^{page 192 note 2} Accession no. 1924. 108. Photograph available in the museum. The glass was mentioned in Stained Glass, xli (1946), 126 and reproduced in the frontispiece.

^{page 192 note 3} During the last century a certain amount of glass was rejected as being beyond repair. Some of it was alienated from the cathedral and losses were great; few pieces have found their way back, though some glass from the genealogical series was returned from a private collection in 1861–2, according to [Emily Williams], Notes on the Painted Glass in Canterbury Cathedral, Aberdeen, 1897, p. 3. Some panels were put aside with the intention of using the fragments in restoration. Possibly the panel now in the Fogg Museum was among these, as it was still in the glazier's workshop in the 1920's. It was sold to Kingsley Porter in America with the story that it had been bought in London c. 1880, and had been in private collections for the previous two hundred years.

^{page 192 note 4} In 1926, Canon A. J. Mason, who had just completed his very sound Guide to the Ancient Glass in Canterbury Cathedral, Canterbury, 1925, commented that the medallion was too small to belong to the thirteenth-century series illustrating the miracles of St. Thomas Becket in the ambulatory of the Trinity Chapel, but he forgot the missing borders. He also rejected it on stylistic grounds, as later did Paul Frankl, who placed it in the ‘School of Chartres’ More recently the late Bernard Rackham and the late Arthur Lane, to whom I am indebted for their opinions, expressed the view that the style is unmistakably that of Canterbury, and particularly close to that of the ambulatory of the Trinity Chapel.

^{page 192 note 5} See MacAlister, R[obert] A. S., Ecclesiastical Vestments: Their Development and History, London, 1896, pp. 47–51Google Scholar; the archiepiscopal cross is discussed on pp. 125, 130.

^{page 193 note 1} Rackham, Bernard, The Ancient Glass of Canterbury Cathedral, London, 1949, p. 28Google Scholar n., draws attention to the ornamentation which resembles a repeating crown motif, and which occurs in several variant forms at Canterbury. He supposes that it was derived from Arab decoration, based on the Cufic script. Examples of such decoration are numerous, especially in textiles, e.g. in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, a chasuble from St. Peter's, Salzburg, of c. 1170, made of silk of uncertain origin with a band of Cufic script woven into it; see Townsend, G., ‘A Chasuble of the Twelfth Century’, Museum of Fine Arts Bulletin, xxxiii (Boston, 1935), 11Google Scholar. A similar motif is to be found in glass in Sens Cathedral, and there are variants at Chartres.

^{page 193 note 2} Technically the shrub is remarkable, its narrow-necked form is cut from one piece of glass, but clearly it does not belong to this panel. Similar work is found in the north choir aisle, see Rackham, op. cit., pl. v.

^{page 193 note 3} In spite of the existing documentation relating to the building, it has not been possible to determine accurately when the windows were glazed. Grodecki, Louis, Burlington Magazine, xcii (1950), 294Google Scholar, and xciii (1951), 94, has suggested that even the clerestory windows of the choir, which Rackham believes to have been glazed c. 1180, may not have been completed until some time early in the thirteenth century.

^{page 194 note 1} A possible chronological sequence of glazing has been suggested by Rackham, op. cit., pp. 15–17.

^{page 194 note 2} Louis Grodecki dates these windows toe. 1210; see Musée des Arts de Paris, Décoratifs, Le Vitrail français, Paris, 1958, p. 118Google Scholar.

^{page 194 note 3} Ib. id., pp. 123,139.

^{page 194 note 4} Musée Condé, Chantilly, see Léopold Delisle, Notice sur le psautier d'Ingeburge (Bibliothèque de l'École des chartes), Paris, 1867. For affinites between the Ingeburg Psalter and the windows of the choir at Laon, of c. 1210, see Florens Deuchler, Die Chorfenster der Kathedrale in Laon, ein iconographischer und stilgeschichtlicher Beitrag zur Kenntnis nordfranzösischer Glasmalereien des 13. Jahrhunderts, Bonn, 1956 (doctoral thesis). A study of the same manuscript in relation to the windows of Chartres was made by Duportal, J., ‘Le Psautier de la Reine Ingeburge du Musée Condé et les vitraux de Chartres’, Revue de l'art ancien et modern, II (1927). 193Google Scholar.

^{page 194 note 5} Paris, Bibliothèque de l'Arsenal, MS. 1186. Published by Martin, Henry, Les Joyaux de l'Arsenal I: Psautier de Saint Louis et de Blanche de Castille, Paris [1909]Google Scholar, who suggests a date between 1200 and 1223 (p. 11).

^{page 194 note 6} As represented by the figure of St. Paul in St. Anselm's Chapel, see Tristram, E. W., English Mediaeval Wall Painting: The Twelfth Century, Oxford, 1944, pp. 21–23Google Scholar, Pls. 23–24, supp. pl. 1.

^{page 194 note 7} Bibliothèque Nationale, Département des Manuscrits, Psautier illustré (XIII^e siècle) Reproduction des 107 miniatures du manuscrit latin 8846, Paris [19‥].

^{page 194 note 8} Op. cit., p. 16.

^{page 194 note 9} Rackham, The Ancient Glass of Canterbury Cathedral, 1949, p. 73.

^{page 195 note 1} The relation between French and English glass painting was discussed by Westlake, N. H. J., A History of Design in Painted Glass, London, 1881, i, pp. 107–8Google Scholar, who concluded that the glass at Lincoln and at Canterbury was French. Lafond, Jean, ‘The Stained Glass Decoration of Lincoln Cathedral in the Thirteenth Century’, Archaeological Journal, ciii (1947), 151–6Google Scholar, has contributed an analysis of the influence of French glass, particularly that of Paris, on Canterbury and Lincoln. Rackham, op. cit., pp. 18–20, has summarized some aspects of the controversy.

^{page 195 note 2} Borenius, Tancred, St. Thomas Becket in Art, London, 1932, p. 5Google Scholar; the consecration at Sens took place in April 1164, according to Bégule, Lucien, La Cathédrale de Sens, Lyon, 1929, p. 6Google Scholar.

^{page 195 note 3} Bony, Jean, ‘French Influence on the Origins of English Gothic Architecture’, Journal of the Warburg and Cortauld Institutes, xii (1949), 7–8Google Scholar, notices that during the years 1174–9 William of Sens was apparently in close touch with France, especially with Laon, Paris, and Soissons.

^{page 195 note 4} Willis, R., The Architectural History of Canterbury Cathedral, London, 1845, pp. 56–58Google Scholar (English translation of Gervase, see following note).

^{page 195 note 5} Stubbs, W., ed., Gervasii Cantuariensis Opera Historica (Rolls Series), London, 1879, ii, p. 112Google Scholar; Willis, op. cit., p. 62.

^{page 195 note 6} Rackham, op. cit., pp. 81–82. The windows have been described in [Emily Williams], Notes on the Painted Glass in Canterbury Cathedral, 1897, pp. 21–25, 29–43; by A. J. Mason, A Guide to the Ancient Glass in Canterbury Cathedral, 1925, pp. 27–43 ; and by Rackham, op. cit., pp. 81–111.

^{page 195 note 7} For the sake of convenience I have followed Rackham's numbering of the windows, which is continuous round the Trinity Chapel from the north and west.

^{page 196 note 1} Rackham, op. cit., pp. 16, 82. Although there is no very reliable documentary evidence for a Life, alit is most unlikely that St. Thomas would have been commemorated only by the miracles, which happened after his death. [Barnby, John], Description of the Metropolitical Church of Christ, Canterbury, Canterbury, 1772, p. 37Google Scholar, says the martyrdom and burial of Becket were to be seen in a window of the north choir aisle (quoted by Williams, op. cit., p. 25).

^{page 196 note 2} Chartraire, E[ugène], La Cathédrale de Sens, Paris [1926], p. 85Google Scholar, n. 3, suggested that the Sens window was drawn from a cartoon which had already been used at Canterbury, but this reverses the probable chronology of the two series. The twelve scenes in the Sens window are described briefly by Bégule, L., La Cathédrale de Sens, 1929, pp. 46–47Google Scholar, and by Borenius, T., St. Thomas Becket in Art, 1932, p. 45Google Scholar.

^{page 196 note 3} Rackham, op. cit., p. 17.

^{page 196 note 4} The two chief sources up to the end of the eighteenth century describe only the theological and genealogical subjects in any detail, viz. Somner, William, The Antiquities of Canterbury, London, 1640, pp. 174–5Google Scholar and 385–96, and William Gostling, A Walk in and about the City of Canterbury new ed. 1825, pp. 329–45.

^{page 197 note 1} e.g. panels 7, 13, and 14, illustrated in Rackham, op. cit., pls. 45c, 46a, 45b, described pp. 103–6. The glass does not belong to a single series, but was collected in Window XI in 1906 and 1920.

^{page 197 note 2} [Williams], op. cit., p. 39, suggested Window VII as the original position of the series. The panels are described by Rackham, op. cit., pp. 101–2.

^{page 197 note 3} Rackham, op. cit., p. 102.

^{page 197 note 4} The recurrence of the ‘Cufic’ motif which has replaced the inscription in a panel in Window XI (pl. lviia) does not necessarily associate the Fogg panel with this window. The panel illustrated was made up by the cathedral glazier in 1906 from fragments of old glass. Similar work was drawn by Emily Williams in 1897, in Window XII, which had just been restored by the same glazier, probably also using old glass, see [Williams], op. cit., pi. 16 and p. 41. The motif is clumsier than the exquisite ‘Cufic’ pattern of the panels in the north choir aisle, and is probably another case of poor imitation of the master's work by the glaziers of the Trinity Chapel.

^{page 197 note 5} Of the version of the Miracles which are known to have been extant at the time of glazing, the Vita, Passio, et Miracula Sancti Thomae Cantuariensis Archiepiscopi, auctore Willelmo, Monacho Cantuariensis, ed. Robertson, J. C., Materials for the History of Thomas Becket (Rolls Series), London, 1875Google Scholar, I, seems to have had most influence on the illustrations in the glass. The episode of William of Kellett is on pp. 273–4. It is not contained in the other contemporary account, by Benedict of Peterborough.

^{page 198 note 1} T. Borenius, St. Thomas Becket in Art, 1932, pp. 73–74.

^{page 198 note 2} Hasted, Edwart, The History and Topographical Survey of the County of Kent, 2nd ed. xi, Canterbury, 1800, pp. 379–80Google Scholar.

^{page 198 note 3} Their original position in the cathedral is not certain, but stylistically the two series seem to belong to the period of the glazing of the Trinity Chapel ambulatory. Probably they were in the chapels to which the bodies of St. Dunstan and St. Alphege were translated in 1180, see Willis, Architectural History of Canterbury Cathedral, 1845, p. 53.

^{page 198 note 4} A. J. Mason, A Guide to the Ancient Glass, 1925, p. 46.

^{page 198 note 5} [E. Williams], Notes on the Painted Glass, 1897, p. 17.

^{page 198 note 6} The medallion in her drawing has a diameter of c. 26 in., cf. the 26–27½ in. of the Fogg panel.

^{page 199 note 1} T. Borenius, op. cit., does not describe any illustrated lives of earlier date than the fragmentary mid-thirteenth-century example published by Meyer, Paul for the Société des anciens textes français, Paris, 1885Google Scholar, illustrated by Borenius, pls. xi and XII.

^* Since this paper was submitted some further information has come to light which suggests that the medallion in the Fogg Museum was in a private collection prior to the 1920's. In view of the conflicting evidence given on p. 192, it does not now seem possible to establish the date at which the panel left the Cathedral.