The South Portal of the Cathedral at Le Mans: Its Place in the Development of Early Gothic

Portal Composition
Author(s): Thomas E. Polk II
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Gesta, Vol. 24, No. 1 (1985), pp. 47-60
Published by: International Center of Medieval Art
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/766932 .
Accessed: 31/07/2012 07:01

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

International Center of Medieval Art is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Gesta.

http://www.jstor.org
 The South Portal of the Cathedral at Le Mans: Its Place in
the Development of Early Gothic Portal Composition
THOMAS E. POLK II
The University of Georgia

Abstrac t
The portal at Le Mans is dated on the belief that
~~1-;~~~9P~I ~ ~ _FIGURE_its sculpture must derive from the Royal Portal of
Chartres,and on documents that record the dedication
of Le Mans cathedral in 1158 but do not mention the
portal. Nothing, however, irrefutablydemonstrates that
FLa Cathedrale"iop Le Mans must derive from Chartres. In fact, the more
primitive aspect of Le Mans's sculpture has been ac-
knowledged. An analysis of the portal shows that it
was reduced to fit its location, the south wall of the
B ~i~~~nave, which is dated ca. 1093, and that its portal com-
position stands stylistically between that of Saint-Denis
and Chartres. Although documents indicate building
activity at Le Mans throughout the first half of the 12th
century, allowing the portal to have been constructed
anytime in that period, a fire in the 1130s provides
J
. ~: L ;.E motivation for the complete reconstruction of the
cathedral and the impetus for a sculptural program.
Given the commonly accepted dates for Saint-Denis
z
.li:!L::.~ ~and Chartres, a date in the 1130s for the portal at
0!'!1~' ...Le Mans is not only possible but probable.

The Early Gothic portal of the cathedral at Le Mans

l?; ~ is among the earliest extant Gothic portals with a fully
developed sculptural program. It gives access to the fifth
bay west of the crossing in the south aisle of the cathedral

FIGURE 1. (Above) Le Mans,

Cathedral, south portal from south
(photo: author).

FIGURE 2. (Right) Le Mans,

Cathedral, nave, plan (after Salet, A
"La Cath&drale,"opp. p. 58). / /

GESTA XXIV/1 ? The International Center of Medieval Art 1985 47

 and is protected by a rib-vaulted porch, open on three
sides by means of pointed arches (Figs. 1, 2). Because its
sculpture is thought to derive from Chartres, the portal
has long been associated with the Royal Portal of the
cathedral at Chartres.' The two monuments have been so
closely related that the date of the dedication of the nave
at Le Mans, 28 April 1158, has been used as recently as
1972 as the terminus ante quem for the Royal Portal.2
Although it is generally accepted that monumental
sculpture developed in the architectural context of portals,
scholarly research has tended to concentrate on the style
and iconography of Gothic sculpture and on its documenta-
tion. These studies have shed light on much of the ico-
nography and uncovered the broad lines of the stylistic
development of Gothic sculpture. However, the bad state
of preservation of much of the sculpture, the medieval
tendency to use and reuse sculpture in contexts other than
those for which it was originally intended,3 and the dearth
of relevant documentation have impeded our understanding
of the interrelationships among the very first Early Gothic
portals, including those at Le Mans, Saint-Denis, and
Chartres (Figs. 1, 3, 4).4
An investigation of the criteria brought to bear on the
dating of the portal at Le Mans will show that nothing
prevents dating the Le Mans portal before Chartres. An
examination of the portal relative to its porch and the bay
into which it gives access will indicate that the portal was
not intended for its present setting, but a wider one.
Finally, because all extant portals, regardless of the state
of preservation of their sculpture, still retain basic aspects
of their architecture, a study of the architectural composi- FIGURE 3. Saint-Denis, west facade, central portal (photo: Bildarchiv
tion of the south portal of the cathedral at Le Mans in Foto Marburg).

FIGURE 4. Chartres, Cathedral, Royal Portal

(photo: Bildarchiv Foto Marburg).

48
FIGURE 5. Le Mans, Cathedral, south portal, upper west and central
parts of the portal (photo: author).
relation to the composition of the Early Gothic portals at
Saint-Denis, which have been dated before 1140,5 and at
Chartres, commonly dated ca. 1145-55,6 will show that
the architecture of the portal at Le Mans stands stylistically
between them.
The cathedral of Le Mans, like many medieval build-
ings, is a melange of styles. Consequently, one might expect
the cathedral to have a long and complicated building
history. It does. Documents corroborate the complexity
provided by the archeological evidence.7 These documents
testify that there was much building activity during the
last half of the 11th century and the first half of the 12th.
The 12th-century documents rarely refer to any particular
part of the cathedral. When they do, the reference is
ambiguous. None of the documents refer to the south
portal. Because the portal penetrates one of the older walls,
which are attributed to Bishop Hoel,8 and the documents
do not specifically tie the portal or porch to a particular
date or building campaign, the portal could conceivably
have been added any time between the date of erection of
the aisle walls (1093) up through and even after the date of
FIGURE 6. Le Mans, Cathedral, south portal, upper east and central
parts of the portal (photo: author).
the dedication of the nave (1158).9 The documents them-
selves, then, provide insufficient evidence of dating the
south portal of Le Mans (and as such should not be used
to date the Royal Portal of Chartres). The dating of the
portal at Le Mans, therefore, requires stylistic and archaeo-
logical arguments to tie the portal and porch complex to
the central vessel of the nave. The porch bears a crucial
relationship to the dating of the portal. Art historians have
related the porch stylistically to the central vessel of the
nave. The porch, therefore, has been dated on stylistic
grounds ca. 1158 and with it the portal that it shelters.
As early as 1904, however, Gabriel Fleury suggested
that construction of the portal preceded that of the porch.?1
As evidence he pointed out a lack of harmony in the
proportions between portal and the buttress-piers and ribs
of the porch, that the round arches of the tympanum and
archivolts do not correspond to the pointed arches of the
porch (Fig. 1), that the decorative molding of the outer
archivolt is truncated by the ribs of the porch vault (Figs. 5,
6), and the coursing of the masonry does not correspond.
He concluded, because the ribs of both the porch and the
49

FIGURE 7. Le Mans, Cathe-
dral, south portal, south-
eastern pier of the porch
(photo: author).
westernmost bay of the nave have similar zig-zag and four-
leaf clover motifs and spring from small sculpted figures,
that the porch and the nave both should date from about
1158 and the portal from the episcopate of Hugues de
Saint-Calais, after the fires of 1134-37 and before the
episcopate of Guillaume de Passavant, ca. 1145.11 An
examination of the porch in relation to the portal yields
evidence that confirms Fleury's relative chronology. The
portal and porch have undergone restoration, especially in
the 19th century, which may have affected the form and
coursing of the buttress-piers on the north of the porch
but not their dimensions.12 These piers, which share their
plinth course with the stepped embrasures but not the
jambs, are of rectangular section. They crowd against the
windows of the adjacent bays and project from the aisle
wall beyond the stepped embrasures and archivolts of the
portal (Figs. 2, 5, 6). They carry the lateral arches and the
ribs of the porch as well as a decorative molding that
frames the archivolts of the portal (Figs. 5, 6). All these
arcuated members spring from imposts placed slightly
above the springing of archivolts (i.e., above the stilting
voussoirs).13
None of the ornament of the porch relates directly to
the portal. On the west (left) pier the impost, decorated
with a cavetto, a zig-zag band, and a plain fillet, extends
completely around the pier, including its western face, and
50
almost touches the extrados of the archivolt (Fig. 5). On
the east (right) pier the identically decorated impost appears
to have been cut off flush with the side of the pier (Fig. 6).
The pointed arches of the porch, which contrast with the
rounded arches of the archivolts, spring from the outer
sides of the piers. The diagonal ribs spring from the inner
corners of the piers. They are narrower than the lateral
arches and have a slightly different profile. A ribbon of
four-leaf clovers of irregular size decorates the intrados of
the ribs and a zig-zag their sides (Figs. 5, 6).14 The mould-
ing that frames the archivolts relates to the ribs only
through the ribbon of four-leaf clovers on its extrados.
However, these clover motifs are smaller and more regular
than those on the ribs. The ribs encroach upon this
moulding, completely overlapping its ribbon of four-leaf
clovers in the area of the springing.
The outer piers of the porch (Fig. 7) differ from the
inner piers. Instead of single, rectangular, wall-like masses
of masonry with arrises, they are composed of two inter-
secting walls. A columnar respond for a diagonal rib stands
within the reentrant angle against slight projections from
each of the pier's wall surfaces. The outer piers have socles
that are similar in form to, but lower than, the socles of
the inner piers and the plinth course of the elaborate double
socles of the stepped embrasures(Figs. 1, 7, 8, 9). Although
the rib responds have attic bases like those of the embrasure
columns, the lower tori are more rounded. The coursing is
uniform through the whole of the piers, including the
responds.
Unlike the inner piers, the outer piers are identical in
profile and width to the arches they carry and no imposts
mark their springing points (Fig. 7). The columnar responds
for the ribs, however, carry imposts whose forms are nearly
identical to the forms of the imposts on the inner piers
(Figs. 5, 6, 7).'5 The capitals of the rib responds bear
a superficial resemblance to those of the embrasure col-
umns,16but the imposts of the embrasure columns and rib
responds contrast markedly. In summary, very little in the
architecture and decoration of the porch relates it to the
portal.
Nevertheless, Fleury's view has generally been opposed
and his criteria attacked. Ambroise Ledru argued that
Fleury's proposed chronology for portal and porch lacks
sufficient documentation,17 that pointed and rounded
arches have no chronological significance in 12th-century
architecture,'8 and that the irregularities that Fleury noted
between portal and porch may be explained by the exten-
sive modifications that the porch has been subjected to,
especially in the 19th century. The disharmony of propor-
tions between the portal and the buttress-piers and ribs of
the porch was dismissed as being meaningless within a
medieval context, the result of the peculiarities of medieval
aesthetics. 9
None of these arguments preclude Fleury's conclu-
sions, namely, that the portal preceded the porch. The
 FIGURE 8. Le Mans, Cathedral, south portal, west embrasure
(photo: author).
absence of documentation relating the portal to the epis-
copate of Hugues de Saint-Calais (1136-45) does not rule
out the possibility that it was begun then. And although
pointed and rounded arches can date from the same cam-
paign, they may equally result from different campaigns.
Extensive repairsto the porch do not justify the assumption
that the coursing of the porch and portal was at one time
congruent; the state of preservation merely rules out the
coursing of the masonry as a criterion.
As further evidence for the simultaneous construction
of portal and porch, Ledru suggested that no medieval
builders would have allowed a portal projecting 1.5 meters
from the wall of the church to go unprotected by a porch
or a gabled stone roof for thirteen years (1145-58).20
However, nothing indicates that the portal at Le Mans
could not have had some sort of roof or provisional shelter
before the construction of the porch. In fact, the lack of
congruence among the buttress-piers on the north of the
porch, the outer piers and the arches they carry, and the
embrasures and archivolts of the portal suggests that none
of these three elements belong to the same campaign.
Instead, the circumstances suggest that the north
buttress-piers were an integral part of a pre-Gothic portal
similar to the portal projecting from the north aisle of
FIGURE 9. Le Mans, Cathedral, south portal, east embrasure
(photo: author).
Saint-Etienne in Beauvais or the Porte Miegeville of Saint-
Sernin in Toulouse. The architecture and sculpture of the
present Early Gothic portal would have been inserted
within the framework of the pre-Gothic portal. At a later
date the new portal would have been provided with a
porch, which would have entailed the demolition of the
pre-Gothic structure down to the present impost level of
the buttress piers to provide springers for the side arches
and ribs of the new porch.2' The imposts of the buttress-
piers (Figs. 5, 6) and of the rib responds of the south piers
(Fig. 7) probably date from the same campaign. The im-
posts were restricted to the rib responds of the south piers
so as not to break the continuity of the profiles of the
piers and the arches they carry. In contrast, on the but-
tress-piers of the north side of the porch, the imposts
provide a transition between the differing profiles of the
buttress-piers and the lateral arches of the porch.
Stoddard is of the opinion that the continuity in the
plinth course and moulding in the socle zone in both the
portal and the buttress-piers of the porch (Figs. 8, 9) and
similar ornamental motifs on the ribs of the nave vaults,
the porch vaults, and on the moulding framing the outer
archivolt of the portal prove that portal, porch, and nave
are contemporary (Figs. 5, 6, 10).22The continuity of the
51
 FIGURE11. Le Mans, Cathedral,southportal,centralvoussiors(photo:
author).

FIGURE 10. Le Mans, Cathedral,south portal, tympanum,lintel, and FIGURE 12. Le Mans, Cathedral,south portal, voussiorsat the upper
uppervoussiors(photo:author). right(photo:author).

socle moulding between the portal and buttress-piers of the

porch does argue for the simultaneous construction of both
parts. However, this presupposes that the portal was origi-
nally intended for its present setting, whereas, if the portal
were intended for a different wall system, it would have
required a new socle to have been constructed at the time
of its reerection or insertion in its present setting.23 It is
significant in this respect that the profile of the socle
moulding of the embrasuresand buttress-piers of the porch
differs from the profile of the socle mouldings of the south
piers of the porch (Figs. 7, 8, 9).
The extremely popular ornamental motif in question,
a four-leaf clover motif, cannot be restricted to any single
century, much less any single decade. It is found, for
instance, at Paray-le-Monial, which is usually dated around
1100.24 The band of ornament framing the outer archivolt FIGURE 13. Le Mans, Cathedral, south portal, central and upperparts of
does not have the zig-zag motif found in combination with the tympanum (photo: author).

52

FIGURE 14. Le Mans, Cathedral, south portal, lower left of the
tympanum and left half of the lintel (photo: author).
FIGURE 15. Le Mans, Cathedral, south portal, lower right of tympanum
and right half of lintel (photo: author).
the four-leaf clover motif on the ribs of the porch and
nave. Further, because the moulding framing the archivolts
springs from a level above and behind the springers of the
portal archivolts, it could be argued that it relates more to
the porch than the portal. It could have been added with
the porch, after the portal was completed. If so, the already
tenuous stylistic relationship between the portal and porch
would be broken. The other ornamental motif, the zig-
zag, which is found on the ribs of the porch vault and on
those of the nave as well as on imposts in both the nave
and porch, is not found anywhere in the portal.25In short,
no arguments convincingly demonstrate that nave, portal,
and porch were designed and constructed at the same time.
What has yet to be considered, despite compelling
evidence for it, is that the portal was not designed for its
present setting. The portal architecture has been adjusted
to fit in a smaller setting than that for which it was
originally intended. This can be easily seen in the embra-
sures. The spacing of the embrasure columns and colon-
nettes at Le Mans is by no means regular. The outer
embrasure columns on both embrasures seem cramped
(Figs. 8, 9). They stand abnormally close to the adjacent
colonnettes. This is clearly evident at the levels of the
bases and the capitals, but it can also be seen in the column
figures. Most of the statues are placed so that they hardly
encroach on the smooth shafts of the colonnettes. The
shafts of the colonnettes are fully visible from base to
capital. However, the outer column figures on both embra-
sures encroach on the adjacent colonnettes. On the left
embrasure, this encroachment is so great that the column
figure's shoulder and upper arm almost completely overlap
the shaft of the colonnette. Between the outer embrasure
columns and the adjacent colonnettes, the foliage of the
embrasure column capitals encroaches on the plume-like
capitals of the colonnettes and the imposts overlap the
arrises (Figs. 5, 6). Moreover, the areas of the two faces of
the plinths for the outermost colonnettes are not equal
(Figs. 8, 9). There is nothing in the formal or structural
composition of the portal to motivate a tightening of the
spacing of the embrasure columns at these points. This
otherwise unmotivated crowding of the outer embrasure
columns indicates that the portal originally was not in-
tended to occupy its present setting.
Although it would be unusual for the voussoirs of any
portal to be of uniform size, usually a voussoir on one side
balances a voussoir of nearly the same size on the other.
At Le Mans this is not always the case, e.g., the upper
four voissoirs in the fourth archivolt (Figs. 10, 11). Further,
the joints between the top voussoirs in the outer two
archivolts do not correspond to the median axis of the
portal, which is emphasized in the tympanum through the
frontal position of Christ and the points of the mandorla,
and in the lintel where a double column supplants the
usual single column in the arcade that frames the apostles.
This situation at Le Mans is unusual, if not unique.
Many figures on the individual voussoirs overlap onto
the voussoirs immediately above them, e.g., the sixth vous-
soir on the right side of the fourth archivolt (Fig. 12) and
the seventh voissoir on the left side of the third archivolt
(Fig. 11). This indicates that the voussoirs have been trun-
cated to fit in their present locations. Decisive in this regard
is the irregular cutting of the voussoirs: some are nearly
rectangular, e.g., the seventh voussoir on the left side of
the third archivolt and the eighth voussoir on the left side
of the fourth archivolt (Figs. 5, 11), while most are clearly
trapezoidal. Several of the trapezoidal voussoirs, moreover,
are irregular trapezoids, e.g., the seventh and eighth vous-
soirs of the right side of the third and fourth archivolts
(Figs. 11, 12).26
With the exceptions of the keystones and the voussoirs
in the lower parts of the haunches directly above the
springing points of the first and second archivolts, most of
53
FIGURE 16. Saint-Denis, west facade, central portal, south embrasure
(photo: author).
the voussoirs have only a minimal curve to their extrados
and intrados. The curve of an archivolt depends on the
angles at which the individual voussoirs are cut. Conse-
quently, it would be a relatively easy task to move most of
the voussoirs from one archivolt to another or to reduce
the size of the archivolts by truncating some of the vous-
soirs and recutting their ends at more acute angles. The
irregular sizes and shapes of many of the voussoirs, their
lack of bilateral symmetry, the misalignment of the joints
between the top voussoirs of the outer two archivolts, and
the overlapping of some voussoirs by the heads of figures
from lower voussoirs, all argue that many of the voussoirs
were recut to reduce the size of the archivolts.
The tympanum itself provides evidence that relates to
the slight reduction in the size of the archivolts for it too
54
FIGURE 17. Chartres, Cathedral, Royal Portal, central portal, south
embrasure (photo: Bildarchiv Foto Marburg).
has been cut back (Figs. 10, 13). The tympanum, which
contains the enthroned Godhead surrounded by the tetra-
morph, consists of five slabs of stone, one for each figure.
Undulant bands, enlivened by three grooves that parallel
and thus accentuate the wavy upper contour, demarcate
the lower border of each slab and provide ground lines for
the four Evangelist symbols and the lower point of the
mandorla. The broad cloud band at the lower edge of the
tympanum once continued around the corners and up the
sides to enframe the whole of the tympanum (Figs. 14, 15).
This cloud band still exists in a good state of preservation
on the slab containing the lion in the lower left corner.
There the cloud band is almost as wide on the side as the
band at the bottom and the three grooves decorating its
surface are intact; none are abruptly broken off by the
 edge of the tympanum. The outer edge of the tympanum is
a perfectly smooth arc.27 On the other side of the tym-
panum, the lower right, the cloud band is fragmented. It is
narrower than the band at the bottom and lower left side,
being broad enough for only one groove rather than three.
That remaining groove is repeatedly interrupted by the
edge of the tympanum, which is rough and broken. A
similar situation exists in the upper parts of the tympanum
(Fig. 13), where the rough outer edge of the tympanum
cuts the cloud band so severely that only the peaks of the
waves are still extant. Thus, even the sense of continuity in
the cloud band is broken.
In the lower right side and the upper parts of the
tympanum the narrowness of the cloud bands, the rough
outer edges of the tympanum, and the interruption of the
undulant grooves contrast with the lower left side and
bottom, and indicate that in these locations the tympanum
was cut back and reduced in size. This reduction had to
have occurred before the erection of the tympanum; the
joint between the tympanum and archivolt is too narrow
to have accommodated a cloud band as wide as that which
remains in the lower left side.28 This reduction in the size
of the tympanum would have provided motivation for,
and further evidence of, the reduction of the archivolts.
This analysis opens up possibilities concerning the
south portal at Le Mans that help to place it in a chrono-
logical relationship to Saint-Denis and Chartres. The first
is that it was originally intended for another, wider setting,
perhaps in the expectation of a more extensive rebuilding
of the nave after the fires of the 1130s.29 A second pos-
sibility is that the portal is a spolium. The virtual certainty
that the portal was originally designed for a wider setting
suggests that the portal may have been intended for, or
even once occupied, the central part of the west facade of
the present cathedral. However, because the lower parts of
the west facade probably date from the episcopate of Hoel,
ca. 1093,30it is far more likely that the portal was intended
for the south side of the nave in its present location. The
relationship of the buttress-piers to the portal and porch
has already suggested a tradition of a major portal at this
location. The actual erection of the Early Gothic portal on
the south side of the nave rather than in the center of the
west facade confirms it.31
Despite its recutting to fit a smaller space, however,
the portal was intended when it was erected to make a
unified aesthetic and iconographic statement. Its architec-
tural composition is compatible with the aesthetic attitudes
of the time when it was composed. With respect to its
composition, the Early Gothic portal at Le Mans stands
between the Early Gothic portals of Saint-Denis, where
the clear expression of tectonic relationships dominates
even after taking into account the bad state of preserva-
tion,32 and Chartres, where that dominance of structural
clarity diminishes in favor of visual homogeneity.
The stepped embrasures and archivolts of the portal
at Le Mans (Fig. 1) resemble those of the central portal of
Saint-Denis (Fig. 3) more closely than they resemble those
at Chartres (Fig. 4). The widely spaced columns and colon-
nettes at Le Mans (Figs. 8, 9) and Saint-Denis (Fig. 16)
reveal the flat surfaces of the wall layers far more than at
Chartres (Fig. 17). In contrast to Chartres, four columns
on each embrasure correspond strictly to the four archi-
volts, and the number of colonnettes is limited to three. At
Le Mans and Saint-Denis, the only part of the portal that
relates to the buttresses is in the socle, although at Le Mans
the molding of the plinth course, not the top edge of the
socle, carries across the buttress. In contrast, the handling
of the buttresses between the portals at Chartres integrates
the buttresses fully with the stepped embrasures. At
Le Mans the parts of the embrasures that correspond to
the archivolts have a four part elevation (Figs. 8, 9): 1)
socle, 2) elaborately decorated lower shafts, 3) column
figures, and 4) capitals and imposts. Although this elevation
closely resembles Chartres, it is not unique to Le Mans
and Chartres. It is also found at Bourges, for example,
and may have existed at Saint-Denis.
The archivolts at Le Mans, like those at Chartres but
unlike those at Saint-Denis, are stilted, corresponding to
the height of the lintel (Figs. 1, 5, 6), thus achieving hori-
zontal unity at the lintel zone across the whole portal
complex. The voussoirs at Le Mans are slightly wider
toward the apex of the archivolts (Figs. 10, 11) so that
although the tympanum is semicircular and the archivolts
conform to that shape, the vertical dimension or height of
the portal is accentuated more than its breadth. This same
situation occurs at Saint-Denis (Fig. 3), with the difference,
of course, that the archivolts at Saint-Denis are not stilted.
The door jambs of Le Mans relate to both Saint-
Denis and Chartres. At Le Mans (Figs. 8, 9) they are the
same height as the stepped embrasures and carry the lintel
up within the archivolt zone as at Chartres (Figs. 4, 17)
and in contrast to Saint-Denis, where only the ends of the
now missing lintels are carried by colonnettes embedded
within the salient corners of the jambs (Figs. 3, 16). In
form the jambs recall those of Saint-Denis: they are broad,
flat, and of rectangularsection. However, their articulation,
unlike Saint-Denis, is broken up into four horizontal zones
that correspond closely to those of the stepped embrasures.
The socle zone is the same height for both embrasure
columns and jambs. Above the socle, fluting on the reveals
and diaper patterns of the front faces of the jambs create a
zone that corresponds to the decorated shafts of the embra-
sure columns, complete with their plinths and bases, below
the column statues.33 In the third zone figures in relief, the
same height as the column statues, fill shallow niches in
the front faces of the jambs, while rinceaux and a meander
pattern decorate the left and right reveals. Finally, balda-
chins, which are composed of single arches on the reveals
55
and front faces, crown each jamb.34 The baldachins cor-
respond in height to the capitals of the embrasure columns
and, like those capitals, carry impost blocks.35
It is apparent in the treatment of the jambs relative to
the embrasures that Le Mans stands somewhere between
Saint-Denis and the Royal Portal at Chartres. As at Saint-
Denis, the jambs are distinguished from the stepped embra-
sures by their form. This indicates that their function,
carrying the lintel and the tympanum, differs from the
function of the stepped embrasures, carrying the archivolts.
However, the close correspondence in the articulation of
the jambs and embrasures anticipates the visual uniformity
emphasized at Chartres.
Beyond the many architectural characteristics of the
portal at Le Mans that closely resemble Saint-Denis or
Chartres, other characteristics appear to be unrelated to
either. In particular, within the embrasure zone (Figs. 8,
9), while the plinths for the colonnettes are higher than the
plinths for the columns, the attic bases of the embrasure
columns are higher than the attic bases of the colonnettes.
Therefore, the upper surfaces of both sets of bases are at
the same level. This creates a horizontal that unifies the
embrasure columns and colonnettes yet sets off the hand-
ling of the plinths and bases. The stress is on structural
differentiation, especially in comparison with Chartres,
where the bases of both the embrasure columns and colon-
nettes are the same height and the upper molding of the
socle is unbroken (Fig. 17).36
Whereas the colonnettes of Chartres (Fig. 17), and
perhaps of Saint-Denis, were elaborately carved, those at
Le Mans are perfectly smooth, and thus distinguished from
the shafts of the embrasure columns (Figs. 8, 9).37 Further,
the colonnettes and columns of both Saint-Denis and
Chartres are united at the capitals and imposts (Figs. 16,
17), but at Le Mans they are clearly separated (Figs. 5, 6).
The foliate capitals of the embrasure columns relate to the
Corinthian schema and fulfill the architectural function of
providing a transition from cylindrical shaft to rectilinear
impost. However, the capitals of the colonnettes are mere
plumes of foliage, totally lacking the tectonic form of a
capital. They taper to points corresponding in level to the
lower surfaces of the elaborately carved imposts of the
embrasure columns. There, the salient corners of the
stepped embrasures, which the colonnettes supplanted,
reappear and separate the imposts from one another.38
However, the imposts of the innermost embrasure columns
continue without a break across the jambs in much the
same manner as the upper molding of the stepped socles.
The handling of the embrasure colonnettes at Le Mans
indicates a greater differentiation of form relative to func-
tion than found at Saint-Denis, and suggests that Le Mans
is not merely a synthesis of solutions worked out at both
Saint-Denis and Chartres.
The retention of the buttress-piersand their integration
with the Early Gothic portal at Le Mans suggests that
56
some of the sculpture of the present portal may have also
been retained from the earlier portal. In spite of the bad
state of preservation, however, similarities between the
sculpture of Le Mans and the Royal Portal at Chartres,
i.e., the central portal, relate the two monuments. These
similarities, especially on the column figures, extend even
to facial types and the arrangements of drapery folds on
some figures. In particular, the first column figure on the
east embrasure at Le Mans (Fig. 9) closely resembles the
fourth column figure of the south embrasure of the central
portal at Chartres (Fig. 17).39 The tympana, lintels, and
the first archivolts share the same motifs: the Maiestas
Domini and the tetramorph above a lintel with apostles
seated in an arcade, all framed by an archivolt with censing
angels. In spite of these similarities, however, the sculpture
of Le Mans does not necessarily derive from Chartres.
Similarities, even stylistic similarities, cannot establish the
influence of one monument on another, to say nothing of
the direction of the influence.
Much of the sculpture at Le Mans is totally unrelated
to the sculpture at Chartres. This is particularly evident in
the outer three archivolts (Figs. 5, 6, 10) and the jambs.
The iconography of the outer three archivolts has nothing
to do with the iconography of the archivolts at Chartres.
Although some themes in the archivolts of Le Mans cor-
respond to some themes in the capital frieze at Chartres
and the lintels of the south portal, differences in visual
motifs, even the clothing of figures, make the derivation of
one portal from the other improbable. In particular, the
soldiers in the Massacre of Innocents at Le Mans (Figs. 5,
11) wear chain mail, whereas those in the capital frieze on
the left embrasure of the south portal at Chartres wear
tunics.40 Many of the individual voussoirs at Le Mans
contain several figures distributed almost at random across
their flat, splayed surfaces. Some figures lie on diagonals,
e.g., on the outer two archivolts, the uppermost voussoirs
on the left (Fig. 11). Only the fillets between the archivolts
express the residual frontal and orthogonal faces of the
voussoirs. The effect recalls the treatment of the medallions
on the archivolts of Vezelay or Autun. In contrast, few of
the voussoirs at Chartres (Fig. 4) contain more than one
figure and even there the sculptors have taken advantage
of the orthogonal and frontal faces of the voussoirs to
stabilize and give greater three dimensionality to the fig-
ures. The jamb figures of Peter and Paul have no counter-
part at Chartres either stylistically or iconographically.
They are almost flat and lie embedded within the constrict-
ing confines of the rectangularly sectioned jambs (Figs. 8,
9). In spite of their calm poses, their relation to the architec-
ture recalls the figures on the interior faces of the jambs at
Souillac. Of the two portals, the one that more strongly
emphasizes structuralexpression in its architecture displays
almost an antagonism between the figure and its archi-
tectural context. Certainly the architecture does not serve
or enhance the sculpture at Le Mans as it does at Chartres.
 As at Chartres, within the portal at Le Mans there
may be several different hands,41but the similarities of the
figures at Le Mans tend to outweigh the differences. Even
allowing for the adjustments and possible recutting, it
appears that all the Le Mans sculpture should date from
one campaign. One aspect of the sculpture that must
remain consistent, regardless of other variables, is the
relationship of the figure to the block from which it was
carved, and in this respect Chartres is more advanced than
Le Mans. This is especially evident in the Le Mans column
figures that are seen as most similar to those at Chartres.42
The mutual relationship of the figure, the column, and the
block reveals a real difference in approach. Unlike Chartres
(Fig. 17), the shafts of the embrasure columns of Le Mans
terminate above the decorated zone with an astragal and a
flared capital-like form that serves as a platform for the
column figures (Figs. 8, 9). Whereas the platforms for the
column figures at Chartres are corbels, projecting strongly
from the shafts, those at Le Mans are concentric with the
shafts and are therefore a more integral part of the embra-
sure columns. Because of the projecting platforms at
Chartres, the column figures achieve comparative indepen-
dence from the column shafts: they appear to hang in
front of the columns. In contrast, the column figures at
Le Mans appear to supplant the shafts, which in fact for
the most part they do; only the heads of the figures are
clearly independent of the shafts.43 Because the column
figures at Le Mans extend up to the capitals, the impres-
sion that they supplant the shafts is emphasized.44 Finally,
the Le Mans figures are flatter and have even less under-
cutting than the column figures at Chartres. Nothing in
the figural sculpture of Le Mans compels us to see Le Mans
as a derivative of Chartres.45
Many of the portals that are thought to derive from
Chartres actually differ in style.46 Of these portals none
resembles Le Mans more than the portal at Saint-Loup-
de-Naud.47There, as at Le Mans, the sculpture is generally
thought to be dependent on Chartres, although of lesser
quality and more primitive. Significantly, both Le Mans
and Saint-Loup-de-Naud deviate from Chartres in similar
ways making it tempting to postulate a tradition totally
independent of Chartres. Both have figures of St. Peter
and St. Paul flanking the doorway. Both have lintels with
apostles framed within single arches. (In fact, none of the
extant portals related to Chartres present the apostles in
four groups of three as does the lintel of the central portal
of Chartres West.) Both Le Mans and Saint-Loup-de-Naud
lack the narrative capital frieze found at Chartres. Instead,
they have similar scenes from the Nativity, the Annuncia-
tion, Visitation, and the Magi before Herod within the
archivolts. The relation of the figure to the column is
similar at the two churches: the figure supplants the
column. In terms of portal composition, the door jambs at
Saint-Loup are totally devoid of any figural sculpture and
relate to the embrasure columns only by means of capitals.
Compositionally, Saint-Loup stands between Saint-Denis
and Le Mans.
None of the criteria frequently applied to the dating
of the portal at Le Mans convincingly demonstrates that
Le Mans must be dated after the Royal Portal at Chartres.
Although the portal at Le Mans cannot be dated with
certainty, fires of 1134 and 1137 provided the motive for
the reconstruction of the cathedral,48a reconstruction in
which one would expect a sculptural program to play an
important part. In terms of a relative chronology, the
Early Gothic portal at Le Mans should be dated between
the west portals of Saint-Denis and Chartres, possibly in
the late 1130s. Le Mans anticipates rather than reflects
Chartres.
NOTES
1. As early as 1889 E. Lefevre-Pontalis, Etude historique et archeo-
logique sur la nef de la cathedrale du Mans (Mamers, 1889), 37,
noted that the sculpture of the two monuments is similar and implied
that the sculpture of Le Mans was dependent on Chartres. Among
the 20th-century art historians who see Le Mans as being a derivative
of the Royal Portal at Chartres are: M. Aubert, French Sculpture at
the Beginning of the Gothic Period (New York, 1929), 27-29;
idem, La Sculpture fran'aise au moyenage (Paris, 1946), 193-94;
H. Giesau, "Stand der Forschung iiber das Figurenportal des Mit-
telalters," Beitrige zur Kunst des Mittelalters: Vortrige der Ersten
Deutschen Kunsthistorikertagung auf Schloss Bruhl 1948 (Berlin,
1950), 121-29; W. Stoddard, The West Portals of Saint-Denis and
Chartres (Cambridge, Mass., 1952), 34-36; A. Lapeyre, Des Fa'ades
occidentales de Saint-Denis et de Chartres aux portails de Laon
(Paris, 1960), 90-95; B. Kerber, Burgund und die Entwicklung ler
franzosischen Kathedralskulptur im 12. Jh. (Recklinghausen, 1966),
61; W. Sauerlander, Gothic Sculpture in France 1140-1270, tr.
J. Sondheim (London, 1972), 386.
2. Ihid., 383. For the documentation of the dedication of the nave of
Le Mans see below note 9.
3. J. van der Meulen, "Sculpture in its Architectural Context at
Chartres around 1200," The Year 1200, A Symposium (New York,
1975), I11, 509-60, emphasizes the itinerant character of much
Gothic sculpture.
4. Among the Early Gothic portals that can be included in this group
are those at Saint-Benigne in Dijon, Notre-Dame at Nesle-la-
Reposte, Saint-Germain-des-Pres in Paris, the priory church of
Saint-Loup-de-Naud, Notre-Dame in Etampes, the cathedral at
Angers, the north and south transverse portals in the cathedral at
Bourges, and Saint-Ayoul in Provins. For a select bibliography, see
Sauerlander, Gothic Sculpture, 386-403.
5. The opinion that the portals of Saint-Denis date between ca. 1137-
1140 is based on the documentation provided by Abbot Suger,
"Sugerii Abbatis Sancti Dionysii Liber de Rebus in Administra-
tione," 25, 26, 27 and "Libellus Alter de Consecratione Ecclesiae
Sancti Dionyssi," 4, in E. Panofsky, ed., Abbot Suger on the Abbey
Church of Saint-Denis and its Art Treasures (Princeton, 1946), 42-
47, 243 and 99, 103. The documentation refers to the dedication of
the west facade of the Abbey Church of Saint-Denis on 9 June
1140. Significantly, the documentation does not mention the sculp-
ture and does not provide a terminus post quem.
6. J. van der Meulen has repeatedly stressed that the Royal Portal at
Chartres cannot be dated precisely by documents. In Notre-Dame
57
 de Chartres: Die vorromanische Ostanlage (Berlin, 1975), 88, n. 23,
he points out that the documents reporting a fire at Chartres in
1134, which has been used as a terminus post quem for the towers
of the west facade, specifically state that the church was spared. See
the "Vielle Chronique" of 1388 in E. de Lepinois and L. Merlet,
eds., Cartulaire de Notre-Dame de Chartres (Chartres, 1862), I, 18.
Van der Meulen, Notre-Dame de Chartres, 20-23, further demon-
strates that the documents referring to towers at Chartres between
1134 and 1145 including Robert de Torigny's report, L. Delisle, ed.,
Chronique de Robert de Torigny (Paris, 1872), 238, cannot be
related unequivocally to the west facade, but instead very probably
relate to the chevet. In regard to the earliest known reference to a
royal portal at Chartres, which is found in an ordinary written
between 1136 and 1150, van der Meulen ("Chartres: Weltsch6pfung
in historischer Sicht," Francia, V [1977], 81-126, esp. 88, n. 44),
notes that although a procession halted within the cathedral ante
portam regiam, just as it does in a 13th-century ordinary, and three
processions that exited the cathedral by other portals in the 12th-
century ordinary exit per portam regiam in the 13th century, this by
no means indicates that the Royal Portal was under construction
between 1136 and 1150 as Y. Delaporte infers, "L'Ordinairechartrain
du Xllle siecle," Menioires de la Societe archeologique d'Eure-et-
Loire, XIX (1952-53), 16-27.
For a more conventional interpretaion of the documents, see
Stoddard, Saint-Denis and Chartres, 14 and Sauerlinder, Gothic
Sculpture, 386.
7. For the most recent discussions of the documents and the campaigns
of construction, see F. Salet, "La Cathedrale du Mans," CA, CXXX
(1961), 18-58, especially 21-23; A. Mussat, Le Style gothique de
l'ouest de la France (Paris, 1963), 95-107; J. B. Cameron, "The
Eleventh- and Twelfth-Century Capitals of the Cathedral at Le
Mans," unpublished doctoral dissertation, Yale University (1964),
67-77, 139-146. All these works reproduce relevant selections from
the documents and evaluate previous research. A. Mussat and others,
La Cathedral du Mans (Paris, 1981), esp. 50-54, add nothing of
relevance to our understanding of the portal.
8. G. Busson and A. Ledru, eds., Actus pontificum Cenomannis in
urbe degentium, in Archives historiques du Maine (Le Mans, 1901),
II, 393-94.
9. Ibid., 468, and Cartulaire des abbayes de Saint-Pierre de la Couture
et de Solesmes (Le Mans, 1881), 69.
10. G. Fleury, Etudes sur les portails images du XIIe si&ele, leur ico-
nographie et leur symbolisme (Mamers, 1904), 15-17, 59; idem, La
Cathddrale du Mans (Paris, 1910), 86-87. The Abbe Persigan,
Recherches sur la cathedrale du Mans (Le Mans, 1872), 191-92,
dated the portal back to the episcopate of Hildebert de Lavardin
(1095-1126) and the porch to 1158.
11. Fleury, La Cathedrale du Mans, 86-87.
12. The extent of this restoration is difficult to determine. A careful
block by block analysis with measurements of the porch, the portal,
and the south wall of the aisle has yet to be undertaken.
13. The springing points for the arches and rib on the left may be
slightly lower than the springing points for those on the right. On
the right, the joint between the impost and the pier corresponds to
the joint between the stilting voussoirs and the voussoirs above
them. On the left, the joint between the impost and the pier is
slightly below the joint between the first and second voussoirs of the
archivolts.
14. There are usually two and sometimes three clover motifs to a
voussoir. On the larger voussoirs they are elongated while on the
smaller voussoirs the clover motifs run transversely across the ribs.
15. Where the imposts of the inner piers have a cyma, those of the rib
responds on the outer piers have a shallow cavetto.
58
16. The capitals of the embrasure columns have three or more registers
of foliage and deeply notched abaci with an acanthus blossom in its
center (or a vestigial acanthus blossom in the form of a leaf). They
are in a bad state of preservation, especially on the left embrasure.
The capitals of the rib responds have two registers of foliage and
their abaci have perfectly straight sides. Further, the median leafs,
which must be construed as vestigial acanthus blossoms, do not
extend up onto the sides of the abaci. Their state of preservation is
slightly better than that of the capitals of the embrasure columns.
17. A. Ledru, "Le Porche meridional de la cathedrale du Mans," La
Province du Maine, XVII (1909), 303-14.
18. In this Ledru, ibid., 308, echoed Lefevre-Pontalis, La Cathedrale du
Mans, 35-36, who emphasized that mixtures of rounded and pointed
arches are common in the 12th century, arguing that the rounded
arches of the clerestory and triforium at the cathedral of Le Mans
date from the same campaign as the pointed arches of the nave
arcade and vaults. Stoddard, Saint-Denis and Chartres, 33, believes
that the pointed arches of the porch were structurally motivated
whereas the rounded arches of the archivolts were presumably a
matter of aesthetic preference, arguing that they ". . . are echoed by
the arches and vaults of the nave." Reversing Stoddard, Sauerlander,
Gothic Sculpture, 386, claimed that the rounded archivolts were
structurally predetermined by the groin vaults of the south aisle into
which the portal opens, whereas the forms of the porch-the pointed
arches-were aesthetically motivated, having been ". .. made to
match the forms of the first bay at the west end of the nave, not
those of the portal." The contradictory arguments of Stoddard and
Sauerlander arrive at the identical conclusion: that the portal, porch,
and nave all date from a single building campaign, which was
completed by 1158.
19. Ledru, "Le Porche m6ridional," 307-11, relied primarily on the
state of preservation of the porch in rebutting Fleury's conclusions
about the irregularities between the portal and the porch including
the dissimilar proportions, the truncation of the molding framing
the outer archivolt (although he also maintained that the truncation
could have resulted from careless, 12th-century stereotomy), and
the interruption in the coursing of the masonry. Ledru asserted that
extensive modifications were made to the buttress piers of the porch
in the 19th century. He suggested that a 19th-centurydrawing, which
he reproduced as evidence (309; pl. 1), shows the porch as it was
before 1810. In the drawing the diagonal rib of the porch springs
from a columnar respond that stood where the corner of the present
pier now is thus relating in form to the outer piers. Therefore,
Ledru inferred that ribs probably sprang from the responds on the
north side of the porch just as they do on the south. However, the
drawing is not reliable in spite of Ledru's assertion that it is (312). It
shows too few figures in the lintel. It ignores the stilting voussoirs of
the archivolts. It represents the profiles of the arches of the porch
incorrectly. It shows the respond for the rib of the porch vault to be
as tall as the embrasure columns, although more slender, and with a
smaller capital. It also shows the lateral arches of the porch to
spring from the same level as the ribs and archivolts. Ledru himself,
aware that the rib responds on the southern corners of the porch are
taller than the embrasure columns, suggested that the now missing
columnar rib responds beside the portal also were taller than the
embrasure columns and that the ribs, therefore, always must have
had higher springing points than the archivolts. He also corrected
the relationship between the springing points of the ribs and the
lateral arches of the porch.
19. Ibid., 307.
20. Ibid., 306.
21. Somewhat similar circumstances occurred at Saint-Loup-de-Naud.
See C. Maines, The Western Portal of Saint-Loup-de-Naud (New
York, 1979), 72-119.
22. Stoddard, Saint-Denis and Chartres, 33.
23. The situation would be very similar to that of the north and south
transverse portals at Bourges where the smooth, splayed socles relate
to the diagonally placed plinths for the responds of the porch ribs;
but the crocket capitals of these responds clearly indicate a period
different from that indicated by the capitals of the embrasure
columns.
24. R. Oursel, Dictionnaire des eglises de France (Paris, 1966), I1,
124-28.
25. A zig-zag motif similar to that found on the imposts of the porch
can be found on the imposts of all the rib responds of the vaults in
the ground floor of the north and south towers of the west facade at
Chartres. It is also found on the imposts of the columns framing the
entrance to the north tower. The dates commonly given to the lower
parts of the west towers at Chartres have their terminus post quemn
supposedly given by the fire of 1134, and their continuing construc-
tion in the year 1145 supposedly assured by the report of Robert de
Torigny (see above, n. 6), thus predating the erection of the Royal
Portal. If we accept these dates, we could argue that the porch of
Le Mans is contemporary, based on stylistic similarities of the
imposts, with the lower floors of the towers at Chartres. If so, it
would have preceded the central vessel of the nave and could have
influenced the choice of decorative motifs in the nave.
26. The voussoirs seem to have been arranged almost at random in
regard to the iconography and any rational sequence of events.
Why, for example, does John the Baptist (sixth voussoir on the
right, third archivolt from the tympanum) appear to preach to a
voussoir showing a temptation of Christ in the wilderness (seventh
voussoir on the right, fourth archivolt from the tympanum) rather
than to the group of six figures in the voussoir immediately below
Christ's temptation (Figs. 6 and 12)? For the present state of
research on the iconography of the voussoirs, see Lapeyre, Fa'ades
occidentales, 283-85. Currently Gail C. Polk and I are preparing a
study on the iconography and iconology of the portal, which
indicates that the portal stresses the importance of the sacraments-
especially baptism-and the role of the clergy who are ordained by
the established church as the sole, legitimate administrators of the
sacraments.
27. There appears to be mortar fill between the lower left corner of the
tympanum and the archivolt.
28. The reduction in the size of the tympanum, however, raises another
problem: the relation between the lintel and the tympanum. The
lintel is the same length as the reduced tympanum. Although the
last arches on either side of the lintel are each composed of a
separate block, the spans of those arches are essentially the same as
those in the remainder of the lintel. It is hardly likely that they
replaced wider arches which would have extended the lintel to the
same width as the tympanum before its reduction. The circumstances
suggest that the lintel was carved for its present location after the
reduction of the tympanum.
29. In 1334, fire raged through the city of Le Mans and damaged the
cathedral. The documents exaggerate the extent of the fire, claiming
that the whole city and all the churches within its walls were
reduced to ashes. See Busson and Ledru, Actus, 435-36. See also,
Ordericus Vitalis, Historiae, V, 41. Because Bishop Guy d'Etampes
contributed 200 pounds toward the restoration of the cathedral
between 1134 and his death in 1136, it has been assumed that the
cathedral really was damaged and that its repair, probably the
choir, was begun under Guy. For Guy's donation, see G. Busson
and A. Ledru, eds., Necrologe-ohituaire de la cathedrale du Mans,
in Archives historiques du Maine (Le Mans, 1906), VII, 330.
Another fire may have occurred in 1137, which may have involved
the translation of the relics of St. Julian by Bishop Hugues de
Saint-Calais (1136-43) from what was presumably a provisional
nave into the presumably newly repaired choir. See Busson and
Ledru, Actus, 447-48. For conflicting opinions concerning the
second fire, see Salet, "La Cath6drale," 22-23; Mussat, Le Style
gothique, 95-96; and Cameron, "The Eleventh- and Twelfth-Century
Capitals," 141-42, and 171-73, notes 18-22.
30. Ibid., 75, 76, 96, 97; Salet, "La Cath6drale du Mans," 30, 34.
31. In my opinion, the dimensions of the bays of the present cathedral
are too small to have accommodated the Early Gothic portal as it
was originally intended. The adjustments of the Early Gothic portal
to fit the buttress-piers of the pre-Gothic portal suggest to me that
the Early Gothic portal was intended for a completely rebuilt
Gothic nave, whose bays would have been larger than those of the
present nave. The bulk of the embrasure masonry of the Early
Gothic portal would have abutted the thrusts of the transverse
arches of the aisle vaults, and ultimately the vaults of the central
vessel. In the present portal, the bulk of the embrasure masonry and
the retained buttress-piers, which were originally free of structural
constraints imposed by the vaults of a central vessel, do not
correspond to the thrusts of the interposed Early Gothic vaulting
system. The buttress-piers retained from the pre-Gothic portal are
now as widely placed as they could be within the present ground
plan of the cathedral. Were they to have been placed any wider,
they would have overlapped the voussoirs of the windows in the
adjacent bays. The pre-Gothic portal's ample dimensions relative to
the aisle bay to which it gave access were no doubt motivated by the
desire for monumental impact.
Contrary to my opinion, Francois Bucher has suggested that
the aisle bay of the present cathedral is large enough to accom-
modate an enlarged portal, i.e., the Early Gothic portal as it was
originally designed. In either case the present circumstances are a
compromise, a compromise that finds its logical explanation in a
decision made during the course of construction, probably after the
completion of the choir, to retain the original buttress-piers and the
outer walls of the nave, just as it was decided to retain the round
arches of the nave arcade.
32. The column statues of the embrasures of Saint-Denis were removed
in the 18th century. For the various opinions on the state of
preservation of the west facade of Saint-Denis, see Stoddard, Saint-
Denis and Chartres, 2-3; L. Grodecki's review of Stoddard, Bull
Mon, CXI (1953), 312-15; Sauerlander, Gothic Sculpture, 379;
S. Crosby, "The West Portals of Saint-Denis and the Saint-Denis
Style," Gesta, IX (1970), 1-11; S. Crosby and P. Blum, "Le Portail
central de la facade occidentale de Saint-Denis," Bull Mon, CXXXI
(1973), 15-266; and P. Gerson, "The Lintels of the West Facade of
Saint-Denis," JSA H, XXXIV (1975), 189-97.
33. The fluting on the west (left) reveal does not extend as high as the
fluting of the east reveal and the diaper pattern on the front face of
the west jamb has been partially effaced in its lower half.
34. The spandrels of the arches of these baldachins contain miniature
architectural forms which are similar to the articulation of the
embrasure column capitals at the Royal Portal at Chartres and the
portal at Notre-Dame at Etampes.
35. The jambs are of unequal width, the jamb on the left being the
broader. This can most clearly be seen in the relationship of the
jambs to the lintel (Figs. 5, 6, 14, 15). On the left, the impost block
of the jamb extends almost completely beneath the two arches
containing apostles on the extreme left of the lintel. However, the
corresponding impost block extends beneath only a small fraction
of the second arch from the right.
36. The bases at Le Mans, like those at Saint-Denis and unlike those at
Chartres, do not extend beyond their plinths.
37. In many Early Gothic portals the embrasures lack colonnettes, e.g.,
Angers, Saint-Loup-de-Naud, and Bourges. At Bourges, however,
the salient corners of the stepped embrasures between the embrasure
59
 columns are blunted by mouldings with decorative patterns. In
Romanesque portals the combination of both embrasure columns
and colonnettes is extremely rare, if it exists at all.
38. The exception to this spacing, as we have seen, occurs between the
outer embrasure columns and the adjacent colonnettes.
39. See Stoddard, Saint-Denis and Chartres, 35-36.
40. For full illustrationsof the capital frieze at Chartres, see A. Heimann,
"The Capital Frieze and Pilasters of the Portail Royal, Chartres,"
JWCI, XXXI (1968), 73-102, pl. 33b.
41. For a review of the basic opinions prior to 1952 on the style and
dating of the sculpture of the Royal Portal at Chartres, see Stoddard,
Saint-Denis and Chartres, 20-26. Sauerlander, Gothic Sculpture,
385-86, offers a more recent opinion that diverges slightly from
Stoddard's as to who did what. Nevertheless, like Stoddard, he is
representative of most modern scholars in his acceptance of a single
campaign theory, even though he describes the figures from the
outer embrasures of the side portals as "antique" in comparison to
the figures of the inner embrasures and the central portal. Van der
Meulen, "Sculpture in its Architectural Context at Chartres," 530-
31, n. 24, summarizes the problems concerning dating the Royal
Portal on the basis of sculptural style and extends the range of
possibilities by suggesting that the heads in the central tympanum
and on the embrasure figures that have been attributed to the "Main
Master," and by implication those most closely related to his style,
may have been recut after the year 1200. At Le Mans the column
figures on the left and right embrasures may be by different hands
(Figs. 8, 9). The figures on the left embrasure have shorter upper
arms, and their lower arms less clearly express the frontal and or-
thogonal faces of the blocks from which they have been carved.
Where the drapery is pulled tight across the right legs, there is less
definition of the contours of the legs. The thighs, knees, and calves
have simple, nearly straight and vertical contours, whereas on the
right embrasure gently curving, three dimensional forms correspond
to the structure of the leg and differentiate the thighs from the
calves and the knees. On the left embrasure, the folds of the drapery
are more uniform. Many of the folds are sharp and V-like and are
closely and regularly spaced. On the right embrasure, the folds tend
to be more curvilinear and varied. In the archivolts the angels of the
inner archivolt have an entirely different scale from most of the
figures in the outer archivolts (Figs. 5, 6, 10). And among the angels,
some are nimbed and others are not. Proportions of figures tend to
vary from one voussoir to the next, but this may be attributable to
the size of the voussoir in question and the number of figures on it
rather than to a difference in style.
60
42. The more archaic, sometimes characterized as inferior, aspects
of the sculpture at Le Mans in comparison with that of Chartres
has been remarked upon frequently: Stoddard, Saint-Denis and
Chartres, 35-36; Lapeyre, Facades occidentales, 90; Kerber, Kathed-
ralskulptur, 61, who also sees a close relationship to the sculpture of
Vezelay and Autun; and Sauerlander, Gothic Sculpture, 386. In
regard to quality, a close examination of the column figures from
the east embrasure of the Le Mans portal makes the question of the
inferiority of the Le Mans sculpture debatable.
43. W. Voge, Die Anfdnge des monumentalen Stiles im Mittelalter;
Eine Untersuchung iiber die erste Bliitezeit der franzbsischen Plastik
(Strasbourg, 1894), postulated an evolution toward greater indepen-
dence of the column in the development of Gothic sculpture. His
theory has subsequently found general acceptance.
44. At Chartres the shafts of the columns extend well above the heads
of the column figures.
45. Stoddard, Saint-Denis and Chartres, 12, 39-41, uses ornamental
sculpture as a criterion for dating portals. He suggests an evolution
from flat, two dimensional relief that is subordinated to the architec-
ture toward greater three dimensionality, variety, and abundance of
ornament that increasingly is freed from architectural constraints.
He argues that the ornament of Le Mans is found in greater profu-
sion and shows far deeper carving than the ornaments of either
Saint-Denis or Chartres. However, the ornament on the colonnettes
from the west portals of Saint-Denis, which are preserved in the
Louvre and the Cluny museum, show deeper undercutting than the
comparable ornament on the innermost column of the west embra-
sure at Le Mans. (Stoddard illustrates both the colonnettes from
Saint-Denis and the column from Le Mans: pls. V, VI, 1-2 for the
former; pl. XXIX, 1, for the latter.) In the imposts, where Stoddard
sees the greatest stylistic transformation at Le Mans, the carving of
the central portal at Saint-Denis is as deep as that of Le Mans; and
both are deeper than the comparable carving at Chartres West or
even the central portal of Mantes, which is dated ca. 1180 (see
Sauerlander, Gothic Sculpture, 410). In regard to capitals, although
Stoddard is correct that the capitals of the portal at Le Mans more
closely resemble the capitals of the south tower of Chartres West
than those of the west portals of Saint-Denis, they even more closely
resemble a capital from Vezelay, which Stoddard reproduces
(pl. XXXIV, 6) and dates in the 1120s or the early 1130s (49).
46. See above, n. 4.
47. For convenient illustrations, see Sauerlander, Gothic Sculpture,
pls. 24-25. For a comprehensive treatment of the portal, see Maines,
The Western Portal of Saint- Loup-de- Naud.
48. See above, n. 29.