WHO ARE YOU CALLING AN ARCHITECT? TRACING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE “GOTHIC ARCHITECT” AND THE IDEA OF

ATTRIBUTION OF A BUILDING

Giordano Angeletti Gothic Art & Architecture - ARLH-726-01

March 11, 2014

Angeletti

1

The deceptively simple question, “Who was the architect that designed this Gothic

cathedral?” is surprisingly difficult to answer. The simplest answer is there were no

architects in the Gothic era; however, that answer is neither satisfactory nor correct.

Depending on the project, the place, and the year, there may have been an individual, or

even a group of people, credited as architects for a determined structure. To answer the

question, we must first unravel a few threads that converged in the Gothic era. This era

was one of accelerating changes in society and technology - more changed between the

11th and 15th centuries than it had in an entire millennia. In addition to the evolving

technologies and shifting societal structures of the Gothic era, we also need to address the

historical period in which we live since our times also carry prejudices that hinder our

understanding of the question above.

A slightly more articulate answer would claim that at the end of the Romanesque

era there are mentions of artists employed to decorate the abbeys, but they remain

nameless, generic artisans. The texts by Leo of Ostia1 and abbot Suger2, describe the

rebuilding of the monasteries of Monte Cassino and Saint Denis but make no mention of a

master mason or designer. History simply credits the abbots of Monte Cassino and Saint

Denis for having rebuilt the churches. When describing the rise of Gothic architecture, it is

acceptable to claim that initially there were no formal architects. Over time, a master

mason of the construction yard was recognized, which then evolved into a proto-architect.

By the late Gothic era, an architect-figure emerged that fits Leon Battista Alberti’s

definition:

Angeletti

2

“I should explain exactly whom I mean by an architect; for it is no carpenter that I would have you

compare to the greatest exponents of other disciplines: the carpenter is but an instrument in the hands of the

architect. Him I consider the architect, who by sure and wonderful reason and method, knows both how to

devise through his own mind and energy, and to realize by construction, whatever can be most beautifully

fitted out for the noble needs of man.... To do this he must have an understanding and knowledge of all the

highest and most noble disciplines. This then is the architect.”3

Alberti describes the architect as a figure we are still familiar with in the 21st century; one

which we romantically assign notions of discernment and refinement. It is a figure that is

not expected to wield a hammer or have practical knowledge of how to lay a brick.

A second problem with answering the original question is that it does not pose the

more accurate issue, “Which part of the Gothic cathedral was built by whom?” The fact

that many projects were realized over long spans of time, and in discontinuous campaigns,

creates a problem when trying to credit a single builder. Projects were frequently

interrupted and resumed to allow for bad weather and time for structure to settle, as

attested to by Gervase of Canterbury’s4 accounts of the rebuilding of the Canterbury

Cathedral. If funding for a building campaign was not secured, a project could be delayed

even longer. In addition, fires, collapses, and design alterations made it difficult to credit

just one builder for an entire project. A single building could be regarded as multiple

projects, and building a major cathedral could span an entire century.

To accurately trace the evolution of the concept of a Gothic architect from the

Romanesque era to the Renaissance, there needs to be a definition for an architect that

takes into account the fact that manual labor and labor of the intellect were not viewed as

separate until well into the Gothic era. For the purpose of this paper, we will define an

architect as a person or group of people that have the knowledge necessary to imagine and

direct the outcome of the construction of a building. This definition allows us to identify

Angeletti

3

the master mason of the earlier medieval tradition as the antecedent of the modern architect,

and follow his development into what we know today as an architect. The evolution of the

master mason occurred in different regions and in different periods of the Gothic era.

While the discontinuous nature of building campaigns would have made it possible for

master masons to work in different areas over the years and transfer knowledge, patterns,

and designs, it is probable that part of this evolution was happening independently and

discoveries were being duplicated.

Tracing the evolution of the architect through the early Gothic period is arduous

due to the scant documentation at the disposal of contemporary historians and due to the

changing interpretation of the documentation at hand. A thorough study of the context, the

meaning of a text or drawing, and its authors is nearly impossible due to the fragmentary

nature of the archives. For a thorough exegesis we need many pieces to fall together to

paint a more complete picture. Any partial documentation that survived tends to be

presentation drawings, which would have been of value to the patron justifying his

project.5 The vellum on which the preparatory drawings would have been traced was

precious enough to be scraped so that the vellum could be reused. Any vellum too thin or

too damaged to be reused would then be turned into glue.6

The changes in the figure of the master mason into architect also reflect a larger

societal development; a change from a time in which art and craft were seen as

synonymous, to an era that prized intellectual work above manual labor. The transition

from master mason to architect is traceable in the artifacts and the tools that proto-

architects used to conceive and articulate projects over time.

Angeletti

4

Contrary to what modern expectations would have us believe, a building plan was

not drawn out or sketched on paper. Accounts from the construction of the late

Romanesque church at Cluny do not mention drawings being used or even being prepared

ahead of the building campaign.7 In medieval manuscript illustrations (Fig. 1) of abbot

Gunzo on his dying bed, we can see that he is being instructed by Saint Peter, Saint Paul,

and Saint Stephen on the dimensions of the church through the use of ropes. It is important

to note that this was the largest building of its time and a major construction effort. The

master mason of this transitional period - from Romanesque to Gothic - would have been

working with templates and plans drawn in the ground. The ropes would have been a

rudimentary but accurate instrument to draw straight lines in the ground, evenly space

elements, and so forth. The templates used in stone cutting would have been indispensable

to accurately cut numerous stones to the same specifications. The cumulative effect of

these techniques, combined with the well established and widely known building traditions,

would render the drawings superfluous. Ghazarian and Ousterhout are architectural

historians who study eastern European architecture. In their article on thirteenth century

architectural drawing, they point out that in Poliorcetica, a tenth century military treatise,

the architect Apollodorus recounts that he needs to update the illustrations so that his

contemporaries can interpret them. The original drawing is a two dimensional working

drawing that Apollodorus renders in three dimensions. This leads the authors of the article

to suppose that tenth century craft men were not able to read orthogonal renditions of an

object, leading to the conclusion that such drawings must not have been in use at the time.8

If drawings were not available at the time, then how was a cathedral erected? How

were technical advances passed on? Using a concept coined by David Turnbull, an

Angeletti

5

academic who specializes in the history of the sciences, the construction yard would be the

laboratory where cathedrals were not simply built but the knowledge necessary to build

them was created. Turnbull creates a parallel with evolutionary biology and states that

there is no need to have a creator or designer to construct a complicated structure if there

are a few easy steps that are repeated multiple times. The template would have been that

tool. It would have been transportable, thus easy to ship to the quarry where the stone

could be prepared for the construction site. It would have been reproducible, thus many

copies could have been made to organize the stonecutters in the building yard. It would

have been easy to use, thus making it ideal for a workforce that was largely illiterate and of

varying skill.9 The master mason, even without a drawn master plan, could direct the work.

The building yard would have been a site for the expression of tradition and for the

creation and transmission of new knowledge and innovation.10 Within this context we can

see the evolution of the architect, even in a pre-scientific environment.

Within this environment we can find the place where the master mason and the

architect start separating. The master mason was still primarily a mason, whose knowledge

was acquired on the job, but who was starting to rise above the construction yard. By the

mid 13th century we start having the names of architects being recorded in documents and

inscriptions in the cathedrals. In Amiens Cathedral, for example, we can find the names of

three architects: Robert of Luzarches and his successors - Thomas de Cormont and his son

Renuad de Cormont. The inscription with Luzarches’ name was posthumous, dating

around 1288,11 but is still significant since it is one of the early examples of an architect’s

name being inscribed into the building itself.

Angeletti

6

While the cathedrals led in the search for innovation, smaller churches and edifices

were still being constructed. These less documented sites show that the master masons

involved were not simply repeating tradition or applying knowledge that was gathered

elsewhere. Architectural historian Cynthia Canejo, from the University of California Santa

Barbara, points to two minor churches in Burgundy at Gurgy and Beines as evidence that

master masons were experimenting and developing their trade, even in these smaller and

more provincial sites. Due to the absence of written documentation, Canejo uses a careful

analysis of the two parish churches to draw the conclusion that the same masons moved

from one town to the other. This shows that even in smaller projects the artistry of the

master masons becomes visible through the centuries. She speculates that the master

mason utilized the same templates with minor modifications on multiple sites.12 Although

these churches present many similarities, there is also evidence of evolution between the

buildings. These minor buildings show that even on the periphery of the major building

campaigns of the famous cathedrals, buildings were not merely an enactment or repetition

of traditional schema. There was still attention to innovation. Her work openly questions

positions held by the previous generation of architectural historians like Robert Branner.

Branner focused solely on cathedrals that contributed directly to the establishment of High

Gothic and held that the builders of these minor edifices “scarcely deserved the title of

architect or master mason.”13 Canejo’s technique is based on a limited range of sources

but her claims are also more circumscribed. Without historical documents about the

churches at Gurgy and Beines her analysis is limited to the artifacts. Her interpretation of

the evidence prudently ventures only in so far as to ascribe the churches to the same master

Angeletti

7

mason or shop. Through an analysis of the small differences present in the sites she also

speculates that Beines is the later of the two buildings.

As the figure of the architect is pieced together almost a millennium later, what are

the different ways that architectural historians have used to bring us these interpretations?

Consciousness of the methodologies employed and the problems posed by such techniques

brings awareness to some of the speculative nature of the process. In the rare case we

encounter the ideal situation where the architectural historian has all three parts of the

puzzle available: 1) the building, 2) the drawings and 3) the literary sources. The primary

object of study, the building, will be still in existence and will be studied alongside

secondary objects such as literary sources and drawings. There is one such example that

will be discussed further in the paper, the Sansedoni Palace, but this case is an exception to

the normal circumstances that architectural historians encounter. Too often some part of

that trilogy is missing. In those cases, the techniques employed to infer meaning are

particularly subject to biases. At times those biases and flaws are intrinsically linked to the

strengths of the scholar. We will not discuss the 19th century historically inaccurate and

romanticized visions of the Gothic master mason (Fig. 2). Instead, we will start with

Robert Branner’s work. Branner is considered one of the preeminent scholars of Gothic

architectural drawings. His analysis of the technique and style allowed him to ascribe

drawings within folios to different authors. Branner’s mastery of design analysis,

archeological investigations, and identification of styles in the eyes of historiographer,

critic, theoretician, and former president of the London Society of Antiquarians Eric Fernie

were also causes of his weaknesses. His capability to unearth styles leads him to treat

Angeletti

8

terms as High Gothic, Rayonnant, and so forth “as if they were real things rather than

useful labels to characteristics which may have been invisible to makers and users.”14

Fernie also critiques Branner on two more points. Fernie found that Branner allowed

speculation about the similarity between two buildings to become a “statement about the

psychology of the architect.”15 Lastly, Fernie considers Branner’s assumption that

architectural details and elements from any one site must be predecessors if they predate

similar developments elsewhere. This discounts the possibility that similar elements where

being created independently and that these were not predecessors but merely unrelated

antecedents.

Branner’s views could be more probable if applied to smaller areas - such as the Ile

De France where the contact among architects was more frequent - but are less plausible

when extended to the whole of Europe. His approach is also geographically limited to

northern Gothic where the tradition of preserving lodge model books took root only in

areas with strong lodge identification and tradition. Whilst documents and contracts from

the construction of southern monuments and churches were preserved, many of the

drawings from southern Europe were not preserved. It is thought that this is due to the fact

that the mason lodges were not as strong there.

When trying to align drawings with buildings there are many obstacles that need to

be considered. What is the tolerance for discrepancies between the measurements found on

the drawings and the building? How accurate were the measurements on the building?

How were errors in the drawings translated into the building? The more stringent the

parameters are, the fewer correspondences will be documented, but, if the tolerance is too

high the matches will be virtually meaningless. When looking at the drawings we need to

Angeletti

9

also understand what their function was. Were they plans to be followed scrupulously by

the mason; were they working plans that the masons were trusted to adapt to the conditions

found on site; were they models that the masons were drawing from? These issues can be

explored through the varying interpretations of the Villard of Honnecourt Folio. The Folio

consists of 33 sheets of parchment containing over 200 drawings of an assorted nature. The

subjects of these drawings include architectural motifs, details, war machines, animals, and

human figures. Art historian, and fellow of the American Academy of the Arts and

Sciences, James Ackerman strongly asserts that these drawings were not made by an

“architect or a master mason but an artisan with more limited capabilities.”16 Ackermann

points to later folios of military equipment rather than treatises on architecture whilst

Turnbull refers to the folio as a model book.17 These types of discrepancies in attribution

regarding function of the drawing also impact the degree of accuracy of the drawing and

how a mason would have used the information. Was this a catalogue of forms to be copied

or inspirational material? How freely could a mason deviate from these models? How

much input would the patron have had in the design and what changes could he bring?

There is little documentation prior to 1340 but, as we will see in the analysis of the

Sansedoni contract by Franklin Toker, these questions were encoded in the building

contract between the architect and the patron.

In the case of the Sansedoni Palace in Siena, there are all three components

necessary for a thorough contextualization of the 1340 palace. The building, the contract,

and the drawings provide much if not most of the information necessary to paint a clear

picture of how this late Gothic era edifice was conceived and constructed. Allowing for

regional societal differences, the analysis of the Sansedoni Palace project still sheds light

Angeletti

10

on the practices around the commissioning of a building project. It must be noted that this

contract dates from 1340 C.E., close to the end of the Gothic era in Italy. The figure of the

master mason is maturing into the role of the architect. No longer is he tied to one project

nor is he directing the masons personally. This transition has been gradual and over the

preceding century there is ample documentation that shows the master mason at work with

a straight edge, a compass, parchment, and not working with his hands. Toker cites

Nicholas de Biart in the Distinctiones as writing:

“Masters of the masons, carrying a yardstick and with gloves on their hands, say to others: ‘Cut it

for me this way,’ and do not work; yet they receive higher pay, as do many present-day bishops. Some work

by word alone, for in those great buildings there is wont to be one chief master who ordains by word alone,

rarely or never setting hand to the work, and yet gets higher pay than the rest. So there are many in the

Church who have fat livings, and God knows what good they do. They labour with the tongue alone saying,

"Thus you should do," while they themselves do none of these things.” 18

This contract delineates three parties involved in the negotiation over the

construction of the building: the patron, the architects, and the apparielleur,19 the latter was

a second in command that would follow the actual construction site. The apparielleur could

be compared to a modern day general contractor. The contract shows that the architects

drawing the plans was removed from the construction site. Most probably the architects

would have had multiple simultaneous projects in different cities20. The contract together

with other literary sources of the time show that the evolution of the master mason from

craft man to architect was nearing completion. The architect was prized for his intellectual

capabilities rather than craftsmanship.

The contract also provides evidence that the drawings were not intended as

definitive renderings of the project. The written component of the contract makes

Angeletti

11

allowances for the intervention of the patron during the construction phase and recognizes

autonomy to the apparielleur to implement the drawings taking into account the specific

conditions on the ground.21 The drawing does not include the incline of the road where the

building was to be constructed (Fig.3), thus reinforcing the notion that the apparielleur

would be responsible for those changes as he saw fit.

Although it is written in the contract that the text and the drawing have equal value

within the contract, the text does not contain any description of the façade.22 The number

of windows, their design, and many more details are only shown in the drawings, thus

establishing the drawing’s dominance over the text - at least for the exterior of the building.

This situation did not extend to the whole building. There are no drawings of the interior of

the building so here the text dictates the number of rooms and their placement. This left

large parts of the building to the discretion of the apparielleur and patron. We can describe

the drawings as partial plans that are augmented by the written descriptions and shared

traditions.

Toker ascribes this attitude to a more collaborative relationship between the

apparielleur and the architect. Although the drawing and the contract are complete, the

contract names multiple architects but it also makes provision for a successor that will take

over the project in case of the death of the primary architect.23 This clause leads one to

conclude that modifications to the drawing could be made through out the construction

period, even if the main architect had passed.

As evidenced from the provisions in the contract, the architect is controlling the

project remotely. He has removed himself from daily operations. As the architect

withdraws from the construction yard many of his duties are delegated to a figure that does

Angeletti

12

not rise to the level of ‘architect’ but still has a voice in the implementation of the project,

and authority to change it.

In the case of the Sansedoni Palace the palace is still intact, albeit remodeled in

later centuries. This allows for the comparison of the drawings against the primary artifact,

the building. The design of the façade utilizes both the ad quadratum and the ad

triangulum modules in the construction of the proportions. These modules are based on a

square (ad quadratum) or a triangle (ad triangulum) that is inscribed in a circle and then

repeated, subdivided, and translated across the drawing to create a well proportioned and

balanced design. The difference between the arithmetic proportions and the rounded

numbers that we encounter in the plan are below 1%.24 These rounded measurements are

then repeated accurately in the building. Yet the drawing does not include the fine detail

necessary to evince decorations, once again delegating these choices to the apparielleur.

If we are to suppose that a similar relationship to the one described in this

fourteenth century contract then a much wider set of tools would have been considered to

be architectural drawings, such as templates, working drawings and in some case verbal

descriptions. When Branner speaks of drawings that are unintelligible to the modern eye,25

because they do not resemble orthogonal drawings nor linear perspective, our approach

should be more encompassing and less modern if we are to understand these drawings and

texts as tools used to provide instructions to masons for construction projects.

Counter intuitively the more systemized drawings based on orthogonal views or

linear perspective presuppose that the audience reading them would be less knowledgeable

than in the past. The rough and incomplete drawings, such as the opera del duomo in

Orvieto or the sketches of Villard de Honnecourt, of the early Gothic era required an

Angeletti

13

audience that was capable of completing them in their own mind. The later drawings

presuppose a work force that is able to complete the task without knowledge of the wider

picture. Severing the creative aspects of the work from the physical labor. The mason

becomes an element that is much easier to substitute, a more transient element of the

building yard. The ‘incomplete’ drawings from the earlier Gothic era were completed by

language and custom. The later more visually complete and technical drawings bypassed

the need for a shared visual repertoire.

The increasing complexity of Gothic architecture also became a stimulus for the

evolution of new modes of representation. The ‘simplicity’ of earlier styles could be

rendered accurately enough through words whilst the layering of figurative and decorative

schemes typical of Gothic architecture required a more visual mode of communication.

For the purposes of this paper the evolution of the master mason into the architect

has been rendered linear and simplified but we must remember that due to geographic,

societal and historic differences we should speak of histories of Gothic as Michael Davis,

an art historian specializing in French Gothic, proposes.26 The histories of Gothic would

enhance our understanding of the developments of the time not as diachronic but as

synchronic happening in multiple places at the same time.

As the figure of the architect changed over the Gothic era so did the tools used to

communicate the architect’s intentions. While the complexity of the projects increased the

reliance on verbal communication decreased whilst there was an increased reliance and

need for codified drawings that were univocal. Once the tools become more precise and

more the communication become unidirectional the architect became more removed from

the construction yard. The dichotomy between intellectual work, the architect, and manual

Angeletti

14

labor, the mason, was emphasized. These changes would be quickly codified in the

Albertian architect: “who by sure and wonderful reason and method, knows both how to

devise through his own mind and energy, and to realize by construction, whatever can be

most beautifully fitted out for the noble needs of man....”27, which is a close ancestor to the

modern architect. Alberti’s idea of an architect requires that the architect meticulously

plans and draws out the building before the start of construction. This new approach brings

about a unified view of the building in contrast to the Gothic cathedral that was often a

composite drawn by many hands. The messiness of Gothic architecture is vilified. Vasari

coins the derogative term gothic identifying this northern style with the barbarian that had

invaded Italy and lay waste the classical world.

The Renaissance model of the architect does away with the collaborative manner

the Gothic yard was run. Multiple nameless architects working on different parts of the

building are banished. Alberti’s architect is the artist that as modernists we seek and crave.

Vasari in his The Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors, and Architects instills

into the modern audience the idea of the artist gifted by nature, the genius. These artificial

narratives that come to use from Vasari, the proto-art historian, are what makes us

uncomfortable with the answer that no one designed some of the cathedrals. Vasari’s

fables send us scurrying looking for a narrative that has a clear architect/creator when we

should understand that many of these buildings ‘evolved’, for lack of a better word from

simple rules interacting with tradition and innovation. There might be lost in time master

masons that directed, modified and nudged this evolution into what we have come to

recognize as Gothic masterpieces but probably they were agents of change barely

conscious of their own role. Yet blinded by our modern prejudices we pose questions that

Angeletti

15

can not easily be answered. In our ignorance of the Gothic construction yard we ask: “Who

built it?” and want a single name that is easy to remember to be uttered back to us.

1 C. Davis-Weyer, Early Medieval Art 300-1150 (Toronto: University Toronto

Press, 1971), 136-40. 2 Teresa G. Frisch, Medieval Academy Reprints for Teaching, vol. 20, Gothic Art

1140-C. 1450: Sources and Documents (Toronto: Published by University of Toronto Press in association with the Medieval Academy of America, 1987), 4-13.

3 Leon Battista Alberti, On the Art of Building in Ten Books (Cambridge: Mit Press,

1988), 3. 4 Teresa G. Frisch, Medieval Academy Reprints for Teaching, vol. 20, Gothic Art

1140-C. 1450, 18.

5 Franklin Toker, “Gothic Architecture by Remote Control: An Illustrated Building

Contract of 1340”, The Art Bulletin 67, no. 1 (March 1985): 85, accessed February 02,

2014, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3050888.85.

6 David Turnbull, "The Ad Hoc Collective Work of Building Gothic Cathedrals

with Templates, String, and Geometry", Science, Technology, and Human Values 18, no. 3

(Summer, 1993; 315-40, accessed February 1, 2014, http://www.jstor.org/stable/689724.

322.

7 Armen Ghazarian and Robert Ousterhout, “A Muqarnas Drawing from

Thirteenth-Century Armenia and the Use of Architectural Drawings during the Middle

Ages”, Muqarnas 18 (2001): 141-54, accessed January, 30, 2014,

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1523305, 141.

8 Ibid. 142.

9 David Turnbull, "The Ad Hoc Collective Work of Building Gothic Cathedrals

with Templates, String, and Geometry", 319.

Angeletti

16

10 Ibid. 321.

11 Wikipedia s.v. “Robert of Luzarches,” accessed February 23, 2014,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_of_Luzarches.

12 Cynthia Marie Canejo, "An Innovative Builder in Northern Burgundy: The Early

Gothic Parish Churches at Gurgy and Beines", Journal of the Society of Architectural

Historians 64, no. 3 (Sep. 2005): 280-91, accessed Jannuary 30,2014,

http://www.jstor.org/stable/25068165 .285, 290.

13 Ibid. 280.

14 E. C. Fernie, "Robert Branner's Treatment of Architectural Sources and

Precedents", Gesta 39, no. 2 (2000): 157-60, accessed 30/01/2014,

http://www.jstor.org/stable/767143, 157.

15 Ibid.

16 James S. Ackerman, "Villard de Honnecourt;s Drawings of Reims Cathedral: A

Study in Architectural Repesenation", Artibus et Historea 18, no. 35 (1997): 41-49,

accessed January 30, 2014, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1483536, 45.

17 David Turnbull, "The Ad Hoc Collective Work of Building Gothic Cathedrals

with Templates, String, and Geometry", 324

18 Franklin Toker, "Gothic Architecture by Remote Control: An Illustrated Building

Contract of 1340”, 70.

19 Ibid. 69.

20 Ibid. 73.

21 Ibid. 76.

22 Ibid. 74.

Angeletti

17

23 Ibid. 80.

24 Ibid. 81.

25 Robert Banner, "Drawings from a Thirteenth-Century Architect's Shop: The

Reims Palimpsest", Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 17, no. 4 (Winter,

1958): 9-21, accessed 30/01/2014, http://www.jstor.org/stable/987945, 9.

26 Micheal T. Davis "'Sic et Non': Recent Trends in the Study of Gothic

Ecclesiastical Architecture", Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians (September,

1999): 414-23, accessed 07/01/2014, http://www.jstor.org/stable/991535, 416.

27 Leon Battista Alberti, On the Art of Building in Ten , 3.

18

Figures

Fig. 1 Detail of an illuminated manuscript illustrating Gunzo's dream at Cluny.

Bibliotheque Nationale de France, ms. lat. 17716, fol. 43.

19

Fig. 2 19th century representation of a master mason at Cluny

Fig. 3 facade elevation in the Sansedoni Palace contract

20

Bibliography

Ackerman, James S. "Villard de Honnecourt's Drawings of Reims Cathedral: A Study in Architectural Repesenation." Artibus et Historea 18, no. 35 (1997): 41-49. Accessed January 30, 2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1483536.

Bork, Robert. "Plan b and the Geometry of Façade Design at Strasbourg Cathedral, 1250-1350."

Journal of the Society for Architectural Historians 64, no. 4 (December 2005): 442-73. Accessed January 25, 2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25068200.

Bork, Robert Odell. The Geometry of Creation: Architectural Drawing and the Dynamics of

Gothic Design. Farnham: Ashgate, 2011. Branner, Robert. "Drawings from a Thirteenth-Century Architect's Shop: The Reims

Palimpsest." Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 17, no. 4 (Winter, 1958): 9-21. Accessed 30/01/2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/987945.

________. "A Fifteenth Century Architectural Drawing at the Cloisters." Metropolitan Museum

Journal 11 (1976): 133-36. Accessed February 1, 2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1512691.

Canejo, Cynthia Marie. "An Innovative Builder in Northern Burgundy: The Early Gothic Parish

Churches at Gurgy and Beines." Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 64, no. 3 (Sep. 2005): 280-91. Accessed Jannuary 30,2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25068165 .

Davis, Micheal T. "'Sic et Non": Recent Trends in the Study of Gothic Ecclesiastical

Architecture." Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians (September, 1999): 414-23. Accessed 07/01/2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/991535.

Fernie, E. C. "Robert Branner's Treatment of Architectural Sources and Precedents." Gesta 39,

no. 2 (2000): 157-69. Accessed 30/01/2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/767143. Frisch, Teresa G. Medieval Academy Reprints for Teaching. Vol. 20, Gothic Art 1140-C. 1450:

Sources and Documents. Toronto: Published by University of Toronto Press in association with the Medieval Academy of America, 1987.

Ghazarian, Armen, and Robert Ousterhout. "A Muqarnas Drawing from Thirteenth-Century

Armenia and the Use of Architectural Drawings During the Middle Ages." Muqarnas 18 (2001): 141-54. Accessed January 20, 2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1523305.

Gillerman, David M. "Cosmopolitanism and Campanilismo: Gothic and Romanesque in the

Siena Duomo Facade." The Art Bulletin 81, no. 3 (September, 1999): 437-55. Accessed February 5, 2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3051351.

Hewitt, Mark. "Representational Forms and Modes of Conception: An Approach to the History

of Architectural Drawing." Journal of Architectural Education 39, no. 2 (Winter, 1985): 2-9. Accessed January 15, 2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1424961.

21

Neagly, Linda Elaine. "Elegant Simplicity: The Late Gothic Plan Design of St.-Maclou Rouen." The Art Bulletin 74, no. 3 (September 1992): 395-422. Accessed January 25, 2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3045890.

Sanabria, Sergio Luis. "Metrics and Geometry of Romanesque and Gothic St. Bénigne, Dijon."

The Art Bulletin 62, no. 4 (December, 1980): 518-32. Accessed 30/01/2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3050051 .

Toker, Franklin. "Gothic Architecture by Remote Control: An Illustrated Building Contract of

1340." The Art Bulletin 67, no. 1 (March 1985): 67-95. Accessed February 02, 2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3050888 .

Turnbull, David. "The Ad Hoc Collective Work of Building Gothic Cathedrals with Templates,

String, and Geometry." Science, Technology, and Human Values 18, no. 3 (Summer, 1993): 315-40. Accessed February 1, 2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/689724.