Early Renaissance Architecture in England: A Historical & Descriptive Account of the Tudor, Elizabethan, & Jacobean Periods, 1500-1625Gotch, J. Alfred (John Alfred)
History
Early Renaissance Architecture in England: A Historical & Descriptive Account of the Tudor, Elizabethan, & Jacobean Periods, 1500-1625
no need for it, since the work would be so wrought that it could not
be set amiss, besides which a pattern in paper should be sent. The
Dutch mason's advice was that the pillars should be made all of one
stone, and the arches accordingly, "for they must be made, to be well
made, either antique or modern, and this, with the whole pillar, is
antique; wherefore according as I shall hear from your honour, so I
shall proceed therein." The difference intended to be conveyed between
"antique" and "modern" is not very clear, inasmuch as "antique" was
the term generally applied in describing work executed in the style
which we call Renaissance. But this is a detail which does not affect
the general conclusions to be drawn from the whole correspondence,
which are, first, that there is no one concerned in these various
transactions who acts in the capacity of the architect, but that
when instructions are required by the workmen they are sought from
the proprietor himself: second, that Dutch workmanship and design
were procured by men of eminence in England: and third, that English
workmen were thought to be quite as capable of dealing with the worked
materials as any that could be sent from abroad.
The books on Architecture which were published during the sixteenth
century point somewhat in the same direction, namely, that there was
no all-controlling architect, but that buildings were carried out by
co-operation in design as well as execution. At the same time, they
make it evident that the idea of the architect as the person who should
have chief control had arisen: an idea which took more and more hold
until it received its first striking embodiment, so far as England
is concerned, in Inigo Jones. Hans Bluom's book on the Five Orders,
published at Zürich in 1550, is declared on the title-page to be useful
to painters, sculptors, workers in brass and wood, masons, statuaries,
and all who require sure measure; no mention being made of architects.
The same omission occurs in the English translation published in 1608,
which mentions on the title-page free-masons, carpenters, goldsmiths,
painters, carvers, inlayers and Anticke-cutters, who must not be taken
for anything but cutters of "antique" patterns. The address to the
reader professes that the book is offered for the benefit of "Masters,
Builders, Carvers, Masons, Lymners, and all sorts of men that love
beauty and ornament." The publisher of Vries's book of monuments of
1563 exhorts, on his title-page, all painters, statuaries, architects
and masons to inspect, buy and use it; and the same author's book on
Perspective of 1604 is addressed to painters, sculptors, statuaries,
smiths, architects, designers, masons, clerks, woodworkers, and all
lovers of the arts. We have, therefore, the appellation of "architect"
introduced, but it is ranked with the statuaries, masons, and smiths;
and indeed the term was probably used in its original signification of
"master-workman."
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account