Modern Understanding in the 1100's [Bourges Cathedral]

Justin Fye

ARCH 20112

Fall 2011

Professor Robison

Modern Understanding in the 1100’s

The conception of modern architecture is said to have begun around the turn of the twentieth century, and is generally characterized by the simplification of forms and creation of ornament via the overall structure and theme or idea of a given building. Splendid designs of modern architecture have been conceived by the likes of Frank Lloyd Wright, Luis Kahn, and Le Corbusier, and have provided a foundation upon which modern architecture has been developed and thrived. Approximately 750 years prior to the “conception” of modern architecture, however, a period of architecture known as the French High Gothic was just beginning with the construction of cathedrals such as Chartres and Amiens. These structures were monumental in size, and primarily concerned with vertical height and interior lighting, accompanied with a desire for extreme ornamentation through sculptural decoration and façade. So how can it be that during a period of architectural design and construction, which had seemingly polar opposite ideals to those of today’s standards, a magnificent and surprisingly modern, yet underappreciated Cathedral of Bourges was built, and then for all intents and purposes disregarded as insignificant in moving forward with the design of cathedrals? The answer to this question lies in years of research and analysis by numerous architectural historians who, as a whole, agree the Cathedral of Bourges was insufficiently utilized in the development of Gothic architecture. The Cathedral of Bourges, in fact, was a superior structure to its chosen counterpoint Chartres Cathedral, and was far beyond its time, as it contained many examples of modern architectural ideals.

To begin to understand why Bourges Cathedral has been so highly regarded by architectural historians, the chronology of its construction and its ground plan must first be examined.  Although there is some general disagreement among scholars on when the construction of the Cathedral of Bourges began, it was certainly sometime in the late 1100’s. Robert Branner, who did extensive research on the Cathedral of Bourges, stated that building construction was begun in the year 1195 and proceeded chronologically, as was standard, from the east.[1] Kidson, however, suggests that the design of the building began in the 1180’s, instead of the 1195 date set by Branner due to its ties to Arras cathedral.[2] Due to the lengthy amount of time it often took to acquire the funding needed to construct these types of structures in the Gothic time period, it is probable they are both partially correct. Likely, the design and conception of the building, in drawing, was begun in the 1180’s, and construction was not actually begun until 1195 as Branner suggests.

Situated near the exact center of France, the Cathedral of Bourges’ construction began with the crypt which housed St. Stephen’s relics, and whose “severe round arches support a clever system of vaulting that includes piers extending up into the double ambulatory of the church.”[3] This laid the foundation of the structure and, following construction of the crypt, the ground floor was then laid out according to plan. According to Grodecki, it is interesting to note that the original plans for the cathedral were followed, with only minor modifications, through the completion of the entirety of the project.[4] In ground plan, the essential arrangement of St. Etienne is created by the broad nave where “one bay aligns four smaller ones on the side.”[5] Here, there is an emphasis placed upon simplicity and regularity in the overall organization of the structure, and there is a singleness of the interior space. The ideas of simplicity of form and unification of volumetric space, as previously mentioned, are ones of inexplicable modernism, considering the time period of this cathedrals construction. What is truly remarkable about the plans for the Bourges Cathedral, though, is that they did not consider the Cathedral at Chartres as a precedent for its design. This was revolutionary at the time, because Chartres Cathedral was generally accepted as being the typical form for High French Gothic construction, and did in fact become the model for years to come.

The end of the first phase of construction at Bourges is clearly marked on the existing structure. This is evident through the increase in size of the flying buttresses and the increased size of clerestory windows to allow for larger areas of glass in the nave and its side aisles.[6] This was done, generally, to create a more lighted interior. Because of the form of the building, large clerestory windows like those at Chartres could not be placed in this structure, so numerous clerestory windows were placed in both the nave and side aisles to maximize lighting. Another disagreement between scholars arises in what seems to be the final phase of construction, at least as chronology of the plan is concerned. Grodecki states that radiating chapels were not originally planned for Bourges Cathedral, but they were added in the course of construction.[7] Kidson argues, however, that the, “chapels must have been planned from the start due to the differentiation between buttresses.”[8] The argument set forth by Grodecki seems more logical for this dispute. At this time, radiating chapels were not entirely commonplace, as the French High Gothic was still in its developmental phase, and so it is likely that during the course of construction it was decided to add radiating chapels. The distinction between flying buttresses noted by Kidson is relevant, but this same distinction seems as though it could have still been made, so long as the decision to add the radiating chapels was made early enough into the construction phase.

            Based solely on the plan of Bourges cathedral, “the coherence of St. Etienne seems to be due to the simultaneous organization of all the elements before construction was actually undertaken.”[9] Grodecki is completely correct, however, in stating that the plan can hardly give an adequate idea of the monumental quality of the Cathedral of Bourges.[10] In fact, far too many concepts of this cathedral are evident in section and perspective to even begin to formulate an accurate analysis of the building considering only ground plan. Ultimately, the form must be closely examined as well.

As far as the magnificent form of the Cathedral of Bourges is concerned, it must be examined from two different aspects. One of those is from the exterior, where the form creates an “impression of great width, great height, and great length,” emphasized through the structural aspects of the cathedral; and the other being from the interior, where those same three vast dimensions are “ordered into a single composition.”[11] This implementation of vast uniformity in building form created a truly magnificent cathedral for all to view.

Admiring from the exterior, the Cathedral of Bourges is an enormous mass viewed as a single form, which is constructed in separate ascents and then enveloped by flying buttresses.[12] As was previously mentioned, due to the chronology of construction there is a difference among the flyer buttresses and the chapel buttresses here at Bourges. The flyer buttresses are “double-ranked and double strutted,” while the chapel buttresses are noticeably narrower and thinner.[13] But even these buttresses, which in so many later monuments seem detached and simply structural assemblages, appear as simply an extension of the form. This is due to the architecture of the buttresses, meaning how their “apparatus rests on the vertical masses in the vault zones.”[14] This wonderful integration of structure into form creates a pleasing aesthetic, which is simply not present in a number of the other French High Gothic cathedrals.

Upon entering the church to view the interior it, “bursts upon us as a total surprise.”[15] At a height of 125 feet, the interior elevation of the nave consists of a very high arcade, a compound triforium beneath relieving arches, and fairly small, when in comparison with other cathedrals of the French High Gothic, but numerous clerestory windows on all levels. The nave is flanked by averagely heighted side aisles on either side, and then, a second, rather low side aisle, featuring windows and radiating chapels in the ambulatory which encompass the whole. Although in plan the outer and inner aisles are the same size, the inner aisle is in fact more than twice as high as the outer so that light is able to enter the building. This system of double aisles, with the inner aisles having complete three story elevations of their own is highly distinctive, and creates a view, either from the lateral or oblique perspective, which gives the impression of one “unified, open, immense space.”[16]

This unity of volume which is created on the interior is what truly sets the Cathedral of Bourges apart from the others of its time, and allows for its comparison to modern architecture in some ways.  Most important to this overall concept of unity is that nothing intervenes to obstruct the view or to distract attention from it. There are not any transepts to cut the perspective view, as the choir and nave are connected, one directly after the other, and the only ornamentation of the interior is the stained glass windows which admit light, but because of the light diffusion through the stained glass, do not interrupt or overpower the interior space.[17]  As a whole, “spread out laterally and longitudinally, the five aisles have volumes that are unequal in size and that pyramid upward,” creating a multiplicity of perspectives and elements.”[18]

As is true with nearly all buildings, the Cathedral of Bourges is believed to have some precedents which influenced its design, although they are few and far between because it was quite a revolutionary structure being constructed at the beginning of a new era of architecture. There are differences of opinions among scholars, however, about what these precedents are. Robert Branner was convinced the designs of both the upper and lower clerestories in the chevet of the Cathedral of Bourges derived directly from the Arras Cathedral in the Aisne Valley. He supports this conclusion by stating the design of the clerestory, having twin lancets in the interior and a series of four arcades on the exterior was a replica of the eastern tribune walls in the transept of Arras Cathedral.[19] Grodecki disagrees, though, and finds precedent in a different structure. He states it has always been pointed out that Notre Dame at Paris was the source of inspiration for the plan of the Cathedral of Bourges, being that there is not a transept, double side aisles, and a double ambulatory.[20] Kidson has yet another belief of the precedent, although he does partially agree with Grodecki. Kidson states that “in its initial form, the design for Bourges was a conflation of two ideas that might seem to have been destined for each other, but had never met before: the staggered section version of the five aisled Basilica, such as Old St. Peters, and the ad triangulum section.”[21] For the ad triangulum section he uses Notre Dame at Paris as the precedent, because the mathematical relationship between it and Bourges is very close. It is not perfect, however, because in Notre Dame the aisles are not staggered and the triangle is not a true equilateral. At Bourges, on the other hand, the cross section is 150 feet and the upper church is 130 feet high, giving a ratio of twenty -six to fifteen, which was presupposed to be the most accurate of the formulas for the square root of three in common use at that time.[22] It seems as though the precedent suggestion formulated by Kidson is the most logical in this case. The mathematics behind his suggestion, along with the combination of structural conceptual ideas in Notre Dame and Old St. Peters to create a composition unlike any other cathedral which had ever been conceived before is logical as a definition for the Cathedral of Bourges because, although it has portions of its structure which were seen before its construction, it had no true prototype.

            Now that a basic understanding of the plan and form of the Cathedral of Bourges has been achieved, a true analysis of its comparison with Chartres Cathedral and even further into modern architecture can begin. According to Robert Branner, the “conception of Bourges and Chartres was due to two individual men, each of whom had decidedly different sensitivities to architectural form,” which has turned out to be entirely true.[23] While the Chartres master mason separated the major and minor volumes of his structure with sharp responds, and merely added the units together to obtain a nave, the Bourges master worked in the opposite manner. He carved down the responds and linked one bay to the next by registers of stories and six part vaults, while emphasizing the lateral spaces by using circular piers and wide intercolumniations. Within the framework of plan and massing that was created, was a single unified space still every bit as traditional as Chartres. [24] While the nave of Chartres Cathedral did set the main direction for the development of Gothic architecture after the year 1200, the unification of spaces in the Bourges Cathedral helped to form a way of thinking which has allowed architects to design beautiful spaces integrated wholly with their included components and further surroundings, a design typology still sought after even today. And although Chartres Cathedral is quite uniform in its design and execution, it belongs to a family of structures having, “distinct and separate parts.”[25] Meanwhile, at Bourges, the unification of all elements exists in a cathedral which functions just as soundly as its counterpart at Chartres.

            Further reasons as to how the Cathedral at Bourges excelled over its counterpart at Chartres are found in its structure. Professor Branner placed the construction of the Bourges chevet, and thus much of the buttressing, in the years 1195-1214. According to Wolfe, “the original Bourges construction was a simple, light, daring structure, sound both in its principles and, as its survival attests, in its fabric.”[26] The successfulness of the buttressing is most easily noticed through the examination of a section of the cathedral, resulting undoubtedly from it being more triangular in shape than the more classical High Gothic cathedrals. Wolfe states, “A triangular section with a wide, stable base is less likely to suffer from the kind of deformation under wind loads that produce tensile stresses.”[27] But, as helpful as it was, the mere triangular form of the building is not the only reason it was structurally successful. The master mason also had a great understanding of the flying buttress. Since the overall function of the flying buttress is to counteract horizontal thrusts and transmit them to the ground, the steeper the angle at which the flying buttress can counteract the thrust the less distance the forces have to travel to the ground. When the angle of the flying buttress is changed, as at Bourges, the top of the pier buttress is also given more stability by the greater vertical component of the thrust which it receives, and a significant material economy results because the pier buttress can be much shorter to meet the lower end of the flying buttress. This difference in materials used in the pier buttressing is in fact significant, being an estimated two million pounds at Chartres, and only eight hundred thousand pounds at Bourges.[28] The design for the buttressing system used at Bourges displays the greater understanding of support systems the master mason there had, than those in other locations around the same period of time in history.

            But yet somehow, with all the excellences and enhancements of the Cathedral of Bourges, not more than fifteen years later architects looked to Chartres as a precedent for influence to their designs of future Gothic cathedrals. How could this be? Well, one thing is certain; in Chartres they found order, colossal scale, and massiveness. But there were more reasons than just these simple ones, as those functions could have been found in a number of cathedrals. Many more complex reasons have been formulated, varying amongst architectural historians, each having validity in a different sense, as to why Chartres Cathedral was chosen over that of Bourges.

            Robert Branner argues the lack of influence from the Cathedral of Bourges was mostly due to the fact that Chartres Cathedral could be imitated. He states, “it could be reordered to suit almost any site: it could be increased or reduced in height, width, and length, over varied ground plans, without altering the basic features of the design, and it was capable of development toward increased weight or, conversely, elegance and refinement.”[29] In contrast, however, Bourges was so unique it simply could not be imitated. It demanded a five aisle plan, staggered volumes, multiple elevations, numerous short clerestories, and an overall sense of unity in order to be successful as a cathedral.[30] Because Bourges, in its entirety, was such a unique structure of the time, it seems impractical that architects would want to attempt replication because of the many difficulties which may have been arisen.

            Trachtenberg agrees with these reasons set forth by Branner, but adds that these practical problems with Bourges were most likely accompanied by some important symbolic issues as well. He states, “The lack of transept meant the absence of the cruciform spatial iconography; and together with the continuous five aisled plan, the missing transept produced an absence of architectural distinction and hierarchy between choir and nave that was achieved in traditional planning.”[31] This reasoning is possibly the most logical of the reasons come across in my research. As is well known, the structures of the time period being examined here were religious in function, as were the majority of significant buildings prior to and after this period of architectural history. These structures, therefore, often had a plan which, in some way, was religious in nature, including the Greek cross form, the Latin cross form, the Cruciform, and even centrally planned forms. The lack of religious form in the plan of the Cathedral of Bourges could have in fact been the main reason for is lack of inclusion in the High Gothic period of cathedrals. Interestingly enough, it is that same lack of religious form which facilitates the wonderful unification of volume featured here.

            Trachtenberg makes yet another reasonable suggestion for the lack of following of Bourges Cathedral in stating the, “meager following of Bourges resides in its exceptional degree of modernity.”[32] He goes on to say, “Bourges was visionary not merely in some generalized sense, but in a profoundly modern way. The building in fact, (should) be recognized as unquestionably by far the most uncompromisingly radical and comprehensively advanced modern design of its time, indeed in virtually every respect so far ahead it might fairly be called futurist.”[33] This was achieved through the unity of volumes which has been thoroughly discussed, although it is reasonable to consider this could not have been done by other master masons at the time, considering various possible restraints present at other locations.

            Wolfe and Grodecki have one final additional reason as to why the Cathedral of Bourges was not widely followed. Wolfe states it is reasonable to suggest that the “High Gothic builders generally did not fully understand the principles and consequences of construction with flying buttresses.”[34] The Cathedral of Bourges was significantly lighter than the cathedrals in the Chartres family, and used nearly forty percent less materials in construction. Due to this lightweight construction, the cathedral seemed overly daring and the idea that other master masons were too afraid to use the lesser amount of construction materials from fear of collapse is plausible. What is quite remarkable, however, is that according to Wolfe, “a recent study comparing the buttressing systems of Chartres nave and Bourges chevet has shown that the form of the structure of Bourges is superior, not only to the contemporary work at Chartres, but also to later work following the Chartres model.”[35] This fact makes it more likely other master masons did not understand buttressing to their fullest potential because surely they all would have wanted to utilize the best available methods to support their structures.

            Thankfully, some master masons did recognize the excellence of Bourges Cathedral before the end of the High Gothic era in France, although it still was not utilized nearly as much as should have been the case. Those cathedrals that did manage to mimic at least portions of the Cathedral of Bourges were the Cathedral of Le Mans, the Cathedral of Countenances, the Cathedral of Toledo, and the Cathedral of Burgos. In all of these structures, the fundamental Bourges concept of an elevation with a towering arcade and a very tall inner side aisle was copied, along with some additional ideas.[36] At the Cathedral of Le Mans, the attempt to imitate Bourges was achieved minimally by the first architect in plan, however, the intervention of a second architect complicated this, and some significant modifications were made, so the influence of the Cathedral of Bourges is not easily noticed. At the Cathedral of Countenances, the choir is a Norman copy of the Bourges design.[37] At the Cathedral of Toledo, certain structural traits typical of Bourges can be observed, as far as the triforium and the overall buttressing system is concerned.[38] And as for the Cathedral of Burgos, originally its plan could be compared to Bourges, but now the outer side aisles and the ambulatory have been replaced by chapels, making it less similar.[39] Most importantly, though, of the Cathedral of Bourges, was that it proved it was possible to conceive of a Gothic architectural style different from the one established by its counterpart at Chartres, which was in fact less spectacular in nearly every facet of its design.

            What should not be forgotten when analyzing the influence of the Cathedral of Bourges, all in all, is its futuristic design and how it may have influenced the architecture of today. Its conception as a series of volumes, which were then unified into a single whole was truly remarkable. Unification of elements within a structure is a concept which is still widely desired today, especially with the complex programs of buildings which are being designed. This unification of volume was partially achieved by the lack of ornamentation in the interior of the building, which has been previously discussed. This too has been carried through to modern architecture. Ornamentation of structures today is accomplished through complex facades, and by shifting, varying volumes, rather than through sculpture as was done previously all through history. In the Cathedral of Bourges ornamentation was achieved though façade and filtered window lighting, not through significant sculptural qualities, showing its unique modern qualities.

            In conclusion, the Cathedral of Bourges was insufficiently utilized in the development of Gothic architecture, was a superior structure to its chosen counterpoint Chartres Cathedral, and was far beyond its time, as it contained many examples of modern architectural ideals. The Cathedral of Bourges was essentially an examination of interior volumes at the maximum possible scale, and the unification of those volumes. In many respects, it is superior to Chartres Cathedral, and thus its followers as well, and should be respected as such. Nonetheless, it is the product of an entirely different architectural idea than that of Chartres, and is truly a unique and magnificent structure.

Works Cited

Cathedral of Bourges and Its Place in Gothic Architecture. New York, NY; Cambridge, MA: Architectural History Foundation; MIT Press, 1989.

Cottle, Basil. All the Cathedrals of France. N.p.: Unicorn Press, 2011.

Grodecki, Louis. Gothic Architecture. N.p.: Faber, 1986.

Henderson, Helen. Cathedrals of France. Boston; New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1929.

Kidson, Peter. "Bourges After Branner." Gesta Vol. 39, no. 2 (2000): 147-156. Accessed October 23, 2011.

Trachtenberg, Marvin. "Suger's Miracles, Branner's Bourges: Reflections on "Gothic Architecture" as Medieval Modernism." Gesta Vol. 39, no. 2 (2000): 183-205. Accessed October 23, 2011.

Wolfe, M. "Gothic Cathedral Buttressing: The Experiment at Bourges and Its Influence." Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians Vol. 33, no. 1 (1974) Accessed October 24, 2011.

---

[1] Basil Cottle, All the Cathedrals of France, Unicorn Press, January 2012, p. 69.

[2] Peter Kidson, “Bourges after Branner,” Gesta, Vol. 39, No. 2 (2000), p. 154.

[3] Cottle, p. 69.

[4] Louis Grodecki, Gothic Architecture, Faber, 1986, p. 137.

[5] Robert Branner, The Cathedral of Bourges and its Place in Gothic Architecture, Architectural History Foundation: MIT Press, 1989, p. 4.

[6] M. Wolfe, “Gothic Cathedral Buttressing: The Experiment at Bourges and Its Influence,” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 33, No. 1 (March 1974), p. 24.

[7] Grodecki, p. 137.

[8] Kidson, p. 151.

[9] Branner, p. 4.

[10] Grodecki, p. 137.

[11] Branner, p. 1.

[12] Branner, p. 1.

[13] Grodecki, p. 142. / Kidson, p. 151.

[14] Branner, p. 78.

[15] Cottle, p. 71.

[16] Grodecki, p. 137. / Cottle, p. 71.

[17] Henderson, Cathedrals of France, Boston, New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1929, p. 129, 130.

[18] Branner, p. 176.

[19] Branner, p. 176.

[20] Grodecki, p. 137.

[21] Kidson, p. 155.

[22] Kidson, p. 155.

[23] Branner, p. 176.

[24] Branner, p. 176.

[25] Branner, p. 176.

[26] Wolfe, p. 17.

[27] Wolfe, p. 21.

[28] Wolfe, p. 21.

[29] Branner, p. 177.

[30] Branner, p. 177.

[31] Marvin Trachtenberg, “Suger’s Miracles, Branner’s Bourges: Reflectios on “Gothic Architecture” as Medieval Modernism,” Gesta, Vol. 39, No. 2 (2000), p. 199.

[32] Trachtenberg, p. 200.

[33] Trachtenberg, p. 200.

[34] Wolfe, p. 26.

[35] Wolfe, p. 17.

[36] Grodecki, p. 142.

[37] Grodecki, p. 151.

[38] Grodecki, p. 151.

[39] Grodecki, p. 151.