Saving the Light at Chartres

by Victor A. Pollak

  “Supplementary Inventory of Historic Monuments”: Prescribed by the law of December 31, 1913, the mandated inventory was to list buildings that, although not deserving immediate classification as historic monuments, nevertheless presented an archaeological interest historical enough to make conservation appropriate. It was an enormous task, which began with René Planchenault preparing a questionnaire to be circulated to architects and local correspondents in the various departments throughout France, soliciting them to submit proposals for certain buildings in their departments to be considered for inclusion in the Supplementary Register, with Planchenault to check and control them. If they were accepted by the Commission of Historical Monuments, whose powers superseded his, Planchenault would oversee the drafting of ministerial decisions.

  Over seven years, Planchenault generated and processed twelve thousand files and assembled the inventory list of more than seven thousand records, which gave the Fine Arts Administration the means to intervene to safeguard even monuments owned by individuals rather than the state. André Lepeyre, “René Planchenault (1897–1976),” in Bibliothèque de l’école des Chartres, vol. 135, bk. 2, ed. Société de l’École des Chartres, 415–21 (Paris: Libraire Droz, 1977) (text available online at https://www.persee.fr/doc/bec_0373-6237_1977_num_135_2_460023?q=René+Planchenault+(1897–1976). See also T. Imbert, “Nécrologie: René Planchenault,” Les monuments historiques de la France, no. 1 (1977): 64 (text available online at http://www.mediatheque-patrimoine.culture.gouv.fr/pdf/inventaires/0080-035.pdf).

  “National plan of ‘mobilization’”: “If, at the beginning of the hostilities in 1939, the windows of our churches and objects have been sheltered, it is thanks to the work undertaken by competent teams working according to standards established by René Planchenault. This action, which has been too much ignored, saved from the disaster an important part of the national heritage, which had been endangered in the zones of combat or bombardment.” Imbert, “Nécrologie.”

  “Consequences of bomb explosions”: Karlsgodt, Defending National Treasures, 104.

  “No specific measures were adopted”: Julia S. Torrie, “For Their Own Good”: Civilian Evacuations in Germany and France, 1939–45 (New York: Berghahn Books, 2010), 25.

  “Germany reintegrated the Saarland”: Torrie, “For Their Own Good”, 25.

  “Enacting a passive-defense organization”: Torrie, “For Their Own Good”, 25.

  “Encouraged construction of shelters”: Torrie, “For Their Own Good”, 25.

  “Les pierres de France”: He styled it the Journal of the Society for the Respect and Protection of French Historical Monuments and named himself its director. This was probably the same as the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings, which was established in 1877 at William Morris’s initiative in reaction to destructive restoration. In its 1877 manifesto, which contained guidelines for proper conservation and decried restoration and copying, which destroyed the monument’s authenticity, Morris and his adherents pleaded for “preservation” in the place of “restoration.” Andrea Yount, “William Morris and the Society for the Preservation of Ancient Buildings: Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Historic Preservation in Europe,” PhD dissertation, Western Michigan University, 2005, pp. 2–3, available online at https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f9d2/f23f2080276b6e9ac934b1dc983cf7f791f3.pdf. Eugene Kalčič, “Eugène Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc and Monument Protection: A Case Study,” Urbani ozziv 25, no. 2 (2014): 130–42, http://urbani-izziv.uirs.si/Portals/uizziv/papers/urbani-izziv-en-2014-25-02-005.pdf.

  “L’Écho de Paris joined”: René Johannet, “Des expériences vont ê’tre tentées pour protéger les vitraux de Chartres,” L’Écho de Paris, March 10, 1936, 1–2, available online at https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k8158395/f1.item.

  “Nationalization of the railroads”: By the 1930s, road competition had begun to take its toll on the railways, and the rail network needed pruning. The narrow gauge lines suffered most severely from road competition; many thousands of miles of narrow gauge lines closed during the 1930s. Many private railway-operating companies faced financial difficulties. That the rail companies only operated on leases paved the way for the nationalization of the French rail lines under the socialist government of the 1930s, which in 1937 nationalized the railway system and formed the Société Nationale des Chemins de fer Francais (SNCF). “Our History: Two Centuries of History; Retrace the History of Rail in France,” SNCF website, accessed September 6, 2019. https://www.sncf.com/en/group/history/two-centuries-history.

  “The rail depot, together with the air base”: The Lucé munitions plant that had been a worry during World War I had either been eliminated or moved. It appears to have no longer been a subject of discussion.

  “Twenty-eight-page article”: Carlier, “Study,” 3.

  “One of the most precious works of art to be created by Humanity”: Carlier, “Study,” 3; emphasis in original.

  “New kind of scaffolding”: He also had produced sample metal cases that looked like primitive sheet-metal precursors to the Samsonite suitcases of the 1950s, but also hinged to be foldable, and each was reinforced with several interior metal rods as crossbars.

  “He refuted many of the criticisms”: He discussed the dangers to the cathedral posed by the nearby military airbase and arguments why it should be moved at least a dozen miles away from the city, and certainly not expanded in place. If the airbase were not moved, he wrote, a plan should be implemented to remove the windows from the cathedral within two hours following any signal of enemy attack. He further discussed the need for financing to pay for the work, the need to create specialized scaffolding and store it in place at the cathedral for immediate availability in case of attack, the need to fabricate crates of a sufficient nonflammable material and in sufficient quantity, also to be stored in place on-site, for storage of removed windows, and the need for a temporary lighting system to be installed. He provided a description of the window-removal tests to be conducted at the cathedral, using the new rapid-assembly scaffolding, to be performed on real cathedral stained-glass windows; he specified that the test windows selected would be windows installed only thirty years before, which were not ancient treasures. He also provided commentary on how the teams should be selected and trained to conduct the work, the role of on-site architects during the work, and the need for collaboration with the military. Carlier, “Supplement No. 1,” 30–54.

  “Replacing their cement anchors with malleable material”: Each stained-glass window consisted of a set of separate detachable panels, each with at least one horizontal edge. Each panel contained one or more images, composed of colored or painted glass, joined together with soldered lead grooved strips, called cames. Many windows contained up to several dozen panels. Each window was secured by a traditional saddle-bar system, used to keep each stained-glass panel from sagging in the wind and collapsing.

  The system was composed of an assembly with two key features: The first was a set of long thin metal horizontal strips or straps (each, a feuillard) (2) on the outside of the window that clamped the window against a long, thicker, horizontal metal saddle bar, called a barlock (barlotière) (1). The strap was held in place by a row of U-shaped cleats (each, a panneton) (3) welded laterally along the barlock in intervals of less than a meter, resting along the horizontal edge between adjoining panels (and serving as a base on which the upper panel rests). The strap was held in place by a row of keys (each, a clavette) (4), each inserted into its own cleat. The second feature of the system is a series of thin metal rods (round or rectangular) (each, a vergette) (6) welded horizontally to the outside of the window in the center portion of each panel, spaced between the strap that ran along the panel’s lower edge and the strap that ran along the panel’s upper edge. Each tie is attached by a row of lead ties (each, an attache) (5), welded to the rectangular frame on the edges of the window and to the cames of the panel wherever they intersect the rod, all on the outside surface of the window. Each rod
is sealed in the masonry of the bay jamb holding the window. In the figure below, the inside is to the left, and the outside is to the right.

  Diagram of metal anchors for stained-glass windows. Illustration by Christophe Miss. SOURCE: “FERRONNERIE,” PRISME ATELIER DE VITRAIL (WEBSITE), NOVEMBER 2011, HTTP://WWW.PRISME-ATELIER-VITRAIL.COM/2010/11/.

  The cathedral windows were secured in a manner that Carlier believed rendered their removal more time-consuming and dangerous than necessary. He believed that the unsealing of the masonry around each rod or pin would be time-consuming and dangerous, risking breakage of the border pieces of the valuable glass panels. He recommended removing the sealing from each rod in advance and instead supporting the rod with a forked bracket or by flattening the rod and trapping it beneath support bars. He also proposed placing an insulator on the reverse side of the saddle bar to avoid any unnecessary adhesion of caulking, while ensuring that only necessary putty remained.

  If these preparations—which he predicted would take weeks—were made to all of the windows in advance, Carlier argued, the window could later be removed quickly. He therefore proposed that these advance changes be carried out as preventive measures. He also noted that confessionals and various items of furniture had been attached to the walls of the cathedral that would impede the window-removal work. He proposed that sealants or other means of attachment be removed in advance such that the items be placed on rolling platforms to be moveable at the time when urgent work on the windows would begin.

  “Annihilate in an instant the incomparable windows”: Anne Fouqueray, “Pour la protection des verrières de Chartres,” Le Journal, February 17, 1936, 7, text available online at https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k7651100w/f7.item.r=Chartres.

  “Plying pressure on the military to relocate”: She named two of the organization’s eminent vice presidents, the Marquise de Maillé and Raymond Escholier, curator of the Petit Palais. She also reported that Louis Léglise, president of the Chamber of the French Glass Masters, attested to Carlier’s competence and that the organization called Safeguarding French Art approved of Carlier’s project.

  “Short-term loans alone prevented France from defaulting”: Stephen Schuker, “France and the Remilitarization of the Rhineland, 1936,” in The Origins of the Second World War, ed. Patrick Finney (London: Arnold Press, 1997), 238.

  “Newspapers called for the League of Nations to use sanctions”: James T. Emmerson, The Rhineland Crisis 7, March 1936: A Study in Multilateral Diplomacy (Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1977), 116.

  “French forces . . . would be at the disposal of the League of Nations”: Ralph A. C. Parker, “The First Capitulation: France and the Rhineland Crisis of 1936,” World Politics 8, no. 3 (April 1956): 358.

  “France . . . could easily reoccupy”: Correlli Barnett, The Collapse of British Power (Hampshire, UK: Pan Macmillan, 2002), 336.

  “On March 9, Carlier arrived”: Mr. Battais, the guardian, opened the cathedral. Raymond Gilbert, the mayor of Chartres, had exempted the project from donation fees. Carlier and his truck driver, with the bell ringer, Mr. Normand, unloaded the scaffolding into the transept.

  “Install a metal sheet in the keystone”: Jean Maunoury, the cathedral’s architect, arrived to assist. Maunoury would become integral in the planning of the projects at Chartres until he was mobilized on the eve of the attack.

  “Another pulley . . . for a rope . . . through a small trapdoor”: Before the tests, the cathedral architect and the Fine Arts Administration agreed to install a trapdoor for such a purpose, possibly to be duplicated at other locations if proven valuable.

  “A special committee . . . to rescue Chartres’ stained glass”: Mellot replied that because he was a father of six, he would not be mobilized and said, “A team? I will make it my business.” Carlier also met with a Henri Alexandre to ask about assembling teams. Alexandre replied, “Looking for volunteers? Look no further; myself and my son are here when you are ready.” Achille Carlier, “Des mesures preventives qui permettraient d’assuerer le sauvetage des Vitraux de la Catherale de Chartres enc as d’attaque brusquee, Complement No. 2” [Preventive measures to ensure the rescue of the stained-glass windows of the cathedral of Chartres in the event of a sudden attack], Les pierres de France 7 (April 29, 1936): 85 [in reprint], Mediatheque Charenton (Paris), 81 28 17 (hereafter Carlier, “Supplement No. 2”).

  Within days, Mellot, Alexandre, and the newly created committee concerning itself with saving Chartres’ stained glass assembled a team of nine Chartres volunteers, consisting of a Mr. Bouchet, André Chédeville, Jan Damoiseau, Mr. Godard, Mr. Laillet (one of the leaders of the Chartres stained-glass-rescue committee), Yves Mellot, and Messrs. Moisy, Sevestre, and Soumeilhan. Ibid., 38.

  The upper-window scaffolding was paid for by SFA. The lower-window scaffolding was paid for by Carlier himself.

  “Sent Carlier a written commitment of further support”: On behalf of the committee dedicated to the rescue of Chartres’ stained glass, Mr. Lailett said that (1) upon acceptance of the scaffolding, the committee would constitute a team to be trained to assemble it, and (2) upon delivery of the scaffolding, the team would be ready, (3) seek a location in Chartres where a stained-glass window might be set up to train teams of volunteers, (4) assign each team its own window, with which the team would become familiar in terms of location, approach challenges, value, and composition, (5) open a subscription to raise funds for the project, including for construction of a stained-glass window for training and independent night lighting, and, when raised, would pay these funds to the Fine Arts Administration on the sole condition that the administration allow for the rescue of a new window, and (6) form a committee of patronage composed of preeminent residents of Chartres. Carlier reported soon after that the patronage committee had been formed and “includes all of the most important notables of the city.” Carlier, “Supplement No. 2,” 87–88.

  “Seven-by-twenty-seven-foot upper windows”: Approximate dimensions are twenty-six feet, seven inches, by seven feet, two inches. See Delaporte and Houvet, Les vitraux, for comprehensive descriptions of the windows.

  “Telescoping crane on wheels”: Supplied by French supplier Fauchex, it was a precursor to the modern “cherry picker.”

  “Tests had revealed new risks”: During the tests, one of the senior-most of the observing officials of the Fine Arts Administration, when questioned as to what the signal would be for action, replied, “The question is solely a matter for the Fine Arts Administration, and the city does not need to worry about it; the administrator of Fine Arts will send specialists from Paris.” Carlier, “Supplement No. 2,” 91.

  “Order twenty such scaffolds”: The twenty would consist of six for the nave, four for the transept, nine for the choir, and one to be placed at the disposal of the local society, for use with its proposed volunteers.

  “The committee . . . set . . . resolutions . . . endorsing Carlier’s resolve”: The Chartres stained-glass-rescue committee would also arrange for Canon Delaporte to give a series of lectures to volunteers concerning the history and art of the stained-glass windows to enhance their education and promised to begin the training as soon as the Fine Arts Administration had adopted a scaffolding system. Meanwhile, the Chartres committee would open a subscription for funds to pay the expenses of the Fine Arts Administration to obtain the scaffolding. Letter from the committee to save Chartres’ stained glass, to the director general of the Fine Arts Administration, April 17, 1936, Mediathèque Charenton (Paris), 81 28 17.

  “Supplement No. 2”: The document further argued the need to relocate the air base, described in detail the two test scaffoldings and the tests conducted at the cathedral, clarified his relinquishing of rights concerning the newly invented scaffolding, offered pros and cons for the telescopic crane–supported platforms, theorized on how to organize and train volunteers, provided the rationalization for selection of the particular windows on which the tests were run, introduced the committee dedi
cated to safeguarding the Chartres stained-glass windows, and speculated as to what signal the Fine Arts Administration would give to summon the volunteers. Carlier, “Supplement No. 2.”

  “It would be criminal to resign oneself to the loss”: Carlier, “Supplement No. 2,” 88.

  “May have gotten under the skin of the Fine Arts Administration’s staff”: Carlier’s “Supplement No. 2” (“Complément No. 2”) published his letters to the director general of the Fine Arts Administration that accompanied his “Study” and “Supplement No. 1,” and he complained in it that he had not received a reply from the administration to his letter of March 30. He also included in the document a number of complaints about administrative delay and self-serving remarks about his financial independence and the good faith of the citizens of Chartres engaged in the campaign to save the windows.

  “WHAT WILL BE THE SIGNAL . . . ?”: Mediathèque Charenton (Paris), 81 28 17, 91 [in reprint]. Emphasis in original.

  “They had already been moving forward with the project”: What Carlier seems to have failed to appreciate is that the Fine Arts Administration had responsibilities broader than only the saving of Chartres Cathedral and its windows. Other cathedrals in northern and eastern France faced risks as well. Some, such as those in Metz, Amiens, and Paris, were closer than Chartres to the likely path of invading German armies. Also, it would have been natural for the Fine Arts Administration to be frustrated by Carlier’s public, detailed disclosure of the issues, weaknesses, and concerns in the planning effort to save the treasured windows. In time of impending war, the administration’s staff likely viewed that disclosure as unnecessary and unwise.

  NOTES TO CHAPTER 6

  “Police state”: Three years before, in 1932, Japanese forces had attacked Shanghai on the pretext of Chinese resistance in Manchuria, resulting in a brief undeclared war that ended in a truce. Soon the Japanese had installed a puppet state in Manchuria. And a year later, Japanese forces had occupied part of Inner Mongolia, invaded North China, and captured the city of Shan-haik-wan. Following a truce under which a large area was demilitarized, Chinese troops withdrew first, followed by a pullout of Japanese troops.