; it loves so many toys and cares for so few necessities; its youth is so young, its age so old, and its youthful 90 MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES yearning for old thought is so disconcerting, like the mysterious senility of the baby that — Deaf and silent, reads the eternal deep, Haunted forever by the eternal mind. One need not take it more seriously than one takes the baby itself. Our amusement is to play with it, and to catch its meaning in its Smile; and whatever Chartres may be now, when young it was a smile. To the Church, no doubt, its cathedral here has a fixed and adminis- trative meaning, which is the same as that of every other bishop's seat and with which we have nothing whatever to do. To us, it is a child's fancy; a toy-house to please the Queen of Heaven, – to please her so much that she would be happy in it, — to charm her till she smiled. - The Queen Mother was as majestic as you like; she was absolute; she could be stern; she was not above being angry; but she was still a woman, who loved grace, beauty, ornament, — her toilette, robes, jewels; — who considered the arrangements of her palace with atten- tion, and liked both light and colour; who kept a keen eye on her Court, and exacted prompt and willing obedience from king and arch- bishops as well as from beggars and drunken priests. She protected her friends and punished her enemies. She required space, beyond what was known in the Courts of kings, because she was liable at all times to have ten thousand people begging her for favours — mostly inconsistent with law — and deaf to refusal. She was extremely sensitive to neglect, to disagreeable impressions, to want of intelligence in her surroundings. She was the greatest artist, as she was the great- est philosopher and musician and theologist, that ever lived on earth, except her Son, Who, at Chartres, is still an Infant under her guardian- ship. Her taste was infallible; her sentence eternally final. This church was built for her in this spirit of simple-minded, practical, utilitarian faith, – in this singleness of thought, exactly as a little girl sets up a doll-house for her favourite blonde doll. Unless you can go back to THE VIRGIN OF CHARTRES 9I your dolls, you are out of place here. If you can go back to them, and get rid for one small hour of the weight of custom, you shall see Chartres in glory. The palaces of earthly queens were hovels compared with these palaces of the Queen of Heaven at Chartres, Paris, Laon, Noyon, Rheims, Amiens, Rouen, Bayeux, Coutances, – a list that might be stretched into a volume. The nearest approach we have made to a palace was the Merveille at Mont-Saint-Michel, but no Queen had a palace equal to that. The Merveille was built, or designed, about the year I2OO; toward the year I5oo, Louis XI built a great castle at Loches in Touraine, and there Queen Anne de Bretagne had apartments which still exist, and which we will visit. At Blois you shall see the residence which served for Catherine de Medicis till her death in 1589. Anne de Bretagne was trebly queen, and Catherine de Medicis took her stand- ard of comfort from the luxury of Florence. At Versailles you can see the apartments which the queens of the Bourbon line occupied through their century of magnificence. All put together, and then trebled in importance, could not rival the splendour of any single cathedral dedicated to Queen Mary in the thirteenth century; and of them all, Chartres was built to be peculiarly and exceptionally her delight. One has grown so used to this sort of loose comparison, this reckless waste of words, that One no longer adopts an idea unless it is driven in with hammers of statistics and columns of figures. With the irri- tating demand for literal exactness and perfectly straight lines which lights up every truly American eye, you will certainly ask when this exaltation of Mary began, and unless you get the dates, you will doubt the facts. It is your own fault if they are tiresome; you might easily read them all in the “Iconographie de la Sainte Vierge,” by M. Ro- hault de Fleury, published in 1878. You can start at Byzantium with the Empress Helena in 326, or with the Council of Ephesus in 431. You will find the Virgin acting as the patron saint of Constantinople and of the Imperial residence, under as many names as Artemis O1 92 MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES Aphrodite had borne. As Godmother (6eoumtmp), Deipara (9eotokos), Pathfinder (Oönymtpa), she was the chief favourite of the Eastern Empire, and her picture was carried at the head of every procession and hung on the wall of every hut and hovel, as it is still wherever the Greek Church goes. In the year 610, when Heraclius sailed from Carthage to dethrone Phocas at Constantinople, his ships carried the image of the Virgin at their mastheads. In II43, just before the flèche on the Chartres clocher was begun, the Basileus John Comnenus died, and so devoted was he to the Virgin that, on a triumphal entry into Constantinople, he put the image of the Mother of God in his chariot, while he himself walked. In the Western Church the Virgin had al- ways been highly honoured, but it was not until the crusades that she began to overshadow the Trinity itself. Then her miracles became more frequent and her shrines more frequented, so that Chartres, soon after I IOO, was rich enough to build its western portal with By- zantine splendour. A proof of the new outburst can be read in the story of Citeaux. For us, Citeaux means Saint Bernard, who joined the Order in III2, and in III5 founded his Abbey of Clairvaux in the territory of Troyes. In him, the religious emotion of the half-century between the first and second crusades (IO95–II45) centred as in no one else. He was a French precursor of Saint Francis of Assisi who lived a century later. If we were to plunge into the story of Citeaux and Saint Bernard we should never escape, for Saint Bernard incarnates what we are trying to understand, and his mind is further from us than the architecture. You would lose hold of everything actual, if you could comprehend in its contradictions the strange mixture of passion and caution, the austerity, the self-abandonment, the vehe- mence, the restraint, the love, the hate, the miracles, and the scepti- cism of Saint Bernard. The Cistercian Order, which was founded in Io98, from the first put all its churches under the special protection of the Virgin, and Saint Bernard in his time was regarded as the apple of the Virgin's eye. Tradition as old as the twelfth century, which long THE VIRGIN OF CHARTRES 93 afterwards gave to Murillo the subject of a famous painting, told that once, when he was reciting before her statue the “Ave Maris Stella,” and came to the words, “Monstrate esse Matrem,” the image, press- ing its breast, dropped on the lips of her servant three drops of the milk which had nourished the Saviour. The same miracle, in various forms, was told of many other persons, both saints and sinners; but it made so much impression on the mind of the age that, in the four- teenth century, Dante, seeking in Paradise for some official introduc- tion to the foot of the Throne, found no intercessor with the Queen of Heaven more potent than Saint Bernard. You can still read Bernard's hymns to the Virgin, and even his sermons, if you like. To him she was the great mediator. In the eyes of a culpable humanity, Christ was too sublime, too terrible, too just, but not even the weakest human frailty could fear to approach his Mother. Her attribute was humility; her love and pity were infinite. “Let him deny your mercy who can say that he has ever asked it in vain.” Saint Bernard was emotional and to a certain degree mystical, like Adam de Saint-Victor, whose hymns were equally famous, but the emotional Saints and mystical poets were not by any means allowed to establish exclusive rights to the Virgin's favour. Abélard was as de- voted as they were, and wrote hymns as well. Philosophy claimed her, and Albert the Great, the head of scholasticism, the teacher of Thomas Aquinas, decided in her favour the question: “Whether the Blessed Virgin possessed perfectly the seven liberal arts.” The Church at Chartres had decided it a hundred years before by putting the seven liberal arts next her throne, with Aristotle himself to witness; but Albertus gave the reason: “I hold that she did, for it is written, ‘Wis- dom has built herself a house, and has sculptured seven columns." That house is the blessed Virgin; the seven columns are the seven liberal arts. Mary, therefore, had perfect mastery of science.” Natur- ally she had also perfect mastery of economics, and most of her great churches were built in economic centres. The guilds were, if possible, 94. MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES more devoted to her than the monks; the bourgeoisie of Paris, Rouen, Amiens, Laon, spend money by millions to gain her favour. Most sur- prising of all, the great military class was perhaps the most vociferous. Of all inappropriate haunts for the gentle, courteous, pitying Mary, a field of battle seems to be the worst, if not distinctly blasphemous; yet the greatest French warriors insisted on her leading them into battle, and in the actual mêlée when men were killing each other, on every battle-field in Europe, for at least five hundred years, Mary was pres- ent, leading both sides. The battle-cry of the famous Constable du Guesclin was “Notre-Dame-Guesclin”; “Notre-Dame-Coucy” was the cry of the great Sires de Coucy; “Notre-Dame-Auxerre”; “Notre- Dame-Sancerre”; Notre-Dame-Hainault”; Notre-Dame-Gueldres”; “Notre-Dame-Bourbon’’; ‘‘Notre-Dame-Bearn’’; — all well-known battle-cries. The King's own battle at one time cried, “Notre-Dame- Saint-Denis-Montjoie”; the Dukes of Burgundy cried, “Notre-Dame- Bourgogne”; and even the soldiers of the Pope were said to cry, “Notre- Jame-Saint-Pierre.” - The measure of this devotion, which proves to any religious American mind, beyond possible cavil, its serious and practical reality, is the money it cost. According to statistics, in the single century between II7O and I270, the French built eighty cathedrals and nearly five hundred churches of the cathedral class, which would have cost, ac- cording to an estimate made in 1840, more than five thousand millions to replace. Five thousand million francs is a thousand million dollars, and this covered only the great churches of a single century. The same scale of expenditure had been going on since the year IOOO, and almost every parish in France had rebuilt its church in stone; to this day France is strewn with the ruins of this architecture, and yet the still preserved churches of the eleventh and twelfth centuries, among the churches that belong to the Romanesque and Transition period, are numbered by hundreds until they reach well into the thousands. The share of this capital which was – if one may use a commercial THE VIRGIN OF CHARTRES 95 figure—invested in the Virgin cannot be fixed, any more than the total sum given to religious objects between IOOO and I300; but in a spiritual and artistic sense, it was almost the whole, and expressed an intensity of conviction never again reached by any passion, whether of religion, of loyalty, of patriotism, or of wealth; perhaps never even parallelled by any single economic effort, except in war. Nearly every great church of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries belonged to Mary, until in France one asks for the church of Notre Dame as though it meant cathedral; but, not satisfied with this, she contracted the habit of requiring in all churches a chapel of her own, called in English the “Lady Chapel,” which was apt to be as large as the church but was always meant to be handsomer; and there, behind the high altar, in her own private apartment, Mary sat, receiving her innumerable sup- pliants, and ready at any moment to step up upon the high altar itself to support the tottering authority of the local saint. Expenditure like this rests invariably on an economic idea. Just as the French of the nineteenth century invested their surplus capital in a railway system in the belief that they would make money by it in this life, in the thirteenth they trusted their money to the Queen of Heaven because of their belief in her power to repay it with interest in the life to come. The investment was based on the power of Mary as Queen rather than on any Orthodox Church conception of the Vir- gin's legitimate station. Papal Rome never greatly loved Byzantine empresses or French queens. The Virgin of Chartres was never wholly sympathetic to the Roman Curia. To this day the Church writers — like the Abbé Bulteau or M. Rohault de Fleury — are singularly shy of the true Virgin of majesty, whether at Chartres or at Byzantium or wherever she is seen. The fathers Martin and Cahier at Bourges alone felt her true value. Had the Church controlled her, the Virgin would perhaps have remained prostrate at the foot of the Cross. Dragged by a Byzantine Court, backed by popular insistence and im- pelled by overpowering self-interest, the Church accepted the Virgin 96 MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES' throned and crowned, seated by Christ, the Judge throned and crowned; but even this did not wholly satisfy the French of the thir- teenth century who seemed bent on absorbing Christ in His Mother, and making the Mother the Church, and Christ the Symbol. The Church had crowned and enthroned her almost from the beginning, and could not have dethroned her if it would. In all Chris- tian art – sculpture or mosaic, painting or poetry – the Virgin's rank was expressly asserted. Saint Bernard, like John Comnenus, and probably at the same time (II20–40), chanted hymns to the Virgin as Queen: — O salutaris Virgo Stella Maris O Saviour Virgin, Star of Sea, Generans prolem, AEquitatis solem, Who bore for child the Son of Justice, Lucis auctorem, Retinens pudorem, The source of Light, Virgin always Suscipe laudem! Hear our praise! Celi Regina Per quam medicina Queen of Heaven who have given Datur aegrotis, Gratia devotis, Medicine to the sick, Grace to the devout, Gaudium moestis, Mundo lux coelestis, Joy to the sad, Heaven's light to the world Spesque salutis; And hope of Salvation; Aula regalis, Virgo specialis, Court royal, Virgin typical, Posce medelam Nobis et tutelam, Grant us cure and guard, Suscipe vota, Precibusque cuncta Accept our vows, and by prayers Pelle molesta! Drive all griefs away! As the lyrical poet of the twelfth century, Adam de Saint-Victor seems to have held rank higher if possible than that of Saint Bernard, and his hymns on the Virgin are certainly quite as emphatic an as- sertion of her majesty: — Imperatrix supernorum! Empress of the highest, Superatrix infernorum! Mistress over the lowest, Eligenda via coeli, Chosen path of Heaven, Retinenda spe fideli, Held fast by faithful hope, Separatos a te longe Those separated from you far, Revocatos ad te junge Recalled to you, unite Tuorum collegio! In your fold! To delight in the childish jingle of the mediaeval Latin is a sign of a futile mind, no doubt, and I beg pardon of you and of the Church for wasting your precious summer day on poetry which was regarded THE VIRGIN OF CHARTRES 97 as mystical in its age and which now sounds like a nursery rhyme; but a verse or two of Adam's hymn on the Assumption of the Virgin com- pletes the record of her rank, and goes to complete also the documen- tary proof of her majesty at Chartres: — Salve, Mater Salvatoris! Mother of our Saviour, hail! Vas electum! Was honoris! Chosen vessell Sacred Grail! Vas coelestis Gratiae! Font of celestial grace! Ab atterno Vas provisum! From eternity forethought! Vas insigne! Vas excisum By the hand of Wisdom wrought! Manu sapientiael Precious, faultless Vasel Salve, Mater pietatis, Hail, Mother of Divinity! Et totius Trinitatis Hail, Temple of the Trinity! Nobile Triclinium! Home of the Triune God! Verbi tamen incarnati In whom the Incarnate Word had birth, Speciale majestati The King! to whom you gave on earth Praeparans hospitium! Imperial abode. O Marial Stella maris! Oh, Maria! Constellation! Dignitate singularis, - Inspiration! Elevation! Super omnes ordinaris Rule and Law and Ordination Ordines coelestium! Of the angels' host! In supremo sita poli Highest height of God's Creation, Nos commenda tua proli, Pray your Son’s commiseration, Ne terrores sive doli Lest, by fear or fraud, salvation Nos supplantent hostium! For our souls be lost! Constantly — one might better say at once, officially, she was ad- dressed in these terms of supreme majesty: “Imperatrix supernorum!” “Coeli Reginal” “Aula regalis!” but the twelfth century seemed deter- mined to carry the idea out to its logical conclusion indefiance of dogma. Not only was the Son absorbed in the Mother, or represented as under her guardianship, but the Father fared no better, and the Holy Ghost followed. The poets regarded the Virgin as the “Templum Trinita- tis”; “totius Trinitatis nobile Triclinium.” She was the refectory of the Trinity — the “Triclinium” — because the refectory was the largest room and contained the whole of the members, and was divided in three parts by two rows of columns. She was the “Templum Trinitatis,” the Church itself, with its triple aisle. The Trinity was absorbed in her. 98 MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES This is a delicate subject in the Church, and you must feel it with delicacy, without brutally insisting on its necessary contradictions. All theology and all philosophy are full of contradictions quite as flagrant and far less sympathetic. This particular variety of religious faith is simply human, and has made its appearance in one form or another in nearly all religions; but though the twelfth century carried it to an extreme, and at Chartres you see it in its most charming ex- pression, we have got always to make allowances for what was going on beneath the surface in men's minds, consciously or unconsciously, and for the latent scepticism which lurks behind all faith. The Church itself never quite accepted the full claims of what was called Mariola- try. One may be sure, too, that the bourgeois capitalist and the stu- dent of the schools, each from his own point of view, watched the Vir- gin with anxious interest. The bourgeois had put an enormous share of his capital into what was in fact an economical speculation, not unlike the South Sea Scheme, or the railway system of our own time; except that in one case the energy was devoted to shortening the road to Heaven; in the other, to shortening the road to Paris; but no serious schoolman could have felt entirely convinced that God would enter into a business partnership with man, to establish a sort of joint-stock society for altering the operation of divine and universal laws. The bourgeois cared little for the philosophical doubt if the economical result proved to be good, but he watched this result with his usual practical sagacity, and required an experience of only about three generations (I2OO–1300) to satisfy himself that relics were not certain in their effects; that the Saints were not always able or willing to help; that Mary herself could not certainly be bought or bribed; that prayer without money seemed to be quite as efficacious as prayer with money; and that neither the road to Heaven nor Heaven itself had been made surer or brought nearer by an investmeat of capital which amounted to the best part of the wealth of France. Economically speaking, he became satisfied that his enormous money-investment THE VIRGIN OF CHARTRES 99. had proved to be an almost total loss, and the reaction on his mind was as violent as the emotion. For three hundred years it prostrated France. The efforts of the bourgeoisie and the peasantry to recover their property, so far as it was recoverable, have lasted to the present day and we had best take care not to get mixed in those passions. If you are to get the full enjoyment of Chartres, you must, for the time, believe in Mary as Bernard and Adam did, and feel her presence as the architects did, in every stone they placed, and every touch they chiselled. You must try first to rid your mind of the traditional idea that the Gothic is an intentional expression of religious gloom. The necessity for light was the motive of the Gothicarchitects. They needed light and always more light, until they sacrificed safety and common sense in trying to get it. They converted their walls into windows, raised their vaults, diminished their piers, until their churches could no longer stand. You will see the limits at Beauvais; at Chartres we have not got so far, but even here, in places where the Virgin wanted it, — as above the high altar, – the architect has taken all the light there was to take. For the same reason, fenestration became the most im- portant part of the Gothic architect's work, and at Chartres was un- commonly interesting because the architect was obliged to design a new system, which should at the same time satisfy the laws of con- struction and the taste and imagination of Mary. No doubt the first command of the Queen of Heaven was for light, but the second, at least equally imperative, was for colour. Any earthly queen, even though she were not Byzantine in taste, loved colour; and the truest of queens — the only true Queen of Queens – had richer and finer taste in colour than the queens of fifty earthly kingdoms, as you will see when we come to the immense effort to gratify her in the glass of her windows. Illusion for illusion, — granting for the moment that Mary was an illusion, – the Virgin Mother in this instance repaid to her worshippers a larger return for their money than the capitalist has ever been able to get, at least in this world, from any other illu- IOO MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES sion of wealth which he has tried to make a source of pleasure and profit. The next point on which Mary evidently insisted was the arrange- ment for her private apartments, the apse, as distinguished from her throne-room, the choir; both being quite distinct from the hall, or reception-room of the public, which was the nave with its enlargements in the transepts. This arrangement marks the distinction between churches built as shrines for the deity and churches built as halls of worship for the public. The difference is chiefly in the apse, and the apse of Chartres is the most interesting of all apses from this point of view. The Virgin required chiefly these three things, or, if you like, these four: space, light, convenience; and colour decoration to unite and harmonize the whole. This concerns the interior; on the exterior she required statuary, and the only complete system of decorative sculpture that existed seems to belong to her churches: — Paris, Rheims, Amiens, and Chartres. Mary required all this magnificence at Chartres for herself alone, not for the public. As far as one can see into the spirit of the builders, Chartres was exclusively intended for the Virgin, as the Temple of Abydos was intended for Osiris. The wants of man, beyond a mere roof-cover, and perhaps space to some degree, enter to no very great extent into the problem of Chartres. Man came to render homage or to ask favours. The Queen received him in her pal- ace, where she alone was at home, and alone gave commands. The artist's second thought was to exclude from his work every- thing that could displease Mary; and since Mary differed from living queens only in infinitely greater majesty and refinement, the artist could admit only what pleased the actual taste of the great ladies who dictated taste at the Courts of France and England, which surrounded the little Court of the Counts of Chartres. What they were — these women of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries — we shall have to see or seek in other directions; but Chartres is perhaps the most magni- THE VIRGIN OF CHARTRES IOI ficent and permanent monument they left of their taste, and we can begin here with learning certain things which they were not. In the first place, they were not in the least vague, dreamy, or mystical in a modern sense; – far from it! They seemed anxious only to throw the mysteries into a blaze of light; not so much physical, perhaps, – since they, like all women, liked moderate shadow for their toilettes, – but luminous in the sense of faith. There is nothing about Chartres that you would think mystical, who know your Lohengrin, Siegfried, and Parsifal. If you care to make a study of the whole liter- ature of the subject, read M. Mâle's “Art Religieux du XIII* Siècle en France,” and use it for a guide-book. Here you need only note how symbolic and how simple the sculpture is, on the portals and porches. Even what seems a grotesque or an abstract idea is no more than the simplest child's personification. On the walls you may have noticed the Ane qui vielle, –the ass playing the lyre; and on all the old churches you can see “bestiaries,” as they were called, of fabulous animals, symbolic or not; but the symbolism is as simple as the realism of the oxen at Laon. It gave play to the artist in his effort for variety of dec- oration, and it amused the people, – probably the Virgin also was not above being amused; — now and then it seems about to suggest what you would call an esoteric meaning, that is to say, a meaning which each one of us can consider private property reserved for our own amuse- ment, and from which the public is excluded; yet, in truth, in the Vir- gin's churches the public is never excluded, but invited. The Virgin even had the additional charm to the public that she was popularly supposed to have no very marked fancy for priests as such; she was a queen, a woman, and a mother, functions, all, which priests could not perform. Accordingly, she seems to have had little taste for mysteries of any sort, and even the symbols that seem most mysterious were clear to every old peasant-woman in her church. The most pleasing and promising of them all is the woman's figure you saw on the front of the cathedral in Paris; her eyes bandaged; her head bent down; her crown IO2 MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES falling; without cloak or royal robe; holding in her hand a guidon or banner with its staff broken in more than one place. On the Opposite pier stands another woman, with royal mantle, erect and commanding. The symbol is so graceful that one is quite eager to know its meaning; but every child in the Middle Ages would have instantly told you that the woman with the falling crown meant only the Jewish Synagogue, as the one with the royal robe meant the Church of Christ. Another matter for which the female taste seemed not much to care was theology in the metaphysical sense. Mary troubled herself little about theology except when she retired into the south transept with Pierre de Dreux. Even there one finds little said about the Trinity, always the most metaphysical subtlety of the Church. Indeed, you might find much amusement here in searching the cathedral for any distinctexpression at all of the Trinity as a dogma recognized by Mary. One cannot take seriously the idea that the three doors, the three portals, and the three aisles express the Trinity, because, in the first place, there was no rule about it; churches might have what portals and aisles they pleased; both Paris and Bourges have five; the doors themselves are not allotted to the three members of the Trinity, nor are the portals; while another more serious objection is that the side doors and aisles are not of equal importance with the central, but mere adjuncts and dependencies, so that the architect who had misled the ignorant public into accepting SO black a heresy would have deserved the stake, and would probably have gone to it. Even this suggestion of trinity is wanting in the transepts, which have only one aisle, and in the choir, which has five, as well as five or seven chapels, and, as far as an ignorant mind can penetrate, no triplets whatever. Occasionally, no doubt, you will discover in some sculpture or window, a symbol of the Trinity, but this discovery itself amounts to an admission of its absence as a Controlling idea, for the Ordinary worshipper must have been at least as blind as we are, and to him, as to us, it would have seemed a wholly subordinate detail. Even if the Trinity, too, is any. THE VIRGIN OF CHARTRES IO3 where expressed, you will hardly find here an attempt to explain its metaphysical meaning — not even a mystic triangle. The church is wholly given up to the Mother and the Son. The Father seldom appears; the Holy Ghost still more rarely. At least, this is the impression made on an ordinary visitor who has no motive to be orthodox; and it must have been the same with the thirteenth- century worshipper who came here with his mind absorbed in the per- fections of Mary. Chartres represents, not the Trinity, but the iden- tity of the Mother and Son. The Son represents the Trinity, which is thus absorbed in the Mother. The idea is not orthodox, but this is no affair of ours. The Church watches over its own. The Virgin's wants and tastes, positive and negative, ought now to be clear enough to enable you to feel the artist's sincerity in trying to satisfy them; but first you have still to convince yourselves of the people's sincerity in employing the artists. This point is the easiest of all, for the evidence is express. In the year II45 when the old flèche was begun, – the year before Saint Bernard preached the second crusade at Vézelay, - Abbot Haimon, of Saint-Pierre-sur-Dives in Normandy, wrote to the monks of Tutbury Abbey in England a famous letter to tell of the great work which the Virgin was doing in France and which began at the Church of Chartres. “Hujus sacrae institutionis y 9 ritus apud Carnotensem ecclesiam est inchoatus.” From Chartres it had spread through Normandy, where it produced among other things the beautiful spire which we saw at Saint-Pierre-sur-Dives. “Postremo per totam fere Normanniam longe latedue convaluit ac loca per singula Matri misericordiae dicata praecipue occupavit.” The movement affected especially the places devoted to Mary, but ran through all Normandy, far and wide. Of all Mary's miracles, the best attested, next to the preservation of her church, is the building of it; not so much because it surprises us as because it surprised even more the people of the time and the men who were its instruments. Such deep popular movements are always surprising, and at Chartres the IO4 MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES miracle seems to have occurred three times, coinciding more or less with the dates of the crusades, and taking the organization of a Cru- sade, as Archibishop Hugo of Rouen described it in a letter to Bishop Thierry of Amiens. The most interesting part of this letter is the evi- dent astonishment of the writer, who might be talking to us to-day, so modern is he: — The inhabitants of Chartres have combined to aid in the construction of their church by transporting the materials; our Lord has rewarded their humble zeal by miracles which have roused the Normans to imitate the piety of their neigh- bours. . . . Since then the faithful of our diocese and of other neighbouring regions have formed associations for the same object; they admit no one into their com- pany unless he has been to confession, has renounced enmities and revenges, and has reconciled himself with his enemies. That done, they elect a chief, under whose direction they conduct their waggons in silence and with humility. The quarries at Berchères-l'Evêque are about five miles from Chartres. The stone is excessively hard, and was cut in blocks of con- siderable size, as you can see for yourselves; blocks which required great effort to transport and lay in place. The work was done with feverish rapidity, as it still shows, but it is the solidist building of the age, and without a sign of weakness yet. The Abbot told, with more surprise than pride, of the spirit which was built into the cathedral with the stone: — Who has ever seen! – Who has ever heard tell, in times past, that powerful princes of the world, that men brought up in honour and in wealth, that nobles, men and women, have bent their proud and haughty necks to the harness of carts, and that, like beasts of burden, they have dragged to the abode of Christ these waggons, loaded with wines, grains, oil, stone, wood, and all that is necessary for the wants of life, or for the construction of the church? But while they draw these burdens, there is one thing admirable to observe; it is that often when a thousand persons and more are attached to the chariots, – so great is the difficulty, - yet they march in such silence that not a murmur is heard, and truly if one did not see the thing with one's eyes, one might believe that among such a multitude there was hardly a person present. When they halt on the road, nothing is heard but the confession of sins, and pure and suppliant prayer to God to obtain pardon. At the voice of the priests who exhort their hearts to peace, they forget all hatred, discord is thrown far aside, debts are remitted, the unity of hearts is established. THE VIRGIN OF CHARTRES IO5 But if any one is so far advanced in evil as to be unwilling to pardon an offender, or if he rejects the counsel of the priest who has piously advised him, his offering is instantly thrown from the wagon as impure, and he himself ignominiously and shamefully excluded from the society of the holy. There one sees the priests who preside over each chariot exhort every one to penitence, to confession of faults, to the resolution of better life! There one sees old people, young people, little chil- dren, calling on the Lord with a suppliant voice, and uttering to Him, from the depth of the heart, sobs and sighs with words of glory and praise! After the people, warned by the sound of trumpets and the sight of banners, have resumed their road, the march is made with such ease that no obstacle can retard it. . . . When they have reached the church they arrange the wagons about it like a spiritual camp, and during the whole night they celebrate the watch by hymns and Can- ticles. On each waggon they light tapers and lamps; they place there the infirm and sick, and bring them the precious relics of the Saints for their relief. After- wards the priests and clerics close the ceremony by processions which the people follow with devout heart, imploring the clemency of the Lord and of his Blessed Mother for the recovery of the sick. Of course, the Virgin was actually and constantly present during all this labour, and gave her assistance to it, but you would get no light on the architecture from listening to an account of her miracles, nor do they heighten the effect of popular faith. Without the conviction of her personal presence, men would not have been inspired; but, to us, it is rather the inspiration of the art which proves the Virgin's pres- ence, and we can better see the conviction of it in the work than in the words. Every day, as the work went on, the Virgin was present, di- recting the architects, and it is this direction that we are going to study, if you have now got a realizing sense of what it meant. Without this sense, the church is dead. Most persons of a deeply religious nature would tell you emphatically that nine churches out of ten actually were dead-born, after the thirteenth century, and that church archi- tecture became a pure matter of mechanism and mathematics; but that is a question for you to decide when you come to it; and the pleasure consists not in seeing the death, but in feeling the life. Now let us look about! CHAPTER VII ROSES AND APSES IKE all great churches, that are not mere storehouses of theology, Chartres expressed, besides whatever else it meant, an emotion, the deepest man ever felt, — the struggle of his own littleness to grasp the infinite. You may, if you like, figure in it a mathematic formula of infinity, -the broken arch, our finite idea of space; the spire, pointing, with its converging lines, to unity beyond space; the sleepless, restless thrust of the vaults, telling the unsatisfied, incomplete, overstrained effort of man to rival the energy, intelligence, and purpose of God. Thomas Aquinas and the schoolmen tried to put it in words, but their Church is another chapter. In act, all man's work ends there;—mathe- matics, physics, chemistry, dynamics, optics, every sort of machin- ery science may invent, —to this favour come at last, as religion and philosophy did before science was born. All that the centuries can do is to express the idea differently: – a miracle or a dynamo; a dome or a coal-pit; a cathedral or a world's fair; and sometimes to confuse the two expressions together. The world's fair tends more and more vigor- ously to express the thought of infinite energy; the great cathedrals of the Middle Ages always reflected the industries and interests of a world's fair. Chartres showed it less than Laon or Paris, for Chartres was never a manufacturing town, but a shrine, such as Lourdes, where the Virgin was known to have done miracles, and had been seen in person; but still the shrine turned itself into a market and created valuable industries. Indeed, this was the chief objection which Saint Paul made to Ephesus and Saint Bernard to the cathedrals. They were in some ways more industrial than religious. The mere masonry and structure made a vast market for labour; the fixed metalwork and woodwork were another; but the decoration was by far the greatest. ROSES AND APSES Io/ The wood-carving, the glass windows, the sculpture, inside and out, were done mostly in workshops on the spot, but besides these fixed objects, precious works of the highest perfection filled the church treasuries. Their money value was great then; it is greater now. No world's fair is likely to do better to-day. After five hundred years of Spoliation, these objects fill museums still, and are bought with avidity at every auction, at prices continually rising and quality steadily falling, until a bit of twelfth-century glass would be a trou- vaille like an emerald; a tapestry earlier than 1600 is not for mere tourists to hope; an enamel, a missal, a crystal, a cup, an embroidery of the Middle Ages belongs only to our betters, and almost invariably, if not to the State, to the rich Jews, whose instinctive taste has seized the whole field of art which rested on their degradation. Royalty and feudality spent their money rather on arms and clothes. The Church alone was universal patron, and the Virgin was the dictator of taste. With the Virgin's taste, during her regency, critics never find fault. One cannot know its whole magnificence, but one can accept it as a matter of faith and trust, as one accepts all her other miracles without cavilling over small details of fact. The period of eighteenth-century scepticism about such matters and the bourgeois taste of Voltaire and Diderot have long since passed, with the advent of a scientific taste still more miraculous; the whole world of the Virgin's art, catalogued in the “Dictionnaire du Mobilier Français” in six volumes by Viollet-le- HDuc; narrated as history by M. Labarte, M. Molinier, M. Paul Lac croix; catalogued in museums by M. du Sommerard and a score of others, in works almost as costly as the subjects, – all the vast va- riety of bric-à-brac, useful or ornamental, belonging to the Church, increased enormously by the insatiable, universal, private demands for imagery, in ivory, wood, metal, stone, for every room in every house, or hung about every neck, or stuck on every hat, made a market such as artists never knew before or since, and such as instantly explains to the practical American not only the reason for the Church's tenacity IO8 MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES of life, but also the inducements for its plunder. The Virgin especially required all the resources of art, and the highest. Notre Dame of Chartres would have laughed at Notre Dame of Paris if she had de- tected an economy in her robes; Notre Dame of Rheims or Rouen would have derided Notre Dame of Amiens if she had shown a femi- nine, domestic, maternal turn toward cheapness. The Virgin was never cheap. Her great ceremonies were as splendid as her rank of Queen in Heaven and on Earth required; and as her procession wound its way along the aisles, through the crowd of her subjects, up to the high altar, it was impossible then, and not altogether easy now, to resist the rapture of her radiant presence. Many a young person, and now and then one who is not in first youth, witnessing the sight in the religious atmosphere of such a church as this, without a suspicion of susceptibility, has suddenly seen what Paul saw on the road to Damas- cus, and has fallen on his face with the crowd, grovelling at the foot of the Cross, which, for the first time in his life, he feels. If you want to know what churches were made for, come down here on some great festival of the Virgin, and give yourself up to it; but come alone! That kind of knowledge cannot be taught and can sel- dom be shared. We are not now seeking religion; indeed, true religion generally comes unsought. We are trying only to feel Gothic art. For us, the world is not a schoolroom or a pulpit, but a stage, and the stage is the highest yet seen on earth. In this church the old Romanesque leaps into the Gothic under our eyes; of a sudden, between the portal and the shrine, the infinite rises into a new expression, always a rare and excellent miracle in thought. The two expressions are nowhere far apart; not further than the Mother from the Son. The new artist drops unwillingly the hand of his father or his grandfather; he looks back, from every corner of his own work, to see whether it goes with the old. He will not part with the western portal or the lancet windows; he holds close to the round columns of the choir; he would have kept the round arch if he could, but the round arch was unable to do the ROSES AND APSES IO9 work; it could not rise; so he broke it, lifted the vaulting, threw out flying buttresses, and satisfied the Virgin's wish. The matter of Gothic vaulting, with its two weak points, the flying buttress and the false, wooden shelter-roof, is the bête noire of the Beaux Arts. The duty of defence does not lie on tourists, who are at best hardly able to understand what it matters whether a wall is but- tressed without or within, and whether a roof is single or double. No one objects to the dome of Saint Peter's. No one finds fault with the Pont Neuf. Yet it is true that the Gothic architect showed contempt for facts. Since he could not support a heavy stone vault on his light columns, he built the lightest possible stone vault and protected it with a wooden shelter-roof which constantly burned. The lightened vaults were still too heavy for the walls and columns, so the architect threw out buttress beyond buttress resting on separate foundations, exposed to extreme inequalities of weather, and liable to multiplied chances of accident. The results were certainly disastrous. The roofs burned; the walls yielded. Flying buttresses were not a necessity. The Merveille had none; the Angevin School rather affected to do without them; Albi had none; Assisi stands up independent; but they did give support wherever the architect wanted it and nowhere else; they were probably cheap; and they were graceful. Whatever expression they gave to a church, at least it was not that of a fortress. Amiens and Albi are different reli- gions. The expression concerns us; the construction concerns the Beaux Arts. The problem of permanent equilibrium which distresses the builder of arches is a technical matter which does not worry, but only amuses, us who sit in the audience and look with delight at the theatri- cal stage-decoration of the Gothic vault; the astonishing feat of build- ing up a skeleton of stone ribs and vertebrae, on which every pound of weight is adjusted, divided, and carried down from level to level till it touches ground at a distance as a bird would alight. If any stone in any part, from apex to foundation, weathers or gives way, the whole IIO MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES must yield, and the charge for repairs is probably great, but, on the best building the Ecole des Beaux Arts can build, the charge for repairs is not to be wholly ignored, and at least the Cathedral of Chartres, in spite of terribly hard usage, is as solid to-day as when it was built, and as plumb, without Crack or crevice. Even the towering fragment at Beauvais, poorly built from the first, which has broken down oftener than most Gothic structures, and seems ready to Crumble again whenever the wind blows over its windy plains, has managed to survive, after a fashion, six or seven hundred years, which is all that our generation had a right to ask. The vault of Beauvais is nearly one hundred and sixty feet high (48 metres), and was cheaply built. The vault of Saint Peter's at Rome is nearly one hundred and fifty feet (45 metres). That of Amiens is one hundred and forty-four feet (44 metres). Rheims, Bourges, and Chartres are nearly the same height; at the entrance, one hundred and twenty-two feet. Paris is one hundred and ten feet. The Abbé Bulteau is responsible for these measurements; but at Chartres, as in several very old churches, the nave slopes down to the entrance, because — as is said — pilgrims came in such swarms that they were obliged to sleep in the church, and the nave had to be sluiced with water to clean it. The true height of Chartres, at the croisée of nave and transept, is as near as possible one hundred and twenty feet (36.55 metres). The measured height is the least interest of a church. The archi- tect's business is to make a small building look large, and his failures are in large buildings which he makes to look small. One chief beauty of the Gothic is to exaggerate height, and one of its most curious quali- ties is its success in imposing an illusion of size. Without leaving the heart of Paris any one can study this illusion in the two great churches of Notre Dame and Saint-Sulpice; for Saint-Sulpice is as lofty as Notre Dame in vaulting, and larger in its other dimensions, besides being, in its style, a fine building; yet its Roman arches show, as if they were of the eleventh century, why the long, clean, unbroken, CHARTRES: THE NAVE ROSES AND APSES III refined lines of the Gothic, curving to points, and leading the eye with a sort of compulsion to the culminating point above, should have made an architectural triumph that carried all Europe off its feet with de- light. The world had seen nothing to approach it except, perhaps, in the dome of Sancta Sophia in Constantinople; and the discovery came at a moment when Europe was making its most united and desperate struggle to attain the kingdom of Heaven. According to Viollet-le-Duc, Chartres was the final triumph of the experiment on a very great scale, for Chartres has never been altered and never needed to be strengthened. The flying buttresses of Chartres answered their purpose, and if it were not a matter of pure Construction it would be worth while to read what Viollet-le-Duc says about them (article, “Arcs-boutants”). The vaulting above is heavy, about fif- teen inches thick; the buttressing had also to be heavy; and to lighten it, the architect devised an amusing sort of arcades, applied on his out- side buttresses. Throughout the church, everything was solid beyond all later custom, so that architects would have to begin by a study of the crypt which came down from the eleventh century so strongly built that it still carries the church without a crack in its walls; but if we went down into it, we should understand nothing; so we will begin, as we did outside, at the front. A single glance shows what trouble the architect had with the old façade and towers, and what temptation to pull them all down. One cannot quite say that he has spoiled his own church in trying to save what he could of the old, but if he did not quite spoil it, he saved it only by the exercise of an amount of intelligence that we shall never learn enough to feel our incapacity to understand. True ignorance approaches the infinite more nearly than any amount of knowledge can do, and, in our case, ignorance is fortified by a certain element of nineteenth-century indifference which refuses to be interested in what it cannot understand; a violent reaction from the thirteenth century which cared little to comprehend anything except the incomprehen- II2 MONT—SAINT-MICHEL AND CHARTRES sible. The architect at Chartres was required by the Virgin to provide more space for her worshippers within the church, without destroy- ing the old portal and flèche which she loved. That this order came directly from the Virgin, may be taken for granted. At Chartres, one sees everywhere the Virgin, and nowhere any rival authority; one sees her give orders, and architects obey them; but very rarely a hesitation as though the architect were deciding for himself. In his western front, the architect has obeyed orders so literally that he has not even taken the trouble to apologize for leaving unfinished the details which, if he had been responsible for them, would have been his anxious care. He has gone to the trouble of moving the heavy doorways forward, so that the chapels in the towers, which were meant to open on a porch, now open into the nave, and the nave itself has, in appearance, two more spans than in the old church; but the work shows blind obedience, as though he were doing his best to please the Virgin without trying to please himself. Probably he could in no case have done much to help the side aisles in their abrupt collision with the solid walls of the two towers, but he might at least have brought the vaulting of his two new bays, in the nave, down to the ground, and finished it. The vaulting is awkward in these two bays, and yet he has taken great trouble to effect what seems at first a small matter. Whether the great rose win- dow was an afterthought or not can never be known, but any one can see with a glass, and better on the architectural plan, that the vault- ing of the main church was not high enough to admit the great rose, and that the architect has had to slope his two tower-spans upward. So great is the height that you cannot see this difference of level very plainly even with a glass, but on the plans it seems to amount to several feet; perhaps a metre. The architect has managed to deceive our eyes, in Order to enlarge the rose; but you can See as plainly as though he were here to tell you, that, like a great general, he has concentrated his whole energy on the rose, because the Virgin has told him that the rose symbolized herself, and that the light and ROSES AND APSES II3 splendour of her appearance in the west were to redeem all his awkwardnesses. Of course this idea of the Virgin's interference sounds to you a mere bit of fancy, and that is an account which may be settled between the Virgin and you; but even twentieth-century eyes can see that the rose redeems everything, dominates everything, and gives character to the whole church. In view of the difficulties which faced the artist, the rose is inspired genius, - the kind of genius which Shakespeare showed when he took some other man's play, and adapted it. Thus far, it shows its power chiefly by the way it comes forward and takes possession of the west front, but if you want a foot-rule to measure by, you may mark that the old, twelfth-century lancet-windows below it are not exactly in its axis. At the outset, in the original plan of Io90, or thereabouts, the old tower — the southern tower — was given greater width than the northern. Such inequalities were common in the early churches, and so is a great deal of dispute in modern books whether they were acci- dental or intentional, while no one denies that they are amusing. In these towers the difference is not great, — perhaps fourteen or fifteen inches, – but it caused the architect to correct it, in order to fit his front to the axis of the church, by throwing his entrance six or seven inches to the South, and narrowing to that extent the south door and south lancet. The effect was bad, even then, and went far to ruin the south window; but when, after the fire of II94, the architect inserted his great rose, filling every inch of possible space between the lancet and the arch of the vault, he made another correction which threw his rose six or seven inches out of axis with the lancets. Not one person in a hundred thousand would notice it, here in the interior, so completely are we under the control of the artist and the Virgin; but it is a meas- ure of the power of the rose. Looking farther, one sees that the rose-motive, which so dominates the west front, is carried round the church, and comes to another II4 MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES outburst of splendour in the transepts. This leads back to fenestra- tion on a great scale, which is a terribly ambitious flight for tourists; all the more, because here the tourist gets little help from the architect, who, in modern times, has seldom the opportunity to study the sub- ject at all, and accepts as solved the problems of early Gothic fenestra- tion. One becomes pedantic and pretentious at the very sound of the word, which is an intolerable piece of pedantry in itself; but Chartres is all windows, and its windows were as triumphant as its Virgin, and were one of her miracles. One can no more overlook the windows of Chartres than the glass which is in them. We have already looked at the windows of Mantes; we have seen what happened to the windows at Paris. Paris had atone leap risen twenty-five feet higher than Noyon, and even at Noyon, the architect, about II 50, had been obliged to invent new fenestration. Paris and Mantes, twenty years later, made another effort, which proved a failure. Then the architect of Chartres, in II95, added ten feet more to his vault, and undertook, once for all, to show how a great cathedral should be lighted. As an architectural problem, it passes far beyond Our powers of understanding, even when solved; but we can always turn to see what the inevitable Viollet-le- Duc says about its solution at Chartres: — . Toward the beginning of the thirteenth century, the architect of the Cathedral of Chartres sought out entirely new window combinations to light the nave from above. Below, in the side aisles he kept to the customs of the times; that is, he opened pointed windows which did not wholly fill the spaces between the piers; he wanted, or was willing to leave here below, the effect of a wall. But in the upper part of his building we see that he changed the system; he throws a round arch directly across from one pier to the next; then, in the enormous space which remains within each span, he inserts two large pointed windows surmounted by a great rose. . . . We recognize in this construction of Notre Dame de Chartres a boldness, a force, which contrast with the fumbling of the architects in the Île de France and Champagne. For the first time one sees at Chartres the builder deal frankly with the clerestory, or upper fenestration, occupying the whole width of the arches, and taking the arch of the vault as the arch of the window. Simplicity of construction, beauty in form, strong workmanship, structure true and solid, judicious choice of material, all the characteristics of good work, unite in this magnificent specimen of architecture at the beginning of the thirteenth century, ROSES AND APSES II5 Viollet-le-Duc does not call attention to a score of other matters which the architect must have had in his mind, such as the distribu- tion of light, and the relations of one arrangement with another: the nave with the aisles, and both with the transepts, and all with the choir. Following him, we must take the choir separately, and the aisles and chapels of the apse also. One cannot hope to understand all the experiments and refinements of the artist, either in their successes or their failures, but, with diffidence, one may ask one's self whether the beauty of the arrangement, as compared with the original arrange- ment in Paris, did not consist in retaining the rose-motive throughout, while throwing the whole upper wall into window. Triumphant as the clerestory windows are, they owe their charm largely to their roses, as you see by looking at the same scheme applied on a larger scale on the transept fronts; and then, by taking stand under the croisée, and look- ing at all in succession as a whole. The rose window was not Gothic but Romanesque, and needed a great deal of coaxing to feel at home within the pointed arch. At first, the architects felt the awkwardness so strongly that they avoided it wherever they could. In the beautiful façade of Laon, one of the chief beauties is the setting of the rose under a deep round arch. The western roses of Mantes and Paris are treated in the same way, al- though a captious critic might Complain that their treatment is not so effective or so logical. Rheims boldly imprisoned the roses within the pointed arch; but Amiens, toward I240, took refuge in the same square exterior setting that was preferred, in I2Oo, here at Chartres; and in the interior of Amiens the round arch of the rose is the last vault of the nave, seen through a vista of pointed vaults, as it is here. All these are supposed to be among the chief beauties of the Gothic façade, al- though the Gothic architect, if he had been a man of logic, would have clung to his lines, and put a pointed window in his front, as in fact he did at Coutances. He felt the value of the rose in art, and perhaps still more in religion, for the rose was Mary's emblem. One is fairly sure II6 MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES that the great Chartres rose of the west front was put there to please her, since it was to be always before her eyes, the most conspicuous object she would see from the high altar, and therefore the most care- fully considered ornament in the whole church, outside the choir. The mere size proves the importance she gave it. The exterior diameter is nearly forty-four feet (13.36 metres). The nave of Chartres is, next perhaps to the nave of Angers, the widest of all Gothic naves; about fifty-three feet (16.31 metres); and the rose takes every inch it can get of this enormous span. The value of the rose, among architects of the time, was great, since it was the only part of the church that Villard de Honnecourt sketched; and since his time, it has been drawn and re- drawn, described and commented by generations of architects till it has become as classic as the Parthenon. Yet this Chartres rose is solid, serious, sedate, to a degree unusual in its own age; it is even more Romanesque than the pure Romanesque roses. At Beauvais you must stop a moment to look at a Romanesque rose on the transept of the Church of Saint-Étienne; Viollet-le-Duc mentions it, with a drawing (article, “Pignon”), as not earlier than the year IIOO, therefore about a century earlier than the rose of Chartres; it is not properly a rose, but a wheel of fortune, with figures climbing up and falling over. Another supposed twelfth-century rose is at Etampes, which goes with that of Laon and Saint-Leu-d'Esserent and Mantes. The rose of Chartres is so much the most serious of them all that Viollet-le-Duc has explained it by its material,—the heavy stone of Berchères; — but the material was not allowed to affect the great transept roses, and the architect made his material yield to his object wherever he thought it worth while. Standing under the central croisée, you can see all three roses by simply turning your head. That on the north, the Rose de France, was built, or planned, between I2OO and I2 IO, in the reign of Philip Augustus, since the porch outside, which would be a later construction, was begun by I2I2. The Rose de France is the same in diameter as the western rose, but lighter, and ROSES AND APSES II7 built of lighter stone. Opposite the Rose de France stands, on the south front, Pierre Mauclerc's Rose de Dreux, of the same date, with the same motive, but even lighter; more like a rose and less like a wheel. All three roses must have been planned at about the same time, perhaps by the same architect, within the same workshop; yet the western rose stands quite apart, as though it had been especially designed to suit the twelfth-century façade and portal which it rules. Whether this was really the artist's idea is a question that needs the artist to answer; but that this is the effect, needs no expert to prove; it stares one in the face. Within and without, one feels that the twelfth- century spirit is respected and preserved with the same religious feel- ing which obliged the architect to injure his own work by sparing that of his grandfathers. Conspicuous, then, in the west front are two feelings: —respect for the twelfth-century work, and passion for the rose fenestration; both subordinated to the demand for light. If it worries you to have to believe that these three things are in fact one; that the architect is listening, like the stone Abraham, for orders from the Virgin, while he caresses and sacrifices his child; that Mary and not her architects built this façade; if the divine intention seems to you a needless imperti- nence, you can SOOn get free from it by going to any of the later churches, where you will not be forced to see any work but that of the architect's compasses. According to Viollet-le-Duc, the inspiration ceased about I250, or, as the Virgin would have dated it, on the death of Blanche of Castile in 1252. The work of Chartres, where her own hand is plainly shown, belongs in feeling, if not in execution, to the last years of the twelfth century (II95–1200). The great western rose which gives the motive for the whole decoration and is repeated in the great roses of the transepts, marks the Virgin's will, - the taste and knowledge of “cele qui la rose est des roses,” or, if you pre- fer the Latin of Adam de Saint-Victor, the hand of her who is “Super rosam rosida.” II8 MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES All this is easy; but if you really cannot see the hand of Mary herself in these broad and public courts, which were intended, not for her personal presence, but for the use of her common people, you had better stop here, and not venture into the choir. Great halls seem to have been easy architecture. Naves and transepts were not often fail- ures; façades and even towers and flèches are invariably more or less successful because they are more or less balanced, mathematical, cal- culable products of reason and thought. The most serious difficulties began only with the choir, and even then did not become desperate until the architect reached the curve of the apse, with its impossible vaultings, its complicated lines, its cross-thrusts, its double problems, internal and external, its defective roofing and unequal lighting. A perfect Gothic apse was impossible; an apse that satisfied perfectly its principal objects was rare; the simplest and cheapest solution was to have no apse at all, and that was the English scheme, which was tried also at Laon; a square, flat wall and window. If the hunt for Norman towers offered a summer's amusement, a hunt for apses would offer an education, but it would lead far out of France. Indeed, it would be simpler to begin at once with Sancta Sophia at Constantinople, San Vitale at Ravenna and Monreale at Palermo, and the churches at Torcello and Murano, and San Marco at Venice; and admit that no device has ever equalled the startling and mystical majesty of the Byzantine half-dome, with its marvellous mosaic Madonna dominating the church, from the entrance, with her imperial and divine presence. Unfortunately, the northern churches needed light, and the northern architects turned their minds to a desperate effort for a new apse. The scheme of the cathedral at Laon seems to have been rejected unanimously; the bare, flat wall at the end of the choir was an eyesore; it was quite bad enough at the end of the nave, and became annoying at the end of the transepts, so that at Noyon and Soissons the archi- tect, with a keen sense of interior form, had rounded the transept ends; but, though external needs might require a square transept, the unin- ROSES AND APSES II9 telligence of the flat wall became insufferable at the east end. Neither did the square choir suit the church ceremonies and processions, or offer the same advantages of arrangement, as the French understood them. With one voice, the French architects seem to have rejected the Laon experiment, and turned back to a solution taken directly from the Romanesque. Quite early—in the eleventh century—a whole group of churches had been built in Auvergne, – at Clermont and Issoire, for example, — possibly by one architect, with a circular apse, breaking out into five apsidal chapels. Tourists who get down as far south as Toulouse see another example of this Romanesque apse in the famous Church of Saint- Sernin, of the twelfth century; and few critics take offence at one's liking it. Indeed, as far as concerns the ex- terior, one might even risk thinking SAINT-MARTIN-DES-CHAMPs it more charming than the exterior of any Gothic apse ever built. Many of these Romanesque apses of the eleventh and twelfth centuries still remain in France, showing them- selves in unsuspected parish churches, here and there, but always a surprise for their quiet, unobtrusive grace, making a harmony with the Romanesque tower, if there is one, into which they rise, as at Saint- Sernin; but all these churches had only one aisle, and, in the interior, there came invariable trouble when the vaults rose in height. The architect of Chartres, in I2OO, could get no direct help from these, or even from Paris which was a beautifully perfect apse, but had no apsidal chapels. The earliest apse that could have served as a sugges- tion for Chartres — or, at least, as a point of observation for us — was that of the Abbey Church of Saint-Martin-des-Champs, which we went to see in Paris, and which is said to date from about II50. I2O MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES Here is a circular choir, surrounded by two rows of columns, irregularly spaced, with circular chapels outside, which seems to have been more or less what the architect of Chartres, for the Virgin's purposes, had set his heart on obtaining. Closely following the scheme of Saint- Martin-des-Champs came the scheme of the Abbey Church at Vézelay, built about II60–80. Here the vaulting sprang di- rectly from the last ſº £º VázELAY arch of the choir, as is shown on the plan, and bearing first on the light columns of NºN-º º, the choir, which were evenly spaced, then fell on a row of heavier columns outside, which were also evenly spaced, and came to rest at last on massive piers, between which were five circular chapels. The plan shows at a glance that this arrangement stretched the second row of columns far apart, and that a church much larger than Vézelay would need to space them so much farther apart that the arch uniting them would have to rise indefinitely; while, if beyond this, another aisle were added outside, the piers finally would require impossible vaulting. The problem stood thus when the great cathedrals were undertaken, and the architect of Paris boldly grappled with the double aisle on a scale requiring a new scheme. Here, in spite of the most virtuous resolutions not to be technical, we must attempt a technicality, because without it, one of the most interesting eccentricities of Char- tres would be lost. Once more, Viollet-le-Duc: — As the architect did not want to give the interior bays of the apse spaces between the columns (AA) less than that of the parallel bays (BB), it followed that the first . ROSES AND APSES - I2 I radiating bay gave a first space (LMGH) which was difficult to vault, and a second space (HGEF) which was impossible; for how establish an arch from F to EP Even If round, its key would have risen much higher than the key of the pointed archi. volt LM. As the second radiating bay opened out still wider, the difficulty was increased. The builder therefore inserted the two intermediate pillars O and P between the columns of the second aisle (H, G, and I); which he supported, in the outside wall of the church, by one corresponding pier (Q) in the first bay of the apse, and by two similar piers (R and S) in the second bay. “There is no need to point out,” continued Viollet-le-Duc, as though he much suspected that there might be need of pointing out, “what skill this system showed and how much the art of architecture had already A yº been developed in the Ile de France * (ſy toward the end of the twelfth cen- ſº, tury; to what an extent the unity of ...' ºx. A ; : \ º arrangement and style preoccupied the | Sºx' Sº artists of that province.” ſº In fact, the arrangement seems Jº CS mathematically and technically per- ? -: 3. ; fect. At all events, we know too little IXXIX to criticize it. Yet one would much $ 4 || º § like to be told why it was not repeated ºf Sº Y ºxº NOTRE DAME DE PARIs by any other architect or in any other church. Apparently the Parisians them- selves were not quite satisfied with it, since they altered it a hundred years later, in 1296, in order to build out chapels between the piers. As the architects of each new cathe- dral had, in the interval, insisted on apsidal chapels, one may venture to guess that the Paris scheme hampered the services. At Chartres the church services are Mary's own tastes; the church is Mary; and the chapels are her private rooms. She was not pleased with the arrangements made for her in her palace at Paris; they were too architectural; too regular and mathematical; too popular; too º I22 MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES impersonal; and she rather abruptly ordered her architect at Chartres to go back to the old arrangement. The apse at Paris was hardly covered with its leading be- fore the architect of Chartres adopted a totally new plan, which, according to Viollet- le-Duc, does him little credit, but which was plainly im- posed on him, like the twelfth- century portal. Not only had it nothing of the mathemati- cal correctness and precision of the Paris scheme, easy to understandandimitate, but it carried even a sort of violence — a wrench — in its system, as though the Virgin had said, with her grand Byzan- tine air: — I will it! “At Chartres,” said Viol- let-le-Duc, “the choir of the Cathedral presents a plan which does no great honour to its architect. There is want of accord between the circular apse and the parallel sides of the sanctuary; the spac- CHARTRES ings of the columns of the second collateral are loose (lāches); the vaults quite poorly combined; and in spite of the great width of the spaces between the columns of the second aisle, the architect had still to narrow those between the interior columns.” The plan shows that, from the first, the architect must have delib- erately rejected the Paris Scheme; he must have begun by narrowing the spaces between his inner columns; then, with a sort of violence, he fitted on his second row of columns; and, finally, he showed his motive by constructing an outer wall of an original or unusual shape. ROSES AND APSES I23 Any woman would see at once the secret of all this ingenuity and ef- fort. The Chartres apse, enormous in size and width, is exquisitely lighted. Here, as everywhere throughout the church, the windows give the law, but here they actually take place of law. The Virgin her- self saw to the lighting of her own boudoir. According to Viollet-le- Duc, Chartres differs from all the other great cathedrals by being built not for its nave or even for its choir, but for its apse; it was planned not for the people or the court, but for the Queen; not a church but a shrine; and the shrine is the apse where the Queen arranged her light to please herself and not her architect, who had already been sacrificed at the western portal and who had a free hand only in the nave and transepts where the Queen never went, and which, from her own apartment, she did not €Ven. See. This is, in effect, what Viollet-le-Duc says in his professional language, which is perhaps — or sounds – more reasona- ble to tourists, whose imaginations are hardly equal to the effort of fan- cying a real deity. Per- haps, indeed, one might get so high as to imagine a real Bishop of Laon, who should have ordered his architect to build an enormous hall of religion, to rival the immense abbeys of the day, and to attract the LAON 124 MONT-SAINT-MICHEL AND CHARTRES people, as though it were a clubroom. There they were to see all BOURGEs the great sights; church cere- monies; theatricals; political functions; there they were to do business, and frequent society. They were to feel at home in their church because it was theirs, and did not belong to a priesthood or to Rome. Jealousy of Rome was a leading motive of Gothic architecture, and Rome re- paid it in full. The Bishop of Laon conceded at least a transept to custom or tradi- tion, but the Archbishop of Bourges abolished even the transept, and the great hall had no special religious ex- pression except in the circular apse with its chapels which Laon had abandoned. One can hardly decide whether Laon or Bourges is the more popular, indus- trial, political, or, in other words, the less religious; but the Parisians, as the plan of Viollet-le-Duc has shown, were quite as ad- vanced as either, and only later altered their scheme into one that pro- vided chapels for religious service. ROSES AND APSES I25 Amiens and Beauvais have each seven chapels, but only one aisle, so that they do not belong in the same class with the apses of Paris, Bourges, and Chartres, though the plans are worth studying for comparison, since they show how many-sided the problem was, and how far from satisfied the architects were with their own schemes. The most interesting of all, for comparison with Chartres, is Le Mans, where the apsidal chapels are carried to fanaticism, while the vaulting seems to be reasonable enough, and the double aisle suc- cessfully managed, if Viollet-le-Duc permits ignorant people to form an opinion on architectural dogma. For our purposes, *****, the architectural dogma tºº ...” Ø § ###$s may stand, and the Paris Spºrts ºš4 scheme may be taken for Wºź. | granted, as alone correctand {}^º. Orthodox; all that Viollet- ~7 ** • * le-Duc teaches is that the Wºº. §. S i Chartresscheme is unortho- - dox, not to say heretical; and this is the point on which his words are most interesting. The church at Chartres belonged not to the people, not to the priesthood, and not even to Rome; it be- longed to the Virgin. “Here i.: -ºm * º º { : *-- -e * .& 3.. l— - >C s the religious influence ap- pears wholly; three large chapels in the apse; four others less pronounced; double aisles of great width round the choir; vast transepts! Here the church ceremonial could display all its pomp; BEAUVAIs I26 MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES the choir, more than at Paris, more than at Bourges, more than at Soissons, and especially more than at Laon, is the principal object; for it, the church is built.” One who is painfully conscious of ignorance, and who never would LE MANs dream of suggesting a correction to anybody, may not venture to sug- gest an idea of any sort to an architect; but if it were allowed to para- phrase Viollet-le-Duc's words into a more or less emotional or twelfth- century form, one might say, after him, that, compared with Paris or Laon, the Chartres apse shows the same genius that is shown in the Chartres rose; the same large mind that overrules, – the same strong will that defies difficulties. The Chartres apse is as entertaining ROSES AND APSES 127 as all the other Gothic apses together, because it overrides the architect. You may, if you really have no imagination whatever, reject the idea that the Virgin herself made the plan; the feebleness of our fancy is now congenital, organic, beyond stimulant or Strych- Crs: > f i º l º & C PS Sº tº º Q /?\s * § º 422. º ^ º º X XD- >< | :* x-p XX. | X *: # T & g s < º &N X. X <> X ) nine, and we shrink like sensitive-plants from the touch of a vision or spirit; but at least one can still sometimes feel a woman's taste, and in the apse of Chartres one feels nothing else. X CHAPTER VIII THE TWELFTH-CENTURY GLASS T last we are face to face with the crowning glory of Chartres. Other churches have glass, – quantities of it, and very fine,— but we have been trying to catch a glimpse of the glory which stands behind the glass of Chartres, and gives it quality and feeling of its own. For once the architect is useless and his explanations are pitiable; the painter helps still less; and the decorator, unless he works in glass, is the poorest guide of all, while, if he works in glass, he is sure to lead wrong; and all of them may toil until Pierre Mauclerc's stone Christ comes to life, and condemns them among the unpardonable sinners on the southern portal, but neither they nor any other artist will ever create another Chartres. You had better stop here, once for all, unless you are willing to feel that Chartres was made what it is, not by the artist, but by the Virgin. If this imperial presence is stamped on the architecture and the sculpture with an energy not to be mistaken, it radiates through the glass with a light and colour that actually blind the true servant of Mary. One becomes, sometimes, a little incoherent in talking about it; one is ashamed to be as extravagant as one wants to be; one has no business to labour painfully to explain and prove to one's self what is as clear as the Sun in the sky; one loses temper in reasoning about what can only be felt, and what ought to be felt instantly, as it was in the twelfth century, even by the truie qui file and the ame qui vielle. Any One should feel it that wishes; any one who does not wish to feel it can Ret it alone. Still, it may be that not one tourist in a hundred — per- haps not one in a thousand of the English-speaking race — does feel it, or can feel it even when explained to him, for we have lost many Se]]|SéS. THE TWELFTH-CENTURY GLASS I29 Therefore, let us plod on, laboriously proving God, although, even to Saint Bernard and Pascal, God was incapable of proof; and using such material as the books furnish for help. It is not much. The French have been shockingly negligent of their greatest artistic glory. One knows not even where to seek. One must go to the National Library and beg as a special favour permission to look at the monu- mental work of M. Lasteyrie, if one wishes to make even a beginning of the study of French glass. Fortunately there exists a fragment of a great work which the Government began, but never completed, upon Chartres; and another, quite indispensable, but not official, upon Bourges; while Viollet-le-Duc's article “Vitrail” serves as guide to the whole. Ottin's book “Le Vitrail” is convenient. Mâle's volume “L’Art Religieux” is essential. In English, Westlake's “History of Design ' is helpful. Perhaps, after reading all that is readable, the best hope will be to provide the best glasses with the largest possible field; and, choosing an hour when the church is empty, take seat about halfway up the nave, facing toward the western entrance with a morning light, so that the glass of the western windows shall not stand in direct sun. The glass of the three lancets is the oldest in the cathedral. If the portal beneath it, with the sculpture, was built in the twenty or thirty years before II 50, the glass could not be much later. It goes with the Abbé Suger's glass at Saint-Denis, which was surely made as early as II40–50, since the Abbé was a long time at work on it, before he died in II52. Their perfection proves, what his biographer asserted, that the Abbé Suger spent many years as well as much money on his windows at Saint-Denis, and the specialists affirm that the three lancets at Chartres are quite as good as what remains of Suger's work. Viollet- le-Duc and M. Paul Durand, the Government expert, are positive tha" this glass is the finest ever made, as far as record exists; and that the northern lancet representing the Tree of Jesse stands at the head of all glasswork whatever. The windows claim, therefore, to be the most I30 MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES splendid colour decoration the world ever saw, since no other material, neither silk nor gold, and no opaque colour laid on with a brush, can compare with translucent glass, and even the Ravenna mosaics or Chinese porcelains are darkness beside them. The claim may not be modest, but it is none of ours. Viollet-le- Duc must answer for his own sins, and he chose the lancet window of the Tree of Jesse for the subject of his lecture on glass in general, as the most complete and perfect example of this greatest decorative art. Once more, in following him, one is dragged, in spite of one's self, into technique, and, what is worse, into a colour world whose technique was forgotten five hundred years ago. Viollet-le-Duc tried to recover it. “After studying our best French windows,” he cautiously suggests that “one might maintain,” as their secret of harmony, that “the first condition for an artist in glass is to know how to manage blue. The blue is the light in windows, and light has value only by opposition.” The radiating power of blue is, therefore, the starting-point, and on this matter Viollet-le-Duc has much to say which a student would need to master; but a tourist never should study, or he ceases to be a tourist; and it is enough for us if we know that, to get the value they wanted, the artists hatched their blues with lines, covered their sur- face with figures as though with screens, and tied their blue within its own field with narrow circlets of white or yellow, which, in their turn, were beaded to fasten the blue still more firmly in its place. We have chiefly to remember the law that blue is light: — But also it is that luminous colour which gives value to all others. If you com- pose a window in which there shall be no blue, you will get a dirty or dull (blafard) or crude surface which the eye will instantly avoid; but if you put a few touches of blue among all these tones, you will immediately get striking effects if not skilfully conceived harmony. So the composition of blue glass singularly preoccu- pied the glassworkers of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. If there is only one red, two yellows, two or three purples, and two or three greens at the most, there are infinite shades of blue, . . . and these blues are placed with a very deli- cate observation of the effects they should produce on other tones, and other tones on them. THE TWELFTH-CENTURY GLASS I3 I Viollet-le-Duc took the window of the Tree of Jesse as his first illustration of the rule, for the reason that its blue ground is one con- tinuous strip from top to bottom, with the subordinate red on either side, and a border uniting the whole so plainly that no one can fail to see its object or its method. The blue tone of the principal subject [that is to say, the ground of the Tree of Jessel has commanded the tonality of all the rest. This medium was necessary to enable the luminous splendour to display its energy. This primary condition had dictated the red ground for the prophets, and the return to the blue on reach- ing the outside semicircular band. To give full value both to the vigour of the red, and to the radiating transparency of the blue, the ground of the corners is put in emerald green; but then, in the corners themselves, the blue is recalled and is given an additional solidity of value by the delicate ornamentation of the squares. This translation is very free, but one who wants to know these windows must read the whole article, and read it here in the church, the Dictionary in one hand, and binocle in the other, for the binocle is more important than the Dictionary when it reaches the complicated border which repeats in detail the colour-scheme of the centre: — The border repeats all the tones allotted to the principal subjects, but by small fragments, so that this border, with an effect both solid and powerful, shall not enter into rivalry with the large arrangements of the central parts. One would think this simple enough; easily tested on any illumi- nated manuscript, Arab, Persian, or Byzantine; verified by any Orien- tal rug, old or new; freely illustrated by any Chinese pattern on a Ming jar, or cloisonné vase; and offering a kind of alphabet for the shop- window of a Paris modiste. A strong red; a strong and a weak yellow; a strong and a weak purple; a strong and a weak green, are all to be tied together, given their values, and held in their places by blue. The thing seems simpler still when it appears that perspective is forbidden, and that these glass windows of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, like Oriental rugs, imply a flat surface, a wall which must not be treated as open. The twelfth-century glassworker would sooner have worn a landscape on his back than have costumed his church with it; he would I32 MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES as soon have decorated his floors with painted holes as his walls. He wanted to keep the coloured window flat, like a rug hung on the wall. The radiation of translucent colours in windows cannot be modified by the art- ist; all his talent consists in profiting by it, according to a given harmonic scheme on a single plane, like a rug, but not according to an effect of aerial perspective. Do what you like, a glass window never does and never can represent anything but a plane surface; its real virtues even exist only on that condition. Every at- tempt to present several planes to the eye is fatal to the harmony of colour, with- out producing any illusion in the spectator. . . . Translucid painting can pro- pose as its object only a design supporting as energetically as possible a harmony of colours. Whether this law is absolute you can tell best by looking at modern glass which is mostly perspective; but, whether you like it or not, the matter of perspective does not enter into a twelfth-century window more than into a Japanese picture, and may be ignored. The decora- tion of the twelfth century, as far as concerns us, was intended only for one plane, and a window was another form of rug or embroidery or mosaic, hung on the wall for colour, – simple decoration to be seen as a whole. If the Tree of Jesse teaches anything at all, it is that the artist thought first of controlling his light, but he wanted to do it not in order to dim the colours; on the contrary, he toiled, like a jeweller setting diamonds and rubies, to increase their splendour. If his use of blue teaches this lesson, his use of green proves it. The outside bor- der of the Tree of Jesse is a sort of sample which our schoolmaster Viollet-le-Duc sets, from which he requires us to study out the scheme, beginning with the treatment of light, and ending with the value of the emerald green ground in the corners. Complicated as the border of the Tree of Jesse is, it has its mates in the borders of the two other twelfth-century windows, and a few of the thirteenth-century in the side aisles; but the southern of the three lancets shows how the artists dealt with a difficulty that upset their rule. The border of the southern window does not count as it should; something is wrong with it and a little study shows that the THE TWELFTH-CENTURY GLASS I33 builder, and not the glassworker, was to blame. Owing to his mis- calculation – if it was really a miscalculation — in the width of the southern tower, the builder economized six or eight inches in the south- ern door and lancet, which was enough to destroy the balance between the colour-values, as masses, of the south and north windows. The artist was obliged to choose whether he would sacrifice the centre or the border of his southern window, and decided that the windows could not be made to balance if he narrowed the centre, but that he must balance them by enriching the centre, and sacrificing the border. He has filled the centre with medallions as rich as he could make them, and these he has surrounded with borders, which are also enriched to the utmost; but these medallions with their borders spread across the whole window, and when you search with the binocle for the outside border, you see its pattern clearly only at the top and bottom. On the sides, at intervals of about two feet, the medallions cover and inter- rupt it; but this is partly corrected by making the border, where it is seen, so rich as to surpass any other in the cathedral, even that of the Tree of Jesse. Whether the artist has succeeded or not is a question for other artists — or for you, if you please – to decide; but appar- ently he did succeed, since no one has ever noticed the difficulty or the device. The southern lancet represents the Passion of Christ. Granting to Viollet-le-Duc that the unbroken vertical colour-scheme of the Tree of Jesse made the more effective window, one might still ask whether the medallion-scheme is not the more interesting. Once past the work- shop, there can be no question about it; the Tree of Jesse has the least interest of all the three windows. A genealogical tree has little value, artistic or other, except to those who belong in its branches, and the Tree of Jesse was put there, not to please us, but to please the Virgin. The Passion window was also put there to please her, but it tells a story, and does it in a way that has more novelty than the subject. The draughtsman who chalked out the design on the whitened table 134 MONT—SAINT-MICHEL AND CHARTRES that served for his sketch-board was either a Greek, or had before him a Byzantine missal, or enamel or ivory. The first medallion on these legendary windows is the lower left-hand one, which begins the story or legend; here it represents Christ after the manner of the Greek Church. In the next medallion is the Last Supper; the fish on the dish is Greek. In the middle of the window, with the help of the binocle, you will see a Crucifixion, or even two, for on the left is Christ on the Cross, and on the right a Descent from the Cross; in this is the figure of a man pulling out with pincers the nails which fasten Christ's feet; a figure unknown to Western religious art. The Noli Me Tangere, on the right, near the top, has a sort of Greek character. All the critics, especially M. Paul Durand, have noticed this Byzantine look, which is even more marked in the Suger window at Saint-Denis, so as to suggest that both are by the same hand, and that the hand of a Greek. If the artist was really a Greek, he has done work more beautiful than any left at Byzantium, and very far finer than anything in the beau- tiful work at Cairo, but although the figures and subjects are more or less Greek, like the sculptures on the portal, the art seems to be French. Look at the central window! Naturally, there sits the Virgin, with her genealogical tree on her left, and her Son's testimony on her right, to prove her double divinity. She is seated in the long halo; as, on the western portal, directly beneath her, her Son is represented in stone. Her crown and head, as well as that of the Child, are fourteenth- century restorations more or less like the original; but her cushioned throne and her robes of imperial state, as well as the flowered sceptre in either hand, are as old as the sculpture of the portal, and redolent of the first crusade. On either side of her, the Sun and the Moon offer praise; her two Archangels, Michael and Gabriel, with resplendent wings, offer not incense as in later times, but the two sceptres of spirit- ual and temporal power; while the Child in her lap repeats His Mother's action and even her features and expression. At first sight, one would take for granted that all this was pure Byzantium, and perhaps it is; THE TWELFTH-CENTURY GLASS I35 but it has rather the look of Byzantium gallicized, and carried up to a poetic French ideal. At Saint-Denis the little figure of the Abbé Suger at the feet of the Virgin has a very Oriental look, and in the twin me- dallion the Virgin resembles greatly the Virgin of Chartres, yet, for us, until some specialist shows us the Byzantine original, the work is as thoroughly French as the flèches of the churches. Byzantine art is altogether another chapter, and, if we could but take a season to study it in Byzantium, we might get great amusement; but the art of Chartres, even in I IOO, was French and perfectly French, as the architecture shows, and the glass is even more French than the architecture, as you can detect in many other ways. Perhaps the surest evidence is the glass itself. The men who made it were not professionals but amateurs, who may have had some knowledge of enamelling, but who worked like jewellers, unused to glass, and with the refinement that a reliquary or a crozier required. The cost of these windows must have been extravagant; one is almost surprised that they are not set in gold rather than in lead. The Abbé Suger shirked neither trouble nor expense, and the only serious piece of evidence that this artist was a Greek is given by his biographer who unconsciously shows that the artist cheated him: “He sought carefully for makers of windows and workmen in glass of exquisite quality, especially in that made of sap- phires in great abundance that were pulverized and melted up in the glass to give it the blue colour which he delighted to admire.” The “materia saphirorum” was evidently something precious, – as pre- cious as crude sapphires would have been, – and the words imply beyond question that the artist asked for sapphires and that Suger paid for them; yet all specialists agree that the stone known as sap- phire, if ground, could not produce translucent colour at all. The blue which Suger loved, and which is probably the same as that of these Chartres windows, cannot be made out of sapphires. Probably the “materia saphirorum” means cobalt only, but whatever it was, the glassmakers seem to agree that this glass of II40–50 is the best ever I36 MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES made. M. Paul Durand in his official report of 1881 said that these windows, both artistically and mechanically, were of the highest class: “I will also call attention to the fact that the glass and the execution of the painting are, materially speaking, of a quality much superior to windows of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Having passed several months in contact with these precious works when I copied them, I was able to convince myself of their superiority in every particular, especially in the upper parts of the three windows.” He said that they were perfect and irreproachable. The true enthusi- ast in glass would in the depths of his heart like to say outright that these three windows are worth more than all that the French have since done in colour, from that day to this; but the matter concerns us chiefly because it shows how French the experiment was, and how Suger's taste and wealth made it possible. Certain it is, too, that the southern window — the Passion — was made on the spot, or nearby, and fitted for the particular space with care proportionate to its cost. All are marked by the hand of the Chartres Virgin. They are executed not merely for her, but by her. At Saint-Denis the Abbé Suger appeared, - it is true that he was prostrate at her feet, but still he appeared. At Chartres no one — no suggestion of a human agency — was allowed to appear; the Virgin permitted no one to approach her, even to adore. She is enthroned above, as Queen and Empress and Mother, with the symbols of exclu- sive and universal power. Below her, she permitted the world to see the glories of her earthly life; — the Annunciation, Visitation, and Nativity; the Magi; King Herod; the Journey to Egypt; and the single medallion, which shows the gods of Egypt falling from their pedestals at her coming, is more entertaining than a whole picture-gallery of oil paintings. In all France there exist barely a dozen good specimens of twelfth- century glass. Besides these windows at Chartres and the fragments at Saint-Denis, there are windows at Le Mans and Angers and bits at THE TWELFTH-CENTURY GLASS I37 Vendôme, Chalons, Poitiers, Rheims, and Bourges; here and there one happens on other pieces, but the earliest is the best, because the glass- makers were new at the work and spent on it an infinite amount of trouble and money which they found to be unnecessary as they gained experience. Even in I2Oo the value of these windows was so well understood, relatively to new ones, that they were preserved with the greatest care. The effort to make such windows was never repeated. Their jewelled perfection did not suit the scale of the vast churches of the thirteenth century. By turning your head toward the windows of the side aisles, you can see the criticism which the later artists passed on the old work. They found it too refined, too brilliant, too jewel-like for the size of the new cathedral; the play of light and colour allowed the eye too little repose; indeed, the eye could not see their whole beauty, and half their value was thrown away in this huge stone set- ting. At best they must have seemed astray on the bleak, cold, windy plain of Beauce, — homesick for Palestine or Cairo, - yearning for Monreale or Venice, — but this is not our affair, and, under the pro- tection of the Empress Virgin, Saint Bernard himself could have afforded to sin even to drunkenness of colour. With trifling expense of imagination one can still catch a glimpse of the crusades in the glory of the glass. The longer one looks into it, the more overpowering it becomes, until one begins almost to feel an echo of what our two hundred and fifty million arithmetical ancestors, drunk with the passion of youth and the splendour of the Virgin, have been calling to us from Mont-Saint-Michel and Chartres. No words and no wine could revive their emotions so vividly as they glow in the purity of the colours; the limpidity of the blues; the depth of the red; the intensity of the green; the complicated harmonies; the sparkle and splendour of the light; and the quiet and certain strength of the mass. With too strong direct sun the windows are said to suffer, and be- come a cluster of jewels — a delirium of coloured light. The lines, too, have different degrees of merit. These criticisms seldom strike a 138 MONT-SAINT-MICHEL AND CHARTRES chance traveller, but he invariably makes the discovery that the de- signs within the medallions are childish. He may easily correct them, if he likes, and see what would happen to the window; but although this is the alphabet of art, and we are past spelling words of one sylla- ble, the criticism teaches at least one lesson. Primitive man seems to have had a natural colour-sense, instinctive like the scent of a dog. Society has no right to feel it as a moral reproach to be told that it has reached an age when it can no longer depend, as in childhood, on its taste, or smell, or sight, or hearing, or memory; the fact seems likely enough, and in no way sinful; yet society always denies it, and is invariably angry about it; and, therefore, one had better not say it. On the other hand, we can leave Delacroix and his school to fight out the battle they began against Ingres and his school, in French art, nearly a hundred years ago, which turned in substance on the same point. Ingres held that the first motive in colour-decoration was line, and that a picture which was well drawn was well enough coloured. Society seemed, on the whole, to agree with him. Society in the twelfth century agreed with Delacroix. The French held then that the first point in colour-decoration was colour, and they never hesitated to put their colour where they wanted it, or cared whether a green camel or a pink lion looked like a dog or a donkey provided they got their harmony or value. Everything except colour was sacrificed to line in the large sense, but details of drawing were conventional and subordinate. So we laugh to see a knight with a blue face, on a green horse, that looks as though drawn by a four-year-old child, and prob- ably the artist laughed, too; but he was a colourist, and never sacri- ficed his colour for a laugh. We tourists assume commonly that he knew no better. In our sim- ple faith in ourselves, great hope abides, for it shows an earnestness hardly less than that of the crusaders; but in the matter of colour one is perhaps less convinced, or more open to curiosity. No school of colour exists in our world to-day, while the Middle Ages had a dozen; THE TWELFTH-CENTURY GLASS I39 but it is certainly true that these twelfth-century windows break the French tradition. They had no antecedent, and no fit succession. All the authorities dwell on their exceptional character. One is Sorely tempted to suspect that they were in some way an accident; that such an art could not have sprung, in such perfection, out of nothing, had it been really French; that it must have had its home elsewhere — on the Rhine — in Italy — in Byzantium — or in Bagdad. The same controversy has raged for near two hundred years over the Gothic arch, and everything else mediaeval, down to the philosophy of the schools. The generation that lived during the first and second crusades tried a number of original experiments, besides capturing Jerusalem. Among other things, it produced the western portal of Chartres, with its statuary, its glass, and its flèche, as a by-play; as it produced Abélard, Saint Bernard, and Christian of Troyes, whose acquaintance we have still to make. It took ideas wherever it found them; — from Germany, Italy, Spain, Constantinople, Palestine, or from the source which has always attracted the French mind like a magnet — from ancient Greece. That it actually did take the ideas, no one disputes, except perhaps patriots who hold that even the ideas were original; but to most students the ideas need to be accounted for less than the taste with which they were handled, and the quickness with which they were developed. That the taste was French, you can see in the architecture, or you will see if ever you meet the Gothic else- where; that it seized and developed an idea quickly, you have seen in the arch, the flèche, the porch, and the windows, as well as in the glass; but what we do not comprehend, and never shall, is the appetite behind all this; the greed for novelty: the fun of life. Every one who has lived since the sixteenth century has felt deep distrust of every one who lived before it, and of every one who believed in the Middle Ages. True it is that the last thirteenth-century artist died a long time before our planet began its present rate of revolution; it had to come to rest, and begin again; but this does not prevent astonishment that the I40 MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES twelfth-century planet revolved so fast. The pointed arch not only came as an idea into France, but it was developed into a system of architecture and covered the country with buildings on a scale of height never before attempted except by the dome, with an expendi- ture of wealth that would make a railway system look cheap, all in a space of about fifty years; the glass came with it, and went with it, at least as far as concerns us; but, if you need other evidence, you can consult Renan, who is the highest authority: “One of the most singu- lar phenomena of the literary history of the Middle Ages,” says Renan of Averroës, “is the activity of the intellectual commerce, and the rapidity with which books were spread from one end of Europe to the other. The philosophy of Abélard during his lifetime (I IOO–42) had enetrated to the ends of Italy. The French poetry of the trouvères counted within less than a century translations into German, Swedish, Norwegian, Icelandic, Flemish, Dutch, Bohemian, Italian, Spanish”; and he might have added that England needed no translation, but helped to compose the poetry, not being at that time so insular as she afterwards became. “Such or such a work, composed in Morocco or in Cairo, was known at Paris and at Cologne in less time than it would need in our days for a German book of capital importance to pass the Rhine”; and Renan wrote this in 1852 when German books of capital importance were revolutionizing the literary world. One is apt to forget the smallness of Europe, and how quickly it could always be crossed. In summer weather, with fair winds, one can sail from Alexandria or from Syria, to Sicily, or even to Spain and France, in perfect safety and with ample room for freight, as easily now as One could do it then, without the aid of steam; but one does not now carry freight of philosophy, poetry, or art. The world still strug- gles for unity, but by different methods, weapons, and thought. The mercantile exchanges which surprised Renan, and which have puzzled historians, were in ideas. The twelfth century was as greedy for them in one shape as the nineteenth century in another. France paid for THE TWELFTH-CENTURY GLASS I4] them dearly, and repented for centuries; but what creates surprise to the point of incredulity is her hunger for them, the youthful gluttony with which she devoured them, the infallible taste with which she dressed them out. The restless appetite that Snatched at the pointed arch, the stone flèche, the coloured glass, the illuminated missal, the chanson and roman and pastorelle, the fragments of Aristotle, the glosses of Avicenne, was nothing compared with the genius which instantly gave form and flower to them all. This episode merely means that the French twelfth-century artist may be supposed to have known his business, and if he produced a grotesque, or a green-faced Saint, or a blue castle, or a syllogism, or a song, that he did it with a notion of the effect he had in mind. The glass window was to him a whole, – a mass, - and its details were his amusement; for the twelfth-century Frenchman enjoyed his fun, though it was sometimes rather heavy for modern French taste, and less refined than the Church liked. These three twelfth-century win- dows, like their contemporary portal outside, and the flèche that goes with them, are the ideals of enthusiasts of mediaeval art; they are above the level of all known art, in religious form; they are inspired; they are divine! This is the claim of Chartres and its Virgin. Actually, the French artist, whether architect, sculptor, or painter in glass, did rise here above his usual level. He knew it when he did it, and probably he attributed it, as we do, to the Virgin; for these works of his were hardly fifty years old when the rest of the old church was burned; and already the artist felt the virtue gone out of him. He could not do so well in I2OO as he did in II.50; and the Virgin was not so 11623.T. The proof of it — or, if you prefer to think so, the proof against it — is before our eyes on the wall above the lancet windows. When Villard de Honnecourt came to Chartres, he seized at once on the western rose as his study, although the two other roses were probably there, in all their beauty and lightness. He saw in the western rose Some quality of I42 MONT—SAINT-MICHEL AND CHARTRES construction which interested him; and, in fact, the western rose is one of the flowers of architecture which reveals its beauties slowly without end; but its chief beauty is the feeling which unites it with the portal, the lancets, and the flèche. The glassworker here in the interior had the same task to perform. The glass of the lancets was fifty years old when the glass for the rose was planned; perhaps it was seventy, for the exact dates are unknown, but it does not matter, for the greater the interval, the more interesting is the treatment. Whatever the date, the glass of the western rose cannot be much earlier or much later than that of the other roses, or that of the choir, and yet you see at a glance that it is quite differently treated. On such matters one must, of course, submit to the opinion of artists, which one does the more read- ily because they always disagree; but until the artists tell us better, we may please ourselves by fancying that the glass of the rose was intended to harmonize with that of the lancets, and unite it with the thirteenth-century glass of the nave and transepts. Among all the thirteenth-century windows the western rose alone seems to affect a rivalry in brilliancy with the lancets, and carries it so far that the sepa- rate medallions and pictures are quite lost, — especially in direct sunshine, – blending in a confused effect of opals, in a delirium of colour and light, with a result like a cluster of stones in jewelry. Assuming as one must, in want of the artist's instruction, that he knew what he wanted to do, and did it, one must take for granted that he treated the rose as a whole, and aimed at giving it harmony with the three precious windows beneath. The effect is that of a single large ornament; a round breastpin, or what is now called a sunburst, of jewels, with three large pendants beneath. We are ignorant tourists, liable to much error in trying to seek motives in artists who worked seven hundred years ago for a society which thought and felt in forms quite unlike ours, but the mediaeval pilgrim was more ignorant than we, and much simpler in mind; if the idea of an ornament occurs to us, it certainly occurred to him, and still THE TWELFTH-CENTURY GLASS I43 more to the glassworker whose business was to excite his illusions. An artist, if good for anything, foresees what his public will see; and what his public will see is what he ought to have intended — the measure of his genius. If the public sees more than he himself did, this is his credit; if less, this is his fault. No matter how simple or ignorant we are, we ought to feel a discord or a harmony where the artist meant us to feel it, and when we see a motive, we conclude that other people have seen it before us, and that it must, therefore, have been intended. Neither of the transept roses is treated like this one; neither has the effect of a personal ornament; neither is treated as a jewel. No one knew so well as the artist that such treatment must give the effect of a jewel. The Roses of France and of Dreux bear indelibly and flagrantly the character of France and Dreux; on the western rose is stamped with greater refinement but equal decision the character of a much greater power than either of them. No artist would have ventured to put up, before the eyes of Mary in Majesty, above the windows so dear to her, any object that she had notherself commanded. Whether a miracle was necessary, or whether genius was enough, is a point of casuistry which you can settle with Albertus Magnus or Saint Bernard, and which you will understand as little when settled as before; but for us, beyond the futilities of unnec- essary doubt, the Virgin designed this rose; not perhaps in quite the same perfect spirit in which she designed the lancets, but still wholly for her own pleasure and as her own idea. She placed upon the breast of her Church — which symbolized herself — a jewel so gorgeous that no earthly majesty could bear comparison with it, and which no other heavenly majesty has rivalled. As one watches the light play on it, one is still overcome by the glories of the jewelled rose and its three gemmed pendants; one feels a little of the effect she meant it to produce even on infidels, Moors, and heretics, but infinitely more on the men who feared and the women who adored her; — not to dwell too long upon it, One admits that hers is the only Church. One I44 MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES would admit anything that she should require. If you had only the soul of a shrimp, you would crawl, like the Abbé Suger, to kiss her feet. Unfortunately she is gone, or comes here now so very rarely that we never shall see her; but her genius remains as individual here as the genius of Blanche of Castile and Pierre de Dreux in the transepts. That the three lancets were her own taste, as distinctly as the Trianon was the taste of Louis XIV, is self-evident. They represent all that was dearest to her; her Son's glory on her right; her own beautiful life in the middle; her royal ancestry on her left: the story of her divine right, thrice-told. The pictures are all personal, like family por- traits. Above them the man who worked in I2OO to carry out the harmony, and to satisfy the Virgin's wishes, has filled his rose with a dozen or two little compositions in glass, which reveal their subjects only to the best powers of a binocle. Looking carefully, one discovers at last that this gorgeous combination of all the hues of Paradise con- tains or hides a Last Judgment – the one subject carefully excluded from the old work, and probably not existing on the south portal for another twenty years. If the scheme of the western rose dates from I2OO, as is reasonable to suppose, this Last Judgment is the oldest in the church, and makes a link between the theology of the first crusade, beneath, and the theology of Pierre Mauclerc in the south porch. The churchman is the only true and final judge on his own doctrine, and we neither know nor care to know the facts; but we are as good judges as he of the feeling, and we are at full liberty to feel that such a Last Judgment as this was never seen before or since by churchman or here- tic, unless by virtue of the heresy which held that the true Christian must be happy in being damned since such is the will of God. That this blaze of heavenly light was intended, either by the Virgin or by her workmen, to convey ideas of terror or pain, is a notion which the Church might possibly preach, but which we sinners knew to be false in the thirteenth century as well as we know it now. Never in all these THE TWELFTH-CENTURY GLASS I45 seven hundred years has one of us looked up at this rose without feel- ing it to be Our Lady's promise of Paradise. Here as everywhere else throughout the church, one feels the Vir. gin's presence, with no other thought than her majesty and grace. To the Virgin and to her suppliants, as to us, who though outcasts in other churches can still hope in hers, the Last Judgment was not a symbol of God's justice or man's corruption, but of her own infinite mercy. The Trinity judged, through Christ; — Christ loved and pardoned, through her. She wielded the last and highest power on earth and in hell. In the glow and beauty of her nature, the light of her Son's infinite love shone as the sunlight through the glass, turning the Last Judgment itself into the highest proof of her divine and supreme authority. The rudest ruffian of the Middle Ages, when he looked at this Last Judgment, laughed; for what was the Last Judgment to her! An ornament, a plaything, a pleasure! a jewelled decoration which she wore on her breast! Her chief joy was to pardon; her eternal instinct was to love; her deepest passion was pity! On her imperial heart the flames of hell showed only the opaline colours of heaven. Christ the Trinity might judge as much as He pleased, but Christ the Mother would rescue; and her servants could look boldly into the flames. If you, or even our friends the priests who still serve Mary's shrine, suspect that there is some exaggeration in this language, it will only oblige you to admit presently that there is none; but for the mo- ment we are busy with glass rather than with faith, and there is a world of glass here still to study. Technically, we are done with it. The technique of the thirteenth century comes naturally and only too easily out of that of the twelfth. Artistically, the motive remains the same, since it is always the Virgin; but although the Virgin of Chartres is always the Virgin of Majesty, there are degrees in the assertion of her majesty even here, which affect the art, and qualify its feeling. Before stepping down to the thirteenth century, one should look at these changes of the Virgin's royal presence. I46 MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES First and most important as record is the stone Virgin on the south door of the western portal, which we studied, with her Byzantine Court; and the second, also in stone, is of the same period, on one of the carved capitals of the portal, representing the Adoration of the Magi. The third is the glass Virgin at the top of the central lancet. All three are undoubted twelfth-century work; and you can see another at Paris, on the same door of Notre Dame, and still more on Abbé Suger's window at Saint-Denis, and, later, within a beautiful grisaille at Auxerre; but all represent the same figure; a Queen, enthroned, crowned, with the symbols of royal power, holding in her lap the infant King whose guardian she is. Without pretending to know what special crown she bears, we can assume, till corrected, that it is the Carlovin- gian imperial, not the Byzantine. The Trinity nowhere appears except as implied in the Christ. At the utmost, a mystic hand may symbolize the Father. The Virgin as represented by the artists of the twelfth century in the Île de France and at Chartres seems to be wholly French in spite of the Greek atmosphere of her workmanship. One might almost insist that she is blonde, full in face, large in figure, dazzlingly beautiful, and not more than thirty years of age. The Child never seems to be more than five. You are equally free to see a Southern or Eastern type in her face, and perhaps the glass suggests a dark type, but the face of the Virgin on the central lancet is a fourteenth-century restoration which may or may not reproduce the original, while all the other Virgins represented in glass, except one, belong to the thirteenth century. The possible exception is a well-known figure called Notre-Dame-de-la-Belle- Verrière in the choir next the South transept. A strange, almost un- canny feeling seems to haunt this window, heightened by the venera- tion in which it was long held as a shrine, though it is now deserted for Notre-Dame-du-Pilier on the opposite side of the choir. The charm is partly due to the beauty of the scheme of the angels, supporting, Saluting, and incensing the Virgin and Child with singular grace and THE TWELFTH-CENTURY GLASS I47 exquisite feeling, but rather that of the thirteenth than of the twelfth century. Here, too, the face of the Virgin is not ancient. Apparently the original glass was injured by time or accident, and the colours were covered or renewed by a simple drawing in oil. Elsewhere the colour is thought to be particularly good, and the window is a favourite mine of motives for artists to exploit, but to us its chief interest is its singular depth of feeling. The Empress Mother sits full-face, on a rich throne and dais, with the Child on her lap, repeating her attitude ex- cept that her hands support His shoulders. She wears her crown; her feet rest on a stool, and both stool, rug, robe, and throne are as rich as colour and decoration can make them. At last a dove appears, with the rays of the Holy Ghost. Imperial as the Virgin is, it is no longer quite the unlimited empire of the western lancet. The aureole encircles her head only; she holds no sceptre; the Holy Ghost seems to give her support which she did not need before, while Saint Gabriel and Saint Michael, her archangels, with their symbols of power, have disap- peared. Exquisite as the angels are who surround and bear up her throne, they assert no authority. The window itself is not a single composition; the panels below seem inserted later merely to fill up the space; six represent the Marriage of Cana, and the three at the bottom show a grotesque little demon tempting Christ in the Desert. The effect of the whole, in this angle which is almost always dark or filled with shadow, is deep and sad, as though the Empress felt her authority fail, and had come down from the western portal to reproach us for neglect. The face is haunting. Perhaps its force may be due to near- ness, for this is the only instance in glass of her descending so low that we can almost touch her, and see what the twelfth century instinc- tively felt in the features which, even in their beatitude, were serious and almost sad under the austere responsibilities of infinite pity and power. No doubt the window is very old, or perhaps an imitation or repro- duction of one which was much older, but to the pilgrim its interest lies I48 MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES mostly in its personality, and there it stands alone. Although the Vir- gin reappears again and again in the lower windows, - as in those on either side of the Belle-Verrière; in the remnant of window represent- ing her miracles at Chartres, in the south aisle next the transept; in the fifteenth-century window of the chapel of Vendôme which follows; and in the third window which follows that of Vendôme and represents her coronation, – she does not show herself again in all her majesty till we look up to the high windows above. There we shall find her in her splendour on her throne, above the high altar, and still more con- spicuously in the Rose of France in the north transept. Still again she is enthroned in the first window of the choir next the north transept. Elsewhere we can see her standing, but never does she come down to us in the full splendour of her presence. Yet wherever we find her at Chartres, and of whatever period, she is always Queen. Her expression and attitude are always calm and commanding. She never calls for sympathy by hysterical appeals to our feelings; she does not even alto- gether command, but rather accepts the voluntary, unquestioning, unhesitating, instinctive faith, love, and devotion of mankind. She will accept ours, and we have not the heart to refuse it; we have not even the right, for we are her guests. CHAPTER IX THE LEGENDARY WINDOWS NE'S first visit to a great cathedral is like one's first visit to the British Museum; the only intelligent idea is to follow the order of time, but the museum is a chaos in time, and the cathedral is generally all of one and the same time. At Chartres, after finishing with the twelfth century, everything is of the thirteenth. To catch even an order in time, one must first know what part of the thirteenth-century church was oldest. The books say it was the choir. After the fire of II94, the pilgrims used the great crypt as a church where services were maintained; but the builders must have begun with the central piers and the choir, because the choir was the only essential part of the church. Nave and transepts might be suppressed, but without a choir the church was useless, and in a shrine, such as Chartres, the choir was the whole church. Toward the choir, then, the priest or artist looks first; and, since dates are useful, the choir must be dated. The same popular enthusiasm, which had broken out in II45, revived in II95 to help the rebuilding; and the work was pressed forward with the same feverish haste, so that ten years should have been ample to provide for the choir, if for nothing more; and services may have been resumed there as early as the year I2O6; certainly in I2 Io. Probably the win- dows were designed and put in hand as soon as the architect gave the measurements, and any one who intended to give a window would have been apt to choose One of the spaces in the apse, in Mary's own presence, next the sanctuary. The first of the choir windows to demand a date is the Belle-Verrière, which is commonly classed as early thirteenth-century, and may go with the two windows next it, one of which — the so-called Zodiac window – bears a singularly interesting inscription: “CoMESTEOBAL- I5O MONT—SAINT-MICHEL AND CHARTRES DUs DAT . . . AD PRECES COMITIs PTICENSIs.” If Shakespeare could write the tragedy of “King John,” we cannot admit ourselves not to have read it, and this inscription might be a part of the play. The “pagus perticensis” lies a short drive to the west, some fifteen or twenty miles on the road to Le Mans, and in history is known as the Comté du Perche, although its memory is now preserved chiefly by its famous breed of Percheron horses. Probably the horse also dates from. the crusades, and may have carried Richard Coeur-de-Lion, but in any case the count of that day was a vassal of Richard, and one of his inti- mate friends, whose memory is preserved forever by a single line in Richard's prison-Song: — Mes compaignons cui j’amoie et cui j'aim, Ces dou Caheu et ces dou Percherain. In II94, when Richard Coeur-de-Lion wrote these verses, the Comte du Perche was Geoffroy III, who had been a companion of Richard on his Crusade in II92, where, according to the Chronicle, “he shewed himself but a timid man”; which seems scarcely likely in a companion of Richard; but it is not of him that the Chartres window speaks, except as the Son of Mahaut Or Matilda of Champagne who was a sis- ter of Alix of Champagne, Queen of France. The Table shows, there- fore, that Geoffroi's son and successor as the Comte du Perche— Thomas – was second Cousin of Louis the Lion, known as King Louis VIII of France. They were probably of much the same age. If this were all, One might carry it in one's head for a while, but the relationship which dominates the history of this period was that of all these great ruling families with Richard Coeur-de-Lion and his brother John, nicknamed Lackland, both of whom in succession were the most powerful Frenchmen in France. The Table shows that their mother Eleanor of Guienne, the first Queen of Louis VII, bore him two daughters, one of whom, Alix, married, about I 164, the Count Thibaut of Chartres and Blois, while the other, Mary, married the great Count of Champagne. Both of them being half-sisters of Coeur-de-Lion and THE LEGENDARY WINDOWS I51 John, their children were nephews or half-nephews, indiscriminately, of all the reigning monarchs, and Coeur-de-Lion immortalized one of them by a line in his prison-song, as he immortalized Le Perche: — Je nel di pas de celi de Chartain, La mere Loeis. “Loeis,” therefore, or Count Louis of Chatres, was not only nephew of Coeur-de-Lion and John Lackland, but was also, like Count Thomas of Le Perche, a second cousin of Louis VIII. Feudally and personally he was directly attached to Coeur-de-Lion rather than to Philip Augustus. If society in the twelfth century could follow the effects of these relationships, personal and feudal, it was cleverer than society in the twentieth; but so much is simple: Louis of France, Thibaut of Char- tres, and Thomas of Le Perche, were cousins and close friends in the year I.215, and all were devoted to the Virgin of Chartres. Judging from the character of Louis's future queen, Blanche of Castile, their wives were, if possible, more devoted still; and in that year Blanche gave birth to Saint Louis, who seems to have been the most devoted of all. Meanwhile their favourite uncle, Coeur-de-Lion, had died in the year II99. Thibaut's great-grandmother, Eleanor of Guienne, died in I2O2. King John, left to himself, rapidly accumulated enemies innu- merable, abroad and at home. In I2O3, Philip Augustus confiscated all the fiefs he held from the French Crown, and in I2O4 seized Normandy. John sank rapidly from worse to worst, until at last the English barons rose and forced him to grant their Magna Carta at Runnimede in I2I5. The year 1215 was, therefore, a year to be remembered at Chartres, as at Mont-Saint-Michel; one of the most convenient dates in history. Every one is supposed, even now, to know what happened then, to give another violent wrench to society, like the Norman Conquest in IO66. John turned on the barons and broke them down; they sent to ENGLAND CHAMPAGNE AND CHARTRES FRANCE AND LE PERCHE | Thibaut II of Champagne fII52 m. II52 m. II37 m. II6O | HENRY II t-m•"r=-1 ELEANOR {-•=-s · LOUIS VII ©-m= ALIX Mahaut-Rotrou of Anjou and England of Guienne of France - Queen of France du Perche b. II33 fII89 b. II22 fI2O2 b. II2o fI I8o b. c. I I45 fI2o6 fII9I m. II64 | m. I I64 RICHARD JOHN Henry-Mary Alix-Thibaut PHILIP Geoffroi III Cœur-de-Lion Lackland of Champagne | of France of France | of Chartres AUGUSTUS du Perche . b. II57 fII99 b. II66 fI2I6 fI I8o , . fII98 fII9I b. II65 d. I223 fI2o2 Thibaut III Louis LOUIS VIII Thomas of Champagne of Chartres b. II87 fI226 du Perche b. II77 d. I2OI fI2o5 f1217 at Lincoln Thibaut le Grand Thibaut LOUIS IX b. I2oI fI253 of Chartres Saint Louis fI2I8 b. I2I5 d. 127o THE LEGENDARY WINDOWS I53 France for help, and offered the crown of England to young Louis, whose father, Philip Augustus, called a council which pledged support to Louis. Naturally the Comte du Perche and the Comte de Chartres must have pledged their support, among the foremost, to go with Louis to England. He was then twenty-nine years old; they were probably somewhat younger. The Zodiac window, with its inscription, was the immediate result. The usual authority that figures in the histories is Roger of Wendover, but much the more amusing for our purpose is a garrulous Frenchman known as the Ménestrel de Rheims who wrote some fifty years later. After telling in his delightful thirteenth-century French, how the Eng- lish barons sent hostages to Louis, “et mes sires Loueys les fit bien gardeir et honourablement,” the Ménestrel continued: – Et assembla granz genz par amours, et par deniers, et par lignage. Et fu avec lui li cuens dou Perche, et li cuens de Montfort, et li cuens de Chartres, et li cuens de Monbleart, et mes sires Enjorrans de Couci, et mout d'autre grant seigneur dont je ne parole mie. The Comte de Chartres, therefore, may be supposed to have gone with the Comte du Perche, and to have witnessed the disaster at Lincoln which took place May 20, 1217, after King John's death: — Et li cuens dou Perche faisait l’avantgarde, et courut tout leiz des portes; et la garnisons de laienz issi hors et leur coururent sus; et i Ot asseiz trait et lancié; et chevaus morz et chevaliers abatuz, et gent à pié morz et navreiz. Et li cuens dou Perche i fu morz par un ribaut qui li levale pan dou hauberc, et l'ocist d'un coutel; et fu desconfite l’avantgarde par la mort le conte. Et quant mes sires Loueys le sot, si ot graigneur duel qu'il eust onques, car il estoit ses prochains ami de char. Such language would be spoiled by translation. For us it is enough to know that the “ribaut” who lifted the “pan,” or skirt, of the Count's “hauberc” or coat-of-mail, as he sat on his horse refusing to surrender to English traitors, and stabbed him from below with a knife, may have been an invention of the Ménestrel; or the knight who pierced with his lance through the visor to the brain, may have been an invention of Roger of Wendover; but in either case, Count Thomas I54 MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES du Perche lost his life at Lincoln, May 20, 1217, to the deepest regret of his cousin Louis the Lion as well as of the Count Thibaut of Chartres, whom he charged to put up a window for him in honour of the Virgin. The window must have been ordered at once, because Count Thi- baut, “le Jeune ou le Lépreux,” died himself within a year, April 22, I218, thus giving an exact date for one of the choir windows. Probably it was one of the latest, because the earliest to be provided would have been certainly those of the central apsidal chapel. According to the rule laid down by Viollet-le-Duc, the windows in which blue strongly predominates, like the Saint Sylvester, are likely to be earlier than those with a prevailing tone of red. We must take for granted that some of these great legendary windows were in place as early as I2 Io, because, in October of that year, Philip Augustus attended mass here. There are some two dozen of these windows in the choir alone, each of which may well have represented a year's work in the slow processes of that day, and we can hardly suppose that the workshops of I2Oo were on a scale such as to allow of more than two to have been in hand at once. Thirty or forty years later, when the Sainte Chapelle was built, the workshops must have been vastly enlarged, but with the enlarge- ment, the glass deteriorated. Therefore, if the architecture were so far advanced in the year I2OO as to allow of beginning work on the glass, in the apse, the year 1225 is none too late to allow for its completion in the choir. Dates are stupidly annoying; — what we want is not dates but taste; — yet we are uncomfortable without them. Except the Perche window, none of the lower ones in the choir helps at all; but the clere- story is more useful. There they run in pairs, each pair surmounted by a rose. The first pair (numbers 27 and 28) next the north transept, shows the Virgin of France, supported, according to the Abbés Bulteau and Clerval, by the arms of Bishop Reynault de Mougon, who was Bishop of Chartres at the time of the great fire in II94 and died in THE LEGENDARY WINDOWS I55 I217. The window number 28 shows two groups of peasants on pil- grimage; below, on his knees, Robert of Berou, as donor: “ RoBERTUs DE BEROU: CARN. CANCELLARIUS.” The Cartulary of the Cathedral contains an entry (Bulteau, i, I23): “The 26th February, I216, died Robert de Berou, Chancellor, who has given us a window.” The Cartulary mentions several previous gifts of windows by canons or other dignitaries of the Church in the year 1215. Next follow, or once followed, a pair of windows (numbers 29 and 30) which were removed by the sculptor Bridan, in 1788, in order to obtain light for his statuary below. The donor was “DOMINA JOHANNES BAFTISTA,” who, we are told, was Jeanne de Dammartin; and the win- dow was given in memory, or in honour, of her marriage to Ferdinand of Castile in I237. Jeanne was a very great lady, daughter of the Comte d'Aumale and Marie de Ponthieu. Her father affianced her in I235 to the King of England, Henry III, and even caused the marriage to be celebrated by proxy, but Queen Blanche broke it off, as she had forbidden, in I23I, that of Yolande of Britanny. She relented so far as to allow Jeanne in I237 to marry Ferdinand of Castile, who still sits on horseback in the next rose: “REX CASTILLAE.” He won the crown of Castile in I217 and died in I252, when Queen Jeanne returned to Abbéville and then, at latest, put up this window at Chartres in mem- ory of her husband. The windows numbers 31 and 32 are the subject of much dispute, but whether the donors were Jean de Chatillon or the three children of Thibaut le Grand of Champagne, they must equally belong to the later series of I260–70, rather than to the earlier of I2 IO-20. The same thing is or was true of the next pair, numbers 33 and 34, which were removed in 1773, but the record says that at the bottom of number 34 was the figure of Saint Louis's son, Louis of France, who died in I260, before his father, who still rides in the rose above. Thus the north side of the choir shows a series of windows that precisely cover the lifetime of Saint Louis (1215-70). The South side I56 MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES begins, next the apse, with windows numbers 35 and 36, which belong, according to the Comte d'Armancourt, to the family of Montfort, whose ruined castle crowns the hill of Montfort l'Amaury, on the road to Paris, some forty kilometres northeast of Chartres. Every one is supposed to know the story of Simon de Montfort who was killed before Toulouse in I218. Simon left two Sons, Amaury and Simon. The sculptor Bridan put an end also to the window of Amaury, but in the rose, Amaury, according to the Abbés, still rides on a white horse. Amaury's history is well known. He was made Constable of France by Queen Blanche in I23I; went on crusade in I239; was captured by the infidels, taken to Babylon, ransomed, and in returning to France, died at Otranto in I24I. For that age Amaury was but a commonplace person, totally overshadowed by his brother Simon, who went to England, married King John's daughter Eleanor, and became almost king himself as Earl of Leicester. At your leisure you can read Mat- thew Paris's dramatic account of him and of his death at the battle of Evesham, August 5, 1265. He was perhaps the last of the very great men of the thirteenth century, excepting Saint Louis himself, who lived a few years longer. M. d'Armancourt insists that it is the great Earl of Leicester who rides with his visor up, in full armour, on a brown horse, in the rose above the windows numbers 37 and 38. In any case, the windows would be later than 1240. The next pair of windows, numbers 39 and 40, also removed in 1788, still offer, in their rose, the figure of a member of the Courtenay family. Gibbon was so much attracted by the romance of the Courtenays as to make an amusing digression on the subject which does not concern us or the cathedral except So far as it tells us that the Courtenays, like so many other benefactors of Chartres Cathedral, belonged to the royal blood. Louis-le-Gros, who died in II37, besides his son Louis-le-Jeune, who married Eleanor of Guienne in that year, had a younger son, Pierre, whom he married to Isabel de Courtenay, and who, like Philip Hurepel, took the title of his wife. Pierre had a son, Pierre II, who THE LEGENDARY WINDOWS I57 was a cousin of Philip Augustus, and became the hero of the most lurid tragedy of the time. Chosen Emperor of Constantinople in I216, to succeed his brothers-in-law Henry and Baldwin, he tried to march across Illyria and Macedonia, from Durazzo opposite Brindisi, with a little army of five thousand men, and instantly disappeared forever. The Epirotes captured him in the summer of I217, and from that moment nothing is known of his fate. | On the whole, this catastrophe was perhaps the grimmest of all the Shakespearean tragedies of the thirteenth century; and one would like to think that the Chartres window was a memorial of this Pierre, who was a cousin of France and an emperor without empire; but M. d’Ar- mancourt insists that the window was given in memory not of this Pierre, but of his nephew, another Pierre de Courtenay, Seigneur de Conches, who went on crusade with Saint Louis in I249 to Egypt, and died shortly before the defeat and captivity of the King, on February 8, 1250. His brother Raoul, Seigneur d’Illiers, who died in I27I, is said to be donor of the next window, number 40. The date of the Courte- nay windows should therefore be no earlier than the death of Saint Louis in I270; yet one would like to know what has become of another Courtenay window left by the first Pierre's son-in-law, Gaucher or Gaultier of Bar-sur-Seine, who seems to have been Vicomte de Char- tres, and who, dying before Damietta in I218, made a will leaving to Notre Dame de Chartres thirty silver marks, “de quibus fieri debet miles montatus super equum suum.” Not only would this mounted knight on horseback supply an early date for these interesting fig- ures, but would fix also the cost, for a mark contained eight ounces of silver, and was worth ten sous, or half a livre. We shall presently see that Aucassins gave twenty sous, or a livre, for a strong ox, so that the “miles montatus super equum suum ” in glass was equi- valent to fifteen oxen if it were money of Paris, which is far from certain. This is an economical problem which belongs to experts, but the 158 MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES historical value of these early evidences is still something, —perhaps still as much as ten sous. All the windows tend to the same conclusion. Even the last pair, numbers 4I and 42, offer three personal clues which lead to the same result: — the arms of Bouchard de Marly who died in 1226, almost at the same time as Louis VIII; a certain Colinus or Colin, “de camera Regis,” who was alive in I225; and Robert of Beaumont in the rose, who seems to be a Beaumont of Le Perche, of whom little or nothing is as yet certainly known. As a general rule, there are two series of windows, one figuring the companions or fol- lowers of Louis VIII (1215–26); the other, friends or companions of Saint Louis (1226–70), Queen Blanche uniting both. What helps to hold the sequences in a certain order, is that the choir was complete, and services regularly resumed there, in I2 IO, while in I220 the tran- sept and nave were finished and vaulted. For the apside windows, therefore, we will assume, subject to correction, a date from I2OO to I225 for their design and workmanship; for the transept, I220 to 1236; and for the nave a general tendency to the actual reign of Saint Louis from 1236 to I270. Since there is a deal of later glass scattered every- where among the earlier, the margin of error is great; but by keeping the reign of Louis VIII and its personages distinct from that of Louis IX and his generation, we can be fairly sure of our main facts. Mean- while the Sainte Chapelle in Paris, wholly built and completed be- tween I240 and I248, offers a standard of comparison for the legendary windows. The choir of Chartres is as long as the nave, and much broader, besides that the apse was planned with seven circular projections which greatly increased the window space, so that the guidebook reckons thirty-seven windows. A number of these are grisailles, and the true amateur of glass considers the grisailles to be as well worth study as the legendary windows. They are a decoration which has no particular concern with churches, and no distinct religious meaning, but, it seems, a religious value which Viollet-le-Duc is at some trouble THE LEGENDARY WINDOWS I59 to explain; and, since his explanation is not very technical, we can look at it, before looking at the legends: — The colouration of the windows had the advantage of throwing on the opaque walls a veil, or coloured glazing, of extreme delicacy, always assuming that the coloured windows themselves were harmoniously toned. Whether their resources did not permit the artists to adopt a complete system of coloured glass, or whether they wanted to get daylight in purer quality into their interiors, – whatever may have been their reasons, – they resorted to this beautiful grisaille decoration which is also a colouring harmony obtained by the aid of a long experience in the effects of light on translucent surfaces. Many of our churches retain grisaille win- dows filling either all, or only a part, of their bays. In the latter case, the grisailles are reserved for the side windows which are meant to be seen obliquely, and in that case the coloured glass fills the bays of the fond, the apsidal openings which are meant to be seen in face from a distance. These lateral grisailles are still opaque enough to prevent the solar rays which pass through them from lighting the coloured windows on the reverse side; yet, at certain hours of the day, these solar rays throw a pearly light on the coloured windows which gives them indescribable transparence and refinement of tones. The lateral windows in the choir of the Auxerre Cathedral, half-grisaille, half-coloured, throw on the wholly coloured apsidal window, by this means, a glazing the softness of which one can hardly con- ceive. The opaline light which comes through these lateral bays, and makes a sort of veil, transparent in the extreme, under the lofty vaulting, is crossed by the brilliant tones of the windows behind, which give the play of precious stones. The solid outlines then seem to waver like objects seen through a sheet of clear water. Distances change their values, and take depths in which the eye gets lost. With every hour of the day these effects are altered, and always with new harmonies which one never tires of trying to understand; but the deeper one's study goes, the more astounded one becomes before the experience acquired by these artists, whose theories on the effects of colour, assuming that they had any, are unknown to us and whom the most kindly-disposed among us treat as simple children. You can read the rest for yourselves. Grisaille is a separate branch of colour-decoration which belongs with the whole system of lighting and fenêtrage, and will have to remain a closed book because the feel- ing and experience which explained it once are lost, and we cannot recover either. Such things must have been always felt rather than reasoned, like the irregularities in plan of the builders; the best work of the best times shows the same subtlety of sense as the dog shows in retrieving, or the bee in flying, but which tourists have lost. All we can I6O MONT—SAINT-MICHEL AND CHARTRES do is to note that the grisailles were intended to have values. They were among the refinements of light and colour with which the apse of Chartres is so crowded that one must be content to feel what one can, and let the rest go. Understand, we cannot! nothing proves that the greatestartists who ever lived have, in a logical sense, understood! or that omnipotence has ever understood! or that the utmost power of expression has ever been capable of expressing more than the reaction of one energy on another, but not of two on two; and when one sits here, in the central axis of this complicated apse, one sees, in mere light alone, the reaction of hundreds of energies, although time has left only a wreck of what the artist put here. One of the best window spaces is wholly filled up by the fourteenth-century doorway to the chapel of Saint Piat, and only by looking at the two windows which correspond on the north does a curious inquirer get a notion of the probable loss. The same chapel more or less blocks the light of three other principal windows. The sun, the dust, the acids of dripping water, and the other works of time, have in seven hundred years corroded or worn away or altered the glass, especially on the South side. Windows have been darkened by time and mutilated by wilful injury. Scores of the panels are wholly restored, modern reproductions or imitations. Even after all this loss, the glass is probably the best-preserved, or perhaps the only preserved part of the decoration in colour, for we never shall know the colour- decoration of the vaults, the walls, the columns, or the floors. Only one point is fairly sure; — that on festivals, if not at other times, every foot of space was covered in some way or another, throughout the apse, with Colour; either paint or tapestry or embroidery or Byzantine brocades and Oriental stuffs or rugs, lining the walls, covering the altars, and hiding the floor. Occasionally you happen upon illumi- nated manuscripts showing the interiors of chapels with their colour- decoration; but everything has perished here except the glass. If one may judge from the glass of later centuries, the first impres- THE LEGENDARY WINDOWS I6I sion from the thirteenth-century windows ought to be disappointment. You should find them too effeminate, too soft, too small, and above all not particularly religious. Indeed, except for the nominal subjects of the legends, one sees nothing religious about them; the medallions, when studied with the binocle, turn out to be less religious than decorative. Saint Michael would not have felt at home here, and Saint Bernard would have turned from them with disapproval; but when they were put up, Saint Bernard was long dead, and Saint Mi- chael had yielded his place to the Virgin. This apse is all for her. At its entrance she sat, on either side, in the Belle-Verrière or as Our Lady of the Pillar, to receive the secrets and the prayers of suppliants who wished to address her directly in person; there she bent down to our level, resumed her humanity, and felt our griefs and passions. Within, where the cross-lights fell through the wide columned space behind the high altar, was her withdrawing room, where the decorator and builder thought only of pleasing her. The very faults of the architecture and effeminacy of taste witness the artists' object. If the glassworkers had thought of themselves or of the public or even of the priests, they would have strained for effects, strong masses of colour, and striking subjects to impress the imagination. Nothing of the sort is even sug- gested. The great, awe-inspiring mosaic figure of the Byzantine half- dome was a splendid religious effect, but this artist had in his mind an altogether different thought. He was in the Virgin's employ; he was decorating her own chamber in her own palace; he wanted to please her; and he knew her tastes, even when she did not give him her per- sonal orders. To him, a dream would have been an order. The salary of the twelfth-century artist was out of all relation with the percentage of a twentieth-century decorator. The artist of I2OO was probably the last who cared little for the baron, not very much for the priest, and nothing for the public, unless he happened to be paid by the guild, and then he cared just to the extent of his hire, or, if he was himself a priest, not even for that. His pay was mostly of a different kind, and I62 MONT—SAINT-MICHEL AND CHARTRES was the same as that of the peasants who were hauling the stone from the quarry at Berchères while he was firing his ovens. His reward was to come when he should be promoted to decorate the Queen of Heav- en's palace in the New Jerusalem, and he served a mistress who knew better than he did what work was good and what was bad, and how to give him his right place. Mary's taste was infallible; her knowledge like her power had no limits; she knew men's thoughts as well as acts, and could not be deceived. Probably, even in our own time, an artist might find his imagination considerably stimulated and his work pow- erfully improved if he knew that anything short of his best would bring him to the gallows, with or without trial by jury; but in the twelfth century the gallows was a trifle; the Queen hardly considered it a punishment for an offence to her dignity. The artist was vividly aware that Mary disposed of hell. - s All this is written in full, on every stone and window of this apse, as legible as the legends to any one who cares to read. The artists were doing their best, not to please a swarm of flat-eared peasants or slow- witted barons, but to satisfy Mary, the Queen of Heaven, to whom the Kings and Queens of France were coming constantly for help, and whose absolute power was almost the only restraint recognized by Emperor, Pope, and clown. The colour-decoration is hers, and hers alone. For her the lights are subdued, the tones softened, the subjects selected, the feminine taste preserved. That other great ladies inter- ested themselves in the matter, even down to its technical refinements, is more than likely; indeed, in the central apside chapel, suggesting the Auxerre grisaille that Viollet-le-Duc mentioned, is a grisaille which bears the arms of Castile and Queen Blanche; further on, three other grisailles bear also the famous castles, but this is by no means the strongest proof of feminine taste. The difficulty would be rather to find a touch of certainly masculine taste in the whole apse. Since the central apside chapel is the most important, we can begin with the windows there, bearing in mind that the subject of the central | THE LEGENDARY WINDOWS I63 window was the Life of Christ, dictated by rule or custom. On Christ's left hand is the window of Saint Peter; next him is Saint Paul. All are much restored; thirty-three of the medallions are wholly new. Oppo- site Saint Peter, at Christ's right hand, is the window of Saint Simon and Saint Jude; and next is the grisaille with the arms of Castile. If these windows were ordered between I2O5 and I2 IO, Blanche, who was born in II.87, and married in I2OO, would have been a young princess of twenty or twenty-five when she gave this window in grisaille to regulate and harmonize and soften the lighting of the Virgin's boudoir. The central chapel must be taken to be the most serious, the most studied, and the oldest of the chapels in the church, above the crypt. The windows here should rank in importance next to the lancets of the west front which are only about sixty years earlier. They show fully that difference. Here one must see for one's self. Few artists know much about it, and still fewer care for an art which has been quite dead these four hundred years. The ruins of Nippur would hardly be more intelligible to the ordinary architect of English tradition than these twelfth- century efforts of the builders of Chartres. Even the learning of Viollet-le-Duc was at fault in dealing with a building so personal as this, the history of which is almost wholly lost. This central chapel must have been meant to give tone to the apse, and it shows with the colour-decoration of a queen's salon, a subject-decoration too serious for the amusement of heretics. One sees at a glance that the subject- decoration was inspired by church-custom, while colour was an experi- ment and the decorators of this enormous window space were at lib- erty as colourists to please the Countess of Chartres and the Princess Blanche and the Duchess of Brittany, without much regarding the opinions of the late Bernard of Clairvaux or even Augustine of Hippo, since the great ladies of the Court knew better than the Saints what would suit the Virgin. The subject of the central window was prescribed by tradition. I64 MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES Christ is the Church, and in this church he and his Mother are one; therefore the life of Christ is the subject of the central window, but the treatment is the Virgin's, as the colours show, and as the absence of every influence but hers, including the Crucifixion, proves officially. Saint Peter and Saint Paul are in their proper place as the two great ministers of the throne who represent the two great parties in western religion, the Jewish and the Gentile. Opposite them, balancing by their family influence the weight of delegated power, are two of Mary's nephews, Simon and Jude; but this subject branches off again into matters so personal to Mary that Simon and Jude require closer acquaintance. One must study a new guidebook — the “Golden Legend,” by the blessed James, Bishop of Genoa and member of the order of Dominic, who was born at Varazze or Voragio in almost the same year that Thomas was born at Aquino, and whose “Legenda Aurea,” written about the middle of the thirteenth century, was more popular history than the Bible itself, and more generally consulted as authority. The decorators of the thirteenth century got their motives quite outside the Bible, in sources that James of Genoa compiled into a volume almost as fascinating as the “Fioretti of Saint Francis.” According to the “Golden Legend” and the tradition accepted in Jerusalem by pilgrims and crusaders, Mary's family connection was large. It appears that her mother Anne was three times married, and by each husband had a daughter Mary, so that there were three Marys, half-sisters. Joachim—Anne–Cleophas —Salome | Joseph—Mary Alpheus—Mary Mary—Zebedee | | Christ James Joseph Simon Jude James John the Minor the the Major the Evangelist Apostle Just St. Iago of Compostella Simon and Jude were, therefore, nephews of Mary and cousins of Christ, whose lives were evidence of the truth not merely of Scripture, THE LEGENDARY WINDOWS 165 but specially of the private and family distinction of their aunt, the Virgin Mother of Christ. They were selected, rather than their broth- ers, or cousins James and John, for the conspicuous honour of standing opposite Peter and Paul, doubtless by reason of some merit of their own, but perhaps also because in art the two counted as one, and therefore the one window offered two witnesses, which allowed the artist to insert a grisaille in place of another legendary window to complete the chapel on their right. According to Viollet-le-Duc, the grisaille in this position regulates the light and so completes the effect. If custom prescribed a general rule for the central chapel, it seems to have left great freedom in the windows near by. At Chartres the curved projection that contains the next two windows was not a chapel, but only a window-bay, for the sake of the windows, and, if the artists aimed at pleasing the Virgin, they would put their best work there. At Bourges in the same relative place are three of the best win- dows in the building: — the Prodigal Son, the New Alliance and the Good Samaritan; all of them full of life, story, and colour, with little reference to a worship or a saint. At Chartres the choice is still more striking, and the windows are also the best in the building, after the twelfth-century glass of the west front. The first, which comes next to Blanche's grisaille in the central chapel, is given to another nephew of Mary and apostle of Christ, Saint James the Major, whose life is recorded in the proper Bible Dictionaries, with a terminal remark as follows: — For legends respecting his death and his connections with Spain, see the Roman Breviary, in which the healing of a paralytic and the conversion of Hermogenes are attributed to him, and where it is asserted that he preached the Gospel in Spain, and that his remains were translated to Compostella. . . . As there is no shadow of foundation for any of the legends here referred to, we pass them by without further notice. Even Baronius shows himself ashamed of them. . . . If the learned Baronius thought himself required to show shame for all the legends that pass as history, he must have suffered Cruelly dur- I66 MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES ing his laborious life, and his sufferings would not have been confined to the annals of the Church; but the historical accuracy of the glass windows is not our affair, nor are historians especially concerned in the events of the Virgin's life, whether recorded or legendary. Religion is, or ought to be, a feeling, and the thirteenth-century windows are origi- nal documents, much more historical than any recorded in the Bible, since their inspiration is a different thing from their authority. The true life of Saint James or Saint Jude or any other of the apostles, did not, in the opinion of the ladies in the Court of France, furnish sub- jects agreeable enough to decorate the palace of the Queen of Heaven; and that they were right, any one must feel, who compares these two windows with subjects of dogma. Saint James, better known as Sant- iago of Compostella, was a compliment to the young Dauphine — before Dauphines existed — the Princess Blanche of Castile, whose arms, or castles, are on the grisaille window next to it. Perhaps she chose him to stand there. Certainly her hand is seen plainly enough throughout the church to warrant suspecting it here. As a nephew, Saint James was dear to the Virgin, but, as a friend to Spain, still more dear to Blanche, and it is not likely that pure accident caused three adjacent windows to take a Spanish tone. The Saint James in whom the thirteenth century delighted, and whose windows one sees at Bourges, Tours, and wherever the scallop- shell tells of the pilgrim, belongs not to the Bible but to the “Golden Legend.” This window was given by the Merchant Tailors whose sig- nature appears at the bottom, in the corners, in two pictures that paint the tailor's shop of Chartres in the first quarter of the thirteenth cen- tury. The shop-boy takes cloth from chests for his master to show to customers, and to measure off by his ell. The story of Saint James begins in the lower panel, where he receives his mission from Christ. Above, on the right, he seems to be preaching. On the left appears a figure which tells the reason for the popularity of the story. It is Almogenes, or in the Latin, Hermogenes, a famous magician in great THE LEGENDARY WINDOWS I67 credit among the Pharisees, who has the command of demons, as you see, for behind his shoulder, standing, a little demon is perched, while he orders his pupil Filetus to convert James. Next, James is shown in discussion with a group of listeners. Filetus gives him a volume of false doctrine. Almogenes then further instructs Filetus. James is led away by a rope, curing a paralytic as he goes. He sends his cloak to Filetus to drive away the demon. Filetus receives the cloak, and the droll little demon departs in tears. Almogenes, losing his temper, sends two demons, with horns on their heads and clubs in their hands, to reason with James; who sends them back to remonstrate with Almo- genes. The demons then bind Almogenes and bring him before James, who discusses differences with him until Almogenes burns his books of magic and prostrates himself before the Saint. Both are then brought before Herod, and Almogenes breaks a pretty heathen idol, while James goes to prison. A panel comes in here, out of place, show- ing Almogenes enchanting Filetus, and the demon entering into pos- session of him. Then Almogenes is seen being very roughly handled by a young Jew, while the bystanders seem to approve. James next makes Almogenes throw his books of magic into the sea; both are led away to execution, curing the infirm on their way; their heads are cut off; and, at the top, God blesses the orb of the world. That this window was intended to amuse the Virgin seems quite as reasonable an idea as that it should have been made to instruct the people, or us. Its humour was as humorous then as now, for the French of the thirteenth century loved humour even in churches, as their grotesques proclaim. The Saint James window is a tale of magic, told with the vivacity of a fabliau; but if its motive of amusement seems still a forced idea, we can pass on, at once, to the companion window which holds the best position in the church, where, in the usual cathedral, one expects to find Saint John or some other apostle; or Saint Joseph; or a doctrinal lesson such as that called the New Alliance where the Old and New Testaments are united. The window 168 MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES which the artists have set up here is regarded as the best of the thirteenth-century windows, and is the least religious. The subject is nothing less than the “Chanson de Roland” in pictures of coloured glass, set in a border worth comparing at leisure with the twelfth-century borders of the western lancets. Even at Chartres, the artists could not risk displeasing the Virgin and the Church by follow- ing a wholly profane work like the “Chanson” itself, and Roland had no place in religion. He could be introduced only through Charle- magne, who had almost as little right there as he. The twelfth century had made persistent efforts to get Charlemagne into the Church, and the Church had made very little effort to keep him out; yet by the year I2OO, Charlemagne had not been sainted except by the anti-Pope Pascal III in II65, although there was a popular belief, supported in Spain by the necessary documents, that Pope Calixtus II in II22 had declared the so-called Chronicle of Archbishop Turpin to be authentic. The Bishop of Chartres in I2OO was very much too enlightened a pre- late to accept the Chronicle or Turpin or Charlemagne himself, still less Roland and Thierry, as authentic in sanctity; but if the young and beautiful Dauphine of France, and her cousins of Chartres, and their artists, warmly believed that the Virgin would be pleased by the story of Charlemagne and Roland, the Bishop might have let them have their way in spite of the irregularity. That the window was an irregu- larity, is plain; that it has always been immensely admired, is certain; and that Bishop Renaud must have given his assent to it, is not to be denied. The most elaborate account of this window can be found in Mâle's “Art Religieux” (pp. 444–50). Its feeling or motive is quite another matter, as it is with the statuary on the north porch. The Furriers or Fur Merchants paid for the Charlemagne window, and their signature stands at the bottom, where a merchant shows a fur-lined cloak to his customer. That Mary was personally interested in furs, no authority seems to affirm, but that Blanche and Isabel and every lady of the THE LEGENDARY WINDOWS I69 Court, as well as every king and every count, in that day, took keen interest in the subject, is proved by the prices they paid, and the quan- tities they wore. Not even the Merchant Tailors had a better standing at Court than the Furriers, which may account for their standing so near the Virgin. Whatever the cause, the Furriers were allowed to put their signature here, side by side with the Tailors, and next to the Princess Blanche. Their gift warranted it. Above the signature, in the first panel, the Emperor Constantine is seen, asleep, in Constantinople, on an elaborate bed, while an angel is giving him the order to seek aid from Charlemagne against the Saracens. Charlemagne appears, in full armour of the year 1200, on horseback. Then Charlemagne, sainted, wearing his halo, converses with two bishops on the subject of a cru- sade for the rescue of Constantine. In the next scene, he arrives at the gates of Constantinople where Constantine receives him. The fifth picture is most interesting; Charlemagne has advanced with his knights and attacks the Saracens; the Franks wear coats-of-mail, and carry long, pointed shields; the infidels carry round shields; Charle- magne, wearing a crown, strikes off with one blow of his sword the head of a Saracen emir; but the battle is desperate; the chargers are at full gallop, and a Saracen is striking at Charlemagne with his battle- axe. After the victory has been won, the Emperor Constantine rewards Charlemagne by the priceless gift of three chasses or reli- quaries, containing a piece of the true Cross; the Suaire or grave-cloth of the Saviour; and a tunic of the Virgin. Charlemagne then returns to France, and in the next medallion presents the three chasses and the crown of the Saracen king to the church at Aix, which to a French audience meant the Abbey of Saint-Denis. This scene closes the first volume of the story. The second part opens on Charlemagne, seated between two per- sons, looking up to heaven at the Milky Way, called then the Way of Saint James, which directs him to the grave of Saint James in Spain. Saint James himself appears to Charlemagne in a dream, and Orders I7o MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES him to redeem the tomb from the infidels. Then Charlemagne sets out, with Archbishop Turpin of Rheims and knights. In presence of his army he dismounts and implores the aid of God. Then he arrives before Pampeluna and transfixes with his lance the Saracen chief as he flies into the city. Mounted, he directs workmen to construct a church in honour of Saint James; a little cloud figures the hand of God. Next is shown the miracle of the lances; stuck in the ground at night, they are found in the morning to have burst into foliage, prefiguring martyrdom. Two thousand people perish in battle. Then begins the story of Roland which the artists and donors are so eager to tell, know- ing, as they do, that what has so deeply interested men and women on earth, must interest Mary who loves them. You see Archbishop Tur- pin celebrating mass when an angel appears, to warn him of Roland's fate. Then Roland himself, also wearing a halo, is introduced, in the act of killing the giant Ferragus. The combat of Roland and Ferragus is at the top, Out of sequence, as often happens in the legendary win- dows. Charlemagne and his army are seen marching homeward through the Pyrenees, while Roland winds his horn and splits the rock without being able to break Durendal. Thierry, likewise sainted, brings water to Roland in a helmet. At last Thierry announces Roland's death. At the top, on either side of Roland and Ferragus, is an angel with incense. The execution of this window is said to be superb. Of the colour, and its relations with that of the Saint James, one needs time and long acquaintance to learn the value. In the feeling, compared with that of the twelfth century, one needs no time in order to see a change. These two windows are as French and as modern as a picture of Lancret; they are pure art, as simply decorative as the decorations of the Grand Opera. The thirteenth century knew more about religion and decora- tion than the twentieth century will ever learn. The windows were neither symbolic nor mystical, nor more religious than they pre- tended to be. That they are more intelligent or more costly or more THE LEGENDARY WINDOWS 171 effective is nothing to the purpose, so long as one grants that the Com- bat of Roland and Ferragus, or Roland winding his olifant, or Charle- magne cutting off heads and transfixing Moors, were subjects never intended to teach religion or instruct the ignorant, but to please the Queen of Heaven as they pleased the queens of earth with a roman, not in verse but in colour, as near as possible to decorative perfection. Instinctively one looks to the corresponding bay, opposite, to see what the artists could have done to balance these two great efforts of their art; but the bay opposite is now occupied by the entrance to Saint Piat's chapel and one does not know what changes may have been made in the fourteenth century to rearrange the glass; yet, even as it now stands, the Sylvester window which corresponds to the Charle- magne is, as glass, the strongest in the whole cathedral. In the next chapel, on our left, come the martyrs, with Saint Stephen, the first martyr, in the middle window. Naturally the subject is more serious, but the colour is not differently treated. A step further, and you see the artists returning to their lighter subjects. The stories of Saint Julian and Saint Thomas are more amusing than the plots of half the thirteenth-century romances, and not very much more religious. The subject of Saint Thomas is a pendant to that of Saint James, for Saint Thomas was a great traveller and an architect, who carried Mary's worship to India as Saint James carried it to Spain. Here is the amusement of many days in studying the stories, the colour and the execution of these windows, with the help of the “Monographs” of Chartres and Bourges or the “Golden Legend” and occasional visits to Le Mans, Tours, Clermont Ferrand, and other cathedrals; but, in passing, one has to note that the window of Saint Thomas was given by France, and bears the royal arms, perhaps for Philip Augustus the King; while the window of Saint Julian was given by the Carpenters and Coopers. One feels no need to explain how it happens that the taste of the royal family, and of their tailors, furriers, carpenters, and coopers, should fit so marvellously, one with another, and with that of 172 MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES the Virgin; but one can compare with theirs the taste of the Stone- workers opposite, in the window of Saint Sylvester and Saint Melchi- ades, whose blues almost kill the Charlemagne itself, and of the Tan- ners in that of Saint Thomas of Canterbury; or, in the last chapel on the south side, with that of the Shoemakers in the window to Saint Martin, attributed for some reason to a certain Clemens vitrearius Carnutensis, whose name is on a window in the Cathedral of Rouen. The name tells nothing, even if the identity could be proved. Clement the glassmaker may have worked on his own account, or for others; the glass differs only in refinements of taste or perhaps of cost. Nicolas Lescine, the canon, or Geoffroi Chardonnel, may have been less rich than the Bakers, and even the Furriers may have not had the revenues of the King; but some controlling hand has given more or less identical taste to all. - What one can least explain is the reason why Some windows, that should be here, are elsewhere. In most churches, one finds in the choir a window of doctrine, such as the so-called New Alliance, but here the New Alliance is banished to the nave. Besides the costly Charlemagne and Saint James windows in the apse, the Furriers and Drapers gave several others, and one of these seems particularly suited to serve as companion to Saint Thomas, Saint James, and Saint Julian, so that it is best taken with these while comparing them. It is in the nave, the third window from the new tower, in the north aisle, – the window of Saint Eustace. The story and treatment and beauty of the work would have warranted making it a pendant to Almogenes, in the bay now serving as the door to Saint Piat's chapel, which should have been the most effective of all the positions in the church for a legendary story. Saint Eustace, whose name was Placidas, commanded the guards of the Emperor Trajan. One day he went out hunting with huntsmen and hounds, as the legend in the lower panel of the window begins; a pretty picture of a stag hunt about the year 1200; followed by one still prettier, where the stag, after leaping upon a rock, has turned, and THE LEGENDARY WINDOWS I73 shows a crucifix between his horns, the stag on one side balancing the horse on the other, while Placidas on his knees yields to the miracle of Christ. Then Placidas is baptized as Eustace; and in the centre, you see him with his wife and two children — another charming composi- tion — leaving the city. Four small panels in the corners are said to contain the signatures of the Drapers and Furriers. Above, the story of adventure goes on, showing Eustace bargaining with a shipmaster for his passage; his embarcation with wife and children, and their arrival at some shore, where the two children have landed, and the master drives Eustace after them while he detains the wife. Four small panels here have not been identified, but the legend was no doubt familiar to the Middle Ages, and they knew how Eustace and the children came to a river, where you can see a pink lion carrying off one child, while a wolf, which has seized the other, is attacked by shepherds and dogs. The children are rescued, and the wife reappears, on her knees before her lord, telling of her escape from the shipmas- ter, while the children stand behind; and then the reunited family, restored to the Emperor's favour, is seen feasting and happy. At last Eustace refuses to offer a sacrifice to a graceful antique idol, and is then shut up, with all his family, in a brazen bull; a fire is kindled beneath it; and, from above, a hand Confers the Crown of martyrdom. Another subject, which should have been placed in the apse, stands in a singular isolation which has struck many of the students in this branch of church learning. At Sens, Saint Eustace is in the choir, and by his side is the Prodigal Son. At Bourges also the Prodigal Son is in the choir. At Chartres, he is banished to the north transept, where you will find him in the window next the nave, almost as though he were in disgrace; yet the glass is said to be very fine, among the best in the church, while the story is told with rather more vivacity than usual; and as far as colour and execution go, the window has an air of age and quality higher than the average. At the bottom you see the signature of the corporation of Butchers. The window at Bourges was I74 MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES given by the Tanners. The story begins with the picture showing the younger son asking the father for his share of the inheritance, which he receives in the next panel, and proceeds, on horseback, to spend, as one cannot help suspecting, at Paris, in the Latin Quarter, where he is seen arriving, welcomed by two ladies. No one has offered to explain why Chartres should consider two ladies theologically more correct than one; or why Sens should fix on three, or why Bourges should require six. Perhaps this was left to the artist's fancy; but, before quitting the twelfth century, we shall see that the usual young man who took his share of patrimony and went up to study in the Latin Quarter, found two schools of scholastic teaching, one called Realism, the other Nominalism, each of which in turn the Church had been obliged to condemn. Meanwhile the Prodigal Son is seen feasting with them, and is crowned with flowers, like a new Abélard, singing his songs to Héloïse, until his religious capital is exhausted, and he is dragged out of bed, to be driven naked from the house with sticks, in this also resembling Abélard. At Bourges he is gently turned out; at Sens he is dragged away by three devils. Then he seeks service, and is seen knocking acorns from boughs, to feed his employer's swine; but, among the thousands of young men who must have come here directly from the schools, nine in every ten said that he was teaching letters to his employer's children or lecturing to the students of the Latin Quarter. At last he decides to return to his father, — possibly the Archbishop of Paris or the Abbot of Saint-Denis, – who receives him with open arms, and gives him a new robe, which to the ribald student would mean a church living — an abbey, perhaps Saint Gildas-de- Rhuys in Brittany, or elsewhere. The fatted calf is killed, the feast is begun, and the elder son, whom the malicious student would name Ber- nard, appears in order to make protest. Above, God, on His throne, blesses the globe of the world. The original symbol of the Prodigal Son was a rather different form of prodigality. According to the Church interpretation, the Father 7. w :C. & § i*º ; Gº i. f*w**.§ § º:&t -: º- ; § § º º - ŧ # - ...wº º ; * *#f º§ §§4.% : : t tº- & : : } N § [. WQ § º N& • * [º d 4. W §§ § { Kh *.. /...ſº à § --> F. Yº: : ºzºs §§§3. º Y3: Sºº - & 3 Stº º crºSº ſº :::::::::: §§ | CHARTRES: THE PRODIGAL SON WINDOW THE LEGENDARY WINDOWS I75 had two sons; the older was the people of the Jews; the younger, the Gentiles. The Father divided his substance between them, giving to the older the divine law, to the younger, the law of nature. The younger went off and dissipated his substance, as one must believe, on Aristotle; but repented and returned when the Father sacrificed the victim — Christ – as the symbol of reunion. That the Synagogue also accepts the sacrifice is not so clear; but the Church clung to the idea of converting the Synagogue as a necessary proof of Christ's divine character. Not until about the time when this window may have been made, did the new Church, under the influence of Saint Dominic, abandon the Jews and turn in despair to the Gentiles alone. The old symbolism belonged to the fourth and fifth centuries, and, as told by the Jesuit fathers Martin and Cahier in their “Monograph” of Bourges, it should have pleased the Virgin who was particularly loved by the young, and habitually showed her attachment to them. At Bourges the window stands next the central chapel of the apse, where at Chartres is the entrance to Saint Piat's chapel; but Bourges did not belong to Notre Dame, nor did Sens. The story of the prodigal sons of these years from I2OO to I230 lends the window a little personal interest that the Prodigal Son of Saint Luke's Gospel could hardly have had even to thirteenth-century penitents. Neither the Church nor the Crown loved prodigal sons. So far from killing fatted calves for them, the bishops in I2O9 burned no less than ten in Paris for too great intimacy with Arab and Jew disciples of Aristotle. The position of the Bishop of Chartres between the schools had been always awk- ward. As for Blanche of Castile, her first son, afterwards Saint Louis, was born in I2 I5; and after that time no Prodigal Son was likely to be welcomed in any society which she frequented. For her, above all other women on earth or in heaven, prodigal sons felt most antipathy, until, in I229, the quarrel became so violent that she turned her police on them and beat a number to death in the streets. They retaliated with- 176 MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES out regard for loyalty or decency, being far from model youth and prone to relapses from virtue, even when forgiven and beneficed. The Virgin Mary, Queen of Heaven, showed no prejudice against prodigal sons, or even prodigal daughters. She would hardly, of her own accord, have Ordered such persons out of her apse, when Saint Stephen Bt Bourges and Sens showed no such puritanism; yet the Chartres window is put away in the north transept. Even there it still stands opposite the Virgin of the Pillar, on the women's and Queen Blanche's side of the church, and in an excellent position, better seen from the thoir than some of the windows in the choir itself, because the late Summer sun shines full upon it, and carries its colours far into the apse. This may have been one of the many instances of tastes in the Virgin which were almost too imperial for her official court. Omniscient as Mary was, she knew no difference between the Blanches of Castile and the students of the Latin Quarter. She was rather fond of prodigals, and gentle toward the ladies who consumed the prodigal's substance. She admitted Mary Magdalen and Mary the Gipsy to her society. She fretted little about Aristotle so long as the prodigal adored her, and naturally the prodigal adored her almost to the exclusion of the Trin- ity. She always cared less for her dignity than was to be wished. Especially in the nave and on the porch, among the peasants, she liked to appear as one of themselves; she insisted on lying in bed, in a stable, with the cows and asses about her, and her baby in a cradle by the bed- side, as though she had suffered like other women, though the Church insisted she had not. Her husband, Saint Joseph, was notoriously uncomfortable in her Court, and always preferred to get as near to the door as he could. The choir at Chartres, on the contrary, was aristo- cratic; every window there had a court quality, even down to the con- temporary Thomas A'Becket, the fashionable martyr of good society. Theology was put into the transepts or still further away in the nave where the window of the New Alliance elbows the Prodigal Son. Even to Blanche of Castile, Mary was neither a philanthropist nor theologist THE LEGENDARY WINDOWS 177 nor merely a mother, — she was an absolute Empress, and whatever she said was obeyed, but sometimes she seems to have willed an order that worried some of her most powerful servants. Mary chose to put her Prodigal into the transept, and one would like to know the reason. Was it a concession to the Bishop or the Queen? Or was it to please the common people that these familiar picture-books, with their popular interest, like the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son, were put on the walls of the great public hall? This can hardly be, since the people would surely have preferred the Charlemagne and Saint James to any other. We shall never know; but sitting here in the subdued afternoon light of the apse, one goes on for hours reading the open volumes of colour, and listening to the steady discussion by the architects, artists, priests, princes, and princesses of the thirteenth century about the arrangements of this apse. However strong-willed they might be, each in turn whether priest, or noble, or glassworker, would have certainly appealed to the Virgin and one can imagine the architect still beside us, in the growing dusk of evening, mentally praying, as he looked at the work of a finished day: “Lady Virgin, show me what you like best! The central chapel is correct, I know. The Lady Blanche's grisaille veils the rather strong blue tone nicely, and I am confident it will suit you. The Charlemagne window seems to me very successful, but the Bishop feels not at all easy about it, and I should never have dared put it here if the Lady Blanche had not insisted on a Spanish bay. To balance at Once both the subjects and the colour, we have tried the Stephen window in the next chapel, with more red; but if Saint Stephen is not good enough to satisfy you, we have tried again with Saint Julian, whose story is really worth telling you as we tell it; and with him we have put Saint Thomas because you loved him and gave him your girdle. I do not myself care so very much for Saint Thomas of Canterbury opposite, though the Count is wild about it, and the Bishop wants it; but the Sylvester is stupendous in the morning sun. What troubles me most is the first 178 MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES right-hand bay. The princesses would not have let me put the Prodi- gal Son there, even if it were made for the place. I've nothing else good enough to balance the Charlemagne unless it be the Eustace. Gracious Lady, what ought I to do? Forgive me my blunders, my stupidity, my wretched want of taste and feeling! I love and adore you! All that I am, I am for you! If I cannot please you, I care not for Heaven! but without your help, I am lost!” Upon my word, you may sit here forever imagining such appeals, and the endless discussions and criticisms that were heard every day, under these vaults, seven hundred years ago. That the Virgin answered the questions is my firm belief, just as it is my conviction that she did not answer them elsewhere. One sees her personal presence on every side. Any one can feel it who will only consent to feel like a child. Sitting here any Sunday afternoon, while the voices of the children of the māitrise are chanting in the choir, – your mind held in the grasp of the strong lines and shadows of the architecture; your eyes flooded with the autumn tones of the glass; your ears drowned with the pur- ity of the voices;one sense reacting upon anotheruntil sensation reaches the limit of its range, – you, or any other lost soul, could, if you cared to look and listen, feel a sense beyond the human ready to reveal a Sense divine that would make that world once more intelligible, and would bring the Virgin to life again, in all the depths of feeling which she shows here, — in lines, vaults, chapels, colours, legends, chants, – more eloquent than the prayer-book, and more beautiful than the autumn Sunlight; and any one willing to try could feel it like the child, reading new thought without end into the art he has studied a hundred times; but what is still more convincing, he could, at will, in an instant, shatter the whole art by calling into it a single motive of his own. CHAPTER X THE COURT OF THE QUEEN OF HEAVEN A LL artists love the sanctuary of the Christian Church, and all tourists love the rest. Thereason becomes clear as one leaves the choir, and goes back to the broad, open hall of the nave. The choir was made not for the pilgrim but for the deity, and is as old as Adam, or perhaps older; at all events old enough to have existed in complete artistic and theological form, with the whole mystery of the Trinity, the Mother and Child, and even the Cross, thousands of years before Christ was born; but the Christian Church not only took the sanctuary in hand, and gave it a new form, more beautiful and much more re- fined than the Romans or Greeks or Egyptians had ever imagined, but it also added the idea of the nave and transepts, and developed it into imperial splendour. The pilgrim-tourist feels at home in the nave be- cause it was built for him; the artist loves the sanctuary because he built it for God. Chartres was intended to hold ten thousand people easily, or fifteen thousand when crowded, and the decoration of this great space, though not a wholly new problem, had to be treated in a new way. Sancta Sofia was built by the Emperor Justinian, with all the resources of the Empire, in a single violent effort, in six years, and was decorated throughout with mosaics on a general scheme, with the unity that Em- pire and Church could give, when they acted together. The Norman Kings of Sicily, the richest princes of the twelfth century, were able to carry out a complete work of the most costly kind, in a single sustained effort from beginning to end, according to a given plan. Chartres was a local shrine, in an agricultural province, not even a part of the royal domain, and its cathedral was the work of Society, without much more tie than the Virgin gave it. Socially Chartres, as far as its I8O MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES stone-work goes, seems to have been mostly rural; its decoration, in the porches and transepts, is royal and feudal; in the nave and choir it is chiefly bourgeois. The want of unity is much less surprising than the unity, but it is still evident, especially in the glass. The mosaics of Mon- reale begin and end; they are a series; their connection is artistic and theological at once; they have unity. The windows of Chartres have no sequence, and their charm is in variety, in individuality, and sometimes even in downright hostility to each other, reflecting the picturesque Society that gave them. They have, too, the charm that the world has made no attempt to popularize them for its modern uses, so that, except for the useful little guide-book of the Abbé Clerval, one can see no clue to the legendary chaos; one has it to one's self, without much fear of being trampled upon by critics or Jew dealers in works of art; any Chartres beggar-woman can still pass a summer's day here, and never once be mortified by ignorance of things that every dealer in bric-à-brac is supposed to know. Yet the artists seem to have begun even here with some idea of sequence, for the first window in the north aisle, next the new tower, tells the story of Noah; but the next plunges into the local history of Chartres, and is devoted to Saint Lubin, a bishop of this diocese who died in or about the year 556, and was, for some reason, selected by the Wine-Merchants to represent them, as their interesting me- dallions show. Then follow three amusing subjects, charmingly treated: Saint Eustace, whose story has been told; Joseph and his brethren; and Saint Nicholas, the most popular saint of the thirteenth century, both in the Greek and in the Roman Churches. The sixth and last window on the north aisle of the nave is the New Alliance. Opposite these, in the South aisle, the series begins next the tower with John the Evangelist, followed by Saint Mary Magdalen, given by the Water-Carriers. The third, the Good Samaritan, given by the Shoemakers, has a rival at Sens which critics think even better. The fourth is the Death, Assumption, and Coronation of the Virgin. Then THE COURT OF THE QUEEN OF HEAVEN 181 comes the fifteenth-century Chapel of Vendôme, to compare the early and later glass. The sixth is, or was, devoted to the Virgin's Miracles at Chartres; but only one complete subject remains. These windows light the two aisles of the nave and decorate the lower walls of the church with a mass of colour and variety of line still practically intact in spite of much injury; but the windows of the tran- septs on the same level have almost disappeared, except the Prodigal Son and a border to what was once a Saint Lawrence, on the north; and, on the South, part of a window to Saint Apollinaris of Ravenna, with an interesting hierarchy of angels above: – seraphim and cheru- bim with six wings, red and blue; Dominations; Powers; Principalities; all, except Thrones. All this seems to be simple enough, at least to the people for whom the nave was built, and to whom the windows were meant to speak. There is nothing esoteric here; nothing but what might have suited the great hall of a great palace. There is no difference in taste between the Virgin in the choir, and the Water-Carriers by the doorway. Blanche, the young Queen, liked the same colours, legends, and lines that her Grocers and Bakers liked. All equally loved the Virgin. There was not even a social difference. In the choir, Thibaut, the Count of Chartres, immediate lord of the province, let himself be put in a dark corner next the Belle Verrière, and left the Bakers to display their wealth in the most serious spot in the church, the central window of the central chapel, while in the nave and transepts all the lower windows that bear signatures were given by trades, as though that part of the church were abandoned to the commons. One might suppose that the feudal aristocracy would have fortified itself in the clerestory and upper windows, but even there the bourgeoisie invaded them, and you can See, with a glass, the Pastrycooks and Turners looking across at the Weavers and Curriers and Money-Changers, and the “Men of Tours.” Beneath the throne of the Mother of God, there was no dis- tinction of gifts; and above it the distinction favoured the common- 182 MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES alty. Of the seven immense windows above and around the high altar, which are designed as one composition, none was given by a prince or a noble. The Drapers, the Butchers, the Bakers, the Bankers are charged with the highest duties attached to the Virgin's service. Apparently neither Saint Louis, nor his father Louis VIII, nor his mother Blanche, nor his uncle Philippe Hurepel, nor his cousin Saint Ferdinand of Castile, nor his other cousin Pierre de Dreux, nor the Duchess Alix of Brittany, cared whether their portraits or armorial shields were thrust out of sight into corners by Pastrycooks and Teamsters, or took a whole wall of the church to themselves. The only relation that connects them is their common relation to the Virgin, but that is emphatic, and dominates the whole. It dominates us, too, if we reflect on it, even after seven hundred years that its meaning has faded. When one looks up to this display of splendour in the clerestory, and asks what was in the minds of the people who joined to produce, with such immense effort and at such self-sacrifice, this astonishing effect, the question seems to answer itself like an echo. With only half of an atrophied imagination, in a happy mood we could still see the nave and transepts filled with ten thousand people on their knees, and the Virgin, crowned and robed, seating herself on the embroidered cushion that covered her imperial throne; Sparkling with gems; bearing in her right hand the sceptre, and in her lap the infant King; but, in the act of seating herself, we should See her pause a moment to look down with love and sympathy on us, – her people, – who pack the enormous hall, and throng far out beyond the open portals; while, an instant later, she glances up to see that her great lords, spiritual and temporal, the advisers of her judgment, the supports of her authority, the agents of her will, shall be in place; robed, mitred, armed; bearing the symbols of her authority and their office; on horseback, lance in hand; all of them ready at a sign to carry out a sentence of judgment or an errand of mercy; to touch with the sceptre or to strike with the Sword; and never err. THE COURT OF THE QUEEN OF HEAVEN I83 There they still stand! unchanged, unfaded, as alive and complete as when they represented the real world, and the people below were the unreal and ephemeral pageant! Then the reality was the Queen of Heaven on her throne in the sanctuary, and her court in the glass; not the queens or princes who were prostrating themselves, with the crowd, at her feet. These people knew the Virgin as well as they knew their own mothers; every jewel in her crown, every stitch of gold-embroid- ery in her many robes; every colour; every fold; every expression on the perfectly familiar features of her grave, imperial face; every care that lurked in the silent sadness of her power; repeated over and over again, in stone, glass, ivory, enamel, wood; in every room, at the head of every bed, hanging on every neck, standing at every street- corner, the Virgin was as familiar to every one of them as the Sun or the seasons; far more familiar than their own earthly queen or countess, although these were no strangers in their daily life; familiar from the earliest childhood to the last agony; in every joy and every Sorrow and every danger; in every act and almost in every thought of life, the Virgin was present with a reality that never belonged to her Son or to the Trinity, and hardly to any earthly being, prelate, king, or kaiser; her daily life was as real to them as their own loyalty which brought to her the best they had to offer as the return for her bound- less sympathy; but while they knew the Virgin as though she were one of themselves, and because she had been one of themselves, they were not so familiar with all the officers of her court at Chartres; and pil- grims from abroad, like us, must always have looked with curious interest at the pageant. - Far down the nave, next the western towers, the rank began with saints, prophets, and martyrs, of all ages and countries; local, like Saint Lubin; national, like Saint Martin of Tours and Saint Hilary of Poitiers; popular like Saint Nicholas; militant like Saint George; with- out order; symbols like Abraham and Isaac; the Virgin herself, holding on her lap the Seven Gifts of the Holy Ghost; Christ with the Alpha 184 MONT—SAINT-MICHEL AND CHARTRES and Omega; Moses and Saint Augustine; Saint Peter; Saint Mary the Egyptian; Saint Jerome; a whole throne-room of heavenly powers, repeating, within, the pageant carved on the porches and on the portals without. From the croisée in the centre, where the crowd is most dense, One sees the whole almost better than Mary sees it from her high altar, for there all the great rose windows flash in turn, and the three twelfth- century lancets glow on the western sun. When the eyes of the throng are directed to the north, the Rose of France strikes them almost with a physical shock of colour, and, from the south, the Rose of Dreux challenges the Rose of France. Every one knows that there is war between the two! The thirteenth century has few secrets. There are no outsiders. We are one family as we are one Church. Every man and woman here, from Mary on her throne to the beggar on the porch, knows that Pierre de Dreux detests Blanche of Castile, and that their two windows carry on war across the very heart of the cathedral. Both unite only in asking help from Mary; but Blanche is a woman, alone in the world with young children to protect, and most women incline strongly to suspect that Mary will never desert her. Pierre, with all his masculine strength, is no courtier. He wants to rule by force. He carries the assertion of his sex into the very presence of the Queen of Heaven. The year happens to be 1230, when the roses may be supposed just finished and showing their whole splendour for the first time. Queen Blanche is forty-three years old, and her son Louis is fifteen. Blanche is a widow these four years, and Pierre a widower since I22I. Both are regents and guardians for their heirs. They have necessarily carried their disputes before Mary. Queen Blanche claims for her son, who is to be Saint Louis, the place of honour at Mary's right hand; she has taken possession of the north porch outside, and of the north transept within, and has filled the windows with glass, as she is filling the porch with statuary. Above is the huge rose; below are five long windows; and all proclaim the homage that France renders to the Queen of Heaven, THE COURT OF THE QUEEN OF HEAVEN 185 The Rose of France shows in its centre the Virgin in her majesty, seated, crowned, holding the sceptre with her right hand, while her left supports the infant Christ-King on her knees; which shows that she, too, is acting as regent for her Son. Round her, in a circle, are twelve medallions; four containing doves; four six-winged angels or Thrones; four angels of a lower order, but all symbolizing the gifts and endowments of the Queen of Heaven. Outside these are twelve more medallions with the Kings of Judah, and a third circle contains the twelve lesser prophets. So Mary sits, hedged in by all the divinity that graces earthly or heavenly kings; while between the two outer circles are twelve quatrefoils bearing on a blue ground the golden lilies of France; and in each angle below the rose are four openings, showing alternately the lilies of Louis and the castles of Blanche. We who are below, the common people, understand that France claims to protect and defend the Virgin of Chartres, as her chief vassal, and that this Ostentatious profusion of lilies and castles is intended not in honour of France, but as a demonstration of loyalty to Notre Dame, and an assertion of her rights as Queen Regent of Heaven against all comers, but particularly against Pierre, the rebel, who has the audacity to assert rival rights in the opposite transept. Beneath the rose are five long windows, very unlike the twelfth- century pendants to the western rose. These five windows blaze with red, and their splendour throws the Virgin above quite into the back- ground. The artists, who felt that the twelfth-century glass was too fine and too delicate for the new scale of the church, have not only enlarged their scale and coarsened their design, but have coarsened their colour-scheme also, discarding blue in order to crush us under the earthly majesty of red. These windows, too, bear the stamp and seal of Blanche's Spanish temper as energetically as though they bore her portrait. The great central figure, the tallest and most commanding in the whole church, is not the Virgin, but her mother Saint Anne, standing erect as on the trumeau of the door beneath, and holding the I86 MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES infant Mary on her left arm. She wears no royal crown, but bears a flowered sceptre. The only other difference between Mary and her mother, that seems intended to strike attention, is that Mary sits, while her mother stands; but as though to proclaim still more distinctly that France supports the royal and divine pretensions of Saint Anne, Queen Blanche has put beneath the figure a great shield blazoned with the golden lilies on an azure ground. With singular insistence on this motive, Saint Anne has at either hand a royal court of her own, marked as her own by containing only figures from the Old Testament. Standing next on her right is Solo- mon, her Prime Minister, bringing wisdom in worldly counsel, and trampling on human folly. Beyond Wisdom stands Law, figured by Aaron with the Book, trampling on the lawless Pharaoh. Opposite them, on Saint Anne's left, is David, the energy of State, trampling on a Salſ' suggesting suspicions of a Saul de Dreux; while last, Melchisedec who, is Faith, tramples on a disobedient Nebuchadnezzar Mauclerc. How can we, the common people, help seeing all this, and much more, when we know that Pierre de Dreux has been for years in con- stant strife with the Crown and the Church? He is very valiant and lion-hearted; — so say the chroniclers, priests though they are; — very skilful and experienced in war whether by land or sea; very adroit, with more sense than any other great lord in France; but restless, factious, and regardless of his word. Brave and bold as the day; full of courtesy and “largesse”; but very hard on the clergy; a good Chris- tian but a bad churchman! Certainly the first man of his time, says Michelet! “I have never found any that sought to do me more ill than he,” says Blanche, and Joinville gives her very words; indeed, this year, I230, she has summoned Our Own Bishop of Chartres among others to Paris in a court of peers, where Pierre has been found guilty of treason and deposed. War still continues, but Pierre must make sub- mission. Blanche has beaten him in politics and in the field! Let us look round and see how he fares in theology and art! THE COURT OF THE QUEEN OF HEAVEN 187 There is his rose – so beautiful that Blanche may well think it seeks to do hers ill! As colour, judge for yourselves whether it holds its own against the flaming Self-assertion of the Opposite wall! As subject, it asserts flat defiance of the monarchy of Queen Blanche. In the cen- tral circle, Christ as King is seated on a royal throne, both arms raised, one holding the golden Cup of eternal priesthood, the other, blessing the world. Two great flambeaux burn beside Him. The four Apocalyp- tic figures surround and worship Him; and in the concentric circles round the central medallion are the angels and the kings in a blaze of colour, symbolizing the New Jerusalem. All the force of the Apocalypse is there, and so is some of the weak- ness of theology, for, in the five great windows below, Pierre shows his training in the Schools. Four of these windows represent what is called, for want of a better name, the New Alliance; the dependence of the New Testament on the Old; but Pierre's choice in symbols was as mas- culine as that of Blanche was feminine. In each of the four windows, a gigantic Evangelist strides the shoulders of a colossal Prophet. Saint John rides on Ezekiel; Saint Mark bestrides Daniel; Saint Mat- thew is on the shoulders of Isaiah; Saint Luke is carried by Jeremiah. The effect verges on the grotesque. The balance of Christ's Church seems uncertain. The Evangelists clutch the Prophets by the hair, and while the synagogue stands firm, the Church looks small, feeble, and vacillating. The new dispensation has not the air of mastery either physical or intellectual; the old gives it all the support it has, and, in the absence of Saint Paul, both old and new seem little concerned with the sympathies of Frenchmen. The synagogue is stronger than the Church, but even the Church is Jew. That Pierre could ever have meant this is not to be dreamed; but when the true Scholar gets thoroughly to work, his logic is remorseless, his art is implacable, and his sense of humour is blighted. In the rose above, Pierre had asserted the exclusive authority of Christ in the New Jerusalem, and his scheme required him to show how the Church I88 MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES rested on the Evangelists below, who in their turn had no visible support except what the Prophets gave them. Yet the artist may have had a reason for weakening the Evangelists, because there remained the Virgin! One dares no more than hint at a motive so disrespectful to the Evangelists; but it is certainly true that, in the central window, immediately beneath the Christ, and His chief support, with the four staggering Evangelists and Prophets on either hand, the Virgin stands, and betrays no sign of weakness. The compliment is singularly masculine; a kind of twelfth-century flattery that might have softened the anger of Blanche herself, if the Virgin had been her own; but the Virgin of Dreux is not the Virgin of France. No doubt she still wears her royal crown, and her head is circled with the halo; her right hand still holds the flowered sceptre, and her left the infant Christ, but she stands, and Christis King. Note, too, that she stands directly opposite to her mother Saint Anne in the Rose of France, SO as to place her one stage lower than the Virgin of France in the hierarchy. She is the Saint Anne of France, and shows it. “She is no longer,” says the official Monograph, “that majestic queen who was seated on a throne, with her feet on the stool of honour; the personages have become less imposing and the heads show the decadence.” She is the Virgin of Theology; she has her rights, and no more; but she is not the Virgin of Chartres. She, too, stands on an altar or pedestal, on which hangs a shield bearing the ermines, an exact Counterpart of the royal shield beneath Saint Anne. In this excessive display of armorial bearings — for the two roses above are crowded with them — one likes to think that these great princes had in their minds not so much the thought of their own importance — which is a modern sort of religion — as the thought of their devotion to Mary. The assertion of power and attachment by one is met by the assertion of equal devotion by the other, and while both loudly proclaim their homage to the Virgin, each glares defiance across the church. Pierre meant the Queen of Heaven to know that, in case THE COURT OF THE QUEEN OF HEAVEN 189 of need, her left hand was as good as her right, and truer; that the ermines were as well able to defend her as the lilies, and that Brit- tany would fight her battles as bravely as France. Whether his mean- ing carried with it more devotion to the Virgin or more defiance to France depends a little on the date of the windows, but, as a mere point of history, every one must allow that Pierre's promise of alle- giance was kept more faithfully by Prittany than that of Blanche and Saint Louis has been kept by France. The date seems to be fixed by the windows themselves. Beneath the Prophets kneel Pierre and his wife Alix, while their two children, Yolande and Jean, stand. Alix died in I22I. Jean was born in I217. Yolande was affianced in marriage in I227, while a child, and given to Queen Blanche to be brought up as the future wife of her younger son John, then in his eighth year. When John died, Yolande was contracted to Thibaut of Champagne in I23 I, and Blanche is said to have written to Thibaut in consequence: “Sire Thibauld of Champagne, I have heard that you have covenanted and promised to take to wife the daughter of Count Perron of Brittany. Wherefore I charge you, if you do not wish to lose whatever you possess in the kingdom of France, not to do it. If you hold dear or love aught in the said kingdom, do it not.” Whether Blanche wrote in these words or not, she certainly pre- vented the marriage, and Yolande remained single until 1238 when she married the Comte de la Marche, who was, by the way, almost as bit- ter an enemy of Blanche as Pierre had been; but by that time both Blanche and Pierre had ceased to be regents. Yolande's figure in the window is that of a girl, perhaps twelve or fourteen years old; Jean is younger, certainly not more than eight or ten years of age; and the appearance of the two children shows that the window itself should date between 1225 and I230, the year when Pierre de Dreux was condemned because he had renounced his homage to King Louis, declared war on him, and invited the King of England into France. As already told, Philippe Hurepel de Boulogne, the Comte de la Marche, I90 MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES Enguerrand de Couci, - nearly all the great nobles, – had been leagued with Pierre de Dreux since Blanche's regency began in I226. That these transept windows harmonize at all, is due to the Virgin, not to the donors. At the time they were designed, supposing it to be during Blanche's regency (I226–36), the passions of these donors brought France to momentary ruin, and the Virgin in Blanche's Rose de France, as she looked across the church, could not see a single friend of Blanche. What is more curious, she saw enemies in plenty, and in full readiness for battle. We have seen in the centre of the small rose in the north transept, Philippe Hurepel still waiting her orders; across the nave, in another small rose of the south transept, sits Pierre de Dreux on his horse. The upper windows on the side walls of the choir are very interesting but impossible to see, even with the best glasses, from the floor of the church. Their sequence and dates have already been discussed; but their feeling is shown by the character of the Virgin, who in French territory, next the north transept, is still the Virgin of France, but in Pierre's territory, next the Rose de Dreux, becomes again the Virgin of Dreux, who is absorbed in the Child, - not the Child absorbed in her, — and accordingly the window shows the chequers and ermines. The figures, like the stone figures outside, are the earliest of French art, before any School of painting fairly existed. Among them, one can see no friend of Blanche. Indeed, outside of her own immediate fam- ily and the Church, Blanche had no friend of much importance except the famous Thibaut of Champagne, the single member of the royal family who took her side and suffered for her sake, and who, as far as books tell, has no window or memorial here. One might suppose that Thibaut, who loved both Blanche and the Virgin, would have claimed a place, and perhaps he did; but one seeks him in vain. If Blanche had friends here, they are gone. Pierre de Dreux, lance in hand, openly defies her, and it was not on her brother-in-law Philippe Hurepel that she could depend for defence. THE COURT OF THE QUEEN OF HEAVEN 191 This is the court pageant of the Virgin that shows itself to the peo- ple who are kneeling at high mass. We, the public, whoever we are, Chartrain, Breton, Norman, Angevin, Frenchman, Percherain, or what not, — know our local politics as intimately as our lords do, or even better, for our imaginations are active, and we do not love Blanche of Castile. We know how to read the passions that fill the church. From the north transept Blanche flames out on us in splendid reds and flings her Spanish castles in our face. From the south tran- Sept Pierre retorts with a brutal energy which shows itself in the Prophets who serve as battle-chargers and in the Evangelists whoserve as knights, – mounted warriors of faith, –whose great eyes follow us across the church and defy Saint Anne and her French shield oppo- site. Pierre was not effeminate; Blanche was fairly masculine. Between them, as a matter of sex, we can see little to choose; and, in any case, it is a family quarrel; they are all cousins; they are all equals on earth, and none means to submit to any superior except the Virgin and her Son in heaven. The Virgin is not afraid. She has seen many troubles worse than this; she knows how to manage perverse children, and if necessary she will shut them up in a darker room than ever their mothers kept open for them in this world. One has only to look at the Virgin to see! - There she is, of course, looking down on us from the great window above the high altar, where we never forget her presence! Is there a thought of disturbance there? Around the curve of the choir are seven great windows, without roses, filling the whole semicircle and the whole vault, forty-seven feet high, and meant to dominate the nave as far as the western portal, so that we may never forget how Mary fills her church without being disturbed by quarrels, and may understand why Saint Ferdinand and Saint Louis creep out of our sight, close by the Virgin's side, far up above brawls; and why France and Brittany hide their ugly or their splendid passions at the ends of the transepts, out of sight of the high altar where Mary is to sit in state as Queen I92 MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES with the young King on her lap. In an instant she will come, but we have a moment still to look about at the last great decoration of her palace, and see how the artists have arranged it. Since the building of Sancta Sofia, no artist has had such a chance. No doubt, Rheims and Amiens and Bourges and Beauvais, which are now building, may be even finer, but none of them is yet finished, and all must take their ideas from here. One would like, before looking at it, to think over the problem, as though it were new, and so choose the scheme that would suit us best if the decoration were to be done for the first time. The architecture is fixed; we have to do only with the col- our of this mass of seven huge windows, forty-seven feet high, in the clerestory, round the curve of the choir, which close the vista of the church as viewed from the entrance. This vista is about three hundred and thirty feet long. The windows rise above a hundred feet. How ought this vast space to be filled? Should the perpendicular upward leap of the architecture be followed and accented by a perpendicular leap of colour? The decorators of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries seem to have thought so, and made perpendicular architectural draw- ings in yellow that simulated gold, and lines that ran with the general lines of the building. Many fifteenth-century windows seem to be made up of florid Gothic details rising in stages to the vault. No doubt critics complained, and still complain, that the monotony of this scheme, and its cheapness of intelligence, were objections; but at least the effect was light, decorative, and safe. The artist could not go far wrong and was still at liberty to do beautiful work, as can be seen in any number of churches Scattered broadcast over Europe and swarm- ing in Paris and France. On the other hand, might not the artist dis- regard the architecture and fill the space with a climax of colour? Could he not unite the Roses of France and Dreux above the high altar in an overpowering outburst of purples and reds? The Seventeenth century might have preferred to mass clouds and colours, and Michael Angelo, in the sixteenth, might have known how to do it. What we want is THE COURT OF THE QUEEN OF HEAVEN 193 not the feeling of the artist so much as the feeling of Chartres. What shall it be — the jewelled brilliancy of the western windows, or the fierce self-assertion of Pierre Mauclerc, or the royal splendour of Queen Blanche, or the feminine grace and decorative refinement of the Charlemagne and Santiago windows in the apse? Never again in art was so splendid a problem offered, either before or since, for the artist of Chartres solved it, as he did the whole mat- ter of fenestration, and later artists could only offer variations on his work. You will see them at Bourges and Tours and in scores of thir- teenth and fourteenth and fifteenth and sixteenth century churches and windows, and perhaps in some of the twentieth century, - all of them interesting and some of them beautiful, - and far be it from us, mean and ignorant pilgrims of art, to condemn any intelligent effort to vary or improve the effect; but we have set out to seek the feeling, and while we think of art in relation to ourselves, the sermon of Chartres, from beginning to end, teaches and preaches and insists and reiterates and hammers into our torpid minds the moral that the art of the Virgin was not that of her artists but her own. We inevitably think of our tastes; they thought instinctively of hers. In the transepts, Queen Blanche and Duke Perron, in legal posses- sion of their territory, showed that they were thinking of each other as well as of the Virgin, and claimed loudly that they ought each to be first in the Virgin's favour; and they stand there in place, as the thirteenth century felt them. Subject to their fealty to Mary, the transepts belonged to them, and if Blanche did not, like Pierre, assert herself and her son on the Virgin's window, perhaps she thought the Virgin would resent Pierre's boldness the more by contrast with her own good taste. So far as is known, nowhere does Blanche appear in person at Chartres; she felt herself too near the Virgin to obtrude a useless image, or she was too deeply religious to ask anything for her- self. A queen who was to have two children sainted, to intercede for her at Mary's throne, stood in a solitude almost as unique as that of I94 MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES Mary, and might ignore the raw brutalities of a man-at-arms; but neither she nor Pierre has carried the quarrel into Mary's presence, nor has the Virgin condescended even to seem conscious of their tem- per. This is the theme of the artist—the purity, the beauty, the grace, and the infinite loftiness of Mary's nature, among the things of earth, and above the clamour of kings. Therefore, when we, and the crushed crowd of kneeling worshippers around us, lift our eyes at last after the miracle of the mass, we see, far above the high altar, high over all the agitation of prayer, the pas- sion of politics, the anguish of suffering, the terrors of sin, only the figure of the Virgin in majesty, looking down on her people, crowned, throned, glorified, with the infant Christ on her knees. She does not assert herself; probably she intends to be felt rather than feared. Com- pared with the Greek Virgin, as you see her, for example, at Torcello, the Chartres Virgin is retiring and hardly important enough for the place. She is not exaggerated either in scale, drawing, or colour. She shows not a sign of self-consciousness, not an effort for brilliancy, not a trace of stage effect – hardly even a thought of herself, except that she is at home, among her own people, where she is loved and known as well as she knows them. The seven great windows are one compo- sition; and it is plain that the artist, had he been ordered to make an exhibition of power, could have overwhelmed us with a storm of pur- ple, red, yellows, or given us a Virgin of Passion who would have torn the vault asunder; his ability is never in doubt, and if he has kept true to the spirit of the western portal and the twelfth-century, it is be- cause the Virgin of Chartres was the Virgin of Grace, and ordered him to paint her so. One shudders to think how a single false note—a sug- gestion of meanness, in this climax of line and colour — would bring the whole fabric down in ruins on the eighteenth-century meanness of the choir below; and one notes, almost bashfully, the expedients of the artists to quiet their effects. So the lines of the seven windows are built up, to avoid the horizontal, and yet not exaggerate the vertical. THE COURT OF THE QUEEN OF HEAVEN 195 The architect counts here for more than the colourist; but the colour, when you study it, suggests the same restraint. Three great windows on the Virgin's right, balanced by three more on her left, show the prophets and precursors of her Son; all architecturally support and exalt the Virgin, in her celestial atmosphere of blue, shot with red, calm in the certainty of heaven. Any one who is prematurely curious to see the difference in treatment between different centuries should go down to the church of Saint Pierre in the lower town, and study there the methods of the Renaissance. Then we can come back to study again the ways of the thirteenth century. The Virgin will wait; she will not be angry; she knows her power; we all come back to heſ in the end. Or the Renaissance, if one prefers, can wait equally well, while one kneels with the thirteenth century, and feels the little one still can feel of what it felt. Technically these apsidal windows have not received much notice; the books rarely speak of them; travellers seldom look at them; and their height is such that even with the best glass, the quality of the work is beyond our power to judge. We see, and the artists meant that we should see, only the great lines, the colour, and the Virgin. (The mass of suppliants before the choir look up to the light, clear blues and reds of this great space, and feel there the celes- % tial peace and beauty of Mary's nature and abode. There is heaven! and Mary looks down from it, into her church, where she sees us on our knees, and knows each one of us by name. There she actually is — not in symbol or in fancy, but in person, descending on her errands of mercy and listening to each one of us, as her miracles prove, or satis- fying our prayers merely by her presence which calms our excitement as that of a mother calms her child. She is there as Queen, not merely as intercessor, and her power is such that to her the difference between us earthly beings is nothing. Her quiet, masculine strength enchants us most. Pierre Mauclerc and Philippe Hurepel and their men-at- arms are afraid of her, and the Bishop himself is never quite at his ease I96 MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES in her presence; but to peasants, and beggars, and people in trouble. this sense of her power and calm is better than active sympathy. People who suffer beyond the formulas of expression – who are crushed into silence,and beyond pain — want no display of emotion — no bleeding heart—no weeping at the foot of the Cross — no hyster- ics—no phrases! They want to see God, and to know that He is watch- ing over His own. How many women are there, in this mass of thir- teenth century suppliants, who have lost children? Probably nearly all, for the death rate is very high in the conditions of mediaeval life. There are thousands of such women here, for it is precisely this class who come most; and probably every one of them has looked up to Mary in her great window, and has felt actual certainty, as though she saw with her own eyes — there, in heaven, while she looked — her own lost baby playing with the Christ-Child at the Virgin's knee, as much at home as the Saints, and much more at home than the kings. Before rising from her knees, every one of these women will have bent down and kissed the stone pavement in gratitude for Mary's mercy. The earth, she says, is a sorry place, and the best of it is bad enough, no doubt, even for Queen Blanche and the Duchess Alix who has had to leave her children here alone; but there above is Mary in heaven who Sees and hears me as I see her, and who keeps my little boy till I come; So I can wait with patience, more or less! Saints and prophets and martyrs are all very well, and Christ is very sublime and just, but Mary knows / It was very childlike, very foolish, very beautiful, and very true, — as art, at least: – SO true that everything else shades off into vul- garity, as you see the Persephone of a Syracusan coin shade off into the vulgarity of a Roman emperor; as though the heaven that lies about us in Our infancy too quickly takes colours that are not so much Sober as SOrdid, and would be welcome if no worse than that. Vul- garity, too, has feeling, and its expression in art has truth and even pathos, but we shall have time enough in our lives for that, and all the THE COURT OF THE QUEEN OF HEAVEN 197 imore because, when we rise from our knees now, we have finished our pilgrimage. We have done with Chartres. For seven hundred years Chartres has seen pilgrims, coming and going more or less like us, and will perhaps see them for another seven hundred years; but we shall see it no more, and can safely leave the Virgin in her majesty, with her three great prophets on either hand, as calm and confident in their own strength and in God's providence as they were when Saint Louis was born, but looking down from a deserted heaven, into an empty church, on a dead faith. CHAPTER XI THE THREE QUEENS FTER worshipping at the shrines of Saint Michael on his Mount and of the Virgin at Chartres, one may wander far and wide over France, and seldom feel lost; all later Gothic art comes naturally, and no new thought disturbs the perfected form. Yet tourists of English blood and American training are seldom or never quite at home there. Commonly they feel it only as a stage-decoration. The twelfth and thirteenth centuries, studied in the pure light of political economy, are insane. The scientific mind is atrophied, and suffers under inherited cerebral weakness, when it comes in contact with the eternal woman — Astarte, Isis, Demeter, Aphrodite, and the last and greatest deity of all, the Virgin. Very rarely one lingers, with a mild sympathy, such as suits the patient student of human error, willing to be interested in what he cannot understand. Still more rarely, owing to some revival of archaic instincts, he rediscovers the woman. This is perhaps the mark of the artist alone, and his solitary privilege. The rest of us cannot feel; we can only study. The proper study of mankind is woman and, by common agreement since the time of Adam, it is the most com- plex and arduous. The study of Our Lady, as shown by the art of Chartres, leads directly back to Eve, and lays bare the whole subject of sex. If it were worth while to argue a paradox, one might maintain that Nature regards the female as the essential, the male as the Superflu- ity of her world. Perhaps the best starting-point for study of the Virgin would be a practical acquaintance with bees, and especially with queen bees. Precisely where the French man may come in, on the genealogical tree of parthenogenesis, one hesitates to Say; but certain THE THREE QUEENS I99 it is that the French woman, from very early times, has shown qualities peculiar to herself, and that the French woman of the Middle Ages was a masculine character. Almost any book which deals with the social side of the twelfth century has something to say on this subject, like the following page from M. Garreau's volume published in 1899, on the “Social State of France during the Crusades”: — A trait peculiar to this epoch is the close resemblance between the manners of men and women. The rule that such and such feelings cr acts are permitted to one sex and forbidden to the other was not fairly settled. Men had the right to dissolve in tears, and women that of talking without prudery. . . . If we look at their intellectual level, the women appear distinctly superior. They are more serious; more subtle. With them we do not seem dealing with the rude state of civilization that their husbands belong to. . . . As a rule, the women seem to have the habit of weighing their acts; of not yielding to momentary impressions. While the sense of Christianity is more developed in them than in their husbands, on the other hand they show more perfidy and art in crime. . . . One might doubt- less prove by a series of examples that the maternal influence when it predominated in the education of a son gave him a marked superiority over his contemporaries. Richard Coeur-de-Lion the crowned poet, artist, the king whose noble manners and refined mind in spite of his cruelty exercised so strong an impression on his age, was formed by that brilliant Eleanor of Guienne who, in her struggle with her husband, retained her sons as much as possible within her sphere of influence in order to make party chiefs of them. Our great Saint Louis, as all know, was brought up exclusively by Blanche of Castile; and Joinville, the charming writer so worthy of Saint Louis's friendship, and apparently so superior to his surroundings, was also the pupil of a widowed and regent mother. The superiority of the woman was not a fancy, but a fact. Man's business was to fight or hunt or feast or make love. The man was also the travelling partner in commerce, commonly absent from home for months together, while the woman carried on the business. The woman ruled the household and the workshop; cared for the economy; supplied the intelligence, and dictated the taste. Her ascendancy was secured by her alliance with the Church, into which she sent her most intelligent children; and a priest or clerk, for the most part, counted . socially as a woman. Both physically and mentally the woman was robust, as the men often complained, and she did not greatly resent 2OO MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES being treated as a man. Sometimes the husband beat her, dragged her about by the hair, locked her up in the house; but he was quite con- scious that she always got even with him in the end. As a matter of fact, probably she got more than even. On this point, history, legend, poetry, romance, and especially the popular fabliaux – invented to amuse the gross tastes of the coarser class — are all agreed, and one could give scores of volumes illustrating it. The greatest men illustrate it best, as one might show almost at hazard. The greatest men of the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries were William the Norman; his great grandson Henry II Plantagenet; Saint Louis of France; and, if a fourth be needed, Richard Coeur-de-Lion. Notoriously all these men had as much difficulty as Louis XIV himself with the women of their family. Tradition exaggerates everything it touches, but shows, at the same time, what is passing in the minds of the so- ciety which tradites. In Normandy, the people of Caen have kept a tradition, told elsewhere in other forms, that one day, Duke William, — the Conqueror, – exasperated by having his bastardy constantly thrown in his face by the Duchess Matilda, dragged her by the hair, tied to his horse's tail, as far as the suburb of Vaucelles; and this legend accounts for the splendour of the Abbaye-aux-Dames, because William, the common people believed, afterwards regretted the im- propriety, and atoned for it by giving her money to build the abbey. The story betrays the man's weakness. The Abbaye-aux-Dames stands in the same relation to the Abbaye-aux-Hommes that Matilda took towards William. Inferiority there was none; on the contrary, the woman was socially the superior, and William was probably more afraid of her than she of him, if Mr. Freeman is right in insisting that he married her in spite of her having a husband living, and certainly two children. If William was the strongest man in the eleventh cen- tury, his great-grandson, Henry II of England, was the strongest man of the twelfth; but the history of the time resounds with the noise of his battles with Queen Eleanor whom he, at last, held in prison for THE THREE QUEENS 2OI fourteen years. Prisoner as she was, she broke him down in the end. One is tempted to suspect that, had her husband and children been guided by her, and by her policy aspeacemaker for the good of Guienne, most of the disasters of England and France might have been post- poned for the time; but we can never know the truth, for monks and historians abhor emancipated women, - with good reason, since such women are apt to abhor them, - and the quarrel can never be paci- fied. Historians have commonly shown fear of women without admit- ting it, but the man of the Middle Ages knew at least why he feared the woman, and told it openly, not to say brutally. Long after Eleanor and Blanche were dead, Chaucer brought the Wife of Bath on his Shakespearean stage, to explain the woman, and as usual he touched masculine frailty with caustic, while seeming to laugh at woman and man alike: — “My liege lady! generally,” quoth he, “Women desiren to have soverainetee.” The point was that the Wife of Bath, like Queen Blanche and Queen Eleanor, not only wanted sovereignty, but won and held it. That Saint Louis, even when a grown man and king, stood in awe of his mother, Blanche of Castile, was not only notorious but seemed to be thought natural. Joinville recorded it not so much to mark the King's weakness, as the woman's strength; for his Queen, Margaret of Provence, showed the courage which the King had not. Blanche and Margaret were exceedingly jealous of each other. “One day,” said Joinville, “Queen Blanche went to the Queen's [Margaret] chamber where her son [Louis IX] had gone before to comfort her, for she was in great danger of death from a bad delivery; and he hid himself behind the Queen [Margaret] to avoid being seen; but his mother perceived him, and taking him by the hand said: ‘Come along! you will do no good here!’ and put him out of the chamber. Queen Margaret, ob- serving this, and that she was to be separated from her husband, cried aloud: ‘Alas! will you not allow me to see my lord either living or 2O2 MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES dying?’” According to Joinville, King Louis always hid himself when, in his wife's chamber, he heard his mother coming. The great period of Gothic architecture begins with the coming of Eleanor (II37) and ends with the passing of Blanche (1252). Eleanor's long life was full of energy and passion of which next to nothing is known; the woman was always too slippery for monks or Soldiers to grasp. Eleanor came to Paris, a Queen of fifteen years old, in II37, bringing Poitiers and Guienne as the greatest dowry ever offered to the French Crown. She brought also the tastes and manners of the South, little in harmony with the tastes and manners of Saint Bernard whose au- thority at court rivalled her own. The Abbé Suger supported her, but the King leaned toward the Abbé Bernard. What this puritan reaction meant is a matter to be studied by itself, if one can find a cloister to study in; but it bore the mark of most puritan reactions in its hostility to women. As long as the woman remained docile, she ruled, through the Church; but the man feared her and was jealous of her, and she of him. Bernard specially adored the Virgin because she was an example of docile obedience to the Trinity who atoned for the indocility of Eve, but Eve herself remained the instrument of Satan, and French society as a whole showed a taste for Eves. Eleanor could hardly be called docile. Whatever else she loved, she certainly loved rule. She shared this passion to the full with her Only great successor and rival on the English throne, Queen Elizabeth, and she happened to become Queen of France at the moment when Society was turning from worship of its military ideal, Saint Michael, to worship of its Social ideal, the Virgin. According to the monk Orderic, men had begun to throw aside their old military dress and manners even before the first crusade, in the days of William Rufus (IO87-IIOO), and to affect feminine fashions. In all ages, priests and monks have denounced the growing vices of society, with more or less reason; but there seems to have been a real outbreak of display at THE THREE QUEENS William I — Matilda the conqueror of Flanders Henry I — Matilda of England of Scotland Alix — Louis VI - Matilda — Geoffroi of Savoy | of France m. II29 of Anjou | Louis VII — ELEANOR — Henry II Plantagenet m. II 37 of Guienne b. II.33 m. I I52 i II89 b. II22 fi2O2 | - | . . | Henry — MARY Alix — Thibaut Eleanor — Alphonso Richard John of Champagne | b. c. 1145 de France of Chartres m. II.70 | of Castile Coeur-de-Lion b. II66 m. II64 fl 18O fi IQ8 b. c. II.46 f II.91 b. II57 | | | - Blanche – Thibaut III Louis Isabel - BLANCHE— Louis VIII Bérengère—Alphonso Of of Champagne i I2O5 of Chartres of Castile of France of Navarre f I2OI b. II.87 m. I2OO i 1226 Castile Thibaut-le-Grand Thibaut Saint Louis Saint Ferdinand of Champagne of Chartres I2I5–I27O b. I2OO fiz52, b. I2OI iI253 i I.218 2O4 MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES about the time of the first crusade, which set a deep mark on every sort of social expression, even downto the shoes of the statues on the western portal of Chartres: — A debauched fellow named Robert [said Orderic] was the first, about the time of William Rufus, who introduced the practice of filling the long points of the shoes with tow, and of turning them up like a ram's horn. Hence he got the sur- name of Cornard; and this absurd fashion was speedily adopted by great numbers of the nobility as a proud distinction and sign of merit. At this time effeminacy was the prevailing vice throughout the world. . . . They parted their hair from the crown of the head on each side of the forehead, and their locks grew long like women, and wore long shirts and tunics, closely tied with points. . . . In our days, ancient customs are almost all changed for new fashions. Our wanton youths are sunk in effeminacy. . . . They insert their toes in things like serpents' tails which present to view the shape of Scorpions. Sweeping the dusty ground with the prodigious trains of their robes and mantles, they cover their hands with gloves . . . If you are curious to follow these monkish criticisms on your all- cestors' habits, you can read Orderic at your leisure; but you want only to carry in mind the fact that the generation of warriors who fought at Hastings and captured Jerusalem were regarded by themselves as effeminate, and plunged in luxury. “Their locks are curled with hot irons, and instead of wearing caps, they bind their heads with fillets. A knightseldom appears in public with his head uncovered and properly shaved according to the apostolic precept.” The effeminacy of the first crusade took artistic shape in the west portal of Chartres and the glass of Saint-Denis, and led instantly to the puritan reaction of Saint Bernard, followed by the gentle asceticism of Queen Blanche and Saint Louis. Whether the pilgrimages to Jerusalem and contact with the East were the cause or only a consequence of this revolution, or whether it was all one, – a result of converting the Northern pagans to peaceful habits and the Consequent enrichment of northern Europe, — is indifferent; the fact and the date are enough. The art is French, but the ideas may have come from anywhere, like the game of chess which the pilgrims or crusaders brought home from Syria. In the Oriental game, the King was followed step by step by a Minister THE THREE QUEENS 205 whose functions were personal. The crusaders freed the piece from control; gave it liberty to move up or down or diagonally, forwards and backwards; made it the most arbitrary and formidable champion on the board, while the King and the Knight were the most restricted in movement; and this piece they named Queen, and called the Virgin:— Li Baudrains traist Sa fierge por son paon Sauver, E cele Son aufin qui cuida conquester La firge ou le paon, ou faire reculer. The aufim or dauphin became the Fou of the French game, and the bishop of the English. Baldwin played his Virgin to save his pawn; his opponent played the bishop to threaten either the Virgin or the pawn. For a hundred and fifty years, the Virgin and Queens ruled French taste and thought so successfully that the French man has never yet quite decided whether to be more proud or ashamed of it. Life has ever since seemed a little flat to him, and art a little cheap. He saw that the woman, in elevating herself, had made him appear ridiculous, and he tried to retaliate with a wit not always sparkling, and too often at his own expense. Sometimes in museums or collections of bric-à-brac, you will see, in an illuminated manuscript, or carved on stone, or cast in bronze, the figure of a man on his hands and knees, bestridden by another figure holding a bridle and a whip; it is Aris- totle, symbol of masculine wisdom, bridled and driven by woman. Six hundred years afterwards, Tennyson revived the same motive in Merlin, enslaved not for a time but forever. In both cases the satire justly punished the man. Another version of the same story — per- haps the original — was the Mystery of Adam, One of the earliest Church plays. Gaston Paris says “it was written in England in the twelfth century, and its author had real poetic talent; the scene of the seduction of Eve by the serpent is one of the best pieces of Christian dramaturgy. . . . This remarkable work seems to have been played no longer inside the church, but under the porch”: — 2O6 MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES Diabolus. Jovi Adam mais trop est fols. Devil. Adam I've seen, but he's too rough. Eva. Un poiest durs. Eve. A little hard! Diabolus. Il serra mols. Devil. He'll soon be soft enough! Il est plus durs qui n'est enfers. Harder than hell he is till now. Eva. Il est mult francs. Eve. He's very frank! Diabolus. Ainz est mult sers. Devil. Say very low! Cure ne volt prendre de sei To help himself he does not care; Car la prenge sevals de tei. The helping you shall be my share; Tues fieblette et tendre chose For you are tender, gentle, true, E es plus fresche que n'est rose. The rose is not so fresh as you; Tues plus blanche que cristal Whiter than crystal, or than snow Que neif que chiet sor glace en val. That falls from heaven on ice below. Mal cuple en fist li Criatur. A sorry mixture God has brewed, Tues trop tendre e il trop dur. You too tender, he too rude. Mais neporduant tu es plus sage But you have much the greater sense. En grant sens as mis tun Corrage Your will is all intelligence. Por co fait bon traire a tei. Therefore it is I turn to you. Parler te voil. I want to tell you — Eva. Oreja fai. Eve. Do it now! The woman's greater intelligence was to blame for Adam's fall. Eve was justly punished because she should have known better, while Adam, as the Devil truly said, was a dull animal, hardly worth the trouble of deceiving. Adam was disloyal, too, untrue to his wife after being untrue to his Creator: — La femme que tu me donas The woman that you made me take Ele fist prime icest trespas First led me into this mistake. Donat le mei e jo mangai. She gave the apple that I ate Or mest vis tornez est a gwai And brought me to this evil state. Mal acontai icest manger. Badly for me it turned, I own, Jo ai mesfait par ma moiller. But all the fault is hers alone. The audience accepted this as natural and proper. They recognized the man as, of course, stupid, cowardly, and traitorous. The men of the baser sort revenged themselves by boorishness that passed with them for wit in the taverns of Arras, but the poets of the higher class commonly took sides with the women. Even Chaucer, who lived after the glamour had faded, and who satirized women to satiety, told their tale in his “Legend of Good Women,” with evident sympathy. To him, also, the ordinary man was inferior, -stupid, brutal, and untrue. “Full brittle is the truest,” he said: — THE THREE QUEENS 2O7 \ For well I wote that Christ himself telleth That in Israel, as wide as is the lond, That so great faith in all the lond he ne fond As in a woman, and this is no lie; And as for men, look ye, such tyrannie They doen all day, assay hem who so list, The truest is full brotell for to trist. Neither brutality nor wit helped the man much. Even Bluebeard in the end fell a victim to the superior qualities of his last wife, and Scheherazade's wit alone has preserved the memory of her royal husband. The tradition of thirteenth-century society still rules the French stage. The struggle between two strong-willed women to con- trol one weak-willed man is the usual motive of the French drama in the nineteenth century, as it was the whole motive of Parte- nopeus of Blois, one of the best twelfth-century romans; and Join- ville described it, in the middle of the thirteenth, as the leading motive in the court of Saint Louis, with Queen Blanche and Queen Margaret for players, and Saint Louis himself for pawn. One has only to look at the common, so-called Elzevirian, volume of thirteenth-century nouvelles to see the Frenchman as he saw him- self. The story of “La Comtesse de Ponthieu’’ is the more Shake- spearean, but “La Belle Jehanne” is the more natural and lifelike. The plot is the common masculine intrigue against the woman, which was used over and over again before Shakespeare appropriated itin “Much Ado”; but its French development is rather in the line of “All's Well.” The fair Jeanne, married to a penniless knight, not at all by her choice, but only because he was a favourite of her father's, was a woman of the true twelfth-century type. She broke the head of the traitor, and when he, with his masculine falseness, caused her husband to desert her, she disguised herself as a squire and followed Sir Robert to Marseilles in Search of service in war, for the poor knight could get no other means of livelihood. Robert was the husband, and the wife, in entering his service as Squire without pay, called herself John: — 2OS MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES Molt fu mesire Robiers dolans cant il vint 2 Marselle de Cou k'il n'oï parler de nulle chose ki fust ou païs; si dist a Jehan: — Ke ferons nous? Wous m'aves preste de vos deniers la vostre mierchi; siles vos ren- derai car je venderai mon palefroi et m'acui- terai a vous. — Sire, dist Jehans, crees moi se il vous plaist je vous dirai ke nous ferons; jou ai bien enchore .c. sous de tournois; s'il vous plaist je venderai nos .ii. chevaus et en ferai deniers; et je suis li miousdres boulengiers ke vous Sacies; si ferai pain françois et je ne douc mie ke je ne gaagne bien et largement mon depens. – Jehans, dist mesire Robiers, je m'otroi del tout a faire votre volente. Et lendemain vendi Jehans ses.ii. chevaux JK, livres de tornois, et achata son ble et le fist muire, et achata des corbelles et coumencha a faire pain françois si bon et si bien fait k'il en vendoit plus ke li doi melleur boulengier de la ville; et fist tant dedens les .ii. ans k'ilot bien.c. livres de katel. Lors dist Jehans a SOn Segnour: — Je lo bien que nous loudns une tres grant mason et jou akaterai del vin et hierbegerai la bonne gent. — Jehan, dist mesire Robiers, faites a vo volente kar je l'otroi et si me loc molt devous. Jehans loua une mason grant et bielle, et si hierbrega la bonne gent et gaegnoit ases a plente, et viestoit son Segnour biellement et richement; et avoit mesire Robiers son pale- froi et aloit boire et mengier aveukes les plus vallans de la ville; et Jehans li envoioit vins et viandes ke tout cil ki o lui conpagnoient s'en esmervelloient. Sigaegna tant ke dedens .iiii. ansil gaegna plus de .ccc. livres de meuble sains son harnois qui valoit bien .L. livres. Much was Sir Robert grieved when he came to Marseilles and found that there was no talk of anything doing in the country; and he said to John: “What shall we do? You have lent me your money; I thank you, and will repay you, for I will sell my palfrey and dis- charge the debt to you.” “Sir,” said John, “trust to me, if you please, I will tell you what we will do; I have still a hundred sous; if you please I will sell our two horses and turn them into money; and I am the best baker you ever knew; I will make French bread, and I’ve no doubt I shall pay my expenses well and make money.” “John,” said Sir Robert, “I agree wholly to do whatever you like.” And the next day John sold their two horses for ten pounds, and bought his wheat and had it ground, and bought baskets, and began te make French bread so good and so well made that he sold more of it than the two best bakers in the city; and made so much within two years that he had a good hundred pounds property. Then he said to his lord: “I advise our hiring a very large house, and I will buy wine and will keep lodgings for good society.” “John,” said Sir Robert, “do what you please, for I grant it, and am greatly pleased with you.” John hired a large and fine house and lodged the best people and gained a great plenty, and dressed his master handsomely and richly; and Sir Robert kept his palfrey and went out to eat and drink with the best people of the city; and John sent them such wines and food that all his companions mar- velled at it. He made so much that within four years he gained more than three hundred pounds in money besides clothes, etc., well worth fifty. The docile obedience of the man to the woman seemed as reason- able to the thirteenth century as the devotion of the woman to the man, not because she loved him, for there was no question of love, but because he was her man, and she owned him as though he were her THE THREE QUEENS 2Og child. The tale went on to develop her character always in the same sense. When she was ready, Jeanne broke up the establishment at Marseilles, brought her husband back to Hainault, and made him, without knowing her object, kill the traitor and redress her wrongs. Then after seven years' patient waiting, she revealed herself and re- Sumed her place. If you care to see the same type developed to its highest capacity, go to the theatre the first time some ambitious actress attempts the part of Lady Macbeth. Shakespeare realized the thirteenth-century woman more vividly than the thirteenth-century poets ever did; but that is no new thing to say of Shakespeare. The author of “La Com- tesse de Ponthieu.” made no bad sketch of the character. These are fictions, but the Chronicles contain the names of women by scores who were the originals of the sketch. The society which Orderic described in Normandy – the generation of the first crusade – produced a great variety of Lady Macbeths. In the country of Evreux, about IIoo, Orderic says that “a worse than civil war was waged between two powerful brothers, and the mischief was fomented by the spiteful jealousy of their haughty wives. The Countess Havise of Evreux took offence at some taunts uttered by Isabel de Conches, – wife of Ralph, the Seigneur of Conches, some ten miles from Evreux, — and used all her influence with her husband, Count William, and his barons, to make trouble. . . . Both the ladies who stirred up these fierce enmities were great talkers and spirited as well as handsome; they ruled their husbands, oppressed their vassals, and inspired terror in various ways. But still their characters were very different. Havise had wit and eloquence, but she was cruel and avaricious. Isabel was generous, enterprising, and gay, so that she was beloved and esteemed by those about her. She rode in knight's armour when her vassals were called to war, and showed as much daring among men-at-arms and mounted knights as Camilla. . . .” More than three hundred years afterwards, far off in the Vosges, from a village never heard of, appeared a com- 2 IO MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES mon peasant of seventeen years old, a girl without birth, education, wealth, or claim of any sort to consideration, who made her way to Chinon and claimed from Charles VII a commission to lead his army against the English. Neither the king nor the court had faith in her, and yet the commission was given, and the rank-and-file showed again that the true Frenchman had more confidence in the woman than in the man, no matter what the gossips might say. No one was surprised when Jeanne did what she promised, or when the men burned her for doing it. There were Jeannes in every village. Ridicule was power- less against them. Even Voltaire became what the French call frankly “bète,” in trying it. Eleanor of Guienne was the greatest of all Frenchwomen. Her decision was law, whether in Bordeaux or Poitiers, in Paris or in Pales- tine, in London or in Normandy; in the court of Louis VII, or in that of Henry II, or in her own Court of Love. For fifteen years she was Queen of France; for fifty she was Queen in England; for eighty or thereabouts she was equivalent to Queen over Guienne. No other Frenchwoman ever had such rule. Unfortunately, as Queen of France, she struck against an authority greater than her own, that of Saint Ber- nard, and after combating it, with Suger's help, from II37 until II52, the monk at last gained such mastery that Eleanor quitted the coun- try and Suger died. She was not a person to accept defeat. She royally divorced her husband and went back to her own kingdom of Guienne. Neither Louis nor Bernard dared to stop her, or to hold her territories from her, but they put the best face they could on their defeat by pro- claiming her as a person of irregular conduct. The irregularity would not have stood in their way, if they had dared to stand in hers, but Louis was much the weaker, and made himself weaker still by allowing her to leave him for the sake of Henry of Anjou, a story of a sort that rarely raised the respect in which French kings were held by French society. Probably politics had more to do with the matter than per- $onal attachments, for Eleanor was a great ruler, the equal of any THE THREE QUEENS 2 II ordinary king, and more powerful than most kings living in II52. If she deserted France in order to join the enemies of France, she had seri- ous reasons besides love for young Henry of Anjou; but in any case she did, as usual, what pleased her, and forced Louis to pronounce the di- vorce at a council held at Beaugency, March 18, II52, on the usual pre- text of relationship. The humours of the twelfth century were Shake- spearean. Eleanor, having obtained her divorce at Beaugency, to the deep regret of all Frenchmen, started at once for Poitiers, knowing how unsafe she was in any territory but her own. Beaugency is on the Loire, between Orleans and Blois, and Eleanor's first night was at Blois, or should have been; but she was told, on arriving, that Count Thibaut of Blois, undeterred by King Louis's experience, was making plans to detain her, with perfectly honourable views of marriage; and, as she seems at least not to have been in love with Thibaut, she was obliged to depart at once, in the night, to Tours. A night journey on horseback from Blois to Tours in the middle of March can have been no pleasure-trip, even in II52; but, on arriving at Tours in the morning, Eleanor found that her lovers were still SO dangerously near that she set forward at once on the road to Poitiers. As she approached her own territory she learned that Geoffrey of Anjou, the younger brother of her intended husband, was waiting for her at the border, with views of marriage as strictly honourable as those of all the others. She was driven to take another road, and at last got safe to Poitiers. About no figure in the Middle Ages, man or woman, did so many legends grow, and with such freedom, as about Eleanor, whose strength appealed to French sympathies and whose adventures appealed to their imagination. They never forgave Louis for letting her go. They delighted to be told that in Palestine she had carried on relations of the most improper character, now with a Saracen slave of great beauty; now with Raymond of Poitiers, her uncle, the handsomest man of his time; now with Saladin himself; and, as all this occurred at Antioch in II.47 or II48, they could not explain why her husband 2I2 MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES should have waited until II52 in order to express his unwilling disap- proval; but they quoted with evident sympathy a remark attributed to her that she thought she had married a king, and found she had mar- ried a monk. To the Frenchman, Eleanor remained always sympa- thetic, which is the more significant because, in English tradition, her character suffered a violent and incredible change. Although English history has lavished on Eleanor somewhat more than her due share of conventional moral reproof, considering that, from the moment she married Henry of Anjou, May 18, II52, she was never charged with a breath of scandal, it atoned for her want of wickedness by French standards, in the usual manner of historians, by inventing traits which reflected the moral standards of England. Tradition converted her into the fairy-book type of feminine jealousy and invented for her the legend of the Fair Rosamund and the poison of toads. For us, both legends are true. They reflected, not perhaps the character of Eleanor, but what the Society liked to see acted on its theatre of life. Eleanor's real nature in no way concerns us. The single fact worth remembering was that she had two daughters by Louis VII, as shown in the table; who, in due time, married — Mary, in II64, married Henry, the great Count of Champagne; Alix, at the same time, became Countess of Chartres by marriage with Thibaut, who had driven her mother from Blois in II52 by his marital intentions. Henry and Thibaut were brothers whose sister Alix had married Louis VII in II60, eight years after the divorce. The relations thus created were fantastic, especially for Queen Eleanor, who, besides her two French daughters, had eight children as Queen of England. Her second Son, Richard Coeur-de-Lion, born in II57, was affianced in II74 to a daughter of Louis VII and Alix, a child only six years old, who was sent to England to be brought up as future queen. This was certainly Eleanor's doing, and equally certain was it that the child came to no good in the English court. The historians, by exception, have not charged this crime to Queen Eleanor; they charged it to Eleanor's THE THREE QUEENS 2I3 husband, who passed most of his life in crossing his wife's political plans; but with politics we want as little as possible to do. We are concerned with the artistic and social side of life, and have only to notice the coincidence that while the Virgin was miraculously using the power of spiritual lovetoelevate and purify the people, Eleanorand her daughters were using the power of earthly love to discipline and refine the courts. Side by side with the crude realities about them, they insisted on teaching and enforcing an ideal that contradicted the realities, and had no value for them or for us except in the con- tradiction. The ideals of Eleanor and her daughter Mary of Champagne were a form of religion, and if you care to see its evangels, you had best go directly to Dante and Petrarch, or, if you like it better, to Don Quixote de la Mancha. The religion is dead as Demeter, and its art alone survives as, on the whole, the highest expression of man's thought or emotion; but in its day it was almost as practical as it now is fanci- ful. Eleanor and her daughter Mary and her granddaughter Blanche emancipated man could be; and as though they foresaw the society of the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries, they used every terror they could invent, as well as every tenderness they could invoke, to tame the beasts around them. Their charge was of manners, and, to teach manners, they made a school which they called their Court of Love, with a code of law to which they gave the name of “courteous love.” The decisions of this court were recorded, like the decisions of a mod- ern bench, under the names of the great ladies who made them, and were enforced by the ladies of good society for whose guidance they were made. They are worth reading, and any one who likes may read them to this day, with considerablescepticism about their genuineness. The doubt is only ignorance. We do not, and never can, know the twelfth-century woman, or, for that matter, any other woman, but we do know the literature she created; we know the art she lived in, and 2I4 MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES the religion she professed. We can collect from them some idea why the Virgin Mary ruled, and what she was taken to be, by the world which worshipped her. Mary of Champagne created the literature of courteous love. She must have been about twenty years old when she married Count Henry and went to live at Troyes, not actually a queen in title, but certainly a queen in social influence. In II64, Champagne was a power- ful country, and Troyes a centre of taste. In Normandy, at the same date, William of Saint Pair and Wace were writing the poetry we know. In Champagne the court poet was Christian of Troyes, whose poems were new when the churches of Noyon and Senlis and Saint Leu d'Esserent, and the flèche of Chartres, and the Leaning Tower of Pisa, were building, at the same time with the Abbey of Vézelay, and before the church at Mantes. Christian died not long after II.75, leav- ing a great mass of verse, much of which has survived, and which you can read more easily than you can read Dante or Petrarch, al- though both are almost modern compared with Christian. The qual- ity of this verse is something like the quality of the glass windows — conventional decoration; Colours in conventional harmonies; refine- ment, restraint, and feminine delicacy of taste. Christian has not the grand manner of the eleventh century, and never recalls the masculine strength of the “Chanson de Roland” or “Raoul de Cambrai.” Even his most charming story, “Erec et Enide,” carries chiefly a moral of courtesy. His is poet-laureate's work, says M. Gaston Paris; the flower of a twelfth-century court and of twelfth-century French; the best example of an admirable language; but not lyric; neither strong, nor deep, nor deeply felt. What we call tragedy is unknown to it. Christian's world is sky-blue and rose, with only enough red to give it warmth, and so flooded with light that even its mysteries count only by the clearness with which they are shown. Among other great works, before Mary of France came to Troyes, Christian had, toward II60, written a “Tristan,” which is lost. Mary THE THREE QUEENS 2 I5 herself, he says, gave him the subject of “Lancelot,” with the request or order to make it a lesson of “courteous love,” which he obeyed. Courtesy has lost its meaning as well as its charm, and you might find the “Chevalier de la Charette" even more unintelligible than tiresome; but its influence was great in its day, and the lesson of courteous love, under the authority of Mary of Champagne, lasted for centuries as the standard of taste. “Lancelot” was never finished, but later, not long after II74, Christian wrote a “Perceval,” or “Conte du Graal,” which must also have been intended to please Mary, and which is in- teresting because, while the “Lancelot” gave the twelfth-century idea of courteous love, the “Perceval” gave the twelfth-century idea of religious mystery. Mary was certainly concerned with both. “It is for this same Mary,” says Gaston Paris, “that Walter of Arras under- took his poem of ‘Eracle'; she was the object of the songs of the troubadours as well as of their French imitators; for her use also she caused the translations of books of piety like Genesis, or the paraphrase at great length, in verse, of the psalm ‘Eructavit.'” With her theories of courteous love, every one is more or less famil- iar if only from the ridicule of Cervantes and the follies of Quixote, who, though four hundred years younger, was Lancelot's child; but we never can know how far she took herself and her laws of love seriously, and to speculate on so deep a subject as her seriousness is worse than useless, since she would herself have been as uncertain as her lovers were. Visionary as the courtesy was, the Holy Grail was as practical as any bric-a-brac that has survived of the time. The mystery of Perceval is like that of the Gothic cathedral, illuminated by floods of light, and enlivened by rivers of colour. Unfortunately Christian never told what he meant by the fragment, itself a mystery, in which he narrated the story of the knight who saw the Holy Grail, because the knight, who was warned, as usual, to ask no questions, for once, unlike most knights, obeyed the warning when he should have disregarded it. As knights-errant necessarily did the wrong thing in Order to make 2I6 MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES their adventures possible, Perceval's error cannot bein itself mysterious, nor was the castle in any way mysterious where the miracle occurred. It appeared to him to be the usual castle, and he saw nothing unusual in the manner of his reception by the usual old lord, or in the fact that both seated themselves quite simply before the hall-fire with the usual household. Then, as though it were an everyday habit, the Holy Grail was brought in (Bartsch, “Chrestomathie,” 183–85, ed. 1895):— Et leans avait luminaire Si grant con l’an le porrait faire De Chandoiles a un ostel. Que qu’il parloient d’un et d’el, Uns vallez d’une chambre vint Qui une blanche lance tint Ampoigniee par le mi lieu. Si passa parendroit le feu Et cil qui al feu se seoient, Et tuit cil de leans veoient La lance blanche et le fer blanc. S’issoit une gote de Sang Del fer de la lance au Sommet, Et jusqu'a la main au vaslet Coroit cele gote vermoille. . . . . A tant dui autre vaslet vindrent Qui chandeliers an lors mains tindrent De fin or ovrez a neel. Li vaslet estoient moult bel Qui les chandeliers aportoient. An chacun chandelier ardoient Dous chandoiles a tot le mains. Un graal antre ses dous mains Une demoiselle tenoit, Qui avec les vaslets venoit, Bele et gente et bien acesmee. Quant ele fu leans antree Atotle graal qu’ele tint Une si granz clartez i vint Qu’ausi perdirent les chandoiles Lor clarte come les estoiles Qant li solauz luist,et la lune. Apres celian revint une Qui tint un tailleor d'argent. And, within, the hall was bright As any hall could be with light Of candles in a house at night. So, while of this and that they talked, A squire from a chamber walked, Bearing a white lance in his hand, Grasped by the middle, like a wand; And, as he passed the chimney wide, Those seated by the fireside, And all the others, caught a glance Of the white steel and the white lance. As they looked, a drop of blood Down the lance's handle flowed; Down to where the youth's hand stood. From the lance-head at the top They saw run that crimson drop. . . . Presently came two more squires, In their hands two chandeliers, Of fine gold in enamel wrought. Each squire that the candle brought Was a handsome chevalier. There burned in every chandelier Two lighted candles at the least. A damsel, graceful and well dressed, Behind the squires followed fast Who carried in her hands a graal; And as she came within the hall With the graal there came a light So brilliant that the candles all Lost clearness, as the stars at night When moon shines, or in day the Sun. After her there followed one Who a dish of silver bore. THE THREE QUEENS 217 Le graal qui aloit devant De fin or esmere estoit, Pierres precieuses avoit El graal de maintes menieres Des plus riches et des plus chieres Qui en mer ne en terre Soient. Totes autres pierres passoient Celes del graal sanz dotance. Totainsi con passa la lance Par devant le lit trespasserent Et d’une chambre a l'autre alerent. Et li vaslet les vit passer, Ni n'osa mire demander Del graal cui l’an an servoit. The graal, which had gone before, Of gold the finest had been made, With precious stones had been inlaid, Richest and rarest of each kind That man in sea or earth could find. All other jewels far surpassed Those which the holy graal enchased. Just as before had passed the lance They all before the bed advance, Passing straightway through the hall, And the knight who saw them pass Never ventured once to ask For the meaning of the graal. The simplicity of this narration gives a certain dramatic effect to the mystery, like seeing a ghost in full daylight, but Christian carried simplicity further still. He seemed either to feel, or to want others to feel, the reality of the adventure and the miracle, and he followed up the appearance of the graal by a solid meal in the style of the twelfth century, such as one expects to find in “Ivanhoe” or the “Talisman.” The knight sat down with his host to the best dinner that the county of Champagne afforded, and they ate their haunch of venison with the graal in full view. They drank their Champagne wine of various sorts, out of gold cups: — - - Vins clers ne raspez ne lor faut A copes dorees a boivre; they sat before the fire and talked till bedtime, when the squires s made up the beds in the hall, and brought in Supper — dates, figs, nutmegs, spices, pomegranates, and at last lectuaries, suspiciously like what we call jams; and “alexandrine gingerbread”; after which they drank various drinks, with or without spice or honey or pepper; and old moret, which is thought to be mulberry wine, but which generally went with clairet, a colourless grape-juice, or piment. At least, here are the lines, and one may translate them to suit one's Self: – Et li vaslet aparellierent Les lis et le fruit au Colchier 2I8 MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES Queil en iot de moult chier, Dates, figues, et nois mugates, Girofles et pomes de grenates, Et leituaires an la fin, Et gingenbret alixandrin. Apresce burent de maint boivre, Piment ou n’ot ne miel ne poivre Et viez more et cler sirop. The twelfth century had the child's love of sweets and spices and preserved fruits, and drinks sweetened or spiced, whether they were taken for supper or for poetry; the true knight's palate was fresh and his appetite excellent either for sweets or verses or love; the world was young then; Robin Hoods lived in every forest, and Richard Coeur-de- Lion was not yet twenty years old. The pleasant adventures of Robin Hood were real, as you can read in the stories of a dozen outlaws, and men troubled themselves about pain and death much as healthy bears did, in the mountains. Life had miseries enough, but few shadows deeper than those of the imaginative lover, or the terrors of ghosts at night. Men's imaginations ran riot, but did not keep them awake; at least, neither the preserved fruits nor the mulberry wine nor the clear syrup nor the gingerbread northe Holy Graal kept Perceval awake, but he slept the sound and healthy sleep of youth, and when he woke the next morning, he felt only a mild surprise to find that his host and household had disappeared, leaving him to ride away without farewell, breakfast, or Graal. Christian wrote about Perceval in II.74 in the same spirit in which the workmen in glass, thirty years later, told the story of Charlemagne. One artist worked for Mary of Champagne; the others for Mary of Chartres, commonly known as the Virgin ; but all did their work in good faith, with the first, fresh, easy instinct of colour, light, and line. Neither of the two Maries was mystical, in a modern sense; none of the artists was oppressed by the burden of doubt; their scepticism was as childlike as faith. If one has to make an exception, perhaps the passion of love was more serious than that of religion, and gave to THE THREE QUEENS 2I9 religion the deepest emotion, and the most complicated one, which Society knew. Love was certainly a passion; and even more certainly it was, as seen in poets like Dante and Petrarch, – in romans like “Lancelot” and “Aucassin,” — in ideals like the Virgin, – compli- cated beyond modern conception. For this reason the loss of Chris- tian's “Tristan” makes a terrible gap in art, for Christian's poem would have given the first and best idea of what led to courteous love. The “Tristan” was written before II60, and belonged to the cycle of Queen Eleanor of England rather than to that of her daughter Mary of Troyes; but the subject was one neither of courtesy nor of France; it belonged to an age far behind the eleventh century, or even the tenth, or indeed any century within the range of French history; and it was as little fitted for Christian's way of treatment as for any avowed burlesque. The original Tristan – critics say — was not French, and neither Tristan nor Isolde had ever a drop of French blood in their veins. In their form as Christian received it, they were Celts or Scots; they came from Brittany, Wales, Ireland, the northern ocean, or farther still. Behind the Welsh Tristan, which passed probably through Eng- land to Normandy and thence to France and Champagne, critics de- tect a far more ancient figure living in a form of society that France could not remember ever to have known. King Marc was a tribal chief of the Stone Age whose subjects loved the forest and lived on the sea or in caves; King Marc's royal hall was a common shelter on the banks of a stream, where every one was at home, and king, queen, knights, attendants, and dwarf slept on the floor, on beds laid down where they pleased; Tristan's weapons were the bow and stone knife; he never saw a horse or a spear; his ideas of loyalty and Isolde's ideas of marriage were as vague as Marc's royal authority; and all were alike unconscious of law, chivalry, or church. The note they sang was more unlike the note of Christian, if possible, than that of Richard Wagner; it was the simplest expression of rude and primitive love, as one could perhaps find it among North American Indians, though 220 MONT—SAINT—MICHEL AND CHARTRES hardly so defiant even there, and certainly in the Icelandic Sagas hardly so lawless; but it was a note of real passion, and touched the deepest chords of sympathy in the artificial society of the twelfth cen- tury, as it did in that of the nineteenth. The task of the French poet was to tone it down and give it the fashionable dress, the pointed shoes and long sleeves, of the time. “The Frenchman,” says Gaston Paris, “is specially interested in making his story entertaining for the Society it is meant for; he is ‘social'; that is, of the world; he smiles at the ad- ventures he tells, and delicately lets you see that he is not their dupe; he exerts himself to give to his style a constant elegance, a uniform polish, in which a few neatly turned, clever phrases sparkle here and there; above all, he wants to please, and thinks of his audience more than of his subject.” In the twelfth century he wanted chiefly to please women, as Orderic