It will be remembered from Chapter II that the reconstruction of the cathedral of Florence was begun shortly after 1294, that in 1300 Arnolfo di Cambio was documented as its chief architect, and that in 1331 Giovanni Villani commented that Florence had been remiss in its slow building progress owing to the city's preoccupation with wars and their expense. In 1334 Giotto was made chief architect of the city and the cathedral, but his attention was given to the campanile; he was followed by Andrea Pisano, who continued work on the campanile until the 1340s.

None of the documents gives the slightest clue about the progress of the main structure of the cathedral during the first half of the fourteenth century, and until recently it remained a matter of speculation how much of the cathedral had actually been planned by Arnolfo di Cambio and how much had been completed when work was resumed between 1353 and 1355. A fresco of 1342, containing a view from the west of the exterior of the cathedral, shows the facade and the first bays of the nave behind it, with some marble encrustations and with the side walls on either side up to the height of the entablature over the window zone, narrower and lower than the proportions which were eventually adopted. (4)

In fact, the future appearance of the cathedral was decided only between 1355 and 1368. In endless meetings from 1355 to 1357 the administrators of the cathedral, advised by a selected group of city architects consisting of friars and laymen, determined the size of the nave and its divisions into vaulted bays, the proportion of nave to side aisles, the design and the model of vital details such as the dimensions and the appearance of the nave piers and the shape, size and spacing of the windows. This latter item needed replanning because of a wrong start at the west end of the nave at an earlier moment in the history of the building. The authorized dimensions were laid out on the building site itself. To the master architect of the cathedral, who was a specialist in fine stonework and who had previously completed the campanile, was now added a construction man, Giovanni di Lapo Ghini, who was familiar with the laying of foundations and masonry work, including vaulting. The exchange of opinions and supervision of each step in the construction continued through the years which followed. In 1366 the nave construction reached the stage when final decisions on the shape and dimensions of the east end of the church could no longer be postponed.

To determine this--and to the everlasting glory of Florence--the first to be summoned for consultation now were not construction men but artists: goldsmiths, painters and sculptors to whom the group of consulting architects was added. The question of the artistic solution of the size and proportions of the octagon of the choir in relation to the chapels and the dome above it came before that of the technical solution. Andrea Orcagna, perhaps the best known artist of Florence at that moment, who was an architect, sculptor of the splendid marble tabernacle at Or San Michele of 1359, and fresco and panel painter, and Taddeo Gaddi, a pupil of Giotto and a distinguished Florentine painter, led the group of painters. It was they, supported by the consulting architects, most notable of whom was Neri di Fioravante, builder of the great vaulted hall of the Bargello, who devised the formal plans for the octagon, the three chapels and the shape and dimensions of the piers to sustain the novel feature of a high drum from which the dome was to rise, much higher than originally planned. The master mason, Giovanni di Lapo Ghini, and his group, violently opposed this plan and defended his own, which was based on smaller proportions for the octagon and less ponderous piers meant to carry less weight. This plan probably went back to the early planning period of 1357. This was also the foreseeable less expensive, less spaceconsuming, safer (it was called less "dangerous") project and, if carried through, probably would have resulted in a perfectly satisfactory interior design. These were the reasons why a protracted struggle between the two opposing parties continued for so long and why the conservative group almost won. The other plan, that of the consulting committee, was a daring, masterful suggestion for the crowning feature of the exterior of the cathedral. It was this design which was generally recognized as "the most beautiful," "the more honorable" and "the more magnificent." Debates and meetings continued through 1367 and, finally, late in 1367, the two opposing designs were presented to the citizens of Florence in a referendum. The majority of citizens voted in favor of the project as proposed by the committee. When Brunelleschi developed his dome in the 1420s, everything else had been planned for him by that earlier generation of men, including the measurements of the curvature and the height of the dome from ground to apex. (5)

The records pertaining to the opening years of the construction of the cathedral of Milan tend to point to a similar lack of careful advanced planning as noted at Florence during the first fifty years of its construction, but beyond this the situation at Milan was different. Lombardy's chaotic political and economic situation from the second half of the twelfth century on, and during the better part of the next two hundred years, had wiped out a great earlier tradition of church building. Gothic architecture existed in the simple form of Cistercian church architecture which the order had brought from France in the twelfth century. (6) Nothing had conditioned the local builders either technically or aesthetically for the building of a major church in the contemporary late gothic, open, light, vertically oriented style. And yet such a building was probably in the mind of Duke Gian Galeazzo Visconti (1378-1402), tyrant of Milan, whose strong political and personal ties both with Germany and, in particular, with France (he had been married as a young man to the sister of Charles V, Isabelle of Valois, who died in 1372, and his daughter Valentina Visconti was married to Louis of Orleans, younger brother of Charles VI) would tend to suggest this.

The church was founded in 1386, and between 1387 and 1389 Lombard masters seem to have laid the foundation. Only after this was done did the builders begin to think of the shape and size of the nave piers. It became clear that outside advice would be needed to determine not only the piers but the entire elevation. Two architects, one French and the next German, worked in succession briefly at the cathedral between 1389 and 1392. As far as can be judged, all they were able to accomplish, in an atmosphere of hostility, was to create an awareness of the need for the systematic calculation of the elevation in a predetermined ratio of height to width. The early schemes had aimed at a height corresponding to the width of the nave, a measurement based on the square and known as ad quadratum. Next, a mathematician was summoned from Piacenza who, in a written expose, suggested a system ad triangulum, whereby the section of the church would be designed according to the geometrical configuration of equilateral triangles, permitting the simple determination of the height in relation to the width of aisles and nave, of the springing points and elevation of each portion of the vaults and, finally, of the greatest height of the nave vault itself, which was determined as twice the height of the vault at the outer aisle (this was lower than the originally intended greater height based on the square).

This scheme seemed generally satisfactory. It was at once adopted and was the basis for the measurements of the outer side-aisle piers. However, before long the workshop abandoned the system and replaced the section based on the configuration of the equilateral triangle with one based on two adjacent right triangles, the Pythagorean triangle. It did not seem to occur to these Milanese builders that they were thereby destroying the logic of the overall scheme. Their reason for the change seems to have stemmed from the desire to reduce even further the height of the nave and to increase the ease with which to calculate it.

When the German architect Heinrich Parler of Gmund, who had been asked to carry the program to completion, arrived in 1391, he was justly troubled by the absence of unity of measurements. By May 1392 he and his Lombard colleagues were so much at odds over the discrepancies that a public meeting had to be called. From this we learn:

At the gathering of all the engineers named below . . .

All [of these] gathered in the building office of the Milanese church in order to remove numerous doubts which are being entertained concerning work at this church, which doubts are separately specified below, and to the doubts are added replies and statements by all these engineers, with the exception of this master Heinrich, who, although these replies are given toward [establishing] an understanding, concurs in no way with these statements. (7)

R: It was stated that it should rise up to a triangle or to the triangular figure, and not farther.

R: It was stated that these piers counting bases and capitals ought to rise to 40 braccia and not farther.

These and most of points 6-11 indicate that the Lombard masters were opposed to the last man to a height customary in the northern gothic churches. It is probably true, as Professor Ackerman suggests, that the Preference for lower proportions was due, above all, to the reluctance of the Lombard masters to use a complicated system of flying buttresses and exterior pier buttresses, which would have been indispensable had the nave been raised far above the side aisles, or the inner side aisles far above the outer ones. But to the same degree that all the consultant northern masters over and over again attempted to return to a transverse section based on the square and all Milanese masters wished to avoid this, we must assume too that opposing aesthetic preferences played a considerable role. Heinrich Parler was dismissed and Ulrich von Ensingen, his successor, came late in 1394. Master Ulrich felt equally unable to compromise his own ideas and left shortly after.

The final break with the northern tradition of building came in 1401-2. The structure had reached the point where decisions on the methods of vaulting could no longer be postponed. Once more a French group of experts was summoned to advise the administrators of the work. One master, Jean Mignot of Paris, stayed on to render the appraisal of the group and, at a meeting early in January 1401, he presented fifty-four points of criticism, speaking of the weakness of the piers and buttresses at the apse and elsewhere in the cathedral, of the poor design of the apse pier capitals and of poor measurements and workmanship elsewhere. Half his points were left unanswered and the objections to his other points reveal, together with an excellent knowledge of the old building techniques and of the building material to which the Milanese stone masons were used and in which they had a tenacious faith, complete ignorance of the dynamics of the high gothic building system.

Two weeks after the first conference another one was called. The report on this one gives an idea of the tone and level of the debate. (10)

Master Jean Mignot has stated to the council here present that he has given in writing to the said council a note computing to date all the reasons and every motive which lead him to say that aforesaid work lacks strength, and he does not wish to give other reasons.

Final statements given by aforesaid Master Jean on the 25th day of January [1401].

Master Jean Mignot points out to you excellent lords of the workshop council of the Milanese church with respect and pure truth, that as he has demonstrated in writing elsewhere and among other matters, the defects of said church, he reiterates and affirms that all the buttresses around this church are neither strong nor able to sustain the weight which rests upon them, since they ought in every case to be three times the thickness of one pier in the interior of the church.

The Masters reply:

Concerning the first statement, they say that all the buttresses of said church are strong and capable of sustaining their weight and many times more, for many reasons, since one braccio of our marble and saritium (11) whatever its width, is as strong as two braccia of French stone or of the French church which he gives to the aforesaid masters as an example. Therefore they say that if aforesaid buttresses are one-and-a-half times [the size]--and they are--of the piers in the interior of the church, that they are strong and correctly conceived, and if they were larger they would darken said church because of their projection, as at the church in Paris, which has buttresses of Master Jean's type, [and there are other reasons why they could be an obstruction].

Moreover, he says that four towers were begun to support the crossing-tower of said church, and there are no piers nor any foundation capable of sustaining said towers, and if the church were to be made with said towers in this position it would infallibly fall. Concerning the claims, however, which were made by certain ignorant people, surely through passion, that pointed vaults are stronger and exert less thrust than round, and moreover concerning other matters, proposals were made in a fashion more willful than sound; and what is worse, it was objected that the science of geometry should not have a place in these matters, since science is one thing and art another. Said Master Jean says. that art without science is nothing (ars sine scientia nihil est), and that whether the vaults are pointed or round, they are worthless unless they have a good foundation, and nevertheless, no matter how pointed they are, they have a very great thrust and weight.

Whereupon they [the Masters] say that the towers which they wanted to make are for many reasons and causes [desirable]. Namely, in the first place, to integrate aforesaid church and transept so that they correspond to a rectangle according to the demands of geometry, but beyond this, for the strength and beauty of the crossing-tower. To be sure, as if as a model for this, the Lord God is seated in Paradise in the center of the throne, and around the throne are the four Evangelists according to the Apocalypse, and these are the reasons why they were begun. And although two piers of each sacristy are not founded, but begin at ground level, the church is truly strong nevertheless for these reasons, that there are projections upon which the said piers stand, and the said projections are of large stones and joined with iron dowels as was said above with other statements, and that the weight on these three towers falls evenly on their square, and they will be built properly and strong, and what is vertical cannot fall; therefore they say that they are strong in themselves, and for that reason will give strength to the crossing-tower, which is enclosed in the center of these towers. Therefore said church is truly strong.

Later in 1401, when Mignot's design for the vaulting of the cathedral threatened to interfere with one already begun by the Lombard masters, and it was suspected that with his design he was attempting to restore some of the originally planned height for the church, he was dismissed.

The stubbornness of the workshop masters of Milan is strongly reminiscent of the attitude of Giovanni di Lapo Ghini at the cathedral of Florence. It is true that the cathedral of Milan has stood up well these many centuries in spite of all prophecies of doom by the visiting masters. The real point, however, is the difference between what happened here and what happened in Florence. And in this, perhaps lies the most striking example of the sensitivity and maturity of judgment prevailing in Florence among a majority of men at this decisive moment, judgment so infinitely ahead of the rest of Europe half a century before the advent of the Renaissance.

The study of the documents from Milan leads to one more observation: Master Mignot was clearly neither a great nor a particularly ingenious architect. To come from Paris in the year 1400 did not automatically mean one had the ability to produce great architecture-it was one of the most desperate moments in the economic and sociopolitical history of that nation and very little monumental building went on anywhere in France. Mignot's statement ars sine scientia nihil est (art without science is nothing) labels him sadly as an academician and an epigone in his art. His opponents and torturers, the masons of Milan, by contrast, in spite of their stubborn ignorance, seem rather witty in turning his saying around by answering scientia sine arte nihil est (science without art is nothing, either), and in this perhaps more real than prophetic attitude foretold a future in which the lofty structures of the northern gothic were rejected by the fifteenth-century Renaissance critics of northern aesthetics.

The choir of the cathedral of Gerona in Catalonia was built in the first half of the fourteenth century. (12) It was a French high-gothic choir having a rounded apse, an ambulatory and nine radiating chapels. The plan was close to those of the cathedrals of Narbonne and Barcelona. It replaced the east end of an eleventh-century Romanesque church; the nave was left standing. In 1416 William Boffiy, master of the works of the cathedral, proposed a plan for its completion by the erection of a new nave. Though the chevet had an aisle (ambulatory) and chapels round it, he proposed to build a single-aisle nave of the same width as the choir including the ambulatory and to continue chapels along the entire length of the nave.

The chapter of the cathedral found the proposal for a single nave hazardous. It created so much discussion that the chapter, before deciding what plan should be adopted, called together a group of outside architects and put to each of them separately certain questions, which they answered under oath. The following September these answers were read before the chapter by a notary and the problem was left there. On March 8, 1417, William Boffiy was called in and was in turn asked the same questions. A week later, at a chapter meeting presided over by the bishop, it was decided to carry on the work as proposed, with a single nave. It has been said that this nave is the greatest accomplishment of gothic architecture in Catalonia. (13)

In the name of God Our Lord, and the Virgin our Lady Saint Mary, the "maestros" superintendents and masons summoned for the direction of the works of the cathedral of Gerona, must be asked the following questions:

1) If the work of one nave of the said cathedral church, commenced of old, could be continued, with the certainty of remaining secure and without risk?

2) Supposing that it is not possible to continue the said work of one nave with safety, or that it will not be lasting, whether the work of three naves, continued on, would be congruous, sufficient, and such as would deserve to be prosecuted; or, on the contrary, if it ought to be given up or changed; and in that case unto what height it would be right to continue what is begun, and to specify the whole, in such sort as to prevent mistake?

3) What form or continuation of the said works will be the most compatible and the best proportioned to the chevet of the said church which is already begun, made, and finished? (14)

The "maestros" and masons, before being asked these questions, must take their oath; and after having given their declarations, the Lord Bishop of Gerona and the honourable Chapter shall elect two of the said masters, in order that they may form a plan or design, by which the work will have to be continued. All which the secretary of the Chapter will put in due form in a public writing.

The debates lasted four days. On the first day, Thursday, January 23, 1416, three architects were questioned.

1) Paschasius de Xulbe, stonemason and master of the works at the cathedral of Tortosa, questioned under oath had this to say:

a) That according to his knowledge and belief it is certain that the work of one nave of the cathedral of Gerona already commenced is secure, good, and firm; and that the foundations or bases of the old work already made are also so, and that the rest will be so if they are constructed in the same manner, and that they will be sufficient to sustain the vault of the said work of one nave.

b) Supposing that the work of one nave is not carried out, it is certain that the one of three naves, already commenced in the said church, is good and firm. But in the event of the plan of three naves being adopted, he says, that it would be necessary that the vault which is over the coro toward the altar [coro is the choir proper] of the same church, should be pulled down, and that it should be unroofed, in order that it may be raised eight palms--a little more or less--above what it is now, so that it may correspond to its third in its measurements.

c) That the plan of three naves is more compatible and better proportioned to the chevet of the church than that of one nave.

Interrogatus. Whether in joining the lower voussoirs on the capital of the pillar [pier] over the pulpitum, (15) which corresponds to the other of the coro, in case the work of three naves is carried out, there will be any risk of causing a settlement in the said pillar [pier]?--I answer, that there will be none, and that it can be done with safety.

2) John de Xulbe, mason, son of said Paschasius, also working on the church of Tortosa:

a) That the work of the nave already commenced can be continued, and that it will be good, firm, and without danger; but that the arches must be made to the tierce point, and that the principal arch must be shored up. That the first abutments of the old work, situated on the south, are good and firm, and that making the others like them, they will be so also, and sufficient to sustain the vault which has to be executed in the said church.

b) That if the plan of one nave is not to be followed, it is possible to continue that of three; and that it will be more beautiful, stronger, and better than the other. But that the three naves ought to be carried on according to those in the choir of the church; and then it will be more beautiful and admirable. And that the new vault which is contiguous to the chevet ought to be taken down, because it is bastard, and because it does not correspond with the said chevet.

c) That the work of three naves in the form which has just been explained is the most compatible and the best proportioned to the chevet of the church.

Interrogatus. Whether in joining the lower voussoirs of the arch above the capital of the pillar [piers] which is above the pulpitum, corresponding to the other of the choir, in case the work of three naves is carried out, there will be any risk of causing a settlement in the said pillar [pier]?--I say no, provided that the arches are well shored, so that they can have no thrust.

3) Peter de Vallfogona, mason and master mason of the cathedral of Tarragona:

a) That the work of the said church, already commenced, of one nave can be continued, and that it will be good, safe, and firm, and without risk. That the abutments and foundations of the old work are so, and that those which have to be made will be so if constructed in the same way, and that they are sufficient to support the vault which such a work ought to have. But that the abutments made towards the campanile require to be strengthened more than those constructed on the south side.

b) That if the plan of one nave is not carried out, that of three is congruous and worthy to be continued, provided that the second bay of vaulting, as far as the capitals and lowest voussoirs inclusive, is taken down; yet if above the principal arch a discharging arch is erected, it will not be necessary to move the lower voussoirs or the capitals, and it would be possible to raise the crossing of that vault all its width as much as is required; and it could have a light in the gable, which could have a clear opening of fifteen or sixteen palms, which would be a notable work. He says further: that the lower voussoirs which are in the northern and southern angles ought to be altered, and that they ought to be reconstructed in accordance with the plan of three naves.

c) That without comparison the plan of three naves, in the form which has just been explained, is more compatible and more proportioned to the chevet of the church than the plan of one nave.

Interrogatus. Whether, in case the plan of three naves is carried out, there will be any danger in opening a hole in the pillar [pier] over the pulpitum, corresponding to the other of the coro at the time of joining the voussoirs above the capital? He said, that there would not; and that it could be done with safety.

On the next day . . . the following were interrogated:

4) William de la Mota, stonemason, second master in command at the cathedral of Tarragona:

a) That he considers that the plan of the church commenced with one nave could be well executed, and that the crossing will be firm; but that it is observed in old works, that bulky buildings, as that of one nave would be, sink with earthquakes or with great hurricanes, and for these causes he fears that the work of one nave might not be permanent.

b) That the plan of three naves is good, congruous, and one that deserves to be followed, provided that the second crossing may be new to the lowest voussoirs; and that its principals be demolished as far as the capitals, and that horizontal courses of stones be carried up to the height of fourteen or fifteen palms. That the springers which are towards the north and the south ought also to be taken down, and that they ought to be reconstructed in proper proportion to the plan of three naves.

c) That without comparison the plan of three naves is more compatible and more proportioned to the chevet of the church than that of one nave.

Interrogatus. If there will be danger in opening a hole in the pillar [pier] near the pulpitum, to place the springers? He said that there would not be any risk.

5) Bartholomew Gual, stonemason and master of the works at the cathedral of Barcelona:

a) That the bases and abutments of the old work of one nave are sufficiently strong, making a wall over the capitals between the abutments, which may rise a "cana" (a measure of two Flemish ells) from the windows, and that from that wall a vault may spring, which will abut against each of the abutments, and in this way they would remain safe. No doubt, the vault may remain firm over one nave, so that it may resist earthquakes, violent winds, and other mishaps which may occur.

b) That the plan of three naves is good, congruous, and such as deserves to be carried out; but that the new vault of the second arch, the last done, ought to be taken down to the springing, and ought to be raised until there is room in that place for a circle (una O) of fourteen palms of opening; and in that way there will be beautiful and notable work, and it will not be necessary to undo the whole to the springing line.

c) That the plan of three naves is beyond comparison much better proportioned and more compatible to the chevet of the church than that of one nave.

Interrogatus. Whether there will be any risk in making an opening in the pillars [piers] in order to join the springers of the arches? He said that there would not be; but he counsels that when the said arch is taken out, the foot of the arch voussoir in the pillar [pier] which has to be altered should be larger than the other, because that has not so much weight on it.

6) Anthony Canet, stonemason, sculptor of the city of Barcelona, master of the fabric of the cathedral at Urgel:

a) That according to his knowledge and conscience the plan of one nave, already commenced, can be continued with the certainty that it will be good, firm, and secure; and that the abutments which the said work has are good and firm for the support of the vault, and all that is necessary in order to carry on the said work.

b) That the work already begun of three naves is good and well-proportioned, but that it is not so noble as that of one nave; and that if the work of three naves is continued it would be necessary that the vault of the second bay of the middle nave should be taken down to the capitals; and that the capitals as well should be taken down eight or ten courses of stone, and so that the first pillar [pier] may be joined, which was constructed in the head of the grand nave, contiguous to the chevet of the church, and that the opening shall not be made so low in the pillar [pier], and the springing of the arch stones may be introduced in it better. And though it is true that in this way the (triforium) gallery may be lost, it is worth more to lose it than the bright effect of light in the temple, which could be secured by a round window in the said grand nave. But that, if the second nave is followed out as it was commenced, it will be most gloomy. For which reason he is sure that if the plan of three naves is to be good, it is necessary for it to be carried out working in the way he has described.

c) That the plan of one nave would be much more compatible and better proportioned to the chevet of the church as it is already commenced and completed, than that of three naves, because the said chevet was commenced low; and that the plan of one nave will be executed with a third at least of the cost of three naves. That if the plan of one nave is followed, the galleries, which are beautiful, will not be lost, and the church will be beyond comparison much more light.

7) William Abiell, master mason and master of the works at Santa Maria del Pi, San Jaime, and the hospital of Santa Cruz in Barcelona:

a) That according to his understanding and good conscience the work already commenced of one nave can be continued, and will be good, firm, and secure; and that the foundations which it has, the rest being made in the same way, are good and firm to support the work of one nave without danger.

b) That the plan of three naves is good, beautiful, and more secure than the other, wherefore it deserves to be continued. But that the vault of the second bay of the middle nave ought to be taken down to the springers, and be raised afterwards by its third, so that a fine round window may be had there, and to make an upper vault above the principal: and in this way the plan of three naves will be very beautiful.

c) That without any doubt the plan of three naves is more compatible and adequate to the choir of the church as it is now, than that of one nave, because that of one nave would be so wide that it would have great deformity when compared with the chevet of the church.

8) Arnaldo de Valleras, stonemason and master of the works at the collegiate church at Manresa:

a) That the work of one nave, already commenced, can very well be continued, and will be good, firm, secure, and without risk; and that the foundations which the said work has, and the rest which may be made like them, are good, and sufficient to sustain the work of a single nave; and that, though they might not be so strong, they would be firm and secure. He says further, that the work of the church of Manresa is now being constructed, which is higher than this, which has not such great or strong foundations, and is not of so strong a stone. It is true, he says, that the Manresa stone is lighter, and combines better with the mortar than that of Gerona; and that, if he could have to construct the latter church, he would make the vault of other stone which was lighter, and which combined better with the mortar, but that the vaulting ribs, the lower part of the walls, the abutments, and the rest of such work could be executed in Gerona stone.

b) That the plan of three naves is good, congruous, and deserves to be carried out, provided that the vault of the second arch of the middle nave is taken down to the springers, and that they also are taken down, so that the work may be raised by its dimensions; so that it will be possible to have over the principal of the first arch a round window of twenty palms opening, with which it will look very well and not be disfigured.

c) That the plan of three naves in the manner which has been described is, without comparison, more fitting and better proportioned to the existing chevet of this church than that of one nave; because that of one nave would make the choir appear to be so small and misshapen, that it would always demand that it should be raised or made larger.

Interrogatus. Whether there would be any danger in opening a hole in the pillars [piers] in order to insert the abutments? He said that there would not; and that if he, the deponent, should do the work, he would commence first by opening a hole in the pillars [piers] in order to join the abutments, since in that way they could not settle or give way, as certainly and without doubt might happen. That he was ready to come and continue this work in the manner which he had described; obtaining the licence of the city of Manresa, with which he had contracted to construct the church there.

9) Anthony Antigoni, master of the works in the town of Castellon de Empurias:

a) That the plan of one nave, formerly commenced, could be continued well and firmly without any risk; and the foundations that it has, and the rest which have to be made like them, are sufficient to sustain with all firmness the said work of one nave.

Interrogatus. Whether the work of one nave, in case it were made, would run any risk of falling with hurricanes or earthquakes? He said that there was no cause for fear.

b) That the work of three naves continued of late is not congruous nor of such sort as that its plan could be followed, because in no way could it be constructed with the same dimensions. But it is true that if the vault of the bay last done is taken down to the springers and raised afterwards fourteen or fifteen palms in its measurements, the plan of three naves would be more tolerable, though it could never be called beautiful or very complete.

c) That he has no doubt that the work of one nave would be for all time without comparison the most beautiful, more compatible, and better proportioned to the chevet of the church than that of three naves, since it will be always clear that the latter was not done carefully and with good taste.

Interrogatus. Whether in case the work of three naves is carried out, there will be any risk in opening a hole in the pillars [piers] in order to join the abutments? He said that it could be done, but not without danger.

10) William Sagrera, master of the works of St. John, Perpignan, in 1416: [In 1426 commenced the Lonja, or Exchange, at Palma, in Majorca, for which he was both architect and contractor, and carried it on until 1448 or 1450, when he quarreled and went to law with his employers. He then went to Naples and commenced the Castel Nuevo there in 1450, of which he is described as proto magister in a royal writ of that year].

a) That the plan of one nave, formerly commenced, can be continued, and that it will be good, firm, and secure; and that the foundations which it has, with the rest which must be made in the same way, are sufficient to sustain it.

Interrogatus. Whether if the one nave is adopted there will be risk by reason of earthquakes and violent winds? He said that with the earthquakes which he has seen, and the winds which naturally prevail, there would be no danger that the said work should fall or become decayed.

b) That the work of three naves lately commenced is not congruous, and does not deserve to be carried on; and in case it is continued, in the first place the vault of the second bay ought to be taken down from the springers to the capitals; in the second, also the other pillars [piers] which were made afterwards ought to be taken down, in order that they may be raised fifteen palms or thereabouts; and that with all this the work will not be completed well, but on the contrary will be mesquin [mean] and miserable. That the gallery, which would be lost, could not remain there; that it would not be possible to place the series of windows due to the work between the chapels higher than they would be in a single nave, owing to the thrust or pressure of the arches, which would be towards the gallery, corresponding to the new pillars [piers] of the enclosure of the choir, and would come against the void of the gallery, wherefore the work would not have the firmness it ought to have. The deponent concludes, saying, that for these and other reasons the said work of three naves would not be good or advantageous.

c) That the plan of one nave would be beyond comparison more compatible and more proportioned to the chevet of the church already built, commenced, and completed, than would one of three naves; and he says it is the fact that the said choir of the church was made and completed with the intention that the remainder of the work should be made and carried out with a single nave.

11) John de Guinguamps, stonemason of the town of Narbonne:

a) That the work already commenced of one nave could very well be made and continued; and that when it is done it will be very good, firm, and secure, without any dispute; and that the foundations which are already made in the old work, and the others which will be made in the same way, are good, and have sufficient strength to maintain the work of a single nave.

b) That the plan of three naves latterly continued is not congruous or sufficient, and should not in any way be made or followed because it never will have reasonable conformity with the chevet.

c) That the plan of a single nave is beyond comparison more fit and proportioned to the choir of the said church, than would be that of three naves, for several reasons. 1st. That the deponent knows that the plan of a single nave with the said choir would be more reasonable, more brilliant, better proportioned, and less costly. 2nd. Because, if the work is carried on with one nave, there would not be the deformity or difference that disgusts. And though some may say that the plan of a single nave would make the choir look low and small, the more on that account would no deformity be produced, rather it would be more beautiful; and the reason is, that in the space which would be left between the top of the choir and the centre of the great vault, there would be so large a space that it would be possible to have there three rose windows: the first and principal in the middle, and another small one on each side: and these three roses would do away with all deformity, would give a grand light to the church, and would endow the work with great perfection.

Interrogatus. Whether, if the plan of three naves is adopted, it would be dangerous to open the pillars [piers] in order to join in them the springers corresponding to it? He said that he would not do it or consent to it on any account, because great danger, great wrong, and great damage would result, since in no part could the work be brought to perfection, and such a fissure could not be made without great risk . . . .

Then followed the minutes of the full meeting of September 1416 of the chapter and the bishop in which these answers were read by a notary. Also included were the minutes of the meeting of the following March 8, 1417, during which William Bofy, master of the fabric of the cathedral, was interviewed by one of the canons and by a presbyter, delegated by the chapter in the presence of the chapter's notary, who recorded the meeting. William Boffiy had this to say:

a) That the work of the nave of the church of Gerona, already begun, could be made and continued very well; and that if it is continued it will be firm and secure without any doubt and that the foundations and others which may be made like them, are and will be good and firm enough to sustain the said work of one nave. And that it is true that the said foundations or abutments, even if they were not so strong, would be sufficient to maintain the said work of one nave since they have a third more of breadth than is required: wherefore they are very strong, and offer no kind of risk.

b) That the work of three naves for the said church does not merit to be continued when compared with that of one nave, because great deformity and great cost will follow from it, and it would never be so good as that of one nave.

c) That the work of one nave is, without comparison, the most conformable to the choir of the church already commenced and made, and that the plan of three naves would not be so. And that if the plan of one nave is carried out, it would have such grand advantages, and such grand lights, that it would be a most beautiful and notable work. (16)

And so, on March 15, 1417, the bishop and the chapter voted in plenary session to carry on the work as proposed, with a single nave. (17)

* Teresa G. Frisch, Gothic Art 1140 - c. 1450: Sources and Documents, University of Toronto Press in association with the Medieval Academy of America, 1987.

(4) This information and subsequent remarks on the cathedral of Florence are drawn from Howard Saalman, "Santa Maria del Fiore: 1294-1418," The Art Bulletin, XLVI/4 (1964), 471-500. Saalman has re-examined all available documents and concludes that when work was resumed there were no plans, models or records of earlier decisions concerning the shape of the church, its height, length, the relation of its parts, whether it was to be vaulted or how its choir was to be shaped. He gives a brilliant recapitulation of all the crucial decisions that were made in the following half-century.

(5) Saalman, p. 491.

(6) James S. Ackerman, "'Ars Sine Scientia Nihil Est.' Gothic Theory of Architecture at the Cathedral of Milan," The Art Bulletin, XXXI/2 (1949), 84111; the passages included here are only excerpts of the much fuller text used by Professor Ackerman, and his article should be read by those interested in the arguments. See also Paul Frankl, The Gothic: Literary Sources and Interpretations through Eight Centuries (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1960), pp. 62-83; App. 5, pp. 845-46. On p. 62 n. 6, Frankl summarizes the existing literature on this subject up to the publication of his book. Professor Ackerman tells me that a new and quite different interpretation of the texts is in preparation in Milan.

(7) Ackerman, p. 91; the English translation is that of Professor Ackerman. Fourteen masters were present at the gathering, one among them being Parler; following Parler's name the text says, "who does not concur." Some of the questions are not included here even though they are related to the main point of debate, that is, to the question concerning the measurements of the structure as a whole and of its supporting members.

(8) This reference, though expressed in a geometrical configuration, means simply a reference to different proportions. The section ad quadratum would lead to much more vertical proportions.

(9) Ackerman, pp. 91-92. The braccio varied, from district to district, between 18 and 39 inches.

(10) Ackerman, pp. 99-100, 109.

(11) Ackerman, p. 99 n. 59. A local building stone used in the foundations and under the marble facing.

(12) See Pierre Lavedan, L'Architecture gothique religieuse en Catalogne, Valence et Baleares (Paris: Henri Laurens, Editeur, 1935), pp. 147-51.

(13) Lavedan, pp. 198-205; George Edmund Street, Some Account of Gothic Architecture in Spain, 2nd ed. (London: John Murray, 1869), Chap. XV, pp.318-20, 501-13. The introductions were in Latin, and the questions and the declarations of the twelve architects, in the Catalan idiom in the original, were translated into Castilian. The English translation used here is Street's.

(14) It will be noticed that, while the first two questions are purely technical, the third one is above all an aesthetic question, and, as Lavedan says (p. 199), it was understood in this sense and answered accordingly.

(15) The term "pulpitum" is also used for denoting a choir screen, and probably such a screen was there.

(16) Street and Lavedan give the width of the nave as being greater than that of Albi or Chartres; it is 34m high, 23m wide and 55m long, only less spacious than St. Peter's in Rome. There are four bays, each bay having chapels opening into it on either side and filling up the space between the deep buttresses. Seen in elevation, the continuous arcade of chapels creates a base above which the wall rises severely. This is followed by a small triforium gallery above which, in each bay, there is a large window with tracery. Toward the east the nave ends in a wall opening into the choir and its aisles .The nave rises far above the choir. The end wall of the nave has three circular windows, the largest above the central part of the choir and the other two smaller ones over the sides. The light which comes in through these three circular windows illuminates the eastern part of the nave in such a way that the choir appears far away and mysterious (Lavedan, p.203).

(17) Seven of the masters were in favor of a three-aisled nave, and only five, including Boffiy, were in favor of a single-aided nave, yet the canons voted for a single nave. It seems they felt that since both methods of building appeared to be equally safe, a single nave would be more solemn and noble, would give more light--something which is pleasant and joyful-would cost much less to construct and would take less time to build (Lavedan, p.202).